DISTINCTIVES OF NCT
When we looked at the "six principles" of NCT we laid down a good understanding of a few of its distinctions. However, let me use the next couple of posts to emphasize and clarify its most significant features. First, NCT differs from CT in its understanding of a supposed "covenant of grace" in Genesis 3. NCT is related to CT in one important sense. NCT does affirm that the "covenant" motif (or theme) seems to be emphasized in Scripture. However, NCT departs from CT on this very point at the same time. Allow me to explain. Rather than seeing a "covenant of grace" in Genesis 3 serving as the "father" of the covenants with many children following (Noahic, Abrahamic, Davidic covenants, etc.), NCT prefers to see (as stated before) the unfolding of God's revelation through biblical covenants progressively and gradually. In other words, NCT denies an over arching "covenant of grace" made in Genesis 3. Instead, NCT emphasizes the Abrahamic covenant. Indeed, one could almost call this covenant the true "covenant of grace" according to NCT proponents! In this covenant, Abraham believed God's gracious promise, and he was counted as righteous in God's eyes.
When we looked at the "six principles" of NCT we laid down a good understanding of a few of its distinctions. However, let me use the next couple of posts to emphasize and clarify its most significant features. First, NCT differs from CT in its understanding of a supposed "covenant of grace" in Genesis 3. NCT is related to CT in one important sense. NCT does affirm that the "covenant" motif (or theme) seems to be emphasized in Scripture. However, NCT departs from CT on this very point at the same time. Allow me to explain. Rather than seeing a "covenant of grace" in Genesis 3 serving as the "father" of the covenants with many children following (Noahic, Abrahamic, Davidic covenants, etc.), NCT prefers to see (as stated before) the unfolding of God's revelation through biblical covenants progressively and gradually. In other words, NCT denies an over arching "covenant of grace" made in Genesis 3. Instead, NCT emphasizes the Abrahamic covenant. Indeed, one could almost call this covenant the true "covenant of grace" according to NCT proponents! In this covenant, Abraham believed God's gracious promise, and he was counted as righteous in God's eyes.
At the same time, let me be loud and clear in affirming that no NCT adherent would deny that salvation was by grace through faith before the Abrahamic covenant. In fact, I have made an argument elsewhere that Adam and Eve are certainly in heaven today. And how did they get to heaven? The same way Abraham, all other Old Testament believers, New Testament believers, and even yourself will get to heaven- by grace through faith. This leads us to a second important distinction that flows from this first one.
Second, NCT prefers the phrase "God's one eternal purpose", rather than the classic "covenant of redemption" to speak of God's electing grace determined before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1). As the last statement made clear (I think), this does not mean that NCT denies God's role as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in "covenanting", or agreeing together as a unit to accomplish redemption for sinners. Again, this seems to be an issue of Biblical precision on the part of NCT, though in my study it seems that conceptually speaking NCT does not differ from CT at all on this point. In fact, I believe CT has an orthodox understanding of the Trinity in their affirmation of a covenant of redemption. I just believe they would do better to use the Biblical language such as "God's one eternal purpose", which is used in Ephesians 1 to describe the agreement among the members of the Godhead.
Here is a statement of faith according to NCT doctrine that expresses the idea of God determining to redeem man by use of the covenant format:
We believe that God has maintained one eternal purpose in Christ which has been expressed through a multiplicity of distinct historical covenants" (Solo Christo's Statement of Faith).
The above statement affirms the predetermined action of God to redeem sinners. In addition, it affirms that the revelation of this predetermined plan will take place through various covenants in the course of redemptive history.
That is enough for today. Next time we will look at some more distinctives.
Aiming to be Biblically Accurate,
Second, NCT prefers the phrase "God's one eternal purpose", rather than the classic "covenant of redemption" to speak of God's electing grace determined before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1). As the last statement made clear (I think), this does not mean that NCT denies God's role as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in "covenanting", or agreeing together as a unit to accomplish redemption for sinners. Again, this seems to be an issue of Biblical precision on the part of NCT, though in my study it seems that conceptually speaking NCT does not differ from CT at all on this point. In fact, I believe CT has an orthodox understanding of the Trinity in their affirmation of a covenant of redemption. I just believe they would do better to use the Biblical language such as "God's one eternal purpose", which is used in Ephesians 1 to describe the agreement among the members of the Godhead.
Here is a statement of faith according to NCT doctrine that expresses the idea of God determining to redeem man by use of the covenant format:
We believe that God has maintained one eternal purpose in Christ which has been expressed through a multiplicity of distinct historical covenants" (Solo Christo's Statement of Faith).
