Chapter Overview
Keeping with the general format of the first two chapters, I will begin with what I regard as the falsehood and then proceed to cite examples of those who believe and teach the error. I will quote the following theologians.
- Wayne Strickland
- Douglass Moo
I will address many of the passages of scripture that Strickland quotes that support his belief that the law has been done away or abolished under the New Covenant and replaced with a new law.
Next, I will proceed to support the thesis that the moral law reflected in the 10 Commandments has not been done away with. Moral law has not been abolished and will never be repealed. I will give a Biblical and philosophical foundation. Like inability and an enslaved free will, the idea that the law of God is done away with has contributed dramatically to a moral crisis in the church and in America. Teach Christians that they are born unable to obey God, that their will is so depraved that it can only choose sin, and that the law of God is done away with, and what do you think the outcome will be? Let us begin our examination.
Introduction
The Pastor of a church I attended stated that not only had the ceremonial law and the Ten Commandments been done away with, but also the moral law. In his view, only the principle of law remains, whatever that means. A principle doesn’t necessarily carry with it penalties for disobedience unless it is made law. A principle can be a guiding principle or a piece of advice in my way of thinking. Is the moral law of God reduced to mere advice? Are the Ten Commandments just guidelines? Are they the 10 suggestions? Although the pastor never clarified what he meant by his statement, perhaps the scholars I will quote in this chapter can explain. (Refer to Appendix 3 for a fuller examination.)
I intend to primarily use one book titled “Five Views of Law and Gospel” to develop this subject. I suppose that there are as many opinions on this subject as there are people. The five authors of this book do a good job explaining very prominent ideas about the law. I think they will be adequate. When that Pastor said the moral law was abrogated, I must admit I was shocked. How could he say such a thing? The impact on me was to convey the message that, as a believer, I am no longer obligated to keep the laws of God. The Ten Commandments became the ten “holy” options or suggestions. Call me Erasmus, for it seemed to me that his comment would open the floodgate of iniquity.
The Falsehood = Moral Law has been abolished, and the Ten Commandments are abrogated.
I am not the only one who thinks this idea has had a detrimental effect on society. Over the last 50-plus years, the discussion about the law and whether or not we should observe it has been ongoing. However, despite our theological schools’ extensive discussions of this subject, the observance of the law has declined for several reasons. The result is that we are now facing a moral free fall within the Evangelical Church.[1] The notion that the law has been abolished has led to a moral calamity in our society and within the church. Is it any wonder? Convince someone they are involuntarily born totally depraved, and there is no longer a moral law, and what do you think you will get? Convince a totally depraved, yet redeemed person, that the law of God has been done away with, and what do you think the result will be? Tell those who go to church that they will always continue to sin, but that they are eternally secure in their sin, and what do you think the outcome will be? Is it unkind of me to ask, “Why isn’t this obvious?” The law restrains evil, and if it’s abrogated, then evil will increase, and it doesn’t take a scientist or theologian to figure that out. Our society is suffering from ideas like this one. So is the church. Please read Deuteronomy chapters 27 and 28. The law restrains evil in both the saved and the unsaved.
WAYNE G. STRICKLAND
Three of the five authors of this book argue for the continuing applicability of the law, a position I also take; therefore, I will concentrate on the two authors who disagree. Mr. Strickland is the first of the two and writes from a dispensational viewpoint.
The author Strickland states that the church, throughout the ages, has sought to comprehend the relationship between the law and the Gospel, or whether such a relationship exists. How does a New Testament believer relate to the Law in the Old Testament today?[2] The author presents several reasons why this study is essential. One reason is that how we define these two things, Law and Gospel, will have an impact on our understanding of justification. The same is true for how we understand sanctification. Any reader of the Bible will know that these terms are critical. Gaining a correct understanding of these two essential doctrines is vital. As we have seen in the first two chapters, one’s theological predisposition will color the picture of these two concepts. This will be made abundantly clear as we proceed.
My view of dispensationalism[3], having been brought up in it as a new believer, is not very complimentary. I will guard against this bias. Specific forms of dispensational theology have given us a church full of sin. In some dispensational groups, a “Carnal Christian” appears to be the norm. Is it unloving of me to abhor such an idea? It’s genuinely a doctrine of devils that will allow for habitual sin in Christians. You may need to finish this book before you answer that question.
Strickland believes the Mosaic Law had no design of salvation in it. Obedience to the Mosaic Law was not the basis of salvation. God never intended his law to be used for salvation. Even the New Testament stipulates that Old Covenant believers were saved by faith rather than works and that obedience to the law was not a requirement for salvation, according to Strickland.[4] Unfortunately, this idea is typical of the carnal theology of our day. Faith and obedience are often seen as unrelated or opposite ways, when the truth is that they are closely related and inseparable.
The author quotes a few passages that seem to indicate obedience brings salvation, a position he rejects. I will use the same passages in my analysis to ensure consistency and fairness. In Deuteronomy, it is written,
“And now, O Israel, listen to the statutes and the judgments which I am teaching you to perform, in order that you may live and go in and take possession of the land which the Lord, the God of your fathers, is giving you” Deuteronomy 4:1.
The author insists this passage was not written with salvation in mind. How does Mr. Strickland skirt the apparent meaning of the verse? He believes the phrase “that you may live” does not mean the Jews would obtain spiritual salvation. Instead, I think, he would argue the phrase means the Jew would enjoy the blessings of the covenant if they met the conditions. The covenant included land for their own possession, which they could not retain if they disobeyed the covenant’s laws. The truth is, Israel lost both the land and the covenant. To separate these two is just a necessity of his theology. The covenant and its blessings are inseparable and, in many aspects, identical.
“And this commandment, which was to result in life, proved to result in death for me;” Romans 7:10. The author of the Book of Romans seems to disagree with Strickland, doesn’t he? He says this commandment was to bring life, which obviously refers to eternal life.
The author believes that the Mosaic Law was never intended to save anyone, as it doesn’t clearly address salvation or redemption. He goes on to say that the Mosaic Law didn’t nullify our personal faith as the way of salvation and insists that the law was the proper or only way of salvation. To support his point, he refers to the story of the Exodus. He says that God gave His law to a people who were already a redeemed people and nation. Israel was already saved when they received the law. How were they saved? While in Egypt, during the Passover, they placed the blood on the doorposts and made their way through the Red Sea. His point is that faith was the means of escape or salvation, not the law. The law didn’t save them.[5] The idea that faith was not excluded as the appropriate response of the Jew under the law is outrageous. Of course, it wasn’t. Faith has always been the basis of righteousness for sinners. Moreover, the law did not negate faith but required great faith to live by it. But faith must be faithful and obedient, which Strikland denies.
Is it unkind of me to question how Mr. Strickland could believe the covenant nation of Israel and the believing nation were the same? Surely, he knows better. How many times does the Old Testament refer to the fact that it’s the remnant of Israel who will be saved? It’s always the remnant that is saved, as it is in the church today. There are numerous examples of this fact, making it difficult to know where to begin. Apparently, he would have us believe that those who fell into unbelief when Moses returned from receiving the Ten Commandments to find them worshiping the golden calf were part of the believing and saved Israel. Is that not outrageous?
