I have a somewhat difficult task presented to me this morning. It is difficult because it involves critique. Now, there are things that need to be said at the beginning as preface to my remarks this morning. The first is that I want it stated clearly and understood at the beginning that I view the the critique that I present to you as a critique of brothers in Christ. In every way, so far as I can tell, the men who I will name or perhaps don't name, but whose writings are mentioned along the way, so far as I can tell of them in my own interaction with them, are godly men who love the Lord Jesus Christ, who demonstrate their godliness, who pastor churches that are full of people who love the Lord Jesus Christ. And I want it to be understood that I view them in this way, that they are good brothers. Now, I can't say that any of them are my best friends. I do know a couple of them. I have preached in a couple of their churches in the past. I have an invitation to go to a church that holds the New Covenant theology next year. I've gladly accepted that invitation. I look forward to the time that I spend with my friend who pastors that church. He has a delightful family and we hope to be able to go on a little side excursion together. And we're both baseball fans and we hope to go to a baseball game together. And I really look forward to that. So I want you to hear whatever I say in the light of this remark so that this critique is a critique of some things that are presented to us by brothers in Christ. So it's an intramural debate. It's an intramural discussion that we are having. And we need to think of it in those terms. Now, we do believe, at least I believe, that some of the things that are promoted by some of these men are seriously in error. I don't want to diminish that either. But I do want my remarks to be said in the context of at least the desire for brotherly love And a real appreciation for the godliness of the men that we're talking about. So I hope that you understand that and I hope you'll keep that in mind as we work our way through. There are a couple of other reasons why this subject is a difficult one to address. One of them is simply that there are several of you who are here who were present at the Arklatext Founders Conference in February of 2004 in Shreveport. where I presented this material. And when Steve and Larry asked me if I would come and do that, do it here, I said, well, I just did it over in Louisiana. And they said, well, we don't think there'll be too many people who were at Louisiana. You can come and do it here. And then I've run into all these folks here. So you'll hear much of this for the second time. But there are three other reasons why the subject is difficult to address. The first of them is that the New Covenant theology movement is still emerging and it has not yet been defined to the mutual satisfaction of all of those who use the title. Now, this book by Fred Zaspel and Tom Wells. And I just learned today that the Tom Wells who authored this book is not the same Tom Wells who wrote the hymn tunes in the Hymns of Heritage. In fact, that that brother. Are you here, Brother Tom Wells? He's the fellow who led the choir last night here. So that's not the same Tom Wells as the author of this book. And I actually wondered that myself when I saw the hymn tunes, especially because as someone said to me this morning, there are some really good covenantal hymns with the hymn tune written by Tom Wells. And that's very interesting combination, isn't it? But not the same fellow. But in this book, Tom Wells and Fred Zaspel acknowledge the fact that the movement is still emerging. And all that you really have to do is visit the various websites that present New Covenant theology. And you can note the differences in formulation and statement and exegesis. In fact, one of the things that I notice about New Covenant theology is that to a large extent, it is an Internet phenomenon. It's it's vast means of promulgation is done by way of websites and the Internet. And if you want to read about it, you can find lots and lots of material on the Internet. Now, for this reason, the fact that it's still emerging and hasn't been defined to the mutual satisfaction of all of those who use the title, for this reason it's difficult to address in one session. I may make comments about one position or one formulation that might not apply to others and vice versa. And so it might be more helpful at this point in time. Now, maybe 10 or 15 years from now, this wouldn't be the case, but it might be more helpful today to speak of New Covenant theologies as over against New Covenant theology. Now, certainly the different views share commonalities, and sometimes I think that their commonalities are more what they are opposed to than what they propose, what they are in favor of. All of those who present to us new covenant theology seem to reject all versions of covenant theology, even those that are proposed by Baptists. All of them seem to reject the notion of moral law as defined in the historic Reformation creeds, and all of them reject the notion of the first day of the week having any kind of sabbatic character. Now, I don't want to misrepresent the views of anyone, but based on my reading, this is what I perceive. This is what I take away from the movement. The second reason that this is a difficult subject to address is this. There is no fixed and defined system and the writings of the men who are proposing New Covenant theology are undergoing refinement and alteration. Now, this in itself is not a criticism. It's simply a fact. And I will say a little bit more about this a little bit later on in the time allotted to me. But for now, I simply notice that the writings on