The above statement affirms the predetermined action of God to redeem sinners. In addition, it affirms that the revelation of this predetermined plan will take place through various covenants in the course of redemptive history.
That is enough for today. Next time we will look at some more distinctives.
Aiming to be Biblically Accurate,
Andy
Andy,
ReplyDeleteFirst I would like to thank you for posting this series on DT, CT and NCT - it has been a blessing to have this as a resource! So thank you for taking the time and effort to post this series.
Additionally, something popped into my head as I was reading towards the end of the first paragraph concerning the Old Testament believers going to heaven by grace through faith. I certainly agree that the old covenant operated as a covenant of grace through faith as you mentioned. There was then, and still today, no hope for us as depraved sinners apart from the grace of God. However, my question pertains to the sacrificial system of the old covenant. The people of the Lord were required to give blood offerings/sacrifices to Him throughout the old testament (beginning with Cain/Able in Genesis 4, through Abraham/Isaac in Gen 22, and under the Mosaic law in Exedous 20:24 “Make an altar of earth for me and sacrifice on it your burnt offerings and fellowship offerings, your sheep and goats and your cattle”). Obviously, these were insufficient in the atonement for the whole of their sins, as the Perfect Sacrifice (Christ) had not yet been made. Thus, the people of the old covenant were required to DO something (make offerings/sacrifices and follow the law) in order to be right with God. So it would seem that one would have to say that it was by God’s grace through faith, PLUS obedience to His law (the sacrifices) that one was made right. Having said that, it goes against everything in my Calvinistic, Reformed upbringing but I can’t ignore the fact that these people were constantly required to adhere to the law under the old covenant. So how does that work with Reformed theology? I certainly know that the law was intended to point to Christ (Hebrew 10:1 “the law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming——not the realities themselves.”)- it was a picture of what He was coming to do for us, but I have trouble saying that it was by grace through faith plus adherence to the law which justified the people of the old testament - how does all that work? It just seems like I'm missing something extremely obvious here...which is probably the case.
Thank you again,
Laura
Laura,
ReplyDeleteI have not forgotten about you. When I get a free chance today, I will respond at length to your comments. Thanks for your patience!
First of all, your question indicates that you are grasping things better than you give yourself credit for. You are exactly right- your Reformed, Calvinistic heritage should never let you believe that somehow “works” were part of the salvation of true believers in the Old Covenant. That would be a sensational, dispensational view of Scripture. As we have talked, it appears you certainly do not fit into that category.
ReplyDeleteLet me give you some important verses that ties things together.
Galatians 3:17-18, “What I am saying is this: the law (Mosaic law), which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise. For if the inheritance is based on law, it is no longer based on a promise; but God has granted it to Abraham by means of a promise.”
In effect, Paul is saying this, “Mosaic law, that is the very Old Covenant itself, came 430 years after the promise of salvation that God promised to Abraham, and which Abraham received by grace through faith (Gal. 3:6). Trust me, this Old Covenant, which demands a strict, yea perfect, following of the law, does not cancel out the Abrahamic covenant, for it came first and it was unconditional. Listen, if our salvation (inheritance) is based on obeying the law, then it is no longer a gracious promise by God. But, praise God, He has granted salvation to Abraham, and to us, by means of a gracious promise of His word! This will never change!”
Then Paul gives to us the purpose of the law, “Why the law then? It was added because of transgressions, having been ordained through angels by the agency of a mediator, until the seed would come to whom the promise had been made. ..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” (3:19-22). Prior to all of this Paul said that no flesh will be justified by works of the law, but that we are justified by faith in Christ Jesus (2:17).
I will finish my response in another comment box.
Let me offer two reasons that God chose to give the Mosaic law after He already promised salvation by grace to Abraham and to those who believe like Abraham (sons of Abraham by faith). There could be more than two, but let’s start with two. The first reason was to show man the exceeding sinfulness of sin. In other words, to reveal to man how ugly he is dressed in sinful flesh. The law served as a mirror to reflect this truth back to the sinner who failed to live in harmony with its statutes. Second, (flowing from the first) the law served to set an objective standard whereby the Promised Messiah could be placed against to see if He qualifies as a proper substitute for sinners. Remember, if Christ had not lived a perfect life, His death would have been in vain. Thus, He could not be lawless. Indeed, He was not. The Mosaic law served as a sort of “measuring stick” to see if Christ lived up to His Divine mission. Of course, I would argue that Christ fulfilled and obeyed more than just Mosaic law (He obeyed ultimate Law). But that is another discussion all together. Because He obeyed the law perfectly, He (in a sense) is the True Israel. Christ did what Israel never did. He kept covenant with God! That is, He obeyed fully.
