Saturday, November 29, 2008

Book Review: All Old Testament Laws Cancelled by Greg Gibson

Some time ago, I was contacted to see if I wanted to review a upcoming book by Greg Gibson entitled All Old Testaments Laws Cancelled. It was an interested topic for sure, and from the excerpts available seemed like a good read from the perspective of New Covenantal Theology, so I agreed to do so. The shipping duration was rather long, but I finally got to reading it and then thinking over how to formulate the review before penning it down. Fresh off from my series-to-article on Law and Gospel, I was in the process of moving on to a few books on Covenant Theology, so the timing could not have been more perfect.

Anyway, after prayer and reading of the Scriptures, here is my review of the book, which I have emailed back to them. Thanks Greg and JesusSaidFollowMe Publishing for giving me the privilege to review your book.

9 comments:

Greg Gibson said...

Hi Daniel,

Thank you for taking the time to review my book ALL Old Testament Laws Cancelled: 24 Reasons Why All Old Testament Laws Are Cancelled and All New Testament Laws Are for Our Obedience. I know that God's law is an interest of yours since you've been teaching on Galatians.

I'll try to reply to your review here soon...

PuritanReformed said...

Hello Greg,

you're welcome.

Greg Gibson said...

You brought up a couple issues about my interpretation of the Westminster Confession of Faith which I'd like to ask you more about below. However first, in regard to your intepretations of my NCT, you've misinterpreted some of my words, which I'll try to explain more clearly. I've tried to focus on your most important points. Here is the outline for my "review of your review"...

I. Your 6 Misinterpretations of New Covenant Theology
II. Our 9 Theological Differences
III. My 3 Misinterpretations of Covenant Theology

I. Your 6 Misinterpretations of New Covenant Theology

1. "'Regeneration Alone' (p. 7)...it is simply naive to claim that practicing credobaptism would automatically result in a pure church consisting of only regenerate people"

Agreed. That's why I never made that claim. As a matter of fact, that's why I advocated baptizing only the regenerate, not all who profess faith. Baptism of the regenerate, not all professors, results in a pure Church. Please don't confuse regenerate baptism with credobaptism.

2. "Gibson claims we can equate the phrase 'Ten Commandments' with the phrase 'the Old Covenant' (p. 22, 81) This commits the logical fallacy of composition, of making what is applicable to the part applicable to the whole. Alternatively, this may allso lead to the fallacy of division (making what is applicable to the whole to the part)...The third row commits the fallacy of equivocation and compostion in linking the Ten Commandments to the Old Covenant."

Oh no, I never equate the Decalogue with the Old Covenant. In fact, I intentionally warned against that error: "God uses the phrases 'Old Covenant' and 'Ten Commandments' ALMOST synonymously. (Although, the Ten Commandments represent the whole Old Covenant, they are NOT the WHOLE covenant. The Ten Commandments are the foundation document on which the REST of the Old Covenant is built.)" (p. 21)

"These verses don't say that the Ten Commandments are the WHOLE Old Covenant. But, they do say the Ten Comandments are the Old Covenant. Therefore, you must believe that the Ten Commandments are the Old Covenant in at least some sense, right? The Old Covenant CAN NOT BE REDUCED to only the Decalogue." (p. 81)

Do you believe the Holy Spirit also commits the fallacies of equivocation and composition when He "links" the Decalogue to the Old Covenant in Ex. 34:28; Deut. 4:13; 1 Kings 8:21; 2 Chr. 6:11? I've simply quoted His words.

3. "An example of the fallacy of division takng root can be seen on page 56, in which Gibson interprets the covenant mentioned in Jer. 31:31-24 to mean the Decalogue or the Ten Commandments. What this equivocatin presupposes is that the Decalogue is only meant to be for the Old Covenant only (the fallacy of false dichotomy)"

No, I said that Covenant Theology interprets the word "law" there as "the Decalogue alone." They are the ones guilty of division.

4. "On page 24, Gibson suggests that 'If you have to RELY on words uninspired by the Holy Spirit (like "moral law") to explain your theology, then you probably have different theology than the Holy Spirit.' This is truly an astonishing claim, considering that important theological words/phrases like 'Trinity' and 'hypostatic
union' are 'words uninspired by the Holy Spirit' too."


Please notice the word "rely." I can explain the Trinity and Limited Atonement using only Bible words and logic. However, can you explain the Covenant of Works, Covenant of Grace, Moral law, and Sunday Sabbath using only Bible words and logic? Would you like to try?

