Carl Copsey
Puritan Board Freshman
In regards to the covenant theology position can someone show me in the Bible where the moral law is revealed as the moral law?
Sent from my SCH-I545PP using Tapatalk
Sent from my SCH-I545PP using Tapatalk
Covenant Theology and the Moral Law
- Thread starter Carl Copsey
- Start date
- Status
Ask Mr. Religion
Flatly Unflappable
For starters, see the proof texts from our confession:
WCF XIX.II
2. This law, after his fall, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness; and, as such, was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, in ten commandments, and written in two tables: (James 1:25, James 2:8, 10-12, Rom. 13:8-9, Deut. 5:32, Deut. 10:4, Exod. 34:1) the first four commandments containing our duty towards God; and the other six, our duty to man. (Matt. 22:37-40)
XIX.V
The moral law doth for ever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof; (Rom. 13:8, 9, Eph. 6:2, 1 John 2:3-4, 7-8) and that, not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator, who gave it. (James 2:10, 11) Neither doth Christ, in the Gospel, any way dissolve, but much strengthen this obligation. (Matt. 5:17-19, James 2:8, Rom. 3:31)
WCF XIX.II
2. This law, after his fall, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness; and, as such, was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, in ten commandments, and written in two tables: (James 1:25, James 2:8, 10-12, Rom. 13:8-9, Deut. 5:32, Deut. 10:4, Exod. 34:1) the first four commandments containing our duty towards God; and the other six, our duty to man. (Matt. 22:37-40)
XIX.V
The moral law doth for ever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof; (Rom. 13:8, 9, Eph. 6:2, 1 John 2:3-4, 7-8) and that, not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator, who gave it. (James 2:10, 11) Neither doth Christ, in the Gospel, any way dissolve, but much strengthen this obligation. (Matt. 5:17-19, James 2:8, Rom. 3:31)
Carl Copsey
Puritan Board Freshman
My friend has made these comments. He says the burden of proof is on CT.
"All I’ve seen Covenant guys do is pick and choose parts of the OT Law to call moral. That’s extra-biblical. So the burden of proof is on the people going beyond what is explicitly written."
And the he says:
"I don’t think my claim is that extreme. I would challenge any Covenant guy to show me where in the Bible the moral law is revealed as the moral law."
Sent from my SCH-I545PP using Tapatalk
Parakaleo
Puritan Board Sophomore
I haven't found a better short work on the Scriptural three-fold division of the law of God than this paper.
Carl Copsey
Puritan Board Freshman
2 things jump out at me that make it so I can’t accept this statement
1. Assumes a pre-Sinaitic law. That’s nowhere mentioned in Genesis or elsewhere.
2. Sabbath command is clearly abrogated, so the whole construct falls apart
Sent from my SCH-I545PP using Tapatalk
Carl Copsey
Puritan Board Freshman
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
I hate to use the theonomy nuke button, but what about bestiality?
Ask Mr. Religion
Flatly Unflappable
Whew! For a minute there your time aboard was going to be cut short.
Your friend sounds like some New Covenant Theology (NCT) adherent, a view that is forbidden at our site.
See also:
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/how-dangerous-is-new-covenant-theology.94173/
arapahoepark
Puritan Board Professor
What did Adam and Eve disobey? Not a law? Why was Cain held responsible for murder? What made people bad? Sure, it wasn't a Nationally covenanted law in the sense of Moses but, even Paul says that, at the time, Gentiles by nature do what the law requires at at least some of the time.
As for the Sabbath, read Francis Nigel Lee on the Covenantal Sabbath. It is a good one. However, I fail to see how the Sabbath is not binding. The Gospels and Acts record Jesus declares all food clean. It is quite a stretch to say Jesus' view of the Sabbath makes it not binding because the Pharisees made it a burden. Hebrews indicates it puts to something beyond itself certainly, but how does that abrogate it any more than marriage is abrogated?
Carl Copsey
Puritan Board Freshman
That's good. I profess to covenant theology....westminster confession.Whew! For a minute there your time aboard was going to be cut short.
Your friend sounds like some New Covenant Theology (NCT) adherent, a view that is forbidden at our site.