When the author writes that faith negates the need to keep the law, it makes me shake my head in amazement. What is he talking about? The “law” for Israel, while still in Egypt, was that they were required to believe in God and do some work. Yes, they were required to work out their own salvation by doing some works of obedience. They were required to kill the animal and apply the blood to the lintels, walk out of Egypt, and be saved. If they did not obey the “law”, do you think they would have been saved? There is no possible way in heaven or on earth that they would have been saved. Furthermore, they had to obey all the commandments, not just some of them, to be saved. They couldn’t apply the blood and stay in Egypt and be saved. They had to apply the blood, then leave the land of Egypt and cross the Red Sea. Saving faith always produces adherence to God’s law; it never negates obedience to the law. Salvation is conditioned on faith. The kind of faith that moves the will to loving obedience is the only true faith.
Brother Strickland has not defined what he means by the Mosaic Law. I thought the laws of Moses included the laws about atonement, forgiveness, sacrifice, offerings, and the like. How is it possible for him to argue that the Mosaic Law was not given to save when things such as forgiveness, atonement, and sacrifices all speak of spiritual salvation? Here’s how: he takes a prior position that once a person is saved, they are always saved; therefore, he can read passages that indicate a loss of salvation and interpret them to mean something different, such as the loss of fellowship or covenant blessings. Therefore, he can argue that the Mosaic Law had nothing to do with salvation. “What becomes increasingly clear” in reading the Mosaic code is that for the Jews to remain in the covenant, obedience was required. If this doesn’t relate to ultimate salvation, then I am exceedingly ignorant of the Bible.
“So, all these curses shall come on you and pursue you and overtake you until you are destroyed, because you would not obey the Lord your God by keeping His commandments and His statutes which He commanded you” Deuteronomy 28:45.
Moses then goes on to say they will serve their enemies in hunger, thirst, in nakedness, and in the lack of all things until God had destroyed them. I suppose the author would have us believe this relates only to fellowship with God or the blessings of the covenant, not salvation. The language is clearly against him. Elsewhere, God talks about divorcing Israel for their continued disobedience. God eventually divorced Israel, and that means the covenant was ended. They were not His anymore, Jeremiah 3:8. Yet, there has always been an Israel within Israel.
For all those who think a disobedient faith is a saving faith, Moses has written the following passage.
“And it shall be when he hears the words of this curse, that he will boast, saying, ‘I have peace though I walk in the stubbornness of my heart in order to destroy the watered land with the dry. The Lord shall never forgive him, but rather the anger of the Lord and His jealousy will burn against that man, and every curse which is written in this book will rest on him, and the Lord will blot out his name from under heaven” Deuteronomy 28:19-20.
I can’t think of a better passage to refute the wicked notion that we can have peace with God while we walk in the stubbornness of our own ways. Presumably, the author would have us believe we can have peace with God, meaning salvation, while we habitually disobey God. Could it be any clearer that hell was the end for such persons? Remember, this is the “saved” covenant Jew that is being addressed here. God declares He will blot his name out from under heaven and “shall never forgive him.” Now tell me this means they were saved while not forgiven and redeemed, but blotted out of fellowship forever, and I will marvel at your credulity.
“Know, therefore that the Lord your God, He is God the faithful God, who keeps His covenant and His loving kindness to a thousandth generation with those who love Him and keep His commandments; but repays those who hate Him to their faces, to destroy them; He will not delay with him who hates Him, He will repay him to his face. Therefore, you shall keep the commandments and the statutes and the judgments, which I am commanding you today, to do them. Then it shall come about, because you listen to these judgments and keep and do them, the Lord your God will keep with you His covenant and His loving kindness which He swore to your forefathers” Deuteronomy 7:9-12.
Does God keep His covenant with those who hate Him, and those who do not keep His commandments? The text declares He does not. God doesn’t keep His covenant with those who violate the covenant. He never breaks the covenant first, but He doesn’t keep it for those who breach the conditions. It couldn’t be any clearer. The covenant was conditional. The truth is that both relationship and blessing belong to this conditional covenant. Proponents of eternal security would have us believe the relationship is unconditional, while the blessings are conditional. Convenient. When God declares through Moses that He will “destroy” covenant breakers, are we to believe they were “destroyed” yet “saved?” That’s like saying God and Israel were divorced yet married, Jews were blotted out yet written in, Israelites were in the covenant and out of the covenant at the same time. When God proclaims, He won’t keep the “covenant relationship with Israel,” does it really only refer to the “blessings” of the relationship? How convenient, for up till now the covenant represented the “relationship” and not the blessings of it. However, that would never be the case this time, as it would undermine the once-saved, always-saved doctrine. It appears their interpretation of God’s Word is dictated by their own doctrines. I pray God will correct me if I am doing the same thing. The truth is more important than their feelings or mine. Do you disagree?
For Strickland to say there is no view of salvation in these Mosaic passages is stranger than fiction. It’s a comment forced on him by his theological bias. The language is clearly more appropriate in the context of salvation than in fellowship. Our friend Strickland believes the law defined how the nation of Israel might have fellowship with God within the covenant. The law was necessary for fellowship and not salvation. The Jew was already saved but needed to know how they might continue to have fellowship with God and receive His blessings. Fellowship and blessings were provided in obedience to the law. He actually believes that disobedience to the law of God did not remove the Jew from the covenant and only disrupted their fellowship with God. The Jew only lost covenant blessings by disobedience. Disobedience to the law, according to him, is never stated in Scripture in a way to suggest eternal condemnation or eternal death, but only physical consequences are mentioned.[6]
For the sake of the truth, a couple of comments need to be made. I believe it’s an extravagant falsehood to argue that disobedience to the law did not remove the Jews from the covenant. Over and over again, the covenants were expressed in conditional terms. If the conditions were not met, then the covenant was broken. I will cite a few examples for your consideration. In the Song of Moses, it is written, “They have acted corruptly toward Him, they are not His children, because of their defect; But are a perverse and crooked generation” Deuteronomy 32:5. This was written about the covenant “saved” Jew. God declares that His children are no longer His children. What does that sound like to you?
Sins of presumption removed the Jew immediately from the covenant. “But the person who does anything defiantly, whether he is native or alien, that one is blaspheming the Lord; and that person shall be cut off from among his people. Because he has despised the word of the Lord and has broken His commandments, that person shall be completely cut off; his guilt shall be on him” Numbers 15:30. Again, this was written to the covenant “saved” Jew.
What happened when the Jew refused to follow God’s method of dealing with sin by using sacrifices and so forth to gain atonement? Over and over again, God said that those who would not conform to His word were to be kicked out of the covenant nation of Israel. Didn’t God divorce Israel for disobedience? Divorce is not a picture of a lack of fellowship in marriage but of a marriage that has been terminated. Hosea writes, “And the Lord said, Name him Lo-ammi, for you are not My people and I am not your God” Hosea 1:9. Yet the Lord promises a future restoration for covenant keepers. But they are not all Israel who descend from Abraham and Jacob.