5. "Gibson's caricature of Covenant Theology on page 59 is similarly puzzling. They may be a few Covenant Theologians who assume that the law when used positively must mean 'the Decalogue alone', but when used negatively it must 'the whole law except the Decalogue', but is that truly the postion of any major Covenant Theologian?"

Obviously, that's my interpretation/paraphrase of their implied view. They don't consciously realize it, but that is exactly what they're implying by their interpretations of Jer. 31:33; Mt. 5:17-19; Rom. 3:31; and 2 Tim. 3:16-17.

6. "The second row misunderstands the relation of the Moral law to the Decaloge, of which the 2 are not identical."

I never said they were identical. Covenant Theology views the Decalogue as a summary, not the whole, of the moral law. I simply stated a fact: The sins of the Gentiles are defined apart from the Ten Commandments, period.

II. Our 9 Theological Differences

1. "Gibson made the statement that the law when referred negatively by Paul "often refer to regulation (Old Covenant contract)". However is that the case?...The fifth row on the Law of God...suffers from the fallacy of equivocation, this time between the Law and the Ten Commandments...Law as a phrase is often used especially in Pauline writings to refer to the works of the Law ie works-righteousness"

Please notice the word "often." Are you claiming that "law" used negatively always refers to legalism, and never to regulation? How many Greek dictionaries can you quote where the word "law" alone means legalism? Zero! Doug Moo says that the word "law" alone never means "legalism"...

"First, there is no good evidence that Paul ever uses the word nomos to refer to 'legalism' or to a misunderstood law. When he wants to denote a legalistic conception, he uses phrases such as 'seeking to be justified by the law, or by works of the law.'

Second, most of the negative statements Paul makes about the law come in contexts in which he has unambiguously identified the law as the law given by God (see Rom. 3:19-20; the passive verb in 5:20; 7:7; Gal. 3:15-18).

Third, Paul views God's work of redemption in Christ as the answer to the problem posed by the negative effects of the law (Rom. 3:21-26; 7:4-6; 8:2-4; Gal. 3:13-14; 4:7). Sending Christ to die on the cross implies that the situation from which we had to be rescued was not the subjective one of misunderstanding or misusing the law, but the objective one of being imprisoned under its sin-revealing and sin-provoking powers.

Solving the apparent tension between Paul's positive and negative statements about the law by attrbuting a different meaning to the word in each set of statements must, therefore, be rejected as an overly simplistic alternative." (Five Views on Law and Gospel, p. 333. Also, see "Law, Legalism, and Works of the Law in Paul" by Moo, http://www.djmoophoto.com/articles/lawandlegalism.pdf)

I offered 17 verses which all refer to regulation, not legalism. Paul refutes legalism with 2 arguments:

1. The Law could not justify or sanctify.
2. The Law is no longer in force.

2. "the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 was all about salvation as opposed to Legalism; obedience to God's Law was not in the picture whatsoever in the deliberations."

If obedience was not part of the issue, then why did the apostles give 4 commands to obey?

"the word 'saved' includes includes past justification, present sanctification, and future glorification, not merely justification (a common view among Arminiains and Fundamentalists)...Clearly, those 4 commands were given for sanctification, not justification. The apostles intentionally omitted the Sabbath and the Decalogue for Gentile convert's sanctification...

So, the issue is, 'Must Gentile converts keep the law of Moses for salvation (both justification and sanctification)?" If you asked that question to a Covenant Theologian today, how would he answer? He would reply in a heartbeat, 'The ceremonial and civil laws have passed away, but the Ten Commandments are still binding." But, the apostles never gave that defense of the Decalogue or Sabbath because it wasn't invented until the 13th century." (p. 87-88)

3. "a statement denigating the use of logic is found within the pages of the book. On page 29, Gibson wrote that 'It's safer to build our doctrine on explicit exegesis, than implicit reasoning."

I'm not sure what you mean by "denigrate." I acknowledge logic as a hermeneutic for many truths such as the Trinity and Limited Atonement.

I'm just saying that in the hierarchy of hermeneutics, explicit exegesis trumps illogic, right? We have explicit statements from God defining the sins of all men in the sin lists. And, we have no explicit statements or implicit illogic for the sins of all men defined by the Decalogue.

4. "Premise 1 assumes that ONLY the Old Testament is in view...therefore to state that obedience to the entire Old Testament laws is required is an error because obedience is not the only purpose embraced by Covenant Theology."

