You wrote: “J. Mac/TMS/GCC/GTY has, obviously, recognized the Truth as to the rule of life for the believer.”

I’m not totally sure what you mean by this. In any case, let me clarify that our doctrinal statement here at the church allows for a diversity of viewpoints on the relationship of the NT believer to the OT Mosaic Law.

My articles here are not the “official” view of Grace Church. Please don’t infer or assume anything beyond the fact that this is my own personal understanding of the issue. It is an understanding I came too years ago using standard dispensational sources.

Also, John MacArthur’s position on this issue is perhaps most fully articulated in his Matthew commentary.

Thanks,
NB

Nate, “thou doth protesteth too much” seems apt. Again, the linked article by Phil Johnson [yes, I realize that he doesn't "speak" for TMS/GCC/J. Mac (at least as "final word") either] reveals that the CT [Aquinas' (!)]trichotomy (“Moral/Civil/Ceremonial”) was his understanding as to law. Neither the MacArthur Study Bible (regardless of release date) nor other publication related to Dr. MacArthur teaches otherwise. J. Mac/TMS/GCC/GTY has, obviously, recognized the Truth as to the rule of life for the believer.

Sadly, y’all insist that NCT “tends to be a mediating view between [DT] and [CT]” rather than recognizing its inherent Truth. NCT is the result of inductive study of Scripture IN CONTEXT! The “pieces” of Scripture determine the theology, rather than vice-versa (that is, understanding of the “pieces” is not determined by system-driven presuppositions, as is true of DT and CT).

TMSJ’s critique of NCT rightly recognizes In Depth Studies (IDS) and Steve Lehrer for their contributions to pursuit of Truth. Steve has just moved to Green Bay, WI from Mesa, AZ; his extraordinarily irenic “interaction” with TMS’ Chapel Lectures (the forerunners of the TMSJ articles) and some of the faculty members involved no longer may be accessed via http://www.ids.org — they’re now “at” http://www.gigmin.org. IDS’ Mike Adams, via http://www.idsblog.com and Pastor Dustin Seegers, via http://www.graceinthetriad.blogspot.com, have undertaken to reckon TMSJ’s critique of NCT with what NCT actually teaches.

Pat (not Rauh) ~

Amen to your concluding admonition; the ONLY reason our Lord saves us and leaves us here is to be His conduits in His Plan of Redemption [and, since He's chosen to leave us here for such purpose, ministry to one-another (including "service") is necessitated]! Yes, the Law of Christ is indeed the essence of “The Law” (Old Covenant Law) — the Greatest Commandment(s). What that “looks like” is each and every imperative ascribed to Jesus and/or writers of the New Covenant Scriptures.

It’s not me — or anyone else who’s hermeneutic is Gospel-centered — who has “spiritualized”; again, to literalize what our Lord has spiritualized is audaciously erroneous.

The “and then” from Romans 11:26 (ACHRIS HOU) is far better translated as “in this manner” (ESV and HCSB: “And in this way”). The words are bereft of temporal connotation (indeed, the CONTEXT of Romans 11 as a whole is present with absolutely no future application). Eisegesis is required to find any millennial connection whatsoever in Romans 11.

Not having much to go by, I nonetheless presume that you’re “on the path of Truth”; the fact that you write YHWH is quite revealing [“Yaweh/Jehovah” were resultant from a Reformation-era German inserting the vowels of ADONAI into YHWH (Yahowah); problem: Hebrew “reads” right-to-left (I hope that our Lord merely chuckles at our ascription of non-existent names to Him!).

If I understand the point you are trying to make, you could do so a whole lot easier by putting all this into the biblical motif of covenants.

God’s moral code is based upon his own righteousness and moral perfections. Because His moral law is tied to His unchanging person, His moral will for His people is always the same. This moral code is part of His covenants that He makes with His people – the covenant of creation, Sinai covenant, and the new covenant. But the fact that these are different kinds of covenants (Suzerain vassal covenants vs. Royal grant covenants) the specific role the law plays is very different in each.

God’s moral will is always the same – but the 10 commandments in the Mosaic covenant were the stipulations that Israel must fulfill to retain the temporal-national blessings. In the New covenant these same 10 laws our God’s will for our behavior but have been fulfilled for the sake of righteousness by Christ -Romans 10:4.

The net effect is that we are not under the Mosaic law in that it was part of a covenant that the Christian is not under. That said, we are under the Mosaic law to the degree that it is a faithful summary of God’s moral will of His people in all places in all times and is part of the different covenants that He makes with His people i.e. covenant of creation, Sinai covenant, New covenant.

Thanks for all the comments and questions.

The view of the Mosaic Law that I am presenting here is in line with a standard dispensational understanding (you’ll notice how many Dallas dispensationalists I cited in the previous articles). It is a view that is taught at The Master’s Seminary (though it is not the only view represented on the seminary faculty). That the dispensational view overlaps with the new covenant view in some points is not surprising (since NCT tends to be a mediating view between dispensationalism and covenantalism).

However, my reasons for rejecting NCT are broader (other) than the Mosaic Law. The faculty lecture series that The Master’s Seminary did last year (and to which William has provided audio links) provides a good summary in that regard. As I do not have time at the moment to do a full series on NCT, those audio files will have to suffice.

Again, thanks for the interaction. We’ve still got one more week to go on this topic.

- NB

Here is something that stood out to me in the NT.

Romans 11

17 And if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them, and with them became a partaker of the root and fatness of the olive tree, 18 do not boast against the branches. But if you do boast, remember that you do not support the root, but the root supports you.
19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off that I might be grafted in.”

24 For if you were cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, who are natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?

God has never been “suprised”