More on Spurgeon and Forum Defense
These are just some responses I had in a forum I visit. These will clarify my views of Spurgeon and of Covenant Theology. See also http://www.newcovenanttheology.com/spurgeon.html http://www.newcovenanttheology.com/covenant.html
These are my responses to Brandon and Joe, two covenant theologians who were disputing with me.
Brandon, the law of faith is the law of Christ. I am not under the old law but rather am inlawed to Christ. This law is faith to the end. What is faith to the end? Not shrinking back from the legalists is one central manifestation of faith to the end. Otherwise, Galatians, Colossians etc make no sense whatsoever. Look at scripture to see how many times the faith of Abraham was reckoned as righteousness to his account. At least three recorded times Brandon. This is not to say that the elect will not fall at times, many times. This is not to say that the once justified the elect will become unjustified, but he will continue to be justified by faith to the end. The just shall live by faith. It doesn't say the just will live by law, by law preaching, by no good works. The just will live by faith and will do the works preordained from before the foundation of the world for them to do. If that makes me a "legalist" in your eyes you need to argue with Paul and James, not me.
What does the writer of Hebrews say? In Heb 10:39 the writer says: But we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but are those who believe and are saved.
This is a response to Joe who said that the priests saved by the gospel in Acts continued in the law of Moses:
Joe, the elect who lived under the law of Moses continued to do so, except some who chose not to like Peter. Paul said in Galatians that Peter did not live under the law of Moses. So maybe the priests lived under the law or maybe not, and maybe they were no longer priests. It doesn't matter, because they did not judge the Gentiles who did not live under the law! One man esteems a day and one doesn't. But they don't judge one another. That is if they are elect. (Rom. ch 14)
Brandon you said: "Contrast this with the true Gospel - there is no law that must be obeyed in order to be saved. In fact, salvation is an accomplished event - it's past - it's finished - it's COMPLETE. Christ's work at the cross actually saved His elect."
Christ secured the salvation of the elect, their faith to the end, and their good works ordained from before the foundation of the world. You are the antinomian. With a change of priesthood came a CHANGE OF LAW. Heb ch 7.
Joe here is saying that it is ok for Spurgeon to exhort the unbelievers to be holy. Here is my response:
Joe, the elect are saved in their sins and delivered from their sins by the power of the gospel. Spurgeon was exhorting UNBELIEVERS to turn away from sin prior to salvation, prior to being saved! You are not paying attention to Spurgeons words and who he claims he is speaking to. Are you going to keep straining those gnats Joe?
This is a response to Brandon who says that I am making a New Law of Christ that is conditional on my faith, like a law of works:
Brandon, you are misunderstanding me. Faith is a gift of God. That Christ purchased the elect is done on the cross. The work of Christ is finished. What I am saying is that He purchased faith for the elect since it comes from God, and He purchased the good works that were preordained. You say that I make out the New Law of Christ to be conditional. Is that what you say the author of Heb 10:39 is doing? He is saying the elect will not shrink back. Therefore you are making him a legalist?
And Brandon, the same author says He will put His laws on their hearts? This is the law of Christ, the law of love if you will. Paul said bear one another's burdens and so fulfill the law of Christ. The law of Moses was unfulfilled by all but the Lord. The Law of Christ is fulfilled by all in Christ. How is it fulfilled? By faith given by God, not by one's own merit!
This is a response to Joe who says that I am making the Gentiles not accountable when I teach that they do not need law preaching:
Again, you misunderstand me Joe. Remember, I said that all men have a natural conscience, whether they learned that the law was exceedingly sinful, as Paul did, or whether they broke the rules of their society or the rules of their parents or whatever. Therefore, all men have experienced guilt. Since all men have been "convicted by law", as you would term it, all men can put themselves in the way of grace. But we know that can't be. Conviction by the gospel is different than is guilt by law. Scripture specifically illustrates the difference, whether we want to acknowledge that difference or not.
Joe said: "Sin is transgression of the Law according to the inspired witness of John. Until that verse says, sin is a transgression of the Gospel, I will stay where I am."
Sin is a transgression of law. Of course. But the law of faith was around before the law of Moses. The law of faith has a better high priest and better promises. It can be fulfilled (by imputed righteousness rather than a sinless life), and it is what we will by judged by. James in James 2:12 says the elect will be judged by the LAW THAT GIVES FREEDOM. Now Joe, we know that is not the law of Moses which is a law of BONDAGE. Unbelief is a transgression of the Law of freedom, Joe! The elect will be judged by that law!
And of course, Joe, this has nothing to do with Covenant Theology does it! Let the unbelievers be judged by their works and merit! The elect will be judged by the faith given them and by this imputed righteousness! If Christ has set a person free he is free indeed!
It is too bad Brandon is bowing out, I am just getting warmed up.
Joe you said: "There is nothig to get warmed up about. THere is no law of faith present in Johns epistle. Not even hinted at. If it was, he would have said that. James is definately not one to quote as anti Law. He was a Jew of Jews.
And a further purpose of the law, in preparation for the gospel, was "that every mouth might be stopped, and ALL THE WORLD BECOME GUILTY BEFORE GOD" (Rom. 3:19)."Now we are finally getting to the nuts and bolts. Clearly James had the same gospel as the other apostles. Any attempt to say otherwise is to side with the dispensationalists!!! You will even do that to fight the truth Joe?
The purpose of the law was to condemn the world in relationship to God. This is a legal condemnation that has absolutely NOTHING to do with the conviction of unbelief that the elect go through in their hearts to enter the kingdom of Christ, to then by judged by the law that gives liberty! Apples and oranges Joe. I have already said that condemnation before God and conviction of the spirit are NOT THE SAME THING. They are different Joe. The scripture says so. This merging of condemnation and conviction is the major error of covenant theology. It is the foundational error of covenant theology.