the websites especially are in the process of working out implications and difficulties that appear over time. And I will bring this out a little bit later on. Now, this creates trouble for the observer, because it may be possible to disagree with an older view that has now been modified or refined. And I may be speaking about things that have changed. But you know and I know that one cannot read everything. There are time limits. And even the adherents of New Covenant theology seem to be in the process of discussing among themselves the developments as they work out the implications of their theology. And so I think that it's fair to say that New Covenant theology is a movement in the process of defining itself. And maybe we could illustrate it like this. We can say that systems of theology are not like flowers, but they are like trees. A flower takes a short amount of time to grow and to bloom. But a tree takes decades to come to the full height of maturity and systems of theology take a long time to work themselves out in their fullness. So we are evaluating and responding to a movement that is still in process. And thirdly, New Covenant theology is difficult to address because there is only one full length treatment of the subject in published form. Now, Pardon me. Granted, some men have published many books on particular topics, but only Tom Wells and Fred Zaspel have attempted in one place what they themselves called description, definition and defense. So far as I know, unless something has come out very recently, this is the only full length treatment that is devoted to explaining New Covenant theology. Now, I do not know whether all of the adherents, those who say that they subscribe to New Covenant theology, support this book in its exegesis and its argument. Some of them may, but some of them might not. And I just don't know how they all view this book, having only had a couple of years to evaluate it in itself. In any case, this lack of full length treatments means that to a large extent, This book is the only formal source with which to interact. And so my critique of it may not address other issues that are equally important, but may be found elsewhere on other websites or in books of which I am not aware. Now, acknowledging these difficulties, let us press on and fulfill the task that has been assigned. And what I hope to do in the time that is allotted is be concerned with three areas of critique, mostly with Wells and Zaspel's book entitled New Covenant Theology. And the three areas of critique are exegesis, theology and church history. I want to look at their book through three lenses, exegesis, theology and church history. So let's come in the first place to a critique based on exegesis. Now, I suppose that what I really mean is exegetical method, though exegesis itself is an accurate descriptive term. The most frequently cited passage we all use to express our view about the text of Scripture is the one that has been read to us just a few moments ago. And no one who would call himself an evangelical would disagree. Now, we must notice that in that text, it speaks of all of Scripture as profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction and for instruction in righteousness. And Paul clearly intends for us to understand the Old Testament and the writings of the New Testament in the purview of his statement that all Scripture is God-breathed. That all Scripture has its origination in God. In fact, early on in those verses that were read to us, you may notice that Paul tells Timothy that he has known from childhood the Scriptures that were able to make him wise unto salvation. The word that he uses for Scripture there is a different word from the one that he uses in verse 16 when he says, all Scripture is God breathed. The first term, grama, I think it's grama taz, the actual form, refers technically to the Old Testament. It was a word that was used by Josephus, for example, and Josephus actually listed out the books that we recognize as the Old Testament books in the canon of the Old Testament. When Paul comes to speak of all Scripture in verse 16, he uses the word grafe, And I think that he uses that purposely to incorporate more than the Old Testament, but to incorporate the writings that were being given by inspiration of the Holy Spirit at that time, the New Testament. Nonetheless, it is clear in the passage that when he says in verse 2 of chapter 4, preach the Word, he means for us to preach all of the canon of Scripture. Old Testament and New Testament. Timothy was able to be brought to salvation through the writings of the Old Testament That's what Paul has in mind. Now, I'm not introducing the subject of the relationship of the Testaments, though that is certainly relevant to our discussion. But simply to say that all of Scripture must be consulted when proposing a doctrinal conclusion. We must ask the question when we come to formulate a theology. What is the testimony of all of Scripture on this particular point? Now, it seems to me that our friends Wells and Zaspel have failed in this in several places. And I want you to consider this with me in several ways. Take your Bible for a moment, if you will, and turn to Matthew 5. And let's notice some things here. Matthew 5, verses 17 through 20. Steve, what is my time? goal here. Let's say goal, not limit. Lunch is noon, so sometime before noon. That gives me 65 minutes from now. Matthew 5. Don't fear, I don't think I'll fill the next 65 minutes. It was intended to be a light hearted remark here. Matthew 5, 17 through 20. Although I might fill 65 minutes, we'll see. Do not think, Jesus says in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus says, Do not think that I came to destroy the