“All their evil is at Gilgal; indeed, I came to hate them there! Because of the wickedness of their deeds, I will drive them out of My house! I will love them no more; All their princes are rebels” Hosea 9:15.
These and more can be quoted to demonstrate that brother Strickland’s comment is untrue. Continued disobedience did remove the Jew from the covenant relationship. What am I saying about the author? I believe God expects us to give each other the benefit of the doubt; therefore, I assume he loves God. That doesn’t mean those who love God have perfect knowledge and never unintentionally repeat lies, half-truths, and untruths. At one time, I loved God and believed the same lies. I repeated many of the very same falsehoods. Good intentions and kind desires don’t turn lies into truth.
We should note that disobedience is not stated in terms of eternal condemnation, but rather in terms of physical, temporal punishment. This suggests that the Old Testament law was not intended to secure Israel’s eternal salvation, according to the author. Neither is eternal salvation expressed in such language, for both ideas are expressed in temporal language. Strickland states that Israel’s Egyptian exodus symbolizes their eternal salvation experience, when in fact that language is not used at all. Departure from Egypt is expressed in the language of release from the house of slavery, release from physical slavery and physical oppression, not eternal concepts like removal to heaven or spiritual salvation. In addition, as I just explained, disobedience was expressed in terms of being blotted out, destroyed, never forgiven, divorced, and kicked out of the covenant. These concepts are more suitable for eternal ideas than those terms that talk about rescue from Egypt. Am I making a valid point?
According to this author, the Mosaic Law was not a means of salvation, but rather a means to assure Israel of blessings and a land for their possession. His position is the result of his prior commitment to a pre-established theology, for the Word of God surely doesn’t support it without blatant manipulation of the plain meaning of the Word. Yet there is an aspect of truth in the position that the “law” was not given to save us. If we confine the meaning of the Mosaic Law to the prohibitions and not the sacrifices that relate to forgiveness and atonement, then I see some truth in saying the law was not given to save them or us. The law was given to condemn lawbreakers. Lawkeepers do not need to be saved from the law’s condemnation. The law does not denounce lawkeepers. Law-breakers, on the other hand, need salvation from the law as it condemns them. Before Adam sinned, he was a lawkeeper. Even then, the law did not save him. His faithful obedience to God kept him safe and secure. If it’s said this means the law had his salvation in view, then I concur that the law, in this narrow sense, was given to keep Adam saved. Remember, Adam was saved when God issued the law. Then Adam sinned, and the law of God condemned him, having no power to save him. That is not the function of the law. The redemptive grace of God then entered the picture on Adam’s behalf. The law of God condemns lawbreakers. The grace of God made a way for the condemned to be forgiven, set free, and saved.
If the term “law” includes all the Mosaic provisions, then the “law” was indeed given to save. The types and shadows of the system of sacrifices were subjectively efficacious for the believing, obedient Jew. However, the blood of bulls and goats could never really take away sin. Animal sacrifices were not objectively efficacious. Christ died once for all time, offering Himself as a sacrifice for us. Christ alone secured the possibility of forgiveness, conditioned on a repentant faith, by dying for our sins. Praise God!
Often, the following passage of Scripture is quoted as proof that the law was not given to save us.
“Is the law 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 the law. But the Scripture has shut up all men under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe” Galatians 3:21,22.
The law doesn’t impart life to lawbreakers. It imparts condemnation, and that is its singular function. However, neither does the law impose condemnation on lawkeepers. Remember, we are lawbreakers by choice, not by involuntary inability or because we were born sinners with a sinful nature that can only sin.
Strickland then asks whether Christians today must keep the law.[7] He is referring specifically to the Mosaic Law. Is the law applicable to us today? I will address each of the passages he uses, which are often used in defense of the continuing applicability of the Mosaic Law. The position I hold to, and Strickland rejects.
MATTHEW 5:17-19
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law, until all is accomplished. Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and so teaches others, shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever keeps and teaches them, shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven” Matthew 5:17-19.
The author does not believe this verse actually teaches the continuing applicability of the Law of Moses. Strickland says Jesus did in fact “come to abolish” the law in direct contradiction to the very words of Jesus, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets”. How does he explain away the plain meaning of this passage? He contends that the word for “fulfill” probably doesn’t mean “confirm” or “ratify,” as some suggest. He thinks “fulfill” is the proper word, and it means to complete or to finish in the sense that it is no longer outstanding. He then refers to the phrase “Law and Prophets” and suggests that this encompasses not just the Mosaic Law but the entire Old Testament. In particular, the passage speaks about prophecy. Strickland believes that the prophecies of Scripture are abrogated when they are fulfilled. And since Christ fulfills Old Testament predictions, these are now abolished. That his interpretation is incorrect is clear from Chapter 5 of the Gospel of Matthew. Prophecy is not the subject at hand. Christ is talking about personal ethical and moral issues (practical righteousness), not prophecy. Jesus was certainly not telling them He had fulfilled the moral law for them, so they no longer had to be concerned with obedience to the law. Even if it were true, did Christ fulfill all the Old Testament prophecies? Obviously not, so some remain applicable. Furthermore, some passages had partial fulfillment with Christ’s first coming, looking forward to complete fulfillment when He comes again. Even if it is true, which it is not, that this passage was about prophecy, it still has continuing applicability for us today because of partially unfulfilled prophecies. If our minds are irreparably and totally depraved, how will we ever be able to sort this out?
What does the word “fulfill” mean? Strickland suggests it means to finish, to complete, to end. But is that the case? If I fulfill my responsibility to my wife today to be faithful to her, does that end my responsibility for today’s fulfillment? Obviously not, for even though I fulfill my responsibility today, it continues as long as I am married to my wife and my God. Christ came to fulfill the moral law reflected in the 10 Commandments, and that is what He is referring to in this passage. He came to fulfill it by doing it perfectly every day, day after day. Our obligation to moral law can never be fulfilled in the sense that it is no longer binding on us as moral beings. That is not the meaning of the word ‘fulfill’. Moral law can be fulfilled in the sense that it is complied with. It is fulfilled because it’s obeyed.
ROMANS 7
The author believes that there is freedom from the bondage of the law through salvation in Christ. I agree, but not in the same way. He uses the example of death in a marriage, freeing the living spouse from the contract. Strickland says this is exactly like what happens when we join Christ: we die and are freed from the Mosaic Law contract. This doesn’t mean that we are just freed from the misapplication of the law or the condemnation of the law. It means the law no longer has jurisdiction over us, according to Strickland.[8] In this passage, Paul teaches that we die to the law in the sense that, as we are in Christ, we actually fulfill the law, just as Christ Himself did. Those in Christ are a new creation created to bear fruit for God (v.4). In the following two verses, Paul makes it clear that he is talking about being released from the law in the sense that we are not bearing fruit for death any longer. Is that because Christ has abrogated or abolished the law, or is it because we are made new in Christ and now actually fulfill the law, and it no longer condemns us? Brother Ryrie states that the law referred to here is not the Mosaic Law but legal principles. We are freed or released from the law.[9] It seems there is some agreement between Ryrie and me in that the phrase, “released from the law,” means a release from the bondage of the law. Is this release from bondage 1) because the law has been done away with or abolished, or, 2) is it a release because Christ’s obedience is literally imputed to the disobedient, or, 3) is it a release from the power and resulting condemnation of the law because lawbreakers have now become law keepers as a result of their faith in Jesus Christ? The correct answer is the last one.