See also:
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/how-dangerous-is-new-covenant-theology.94173/
My friend is going through differences it seems. From progressive dispensationalism now to NCT.
I'm tying to understand this.
Sent from my SCH-I545PP using Tapatalk
JTB.SDG
Puritan Board Junior
The Moral Law is expressed in the 10 Commandments. The law written in man's heart (Romans 2:14) is the natural law. The content of the natural law is the same as the Moral Law (10 Commandments), but the 10 Commandments made everything more clear when they were delivered. It was kind of like repainting something that had grown old and discolored. Originally, God wrote His Law in man's heart at creation (natural law), but with the fall this natural law, though not completely wiped out, suffered decay and corruption to a degree, in a similar way as did the image of God in man after the fall.
I'm not sure what he means by "where in the Bible the moral law is revealed as the moral law." There is no phrase "moral Law" in the bible if that's what he means (as there is no word for trinity). Does he mean where, if at all, in the Bible the Scripture itself sets apart the Moral Law from the ceremonial and judicial law? IE, are those categories actually biblical? Or is his question something else?
If that's his deal, you could start with where Jesus declared all foods clean. So here he declares some laws to no longer be binding in the new covenant. Which ones are no longer binding? Just Leviticus 11 food laws? If so, why? If other laws as well, which ones and how do we figure them out? Or you could go to Galatians 4, where Paul talks about OT ceremonial laws as bondage and urges in the strongest language possible for his hearers to not go back to the *pictures* when they now have the *reality*; same thing in Hebrews. Here, the NT itself is giving us categories; there are some OT laws that are no longer binding.
I'm not sure what he means by "where in the Bible the moral law is revealed as the moral law." There is no phrase "moral Law" in the bible if that's what he means (as there is no word for trinity). Does he mean where, if at all, in the Bible the Scripture itself sets apart the Moral Law from the ceremonial and judicial law? IE, are those categories actually biblical? Or is his question something else?
If that's his deal, you could start with where Jesus declared all foods clean. So here he declares some laws to no longer be binding in the new covenant. Which ones are no longer binding? Just Leviticus 11 food laws? If so, why? If other laws as well, which ones and how do we figure them out? Or you could go to Galatians 4, where Paul talks about OT ceremonial laws as bondage and urges in the strongest language possible for his hearers to not go back to the *pictures* when they now have the *reality*; same thing in Hebrews. Here, the NT itself is giving us categories; there are some OT laws that are no longer binding.
Last edited:
Carl Copsey
Puritan Board Freshman
That's very good. Thank you I appreciate that. At one point when we were having our discussion he brought up James chapter 2. Where James says that if one breaks part of the law he breaks all of the law.
My friend also states that he has Hebrews 8 through 10 to back him up.
I even sent my friend an excerpt from John frames book the doctrine of the Christian Life ( that excerpt can be found on the frame-poythress website) in which that excerpt contains the introduction to the decalogue and also the chapter on the fourth Commandment, Sabbath in the New Covenant. He actually said that he laughed at some of the portions in Jon frames chapter.
Do you have any thoughts on any of this?
Sent from my SCH-I545PP using Tapatalk
iainduguid
Puritan Board Junior
We can't always fix our friends' errant theology. Sometimes all we can do is pray. At the same time, Jon has pointed us in the right direction. Ask him
1) whether there are some laws that God gave in the Old Testament that are for everybody in all times and places, such as laws against murder or bestiality?
2) whether God gave some laws to Israel at Mount Sinai whose specific form was unique to their situation, but which nonetheless had enduring significance in their principles (general equity)? For example parapets around the roofs of their houses or not harvesting to the edge of their fields.
3) whether some laws God gave to Israel have been fulfilled in Christ and it would be wrong for us to continue them, such as animal sacrifice?
If he says yes, then he is acknowledging the categories of moral, civil and ceremonial law, whatever he chooses to call them. At that point, we are then into discussing which categories particular laws fall into, such as the Sabbath. If not, it will help you to focus in on what specifically his issue is. Often, in my experience, people get hung up over the terminology, while being willing to agree that there are these distinct categories.