ReplyDeleteWith all that being said, let me say one a word about the sacrifices of the Old Testament. Nationally speaking, Israel had to keep offering sacrifices in order for God to accept them. In that sense, they worked for God to protect them and bless them. On the other hand, spiritually speaking (remember God’s covenant with Abraham!!!!) the offering of sacrifices was still a matter of obedience, but it was not to earn salvation. Rather, sacrifices were offered by true believers (trusting in the Abrahamic promise) out of hearts that were thankful for God’s gracious promise. We must remember that when the Israelites were delivered from the Egyptians, they already had a rich history- Abraham, Issac, Jacob, and Joseph. It’s not like they were unfamiliar with the promises God made to Abraham. At least, this would be hard to imagine. There was always a remnant of true believers, who trusted in God by faith. Their sacrifices were not “works” to earn merit before God. Rather, the sacrifices were a response to a gracious God. Really, in one sense, this is not much different than the New Covenant. James tells us that faith without works is dead. A true believer possesses good works, by the power of the Spirit. And these “works” are not done to merit favor with God, but a response to God’s grace in Jesus Christ- a sacrifice of our lives (Romans 12:1-2; Hebrews 13:15). Obedience in both Testaments is a response to grace, if it was done by true believers who were trusting in God’s gracious promise of salvation. Here is one place that we actually see unity among the covenants. Most everything else is in contrast, however.
I hope this helps. If you need clarification on my thoughts, please ask! I think you answered much of your own question in the comments you made. keep thinking!
Thank you for your posts Andy - they were very helpful!
ReplyDeleteI’m curious about Galatians 3:19 though, when Paul is giving the purpose for the law, as you cited above: “Why the law then? It was added because of transgressions, having been ordained through angels by the agency of a mediator, until the seed would come to whom the promise had been made.”
From my understanding, the word transgression implies sinning against a specific law or command. So then, if the Mosaic law was added because of transgressions, what were the people transgressing against before the law was added that would have caused it to be established? Was it just the general rebellion of Israel against God? Or was there some other previous command/law established by God (perhaps in the Garden of Eden - man's rebellion against God in general??) to which he is referring?
If you don't have time to respond before Laurelville, no worries!
Thank you again.
Laura,
ReplyDeletePerceptive question. Yes, there certainly existed "law" before Mosaic law. Furthermore, man knew of this law. Adam was told to govern the Garden, be fruitful and multiply (have babies) with Eve, and refrain from eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. This law was not altered when Adam and Eve were kicked out of the Garden. What changed was now the absence of a "perfect environment" in which to carry out the Divine mandate (law) that God originally gave. In fact, I would argue that the law God gave to Adam transcends all covenanats. In other words, it is still in force even for New Covenant believers (with the exception of eating from a tree that no longer exists)! (But that is another story for another day.) Mosaic law was the first time that God's law was "codified", however. Thus, I understand Galatians 3:19 to be speaking about the purpose of Mosaic law to serve as a mirror that reflects to man his sinfulness. In other words, God's oral and natural law (law in the heart) did not as overtly reveal the sinfulness of man as written law does. A written law would give fuller expression to the heinous and pervasive nature of sin in every man. A codified law does what a non-codified law does not do as effectively- shows sin to man in order to lead man to Christ. I think Galatians3:23 goes on to clarify this, "But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who belive." The Mosaic (remember "codified") law had a gracious overall function in leading people to Jesus Christ- to those who would believe.
It is funny that you ask that question. I planned on asking Fred about related matters this weekend. So we'll see what a "real" scholar has to say! I'll let you know.
Laura,
ReplyDeleteAlso, consider Romans 4:13-15...especially vs. 15, "for the Law (Mosaic) brings about wrath, but where there is no law, there also is no violation"...I take this to mean that Mosaic law ratchets up sin to a level that makes it obvious and incurs the very wrath of God/curse of God. Also, in Romans 7:7-10 Paul says that the law actually incites sin. That is, if there is a law that says, "Do not touch", we instinctively (due to our sin nature) want to "touch". In other words, the institution/codification of law provokes our sinful natures. Its like poking a stick at a snake. A snake is provoked and strikes back. (I don't know that by experience, however!) Law pokes our conscience, and we strike(sin). Hope this makes sense.