1 Timothy 1:8-11
Here is another example of one’s theological position dictating an interpretation of the Bible. The author believes that the law is not made for Christians today. It is made for the unrighteous or unsaved person. In other words, the law is made for non-Christians because Christians are saved and are righteous in standing, even if not in their actual state. Strickland believes that Paul, in this passage of scripture, clearly states that the Ten Commandments are for the unbeliever, not the believer. The law is made for those people who commit sins against God and our neighbor, and this can’t apply to the Christian, according to Strickland.[10] Before I actually quote the passage he refers to, let me make a couple of comments for your thoughtful consideration. First, it is very easy to refer to a passage without quoting it and make it say whatever you want. It would seem from the author’s comment that the law was not given to the believer but the unbeliever. Really? This author has, in particular, argued that the Mosaic Law was given exclusively to the covenant nation of Israel, the believing nation, as he sees it. How is it that he now declares the Mosaic Law was not given to the believers “in this church age”? Was it given to believers before the church age and to unbelievers in the church age? How theologically convenient to leap to such an assumption. Regrettably, it seems the author needs to contradict his earlier interpretation to make his point. Let’s read the passage in question.
“But we know the Law is good, if one uses is lawfully, realizing the fact that the Law is not made for a righteous man, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers, and mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted” 1 Timothy 1:8-11.
According to Timothy, God’s law has continuing applicability to all the unrighteous, forever, be they part of the nation of Israel, the church, the world, or the kingdom of heaven. If a person commits the sins listed in this passage, they are unrighteous and unsaved, whether or not they are a Jew, a Christian, or an Angel. Know we not that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Please read 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. I suspect the author believes the believer is righteous by imputation, regardless of their actual walk, and that is why they use the words “believer” and “saved.” His interpretation is a result of his theology. The passage discusses a righteous man who has been saved and those who are lawless and rebellious, the ungodly and profane, and then lists the sins that follow these ungodly persons. The passage clearly proclaims that the righteous don’t personally commit these ungodly deeds. No fictitious imputation of righteousness even hinted at. (Please refer to the next chapter for a discussion of the doctrine of imputed righteousness.) Therefore, the law is good because the righteous use the law lawfully. They obey the law. When the passage states that the law is not made for a righteous person, it means the law is not a threat to that person. The law is a threat to the lawless, immoral person. To argue that this means the moral law is no longer binding is gross darkness. Is that an unloving statement? Is it more loving to say against or pass over an error without a comment? What would love do?
Brother Strickland next turns his attention to the other ways in which advocates, like me, contend for the continuing applicability of the law in our day. Continuing applicability is argued by distinguishing between the civil, ceremonial, and moral laws in the Old Testament. The ceremonial law about sacrifices, feast days, and offerings has been done away with now that Christ has made an offering of Himself, once for all. We no longer need to atone for our sins with the blood of bulls. The author argues that this threefold distinction is arbitrary and not found in the Bible. He maintains the Bible furnishes no guidelines for determining which of the laws have ceased and which are permanent. But is that accurate?
Didn’t God Himself write 10 of His laws on stone for a permanent witness? And didn’t Christ Himself make a distinction between the greater and lesser laws? Isn’t it possible to determine which laws are still applicable? Some are obviously applicable, while others are obviously not. All of the 10 commandments, with the possible exception of the Sabbath law, apply to us today.[11] The laws that require sacrifices, rituals, and feast day observance are no longer applicable today, as Christ died once for all.
Hebrews 8:8-13
As evidence of his claim that the law is no longer applicable, Strickland presents the following arguments. He declares that the Old Covenant has explicitly been abrogated and abolished in Hebrews 8:8-13. The only passage in this section, from verse eight through thirteen, that directly talks about doing away with the Old Covenant is verse thirteen. It states, “When He said, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear” Hebrews 8:13.
If this were the only verse to consider I would heartily agree that the Old Covenant law is abrogated for this passage indicates discontinuity. What isn’t so apparent from just this one verse of scripture is that the essence of the New Covenant is to take God’s Old Covenant moral law and write it on human hearts and minds. Listen to verse ten, “For this is the covenant that I will make with the House of Israel. After those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws into their minds, and I will write them upon their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be My people” Hebrews 8:10.
Are we to assume that the law God will write in our hearts and minds is different from the Old Covenant law? Aren’t we to assume God is referring to the 10 Commandments, which reflect the moral law that is inherent in our creation? God rejected Israel because they failed to keep His old law. The new covenant will take God’s old moral law and put it in our hearts and minds. The Jew would understand this to be the Mosaic Law/Torah, for this is a promise given through Jeremiah. The context dictates that this is the old law. Under the new covenant, it will be internalized that this is the essential difference between the Old and the New Covenants. It’s not a new and different law but the old law written on hearts and minds to secure obedience to the conditions of the covenant. The external rites, observances, and ceremonies of the Old Covenant law failed to secure heart obedience or holiness to the law of God. How true it still is today. Many religious persons mistakenly assume conformity to the rites, ritual, sacraments, traditions, and ceremonies of their church excuses disobedience to God’s 10 commandments. Verse thirteen clearly declares that the old or first covenant is obsolete and a new covenant will be made. The new covenant is to take God’s old covenant moral law and write it on our hearts and minds, not just paper and stone. The law written on our hearts means we desire to obey God and do in fact obey God because with our new heart we love Him more than we love ourselves. Is that your state? Is it mine? If not, then we are not participating in the New Covenant and are not saved. Don’t lose hope, for behold, He stands at the door of your heart, knocking. Will you invite Him in?
Next, the author Strickland examines a few more passages that give evidence of the discontinuity position he holds. I will discuss each of these.
Romans 6:14-15
“For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law, but under grace. What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? May it never be! Romans 6:14-15
According to Mr. Strickland, this clearly sets out a contrast between law and grace. He seems to think that our relationship with the law has now changed under the New Testament. The Law used to dominate us, but now it has no authority over us. Instead of obeying the law, we should now obey Jesus and not the law.[12]
It seems to me that Paul wrote this passage to correct the very idea that brother Strickland propounds. Paul wanted them to understand that just because they were under God’s grace and not the law’s condemnation, they were not free to live as though there was no authoritative law.
If the law’s authority is abrogated and abolished, as Strickland states, then there is no sin, for sin is lawlessness. Sin is a violation of moral law. If there is no law, there is no sin. But surely, he can’t mean that; instead, he means, I think, the Mosaic Law is abrogated and replaced with the law of Christ. But this then begs the question. How are the laws of Christ and Moses different? If they are essentially the same, then his point his meaningless. How could they not be essentially the same when they came from the same divine source and are laws specifically suited to how God created us?