law or the prophets. I did not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. Whoever, therefore, breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven. But whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say to you that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven." Now, Fred Zaspel says this. The whole New Testament theology of law grows out of this pivotal statement of Jesus. Perhaps that is an overstatement, but still it does identify the central importance of this passage, especially for Zaspel and Wells. Now, what is interesting about the treatment that we find, especially by Fred Zaspel, it was his chapter in this book, his treatment of the subject is based on the fact that following D.A. Carson, Fred introduces a novel sense for the Greek word plerao, and as a result, reduces the doctrine of law in the Bible to the novel interpretation of this one text. In fact, if I could illustrate it in this way, Zaspel pulls everything through this keyhole. He views Matthew 5, 17 through 20 as a keyhole And what he attempts to do is to pull everything in the Bible through this keyhole, an exercise which, not surprisingly, brings all of the Bible's witness about law into conformity with the interpretation that he has given of Matthew 5, 17-20. Now, that's just too easy to do. And it does not take into consideration the profound importance of viewing Matthew 5, 17-20 in the light of the rest of Scripture. It is not the Bible's sole witness to the nature of law in the Bible. It is granted an important witness, but it must be understood in the light of the analogy of Scripture in the light of the rest of the Bible. Sound hermeneutics are reflexive. That is, there is a backwards and forwards motion in our understanding of text. And the hermeneutical method that is used by our brother is troubling to choose one text and let that text be definitive in understanding the doctrine of law throughout the Bible. Now, let me say this. You have in your notebooks and I was greatly encouraged to see this. You have an outstanding piece of work that was written by Prof. Greg Welty of Southwestern Seminary and a member of this church in which he has given an extensive critique of the Carson interpretation of Matthew 5, 17-20, which is the basis for the Zaspel interpretation of Matthew 5, 17-20. It is available on the Internet But I don't have to try to give you the URL right now, which is what I've had to do in the past, because you have it in your conference notebook. And I hope that you will take the time to read that because it is an outstanding contribution. It is a very carefully reasoned exegesis of the passage. And I think Greg is very successful in demonstrating how Carson uses a novel interpretation in which he insists that Old Testament law can be fulfilled by New Testament ethical standards. And Greg shows how using the principle that our brother laid out before us before, if we look at the use of plerao, which is an important verb in Matthew's gospel, we can see that Matthew never uses plerao in the sense that Dr. Carson proposes to us. In fact, Greg very cleverly points out that Carson has violated one of his own principles in his really great book, Exegetical Fallacies, in that he applies to an unknown meaning, he appeals to an unknown meaning in his exegesis of Matthew 5, 17, 20, when he bases his conclusions on this unknown sense of the word plerao. But I want to recommend that essay to you. and hope that you will read it. I was talking with Greg the other night about getting it into print in a more formal fashion. And he was amenable to that. And so I hope to keep the pressure on our brother so that we can get that into a better and more permanent form than just a Web page on the Internet. But take it and read it. That's my first critique of their exegetical method is this unusual use of play raw, which becomes the keyhole by which through which the entire Bible is pulled in order to make the Bible's doctrine of law conform to the conclusion that Wells and Zaspel want to present to us. My second exegetical critique is based on Jeremiah 31. Now, this is a problem that I think needs to be cleared up and interestingly enough, When I delivered this material in Shreveport, there were two responses that I received. One was direct from a person. I don't think I named him, but within a week or two, I had an email from one of the major proponents of New Covenant theology who had heard the tape of my presentation in Shreveport and wanted to ask me a question about it. The second response that I had was through the grapevine. I have a friend who knows someone, and the second response came through in direct response to what I'm about to say to you. And he was admitting that they needed to do more work in response to what I'm about to say. Very interesting that that happened. Now, this book, New Covenant Theology, by Fred Zaspel and Tom Wells, was written as something of a response to this book by Richard Barcelos, which is titled in defense of the Decalogue. Now, this is a really great little book and I hope that you will purchase it and I hope that you will take the time to read it. But in this book, in defense of the Decalogue, Richard Barcellos gives much time and a great deal of effort into exegeting Jeremiah 31, 31 through 34. And as our brother pointed out to us in the last hour, This is a text that must be recognized as pivotal in the Bible's testimony, not only about the New Covenant and baptism, but also its testimony about law. In fact, I think that one could argue that it is as central as, if not more central than, Matthew 5, 17-20. Because the text is found prophetically in the Old Testament and then cited at great length in Hebrews chapter 8. Now, what is the