I also find that the general equity principle is important. Without it, we have OT laws that endure and laws that are abolished, with no obvious reason for distinguishing them. With it, we can acknowledge that all of the OT laws still have relevance for our behavior today, even when they don't bind us directly to the same behavior. The principle behind roof parapets is loving my neighbor, even if he is careless and clumsy. The same rationale lies behind GFI outlets in the bathroom, so that my clumsy neighbor (or family member) can't kill themselves when they drop their hairdryer into a full sink of water. All of God's holy law reveals something about his character that is of abiding relevance to his people but in differing ways.
1) whether there are some laws that God gave in the Old Testament that are for everybody in all times and places, such as laws against murder or bestiality?
2) whether God gave some laws to Israel at Mount Sinai whose specific form was unique to their situation, but which nonetheless had enduring significance in their principles (general equity)? For example parapets around the roofs of their houses or not harvesting to the edge of their fields.
3) whether some laws God gave to Israel have been fulfilled in Christ and it would be wrong for us to continue them, such as animal sacrifice?
If he says yes, then he is acknowledging the categories of moral, civil and ceremonial law, whatever he chooses to call them. At that point, we are then into discussing which categories particular laws fall into, such as the Sabbath. If not, it will help you to focus in on what specifically his issue is. Often, in my experience, people get hung up over the terminology, while being willing to agree that there are these distinct categories.
I also find that the general equity principle is important. Without it, we have OT laws that endure and laws that are abolished, with no obvious reason for distinguishing them. With it, we can acknowledge that all of the OT laws still have relevance for our behavior today, even when they don't bind us directly to the same behavior. The principle behind roof parapets is loving my neighbor, even if he is careless and clumsy. The same rationale lies behind GFI outlets in the bathroom, so that my clumsy neighbor (or family member) can't kill themselves when they drop their hairdryer into a full sink of water. All of God's holy law reveals something about his character that is of abiding relevance to his people but in differing ways.
Carl Copsey
Puritan Board Freshman
Thank you! As always, very insighful. By the way, I'm currently reading through your work on Ezekiel and Daniel. You have clarified the scriptures in such a way that is profound. I really really enjoy your clear expositions.
Sent from my SCH-I545PP using Tapatalk
Poimen
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Summarizing Turretin, Witsius etc., the moral law (or 10 commandments) is distinctly found in scripture as follows:
1) They are written by the finger of God (Exodus 31:18 & Deuteronomy 9:10) to establish their permanence (as opposed to the law of the heart which was effaced by the fall).
2) The stone tablets upon which they are written are placed in the ark (Exodus 25:21, Deuteronomy 10:2,5), the place of God's presence.
3) They are rewritten after the rebellion indicating their continued importance place as a moral guide (Exodus 34:1ff).
4) They are republished or reiterated by Moses for another generation (Deuteronomy 5:6) and applied anew (vs. 15) in light of God's redemptive acts.
5) Like circumcision etc., they are identified as the covenant of God (Exodus 34:28) because these are central to our relationship with him.
6) They are numbered so that these are distinguished from all others (Exodus 34:28). Jesus summarized them as two for "on these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."
7) These are promised to be written in our hearts (Jeremiah 31:33; Hebrews 8:10).
8) The moral law is upheld while, in the same breath, the ceremonial is abolished (Psalm 40:6-8; Hebrews 10:4-10).
9) They are cited and upheld by Jesus in critical times of his ministry and teaching.
As to the relationship between the 10 commandments and Adam's knowledge of righteousness in the garden consider:
1) That marriage is a creation ordinance (Matthew 19:4-5).
2) As is the Sabbath (Mark 2:27-28).
3) Adam knew God and served him uprightly (Genesis 1&2 - 1st, 2nd and 3rd commandments).
4) There was no death and Adam was expected to uphold life (Genesis 2:16ff. - 6th commandment).
5) Adam knew his wife and was not ashamed (Genesis 2:25 - 7th commandment).
6) He was expected to keep himself from that which was not his (Genesis 2:17 - 8th commandment).
7) Adam was expected to believe God's word (Genesis 2:16ff. - the ninth commandment).
8) The whole law was violated by the breaking of the tenth commandment (Genesis 3:6 cf. Romans 7:7).
1) They are written by the finger of God (Exodus 31:18 & Deuteronomy 9:10) to establish their permanence (as opposed to the law of the heart which was effaced by the fall).