The fundamental truth about salvation is this. When we believe in God (not facts about Him) and His goodness, we will trust Him. To trust Him is to believe in Him. If we trust Him, we will gladly and happily obey Him. Disobedience always follows unbelief or a refusal to trust. True faith always produces obedience, which proves our trust in God. Romans 6:16-18 proclaims obedience results in righteousness (refer to the following paragraph). This is the very righteousness of God, which is based on the obedience of faith, not some imagined or imputed obedience to the law. It seems the author Strickland would have us believe that disobedience is consistent with faith and trust in God. How utterly absurd is such a thought. I add, with much love, that the idea that true evangelical faith can be a habitually disobedient faith is wicked. This is one of the reasons why the nominal or visible church looks and acts like the world. With a sad heart, I must say this lie is destroying the church and the world.
The author maintains that the expression “we are not under the law” means that the Old Testament law no longer has authority over us. This is not what it means. Furthermore, the contrast is not between law and grace, but between sin and grace. Paul clarifies his meaning in the following verses.
“Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness? But thanks be to God that though you were slaves of sin, you became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching to which you were committed, and having been freed from sin, you became slaves of righteousness” Romans 6:16-18.
Paul is talking about being freed from the personal practice of sin. The Spirit of God, under the New Covenant, writes His laws on our hearts and minds, thereby securing loving obedience to that very law. Paul is not talking about being freed from sin because the law is done away with; therefore, sin is no longer a violation of the law. Nor is he talking about being freed from sin because Christ’s obedience is imputed to us.
Additionally, Paul is discussing being freed from a legal justification. Pardon and grace will take up where the law could never help. The law rightly condemns lawbreakers. It can never justify them. However, it is also worth remembering that God’s old covenant “law” provides for pardon and atonement for lawbreakers. God has always saved lawbreakers by grace through faith. If the Old Testament law is done away with and superseded by the law of Christ, how are the two different? Would the law of Christ allow us to have other Gods before Him, to take His name in vain, to make idols and worship them, to commit adultery, murder, to lie, to give false witness against our neighbor, to covet, and so on? The Law of Christ is summed up in the supreme love for God and equal love toward our neighbor. I agree, but how is that different from the moral law as summarized in the Ten Commandments? It isn’t different at all.
Romans 10:4
The key, according to the author, to understanding this passage is figuring out what the word “end” means. It is at this point that I strongly disagree with Strickland. The key to this verse is the context in which it is written, not a single word. But let’s continue. Does the word “end” mean goal, termination, cessation, rest, remainder, or abolition? Let’s look at the verse. “For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes” Romans 10:4.
Strickland believes that Christ ended the pursuit of righteousness through the law and established righteousness based on faith, rather than the law.[13] The author appears to be making the point that, now that Christ has arrived, we understand that faith is the way to God, whereas before Christ, Jews believed that the law, not faith, was the way to God. Christ has come; therefore, the law has ceased and ended. Did the way of salvation change? The author has argued against two ways of salvation, one in the Old Testament and a different one in the New Testament. How is it then he now contends for two ways of salvation, the way of the law and the way of faith? Elsewhere, the author has stated that there has always been one way of salvation, and that is by faith, as seen in both the Old and New Testament periods. Moreover, the author disagrees with the interpretation that Paul is arguing against the misuse of the law in the passage; however, is that not the case if the Jew thought the law, rather than faith, would save them? Is that not a misuse of the law? His comments are contradictory and theologically convenient.
In closing this section, Strickland writes that “termination” or “cessation” is probably the best understanding of the word. We are back to our opening question: What is the meaning of the word “end”? The solution in my mind is to apply the context to this passage and determine if we can understand what Paul is talking about. The final verses of Chapter Nine and the third verse of Chapter Ten are key in understanding the fourth verse of Chapter Ten. Please read Romans 9 through 10:13. Verse three of chapter ten states, “For not knowing about God’s righteousness, and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God.” The question is, “Has God’s righteousness changed from the Old Testament or under the Mosaic Law?” Abraham believed in God, and it was credited to him as righteousness. That appears to be the way of faith, but did Moses change that? No, he did not. Hasn’t it always been by grace through faith that we lawbreakers achieve the righteousness of God and salvation?
The Jew sought “to establish their own” righteousness to gain God’s approval. This is not the righteousness of faith but their own based on their intermittent obedience to the law without faith. The contrast is not between faith and the law but between faith and unbelief. The law did not point the Jew to unbelief but to faith. They rejected faith and sought their own false righteousness of unbelief, keeping the law without faith while they didn’t in fact keep either the letter or spirit of the law. This next passage states this truth explicitly.
“What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith; but Israel, pursing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone” Romans 9:30-32.
The law does not justify sinners. The law condemns lawbreakers. Even those who sin infrequently must not assume the law is their savior.
Faith in Christ is the end of the law for righteousness. In other words, unbelief works of the law or disobedience to the law cease or end in Christ. Has it ever been possible to please God without faith? Never. It’s clear to me that Paul is correcting a misunderstanding and misapplication of the basis of righteousness. Christ is not introducing a new way for sinners to get right with God. The Jews mistakenly thought they could attain the righteousness of God without heart faith by mere outward conformity to the laws of God, which, of course, they didn’t entirely keep. Faith in Christ is the end of that nonsense to everyone who believes. Christ is not the end of the law with faith, but the end of the law for righteousness without faith. Christ is not the end of faithful obedience to the law but the start of it. Christ is the end of the disobedience of unbelief or the works of the law. The reader might want to reread these last few paragraphs.
Often when I read the works of theologians such as Strickland, I get the impression their God would not be satisfied with us even if we actually obeyed Him. They seem to think we would still deserve hell even if we never personally disobeyed God. Let’s set aside Adam’s sin and our supposed inherited depravity and guilt for a moment. Is it true? If I lived my whole life and never broke any of God’s laws, would I go to hell? Would I need a Savior? I think Strickland would say yes. I disagree. The unrighteous need a savior, not the righteous. Jesus came to heal the sick, not those who were well. Sinners need a Savior and no one else. I need a Savior because of my sin. The perfect man or woman doesn’t need a Savior because the law only condemns those who break it. The law doesn’t condemn lawkeepers. If you have kept the law perfectly, then you can be certain that God is very pleased with you. This doesn’t mean you don’t need God. You need Him because he is so very wonderful. His Spirit pursues your heart, and life is meaningless without Him. However, you do not need Him as your Savior from sin because you have never sinned. I know of only one such perfect man, the man Christ Jesus. Let me digress for a moment.