Please notice the word "primarily." "All Scripture at that time PRIMARILY meant the whole Old Testament." (p. 74)

And, I don't understand why you consider my argument an error. Since 2 Tim. 3:16-17 refers to the whole Old Testament, if it requires obedience to any Old Testament laws, then it requires obedience to all Old Testament laws.

5. "A Dispensational hermeneutic is utilized...For example, it is asserted on page 38 that Gal. 3 is only 'about redemption accomplished for the corporate people of God in the 1st century"

I used a redemptive-historical hermeneutic, not a Dispensational hermeneutic. And, the redemptive-historical hermeneutic is acknowledged by all major Covenant Theologians. My interpretation is the same as that found twice in the New Dict. of Biblical Theology, edited by Carson, Goldsworthy, et. al. (pp. 313, 635). Also, Moises Silva, former W.T.S. prof. gives the same interpretation in the New Bible Commentary (pp. 1214-1216).

Some of the keys to understanding Gal. 3:19, 24-25 are the redemptive-historical timing words "until" and "before" and the greek word "paidagogos." I encourage you to look up paidagogos in your Greek dictionaries. The meaning is crystal clear that the guardian/schoolmaster/tutor functioned only temporarily until Christ came.

Gal. is about both legalism (justification/sanctification by the law) and regulation by the law. It's a both/and, not an either/or. Beware of drawing a false dichotomy. Paul refutes legalism with 2 arguments:

1. The Law can't justify/sanctify.
2. The law is no longer binding since it was temporary until Christ.

BTW, even Covenant Theologians use what you call a Dispensational hermeneutic when they interpret the civil and ceremonial laws as not applying to us today. So, all Christians use a so-called Dispensational hermeneutic sometimes in the Old Testament. (p. 79)

6. "his objection that 'no Gentile heathen convert has ever testified to knowing his duty to keep the (weekly) Sabbath' (p. 60) but that is to miss the heart of the issue. For since the (weekly) Sabbath points to God's rest (eternal Sabbath), all unbelievers know that they should seek that eternal (Sabbath) rest, and therefore there is no problem with the Decalogue constituting the moral law in this regard."

That is an equivocation where you change between the weekly and eternal Sabbaths. Here's my attempt to define your thinking...

1st Premise: The weekly Sabbath points to the eternal Sabbath. (True for those with a Bible, but not those without a Bible.)
2nd Premise: All unbelievers know they should seek salvation/eternal rest. (True for salvation, but false for rest since those without a Bible don't understand that salvation = rest.)
Conclusion: Therefore all unbelievers should keep the weekly Sabbath. (False).

IOW, just because unbelievers know their duty to seek the reality, doesn't logically imply their knowledge or duty to obey the symbol of that reality.

7. "The issue is not whether Adam had spiritual life before he sinned, but whether he would gain eternal life by not sinning"

Spiritual life = eternal life. Adam had conditional, spiritual/eternal life. How many days would Adam had to avoid sin before he gained eternal life? (It's like the famous question, "How many good works must you do to earn salvation?")

8. "since there is two canons in this sense (historically) does not therefore render false the idea that there is only one canon in another sense (theologically)."

Rather than one theological canon, I see one prehistorical, theological plan/purpose of God structuring 2 historical canons.

9. "The Covenant of Grace that God made with Adam after the Fall"

Gen. 3:15 is a prophecy to Satan, not a covenant with Adam.

III. My 3 Misinterpretations of Covenant Theology

1. "Nowhere in that paragraph in the Westminster Confession of Faith can it be shown that the Old Covenant was the Covenant of Grace."

Covenant Theology teaches that there is one Covenant of Grace expressed as different administrations in history. The Old Covenant was an administration of the Covenant of Grace. Therefore, the Old Covenant was part of the Covenant of Grace, right?

"Although there are several covenants in the Old Testament, they are considered as one covenant by the Old Testament itself." (New Dictionary of Theology, p. 173)

"The covenants of God are one." (Robertson, Christ of the Covenants, p. 28)

"The Covenant Is Essentialy the Same in All Dispensations, Though the Form of Its Administration Changes" (Berkof, Manual of Christian Doctrine, p. 163

"This one Covenant of Grace is administered in different ways during different periods in the Bible....these are simply different methods of administering the same Covenant of Grace. The character of the covenant is not changed by these different methods of applying it...So there is one Covenant of Grace but different ways of administering that covenant (Cummings, The Covenant of Grace, pp.12-13).