2) The stone tablets upon which they are written are placed in the ark (Exodus 25:21, Deuteronomy 10:2,5), the place of God's presence.
3) They are rewritten after the rebellion indicating their continued importance place as a moral guide (Exodus 34:1ff).
4) They are republished or reiterated by Moses for another generation (Deuteronomy 5:6) and applied anew (vs. 15) in light of God's redemptive acts.
5) Like circumcision etc., they are identified as the covenant of God (Exodus 34:28) because these are central to our relationship with him.
6) They are numbered so that these are distinguished from all others (Exodus 34:28). Jesus summarized them as two for "on these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."
7) These are promised to be written in our hearts (Jeremiah 31:33; Hebrews 8:10).
8) The moral law is upheld while, in the same breath, the ceremonial is abolished (Psalm 40:6-8; Hebrews 10:4-10).
9) They are cited and upheld by Jesus in critical times of his ministry and teaching.
- First commandment: "For it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only thou shalt thou serve." Luke 4:8
- Second commandment: "Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." Mark 7:7
- Third commandment: "he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation" Mark 3:29
- Fourth commandment: "The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath." Mark 2:27
- Fifth commandment: "For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother" Matthew 15:4
- Sixth commandment: "For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders…" Matthew 15:19
- Seventh commandment: "Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery" Luke 16:18
- Eighth commandment: “Thou knowest the commandments... Do not steal" Luke 18:20
- Ninth commandment: “Ye are of your father the devil… he is a liar, and the father of it.:" John 8:44
- Tenth commandment: "Take heed, and beware of covetousness: for a man's life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he possesseth." Luke 12:15
As to the relationship between the 10 commandments and Adam's knowledge of righteousness in the garden consider:
1) That marriage is a creation ordinance (Matthew 19:4-5).
2) As is the Sabbath (Mark 2:27-28).
3) Adam knew God and served him uprightly (Genesis 1&2 - 1st, 2nd and 3rd commandments).
4) There was no death and Adam was expected to uphold life (Genesis 2:16ff. - 6th commandment).
5) Adam knew his wife and was not ashamed (Genesis 2:25 - 7th commandment).
6) He was expected to keep himself from that which was not his (Genesis 2:17 - 8th commandment).
7) Adam was expected to believe God's word (Genesis 2:16ff. - the ninth commandment).
8) The whole law was violated by the breaking of the tenth commandment (Genesis 3:6 cf. Romans 7:7).
Last edited:
bookslover
Puritan Board Doctor
The three-fold division of the law is a concept that goes back at least as far as Thomas Aquinas in Western theology:
We must, therefore, distinguish three kinds of precept in the Old Law; viz., moral precepts, which are dictated by the natural law; ceremonial precepts, which are determinations of the Divine worship; and judicial precepts, which are determinations of the justice to be maintained among men. (Summa Theologica, Volume 2, p. 1034)
We must, therefore, distinguish three kinds of precept in the Old Law; viz., moral precepts, which are dictated by the natural law; ceremonial precepts, which are determinations of the Divine worship; and judicial precepts, which are determinations of the justice to be maintained among men. (Summa Theologica, Volume 2, p. 1034)
JTB.SDG
Puritan Board Junior
One other thing that may help. Within the law itself there is a setting apart the 10 Commandments in particular from the rest of the law. Check out Exodus 34:27-28; Deuteronomy 4:12-13; 9:9-11. Here it's clear that the *covenant* God was making at Sinai was connected in an intimate way--not just with the law in general, but the "ten words" in particular.
One way that the ceremonial and judicial laws have been described in days past (IE, by the puritans), which I find extremely helpful, and which connects them back with the moral law, is in this way: as the first 4 commandments have to do with love for God, and the ceremonial laws have to do with Israel's worship, the ceremonial laws are really an *appendix* to the first table of the law (the first 4 commands), as they further flesh out what love for God really looks like in their time and place.
The last 6 commandments have to do with love for neighbor, and seeing the judicial laws have to do with Israel's civil state, they are like an appendix to the last 6 commandments; they flesh out what it really looks like in their time and place to love their neighbor. So, both ceremonial and judicial laws are *rooted* in the 10 Commandments.