2 Corinthians 3:6-18
This is an interesting passage of scripture. The author believes this section clearly sets forth the contrasts between the two covenants. For him, that means the Mosaic Law has been abolished and abrogated. The Old Law was written on stone and in ink. The New Covenant is written on our hearts by the Holy Spirit in contrast to the Old Covenant. Therefore, the Ten Commandments must be abrogated.[14] What is his point? He seems to be arguing against his own position. I agree with his interpretation just quoted. However, what he doesn’t say is that the new covenant is the old covenant law written on our hearts. Reread it carefully. The contrast here is not between the law and grace but between the law on stone and the law on hearts. He believes the contrast is clearly evident in the Ten Commandments. While this is true, it doesn’t mean the Ten Commandments are abrogated, which is his position. It does mean that these commandments are now written on human hearts, not just on stone. Why? The old way did not secure obedience to the spirit or the letter of the law, whereas the new covenant is meant to correct that problem by writing the law on our hearts. As proof, I offer the following.
“Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put My Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances” Ezekiel 36:26-27.
Isn’t that the most beautiful promise you have ever heard? Doesn’t this promise address our most important need and deepest desires? Bless His Holy name! Isn’t this exciting and wonderful?
Under the old covenant, it was easier to assume that mere outward ceremonial observance was satisfactory, while under the new covenant, it’s clear that motivation is the central issue. When I speak of motivation, I am referring to faith, love, and trust as the driving forces behind obedience to the law. Under the Old Testament, the Jews mistakenly believed that external rites, rituals, and the like made up for egregious acts of disobedience. God said sacrifices and offerings meant nothing when they disobeyed His other laws. Hasn’t God always been looking for a change of heart in us? Do you think He wants us to obey Him while we complain all the while begrudgingly? Do you believe God is impressed when we refrain from sin only because we fear punishment or for some other selfish reason? Is God impressed with those persons whose religion consists in outward acts, while internally they are full of lust, deceit, and corruption?
The author maintains that Paul does not declare that the same Old Testament moral law is to be written on their hearts. He doesn’t believe any law is written on their hearts, even though God specifically states that He does write His law on our hearts and minds. Strickland thinks that the letter of Christ is what is written on our hearts. This letter of Christ contains the same moral standards as the Law, but is not the Law, according to the author. He believes that moral standards never change, but the law does change.[15] Are you following this line of thinking?
With all due respect to the author, what in heaven’s name are we arguing about? What is this debate all about? For the author to stipulate that the law of Christ embodies the same moral standards as the Law of Moses is amazing. All this jangling of words, and in the final analysis, we end up at the place we started. The law against murder was explicitly revealed before the Law of Moses. In the Mosaic Law, it was repeated. If the law of Christ embodies the same basic moral standard, how is that any different? It can’t be. The author writes, “God’s moral standards do not change, but the concrete expressions of them may change.”[16] Is this not double-talk? Who can make sense of it? I am to understand that the moral law, the Mosaic Law, and the Ten Commandments have been done away with and replaced with the law of Christ, which embodies the same moral standards but is clearly different from the moral law, the Mosaic Law, and, in particular, the Ten Commandments. I don’t mean to be cruel, but his comments seem incoherent and unintelligible. Then again, maybe I am so intellectually challenged that I can’t understand his arguments.
We will examine the law regarding murder.
The Law before Moses
You shall not murder.
The Law of Moses
You shall not murder.
The Law after Moses, or the letter/law of Christ
You shall not murder or even hate your enemy or neighbor.
Why continue to debate the issue when the bottom line, according to this author, is that the moral standards of God do not change, but the concrete expressions of them may change. The Ten Commandments are gone, but the moral standards behind them can never change. This is so incredible that I hardly know what to say. What are the moral standards that continue to be applicable? Forgetting the commandment regarding the Sabbath for a moment, which of the remaining nine commandments would be changed or written differently as just a moral standard? What about the law against murder, as I just outlined? Can it be expressed any other way? Apparently, the author wants it both ways. He wants to say the law is gone, but the moral standard that gives us the law remains. The law and the moral standard are the same, so his distinction is without merit. And if at least nine of the Ten Commandments still apply, how does anyone rationally argue the moral law reflected in the Ten Commandments is done away with? And how can the moral law that God gave us specific to how He created us, how can that law be abolished? It can’t. (Please note that I have said nothing about rewards, blessings, and punishments and whether or not they change from time to time.)
Philippians 3:7-9
The author insists that Christ has ended the need for the law. Faith in Christ is the way to attain righteousness, not the law. Paul, according to the author Strickland, clearly reveals the temporary nature of the law and the fact that Christ has established righteousness apart from the Law.[17] Let me reference Mr. Ryrie’s interpretation of verse nine. Ryrie believes that Paul contrasts works of the law, as a basis for righteousness, with faith in Christ as the basis for righteousness.[18] There really isn’t anything new here. The contrast, as I have previously stated, is between faith and unbelief, not law and grace. God has always had one way for lawbreakers to be justified, and that is by grace through faith. It has never been any other way. Many Jews tried to conform to the conditions of the covenant without faith, as brother Ryrie puts it, a works-righteousness. A faith-righteousness would result in obedience to the covenant conditions while a works-righteousness did not. The Mosaic Law is not opposed to faith. It was based on faith. What these two authors seem to indicate is that obedience is not the issue while it is the central issue.
As Paul put it in Romans, “Through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles, for His name’s sake” Romans 1:5. For the author to contend that Christ has “established righteousness independent of the Mosaic Law” is very misleading, even though there is an element of truth in it.
Strickland wants the reader to know that the moral law of God, which existed before the Mosaic Law, is to be distinguished from that aspect of the Mosaic Law that is commonly termed the moral law or the Ten Commandments. This moral law is not written externally on tablets of stone but is written internally on the heart of rational creatures. The author believes that since we have the Holy Spirit, there is no need for a detailed or specific law, such as the Ten Commandments.[19] This comment from one who believes in the involuntary total depravity of man, body, mind, and spirit. He believes there is no need for any lengthy or detailed laws, such as the Ten Commandments, because we, as totally depraved, yet redeemed men and women of God, have rationality and the Holy Spirit to guide us. I am disappointed (is that too harsh?) that some authors rescue the idea of reason when it is convenient, but diminish it when it is inconvenient. It seems ridiculous to think that believers don’t need detailed laws that explain what the law of Christ means in everyday life. According to the author, the law of Christ supersedes the abrogated Law of Moses. The law of Christ is often referred to as the law of love. The Ten Commandments explain the royal law of love in the Old Testament. Do you want to fulfill the law of Christ? I trust you do, so do I. How do we do it? We joyfully obey the Ten Commandments, for that is the highest expression of love toward God and our neighbor. The author wants us to think that the Law of Moses and, in particular, the Ten Commandments and the Law of Christ are substantially different when, in fact, they are essentially the same.
I am genuinely disappointed to say that the author’s work is full of contradictions. But that is not the biggest problem I have with his article. This is what I find objectionable. The author believes that we, as enlightened New Testament believers, no longer must think that obedience is the defining attribute of faith and that the Law and the Gospel must coexist.[20] Obedience is not the defining element of faith! How could he write such a wicked thing? With all due respect, could the devil have a better construct? It’s tough for me to understand how any lover of Christ can make such a statement. What is the difference between saving faith and the faith of demons? Heartfelt obedience is the difference. How can I help but conclude that the author’s gospel is the gospel of demons, for they too don’t see “obedience as the defining element of faith?” Does the defense of an essential truth ever warrant such strong language? Obviously, I believe it does. I have no ill feelings toward the author. I think the very best about his motive, even though I strongly disagree with his ideas.