2. "page 67, a strawman that is held by no Covenant Theologian I know of is put forward; namely that Covenant Theologians assume the Old Covenant must be a covenant of salvation from sin. Rather, Covenant Theology of all known persuasions to this present reviewer believes that Old Covenant saints are saved by the one transcendent Covenant of Grace"

That's my point exactly! Covenant Theology views the Old Covenant as an administration of the Covenant of Grace, which is a covenant of salvation. And, Israel was a "redeemed" people. Covenant Theology tends to interpret Old Testament words like "chosen" and "redeemed" spiritually, instead of physically/typologically. So, typological/physical redemption from Egypt is often confused with spiritual redemption from sin.

3. "Gibson misrepresents the Westminster Confession of Faith as teaching that God gave Adam the Ten Commandments at Creation."

Now that I reread the Confession, it doesn't seem too clear what it means there? It says,

"God gave Adam a law...
This (same) law...
in ten commandments"

What I meant was that God wrote the Decalogue on Adam's heart at creation.

Daniel, I think it's great that you've studied logic. You'll find it a great help in refuting those who err and defending the faith. But, I really think you need to learn to apply it more carefully before accusing others of fallacies. Please let me know if you think I've misunderstood you in anything.

Finally, may I ask you a personal question? Before you read my book, did you pray the suggested prayer on p. 10?

Thanks for the forum,

Greg

PuritanReformed said...

Greg:

I pray almost everyday as I start my day, prayed through my study of the book of Galatians, read the Bible and read various books on the topic in light of the Bible before I have even touched your book. I prayed before I started reviewing so that I will do so in a way that is honoring to our Lord.

That said, I DO find that statement of yours in the book and your subsequent question odd. If someone was to approach your book (or mine or any book), they will either come with a Berean attitude or without a Berean attitude. Your statement can only inform them of what is necessary but those who are Bereans will have done so already while those who are not cannot be bothered either way. IMO, such a statement does not help either way and seem to make it appear that you are asserting that your position is the biblical one instead of letting Scripture and your arguments do the job of persuading. At least, that is the way I look at it.

PuritanReformed said...

Greg:

thanks for your counter-review. I will just give a brief reply here:

1) On "Regeneration alone"

Yes, of course you did say that, but how can anyone recognize those who are regenerate if not by profession of faith and correct living? Doesn't that not bring you back to the credobaptist position as believed and practiced by the original Particular Baptists in England?

2) On "Ten Commandments = Old Covenant" and related issues

I can see that here it will take a lot of time and effort to get past the misunderstandings present. Let me just mention one here:

In response to my critique of your point regarding the interpretation of Jer. 31:31-34, my critique was that the logical fallacy of false dichotomy was committed, not division. I am however curious to know where you have gotten the idea that CT interprets the "Law" there as "the Decalogue alone". Certainly as I peruse Matthew Henry's Commentary on the passage and John Calvin's Commentary on the passage in question, none of them interpret the passage accordingly.

3) With regards on "relying on uninspired words"

I do believe that all of these can be defended from the Scriptures deductively, but I would not venture this in a such a short space here. Each of them would require something of the length of a book or at the least a booklet in order that no short cut is taken which then makes the arguments susceptible to accusations of logical fallacies. But just to show you it can be done: It someone believes that ALL believers throughout history were and are saved through only one way by the Substitutionary Atonement of Christ on the sinners' behalf, which God has foreordained that Christ sacrifice Himself to do so, following which He would be glorified after His resurrection, then then the Covenant of Grace is similarly believed in. Obviously, an entire chapter could be written to flesh out that description using Scripture, which I will desist due to lack of time and space.

For more on the biblical basis behind concepts like the Covenant of Works, I would recommend an intermediate level book by Michael Horton which I have just finished entitled God of Promise - Introducing Covenantal Theology especially Chapter 5, pages 77-110.

4) You said ' Are you claiming that "law" used negatively always refers to legalism, and never to regulation? How many Greek dictionaries can you quote where the word "law" alone means legalism? Zero! '

No, that was not what I was claiming. I was claiming that the context in which the law was mentioned negatively was one against Legalism.

You further said ' Second, most of the negative statements Paul makes about the law come in contexts in which he has unambiguously identified the law as the law given by God '

Of course it is. But is that statement to be understood ontologically or functionally? In other words, isn't it to be understood that the Law by nature comes from God, but that its functional misuse unto salvation is not from God?