But while the moral law of the 10 Commandments is perpetually binding (see the NT letters where you can find reference to each of the 10 Commandments binding believers to keep them), the judicial and ceremonial laws were for a particular people (the jews) who lived in a particular time (before the coming of Christ) and therefore served a temporary purpose and are no longer binding.
Now, they DO contain permanent principles (as Iain pointed out); but the particular application has changed. Which is why Paul in 2 Corinthians 5 cites a phrase used in the OT for the death penalty but changes the application to excommunication; and why he cites an OT verse about muzzling an ox but changes the application to financially supporting gospel ministers. They still express permanent principles; but Paul doesn't apply them literally--he recognises they have a new application in the new covenant. Ask your friend if he's allowed in the new covenant to wear shirts made of both cotton and polyester; if so why?
One way that the ceremonial and judicial laws have been described in days past (IE, by the puritans), which I find extremely helpful, and which connects them back with the moral law, is in this way: as the first 4 commandments have to do with love for God, and the ceremonial laws have to do with Israel's worship, the ceremonial laws are really an *appendix* to the first table of the law (the first 4 commands), as they further flesh out what love for God really looks like in their time and place.
The last 6 commandments have to do with love for neighbor, and seeing the judicial laws have to do with Israel's civil state, they are like an appendix to the last 6 commandments; they flesh out what it really looks like in their time and place to love their neighbor. So, both ceremonial and judicial laws are *rooted* in the 10 Commandments.
But while the moral law of the 10 Commandments is perpetually binding (see the NT letters where you can find reference to each of the 10 Commandments binding believers to keep them), the judicial and ceremonial laws were for a particular people (the jews) who lived in a particular time (before the coming of Christ) and therefore served a temporary purpose and are no longer binding.
Now, they DO contain permanent principles (as Iain pointed out); but the particular application has changed. Which is why Paul in 2 Corinthians 5 cites a phrase used in the OT for the death penalty but changes the application to excommunication; and why he cites an OT verse about muzzling an ox but changes the application to financially supporting gospel ministers. They still express permanent principles; but Paul doesn't apply them literally--he recognises they have a new application in the new covenant. Ask your friend if he's allowed in the new covenant to wear shirts made of both cotton and polyester; if so why?
Carl Copsey
Puritan Board Freshman
Physeter
Puritan Board Freshman
Informative. I have always believed that the Ten Commandments are timeless. They are moral law that are the foundation of any Christian lifestyle. They are as applicable now as they were then. If God did not want us to study and learn from the Old Testament Law he would not have preserved that text for us to study and learn from.
The Ten Commandments are Laws that are perpetually binding on the believer. It would be foolhardy to toss them aside. Israel had judicial and ceremonial laws. Even through the study of these we can still learn even though they are not binding on us as Christians. The principles behind them remain, though, as they have as their bases the Ten Commandments. Israelites didn't harvest their fields all the way to the corners or pick up all the pieces that fell, leaving them for the poor. The Churches today practice the same principle by caring for the needy among their membership.
The Ten Commandments are Laws that are perpetually binding on the believer. It would be foolhardy to toss them aside. Israel had judicial and ceremonial laws. Even through the study of these we can still learn even though they are not binding on us as Christians. The principles behind them remain, though, as they have as their bases the Ten Commandments. Israelites didn't harvest their fields all the way to the corners or pick up all the pieces that fell, leaving them for the poor. The Churches today practice the same principle by caring for the needy among their membership.
One very helpful book (perhaps one of the best Reformed treatments of this issue) is "From the Finger of God: The Biblical and Theological Basis for the Threefold Division of the Law"
Post Tenebras
Puritan Board Freshman
My presumption of the tripartite division of the law was shattered a few months ago when I heard an exposition regarding how the moral/civil/ceremonial separation has been overlayed on the the Bible, not drawn from it. The thesis stated that the New Covenant distinction (found primarily in Hebrews) is binary: between shadow laws which have been abrogated upon fulfillment in Christ and light laws which remain binding.
The more I pray, read and study the Bible, the more I am becoming convinced that this binary division is Biblically correct. Throughout the New Testament, I find two buckets, not three, as the apostles presume the continuation of the civil-judicial law. The overwhelming majority of civil-judicial law is subsumed under the moral law.