“You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe and shudder. But are you willing to recognize you, foolish fellow that faith without works is useless? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar? You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected; and the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness,” and he was called the friend of God. You see a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone” James 2:19-24.
On the Word of God, I must conclude the author has unknowingly encouraged his readers to adopt the faith of demons, not the faith of Christ.
Take note of what this passage in James teaches about Abraham. Dispensationalists and others often teach that Abraham was justified when he believed, and his works merely confirmed his already sealed and guaranteed justification. But that isn’t what was said. The Word declares, “Scripture was fulfilled,” referring to the future, when Abraham demonstrated the obedience of faith. Abraham was justified when he believed. His justification was “fulfilled” when his faith united with obedience and produced the obedience of faith or good works. Abraham would not have been justified any longer than his faithful obedience. Faith without obedience is dead.
DOUGLAS J. MOO
Mr. Moo’s philosophical approach is seriously flawed, so I will begin and end there. In his conclusion, he states, “While my Reformed colleague might argue that we are bound to whatever in the Mosaic Law has not been clearly overturned by New Testament teaching, I argue that we are bound only to that which is clearly repeated within New Testament teaching.”[21] This may not sound like a significant error, but it is. He begins his analysis by assuming the truth of his position —that the law has been abrogated. Who couldn’t do the same? I maintain we should start our study by considering the exact opposite. Why? It’s unreasonable to believe that God’s fuller revelation, with the advent of Jesus Christ, will largely set aside His prior revelation, for His character is unchanging. Moral law, which reflects His unchanging character, must be unchanging as well. Therefore, we should approach the New Testament with the assumption that it enlarges on the previous revelation. That clearly suggests we should assume continuing applicability of the law as we study the New Testament. Unless the New sets aside the Old, then the Old still applies.
Author Greg L. Bahnsen does a great job refuting Mr. Moo’s position. He reminds us that Jesus taught the very opposite.
“I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear away from the Law, until everything is accomplished. Therefore, anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 5:18-19).
Jesus did not say that only those precepts that are repeated are applicable. Jesus says everything in the law still applies, even down to the most minor stroke or letter of the Law. Even Moo admits that we should probably understand Jesus to teach the continuing applicability of the law. Moo appears to want it both ways.[22]
This leads me to the next problem I have with Moo’s philosophical approach to Biblical study. Moo thinks that Paul’s teaching is more authoritative than Jesus’ as it respects the law.[23] Here, he assumes a dispensational framework and writes that we can’t be sure if Jesus was talking strictly to Old Testament believers or New Testament believers who would experience a new salvation under the gospel by faith in Him as the Christ.[24] What does that mean? Paul is more authoritative because we can’t be sure Jesus was addressing us, them, or whoever. It seems apparent that Moo can dismiss Jesus’s statement in Matthew 5 (quoted above) because, after all, who knows to whom His statement applies. Yes, Jesus probably taught the continuing applicability of the law, but it isn’t clear to whom He was speaking. Therefore, we will need to look to Paul’s position and be guided by it. Everything Jesus said could be dismissed in just this fashion if we accept brother Moo’s dispensational grid of interpretation.
THE TRUTH = NEITHER THE MORAL LAW NOR THE TEN COMMANDMENTS HAVE BEEN DONE AWAY WITH OR ABOLISHED
How can the moral law be done away with? Doesn’t that presuppose the law is arbitrary and has no bearing or relation on us and how we are created? Did a lawgiver spin the tail on a donkey to arrive at our moral code, or was there a rational basis for the law? If he did, then it is, in fact, arbitrary and can be changed or eliminated at any time for any reason. But how can an arbitrary law be binding on us? Is God a tyrant who expects the impossible, then changes His expectations at will for any reason at all? Isn’t a good Lawgiver obligated to obey good laws? Can a righteous lawgiver make an illegal act a legal act by force of his will? Isn’t the moral law binding on us because it’s particularly suited to us who are made in the image and likeness of the Creator? In other words, there are good reasons for the moral law that pertain to our nature: mind, body, and spirit. As long as our natures don’t change, the moral law can’t change or be done away with.
The idea that the Creator is outside of moral law is preposterous. The moral law is a reflection of His perfect moral character. If God doesn’t change, then how could the law that reflects His nature and personality be done away with? It can’t. With all my heart, I believe that Pastor was wrong when he said the moral law has been done away with. What about the Mosaic Law? What about the 10 commandments are they abrogated?
The authors I have quoted, both Moo and Strickland, maintain that the Mosaic Law is no longer a binding authority for believers. The Pastor I referred to agrees with them. If by the Mosaic Law we mean the ceremonies, sacrifices, feast days, and Sabbath days of the old system, then I agree. They are no longer binding on us, for Christ died once for all. By His death, He set aside these types and figures. If by the Mosaic Law we mean the moral stipulations of the Ten Commandments, then I couldn’t disagree more strongly. The Ten Commandments summarize all the other regulations and ordinances. They explain what it means to love God supremely and to love our neighbor as ourselves. They can never be done away with in heaven or on earth.[25] The moral law expressed in the Ten Commandments, not including the Sabbath, will be binding on moral beings forever. Refer to Appendix 3.
I repeat, if the moral law, including the Ten Commandments, reflects the requirements that we love God supremely and our neighbor equally, how can it be done away with? Jesus said He didn’t come to abolish the law but to fulfill it. A law can be fulfilled only in the sense that it is obeyed for the time being. It can never mean that fulfillment one day eliminates the requirement to fulfill it the next day. Only purveyors of a carnal theology and a different gospel would relegate Jesus’ words to the Jews and not us. The ceremonial aspects of the Mosaic Law have obviously been done away with, as Christ fulfilled them once and for all. A perfect sacrifice was made; therefore, the repeated sacrifice of bulls and goats is no longer needed. These aspects of the Mosaic Law are not the same as the moral law of God contained within the Mosaic Law, which can never be fulfilled once and for all. The moral law stands as law and that forever, unless we cease to be as we are and God ceases to be who He is.
Some teach that the purpose of the law is not sanctification, but rather justification. Is that true? Obviously, for those who believe in an unconditional salvation, justification of sinners must be outside the scope of the law or anything other than the direct will of God. God chooses who will and will not be justified. God justifies them based on His own choice. They contribute nothing, not even a repentant faith. To answer this question, we must first identify what we are referring to. If by the term “law” we mean that the Jews were not saved by adherence to the provisions for atonement given in the Mosaic Law, then I most respectfully disagree. If, however, we mean the moral code of conduct, is meant by the term “law,” then I agree the law does not save, for that is not its function. The law condemns lawbreakers; it can’t justify them. But only sinners need be concerned with the law.
“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 the law. But the Scripture has shut up all men under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe” Galatians 3:21,22.