You also said 'Paul views God's work of redemption in Christ as the answer to the problem posed by the negative effects of the law '

Actually, I would think that God's work of redemption focused on the problem posed by our sins rather than the Law (cf Rom. 3:10-18; 23; 6:23)

5) Regarding the Jerusalem Council

'If obedience was not part of the issue, then why did the apostles give 4 commands to obey?'

We would disagree with the first two (idolatry and sexual immorality), but the last two are pobably steps taken not to further offend Jewish sensibilities.

6) Regarding 2 Tim. 3:16-17

'Since 2 Tim. 3:16-17 refers to the whole Old Testament, if it requires obedience to any Old Testament laws, then it requires obedience to all Old Testament laws.'

No, it requires the usage of all Old Testament laws, not necessarily all to be literally obeyed. They can be for taught in terms of typology for example in order to evoke love and obedience towards God and His moral Law.

7) Regarding Gal. 3

I did address that point in my article on Law and Gospel while going through Galatians, and I still disagree that you are using a redemptive-historical hermeneutic. Read for example Luther's Commentary on Galatians to see how the passage is interpreted under a consistent redemptive-historical hermeneutic. Ditto my disagreement over your claim of Galatians being against both legalism and regulation.

'even Covenant Theologians use what you call a Dispensational hermeneutic when they interpret the civil and ceremonial laws as not applying to us today'

The answer depends on how the question is phrasd. Previous generations of Covenantal Theologians were more focused on the relation of the Law to us sinners, and therefore they would say that the ceremonial and civil laws are abrogated. However, in God's sight, they are still in force, but are in force in being fulfilled in the person of our Lord Jesus Christ. So I refuse to say that the ceremonial and civil laws are abrogated as per Dispensational language, but to stress on their "continuance" in Christ who fulfilled them all for us.

8) Regarding the case of Adam and Gen. 3:15

When I mention eternal life, I mean eternal life in the sense that he gains the ability to not sin.

Gen. 3:15 is indeed a prophecy against Satan, but why can't it be also the proclamation of the covenant of grace?

9) Regarding the WCF

The Old Covenant was not part of the Covenant of Grace. It plays a part in the Covenant of Grace, but it is not part of it in its narrow form. It is gracious only in the sense that it provides the Law which is a schoolmaster to bring people to Christ. The Old Covenant must be differentiated between the Mosaic Covenant though, as Witsius alludes to here.

'What I meant was that God wrote the Decalogue on Adam's heart at creation'

Actually, that is not what the WCF teaches; it teaches that God gave Adam the knowledge of the Moral law, not the Decalogue per se.

'Thanks for the forum'

Thanks for the feedback.

God bless,
Daniel

Tartanarmy said...

I was reading this thread and it just seemed to me Daniel, that you would need the patience of a saint to thoroughly interact with this review of a review!

I gave up after reading the comment about "only" baptizing the "regenerate", as if that somehow differentiates between the regenerate and those who profess to have faith!

Sounds like Gnosticism to me!

I think I might start writing some books and put my online activity to rest, as it seems anyone can write books these days.

Not trying to be mean just trying to be honest and think out loud.

Blessings bro
Mark

PuritanReformed said...

Mark,

well, I don't plan to reply to every single objection he may have, just the more obvious ones. The issues of Covenant of Works, Covenant of Grace etc can be read in many books published throughout the centuries, and the scriptural arguments for them are not even interacted with. What I am doing now is arguing at the same reasoning level, and thus I have made exposing logical fallacies the primary focus.

As it is, I see NCT as being theologically naive rather than unorthodox. So a little slack is warranted IMO instead of shooting theological missiles across the aisle. Once and if they degenerate into outright antinomianism, then the missiles would appear.

With regards to writing books, it is true that the advent of digital printing has allowed virtually anyone to publish books, no matter how bad the content. But the good thing about this is that censorship by apostasized leadership would become next to impossible. Furthermore, although it is possible for anyone to publish books, it is not feasible for most because then either a market must be found for them or the author must be willing to make a loss because publishers will not publish a book for you for free unless they think it can sell (which then mean your work must meet certain standards at least).

Greg Gibson said...

That said, I DO find that statement of yours in the book and your subsequent question odd. If someone was to approach your book (or mine or any book), they will either come with a Berean attitude or without a Berean attitude.

Yes, I agree that most readers have already cultivated a teachable or non-teachable attitude. However, I just wanted to teach them how to be teachable.