I now understand the "sundry judicial laws" (note the plural) of WCF 19.4 are a very narrow subset of laws unique to the Old Covenant nation of Israel, not a broad category of civil law (singular).
The more I pray, read and study the Bible, the more I am becoming convinced that this binary division is Biblically correct. Throughout the New Testament, I find two buckets, not three, as the apostles presume the continuation of the civil-judicial law. The overwhelming majority of civil-judicial law is subsumed under the moral law.
I now understand the "sundry judicial laws" (note the plural) of WCF 19.4 are a very narrow subset of laws unique to the Old Covenant nation of Israel, not a broad category of civil law (singular).
Shanny01
Puritan Board Freshman
Holding the tripartite division of the law in a sense does also hold to a binary view of the law of which you speak. There is moral/natural law and there is positive law. Moral/Natural Law or "Light Law" as you say is law that naturally ensues in light of the Creator/Creature relationship since man is created in the Image of God with the law written on the heart. Positive law is any law that of itself divorced from God does not have any intrinsic moral value. It gains its moral character from the fact that God commanded it. The categories of judicial and ceremonial law are part of the positive law and are necessary categories due to the fact that the purity, tabernacle, and sacrificial/feast laws were expected of the Israelites while in the wilderness whereas there were some laws related to the governing of Israel and the judicial processes of Israel that were only to be adminstered in the Land of Promise. The only thing that is abiding with regards to ceremonial and judicial laws is the general equity undergirding both, which is the moral law. The tripartite division is necessary because the Bible itself makes divisions within the Law of Moses between the 10 Commandments, Cultic Laws to be observed by Israel relating to their Worship of God that are observed before they settle in the Promised Land and while they are there, and finally judicial laws that relate to their government solely while in the land.
Timotheos
Puritan Board Freshman
Can you cite the Witsius source for me? I'd like to look into that a bit more. I'm hoping it is from his books on covenant theology that I already own.
From Economy, on the Sinai Covenant and the 10C specifically
https://www.monergism.com/decalogue-covenant-works-or-covenant-grace
https://www.monergism.com/decalogue-covenant-works-or-covenant-grace
JTB.SDG
Puritan Board Junior
One more thing on how Scripture itself gives us the 3-fold category of Moral, Ceremonial, and Judicial. Reformed theologians and writers have historically seen a distinction even in the different words used in Scripture for the different kinds of Law. Usually, Ceremonial Laws are called "statutes"; and the Judicial laws are called "judgements". And we get it straight from Scripture. In Deuteronomy 4:12-14, Moses distinguishes very clearly the 10 Commandments, which God *wrote* on the tablets of stone, from the other "statutes" and "judgments" that the Lord commanded Moses to teach the sons of Israel. So here it's pretty clear that these categories are actually coming straight from Scripture. Yes, Scripture itself is, as your friend says, *setting apart the Moral Law as the Moral Law.*
Wow, that is good. Thanks!
Puritan Sailor
Puritan Board Doctor
In addition to the other arguments given above, consider that as Christians we are "renewed" and "created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness" (Eph 4:24). What is that definition or standard of true righteousness and holiness if not the "moral law"? Obviously Paul had a standard of righteousness in mind which he assumed was part of our "likeness" to God, language taken from Genesis 1 and the original creation of man.
And really, if your friend believes there is still some universal moral standard for Christians, then he cannot reject the Reformed concept of "moral law" without at the same time just creating his own version of "moral law". He may call it a different name, but it's still the same concept. Then he has to answer his own challenge; where does he get that universal standard from Scripture, and how does he distinguish between what continues and what remains? What alternative system does he have, and how does he justify it, and is it really any better than the historic Reformed position anyway?
And really, if your friend believes there is still some universal moral standard for Christians, then he cannot reject the Reformed concept of "moral law" without at the same time just creating his own version of "moral law". He may call it a different name, but it's still the same concept. Then he has to answer his own challenge; where does he get that universal standard from Scripture, and how does he distinguish between what continues and what remains? What alternative system does he have, and how does he justify it, and is it really any better than the historic Reformed position anyway?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