You see, lawbreakers can’t look to the law for justification, for the law condemns them. The law can’t impart life to lawbreakers. But neither does the law condemn law keepers. Please refer to my earlier comments. Both sanctification and justification are conditioned on faith. Christ is the source of both. We don’t start our walk with God by faith and continue it by works of the law without faith. We begin and end with the obedience of faith. We lawbreakers are justified and sanctified by grace through faith, not by works of the law without faith.
Walter C. Kaiser’s response to Moo contains this statement. “Ultimately, Moo is bound only by what is clearly repeated within the New Testament teaching. What advice will he give on marriage to close relatives (cf. Lev. 18), involvement with forms of witchcraft and various forms of the occult (cf. Lev. 19), the case for capital punishment (cf. Gen. 9), or the proscription against abortion (cf. Ex. 21)? Did Americans not learn in 1973 that a New Testament exclusivistic ethic landed us squarely in one of the largest legalized murdering ventures in recent times-now exceeding Hitler’s six million Jews sent up a chimney four times over with some twenty-four million babies in a bucket? What will it take to wake us up to the narrowness of our views?”[26]
In conclusion
Mr. Kaiser has said it very well and explained why this subject is so crucial. Both Moo and Strickland are unintentional champions of a carnal theology whose legitimate fruit is abortion and other such sins. I did not say they were supporters of these sins, but rather that their ideas lead to these sins. These sins are not only rampant in our society, but they are out of control in Christian churches.[27] How is that possible? When people believe the law of God is gone and replaced with some fuzzy idea like the letter/law of Christ, sin is the result as surely as day follows night. This book is an invitation to reflect on your beliefs. Does it really make sense? What is the natural consequence of the ideas you and I hold? What is the result of these ideas in our lives? Do they produce righteousness or sin? If they produce sin, then know for sure they are lies, true lies, no doubt, but they are lies. In many Christian churches, faith does not necessarily imply obedience to God’s laws. That is a travesty. People are often assured they are secure while they persist in their sin. Is it any wonder that sin abounds? We who profess to love Jesus Christ must wake up and smell the roses. Death is all around us. Strong words, but doesn’t the defense of the truth justify it? Doesn’t love require me to speak up so souls are not lost?
All ideas are not equal. Some ideas are very destructive. One of the things I love so much about the God of the Bible is His doctrine of intolerance. He rejects all lies and half-truths regardless of who is offended. Unfortunately, in our day, the cowardly tolerant are all too often lauded and admired.
Like Luther, who thought he was safeguarding the glory of God, these men believe the same thing about their work. They think they are safeguarding salvation by faith alone. Regrettably, the faith they teach is alone. It has no inherent virtue or saving power. All too often, I fear, their faith is a license to sin with eternal impunity. As long as this thinking prevails in the visible church, it’s inevitable that morals will continue to decline.
[1] Five Views of Law and Gospel, p.14. The Law is the Righteousness in Jesus Christ: A Reformed Perspective, Willem A. Van Gemeren. Not a direct quote, reference only.
[2] Ibid. p.229. The Inauguration of the Law of Christ with the Gospel of Christ: A Dispensational View, Wayne G. Strickland. Not a direct quote, reference only.
[3] I am not sure an adequate definition of dispensationalism exists. I use it to describe the attempt to assign various passages of scripture exclusively to specific and often arbitrary theological periods. For instance, in chapter six dealing with Charles Stanley’s ideas regarding eternal security, he says we must look to Paul, not Jesus, to define New Testament theology. Why? We can’t be sure if Jesus was addressing Old Testament believers or the new covenant era, which He was about to usher in. All of Christ’s words could be dismissed in just this fashion. The author Moo does the same thing.
[4] Five Views of the Law and Gospel, Ibid. p.232. Not a direct quote, reference only.
[5] Ibid. p.233. Not a direct quote, reference only.
[6] Ibid. p.237, 238. Not a direct quote, reference only.
[7] Five Views on the Law and Gospel. Ibid. p.256. Not a direct quote, reference only. Passages such as 1 Corinthians 6, Galatians 5, and Ephesians 6 restate the moral law reflected in the Ten Commandments and state that anyone practicing these sins will not inherit the Kingdom of God. Jesus, for instance, explained the deeper meaning of the commandment against adultery. The Book of Hebrews talks about the New Covenant rest of faith, a Sabbath rest. The idea that the 10 Commandments (save the one regarding Sabbath observance) are not to be kept by Christians and all people is nonsense. Refer to Appendix 3 on the subject of the Sabbath.
[8] Five Views on the Law and Gospel. Ibid. p.259. Not a direct quote, reference only.
[9] Ryrie Study Bible, p. 1711, footnote four regarding Romans Chapter 7. Not a direct quote, reference only.
[10] Five Views on the Law and Gospel. Ibid. p.260. Not a direct quote, reference only.
[11] See Appendix 3 on the Sabbath for a fuller treatment.
[12] Ibid. p. 266. Not a quote, reference only.
[13] Ibid. p. 269. Not a quote, reference only.
[14] Ibid. p. 270,271. Not a quote, reference only.
[15] Ibid. p. 271,272. Not a quote, reference only.
[16] Ibid. p. 272.
[17] Ibid. p. 275. Not a quote, reference only.
[18] Ryrie Study Bible, p.1796, footnote to Philippians 3:9. Not a quote, reference only.
[19] Five Views on the Law and Gospel. p. 276. Not a quote, reference only.
[20] Ibid. p. 279. Not a quote, reference only.
[21] Ibid. p. 376. The Law of Christ as the Fulfillment of the Law of Moses: A Modified Lutheran View, Douglas J. Moo.
[22] Ibid. p. 387. Not a quote, reference only.
[23] Ibid. p. 323. Not a quote, reference only.
[24] Ibid. p. 376. Not a quote, reference only.
[25] The common idea that we lose our moral agency when we get to heaven makes no sense to me. We don’t become robots in heaven, unable to choose between God and self. Do you really believe we lose free will in heaven? Doesn’t this mean we lose our capacity to love in heaven? Can love be involuntary? Won’t heaven be inhabited by those who have voluntarily and willingly committed their lives to God? They realize they could change their mind. But they don’t want to change their mind because He is everything to them. Is physical death our ultimate savior, or is it Jesus? If we have to wait until we die to be free from sin and to really love God supremely, then isn’t death our savior?
[26] Ibid. p. 400.
[27] Family News From Dr. James Dobson, September 1999, Focus on the Family. Dr. Blackaby’s reply to the question asked by a participant about the future of the United States. “If you put the U.S. up against the Scriptures, we’re in trouble. I think we’re close to the judgment of God. The problem of America is not the unbelieving world. The problem of America is the people of God. You see, right now, there are just as many divorces in the churches as outside the churches. There are just as many abortions inside the churches as outside the churches. There’s only a one percent difference in gambling inside the churches and outside the churches. George Barna surveyed 152 separate items comparing the lost world and the churches, and he said there is virtually no difference between the two.” Page 9 of the September newsletter.