1) On "Regeneration alone"
Yes, of course you did say that, but how can anyone recognize those who are regenerate if not by profession of faith and correct living? Doesn't that not bring you back to the credobaptist position as believed and practiced by the original Particular Baptists in England?


I was reacting against decisional-baptism popular in Arminian-Fundamentalist circles. I never said anything about a pure church on p. 7. (But, now that we mention it, I do believe that credobaptist churches will be purer than paedobaptist churches.)

2) On "Ten Commandments = Old Covenant" and related issues...I am however curious to know where you have gotten the idea that CT interprets the "Law" there as "the Decalogue alone".

Richard Barcellos and Thomas Boston (and any other CTs who claim that in Jer. 31 torah = Decalogue today)...

"Exposition of Jer. 31:33...Jer. clearly teaches that the law of God under the NC is a law that was written on stone by God...'We conclude the terms of the NC include the writing of the Decalogue on the hearts of God's people.9 The [torah] is...the Decalogue.10...The text of Jer. clearly teaches that the basic, fundamental law of God under the NC is the Decalogue.
[Footnotes: 9. This understanding of Jer. 31:33 was held by Thomas Boston...10. William McKane, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Jer.] (Barcellos, Defense of the Decalogue, pp. 16-20)"

3) With regards on "relying on uninspired words" I do believe that all of these can be defended from the Scriptures deductively

What I meant is that I can prove the Trinity and Ltd. Atonement with simple, logical syllogisms, not whole books. Can you prove your views with syllogisms?

But just to show you it can be done: It someone believes that ALL believers throughout history were and are saved through only one way by the Substitutionary Atonement of Christ on the sinners' behalf, which God has foreordained that Christ sacrifice Himself to do so, following which He would be glorified after His resurrection, then then the Covenant of Grace is similarly believed in.

Would you like to try and form that into a logical syllogism?

I believe that throughout history God has had only one way of salvation. But, I see it as the one plan/purpose of God, not one covenant of grace.

No, that was not what I was claiming. I was claiming that the context in which the law was mentioned negatively was one against Legalism

I listed 16 verses teaching that the Decalogue ended (pp. 100-102). Of those 16, only 6 occur in the context of legalism (one in Acts 15, and 5 in Gal. And, as I mentioned, it's a false dichotomy to conclude that those passages must be about either legalism or regulation, since one of Paul's 2 refutations of legalism is anti-regulation.) So, 10 verses teach the end of the Decalogue for regulation (not because of Legalism).

5) Regarding the Jerusalem Council
We would disagree with the first two (idolatry and sexual immorality), but the last two are pobably steps taken not to further offend Jewish sensibilities.


And, those 4 commands were given as the answer to the question, "Must the Gentiles be circumcised and obey the law?" The answer was, "No, but keep these 4 commands" (for sanct., not just.) No Sabbath, no Decalogue.

6) Regarding 2 Tim. 3:16-17
No, it requires the usage of all Old Testament laws, not necessarily all to be literally obeyed. They can be for taught in terms of typology for example in order to evoke love and obedience towards God and His moral Law.


I understand your interpretation, and I think it's possible. But, I think my interpretation is more likely. What you're really saying is that "the whole OT is useful for either A, B, C, OR D..." What I'm saying is that "the whole OT is useful for both A, B, C, AND D..."

8) Regarding the case of Adam and Gen. 3:15
When I mention eternal life, I mean eternal life in the sense that he gains the ability to not sin.


How many days would Adam have had to "not sin" before he gained the ability to "not sin?"

9) Regarding the WCF
The Old Covenant was not part of the Covenant of Grace. It plays a part in the Covenant of Grace


Isn't that a minority view among CTs? The WCF certainly sounds like it views the OC as part of the CoG...

"This covenant (of grace) was differently administered in the time of the law...under the law, it was administered by promises, prophecies, sacrfices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews...and is called the OT...There are not therefore two covenants of grace, differing in substance, but one and the same, under various dispensations."

Sounds to me like the law covenant is part of the CoG.

PuritanReformed said...

Greg:

>What I meant is that I can prove the Trinity and Ltd. Atonement with simple, logical syllogisms, not whole books. Can you prove your views with syllogisms?

Complicated syllogisms yes. But I will not attempt them here. Btw, simple does not necessarily equate to being biblical.


>How many days would Adam have had to "not sin" before he gained the ability to "not sin?"

The period is irrelevant. The time when that happens is when he partakes of the tree of life.