point? Well, interestingly, Zaspel and Wells do not deal with Jeremiah 31 or Hebrews 8 at all exegetically. Wells seeks to address the issues raised by Rich Barcellos by using a homespun analogy about caterpillars and butterflies. and the change that comes between the caterpillar and the butterfly. The butterfly is not the caterpillar and the caterpillar is not the butterfly. But he spends no substantial time at all exegeting the text. Now, what came back to me through the grapevine was the admission of Tom Wells saying, we need to, I guess we need to take up Jeremiah 31, don't we? I don't know if they've done that yet, but they came to recognize that they need to spend time on Jeremiah 31. Now, we ask the question when Jeremiah speaks as he does and when the writer to the Hebrews picks up those words, what is meant by the law that is written on the heart? Well, Tom Wells argues that there is a radical transformation from the old to the new as a caterpillar becomes a butterfly. One is ugly and the other is beautiful. So the law changes from the old to the new. But I ask the question, do we establish doctrinal conclusions based on analogies? That's like, do we base doctrinal conclusions based on parables, which our brother just presented to us in the last hour? And, you know, as I contemplated this, even the analogy that Pastor Wells uses breaks down. when one considers that the caterpillar and the butterfly have the same DNA. They're the same creature, though they move from one to the other. They are the same creature. That's not what Wells wants us to think. He wants us to think that the caterpillar that goes into the cocoon and the butterfly that emerges are different. But in fact, the analogy breaks down because they are the same. One stage two stages of the same thing. Now, there is progress and there is beauty in the law as it comes to us through Jesus Christ. I briefly alluded to that last night. I think Owen brings it out brilliantly. The law comes to us through Jesus Christ. But as one of the earliest Calvinistic Baptists said, writing in 1645, his name was Hansard Knowles, he said this, Christ commands the same moral duties as Moses in the law, but He gives to us power to fulfill them by His Spirit. From the beginning, our Baptist forefathers understood that there is an organic relationship in the commands of the law, though they come to us through Christ. They are the same moral duties that were presented by Moses. To give a passage like Jeremiah 31-34 and Hebrews 8-13 such short shrift is a serious flaw in the exegetical argument that is presented to us in the book New Covenant Theology. And we need to wait and see how these men will handle those two passages and what they will present to us in order that we might be able further to understand what they are promoting in their doctrine. I would say that their view is incomplete until they handle in a thorough fashion Jeremiah 31 and its New Testament instance in Hebrews chapter 8. I have a third exegetical concern about the book New Covenant theology, and that is based on their treatment of Colossians chapter 2 verses 16 and 17. Would you turn there with me for a moment? This passage gives me a great deal of concern. Paul says, and I'm taking this completely out of its context by reading just the two verses, but that's what I will do. Paul says, so let no one judge you in food or in drink or regarding a festival or a new moon or Sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come. But the substance, the body is of Christ. Now, as I've said, this third passage gives me great concern. In the index to the book, New Covenant Theology, we are told, if you tabulate the instances, that Wells and Zaspel cite this text thirteen times. Always as a proof of the assertions of New Covenant Theology. Thirteen times in the book, this text is cited. But if you take the book and if you look up those thirteen occurrences, you will find that not once is there an attempt at exegesis of the text. There is simply citation of the text. But we must ask the question, is the meaning of the text necessarily established on the basis of a surface reading of the words? The first time through that you read the words, Are you certain that you understand exactly what Paul means, what Paul intends by the words that he presents to us? Now, consider with me a couple of facts. Well, let me just use one illustration for the sake of time. I don't know where you're at on this position, but I believe that the Bible teaches that the intention of the Godhead in sending the Lord Jesus to be a sacrifice for sin was that he would pay the price that was due for his people. I believe in the doctrine that is called definite atonement or particular redemption or sometimes limited atonement. You may disagree with me. That's OK. But I believe in that doctrine and I believe that the Bible teaches it. But, you know, as a young Christian who was coming to understand the doctrines of grace, That was the most difficult of the five points of Calvinism, so-called, for me to accept because there are a series of passages in the Bible, especially in the New Testament, which at face reading seem to be universalistic. And I wanted to be faithful and true to the Word of God. I wanted to follow it wherever it would lead me. And I did not want to impose on it a meaning that was forced By logic, my Arminian friends, or the Arminian books that I would read, and I went to a college that was basically an Arminian, semi-Pelagian type of college, the professors would promote to us the fact that all means all. And when Paul uses the word all, he means it universally and it applies to all. For those of you who have struggled through the issue, you know that Calvinists, those who believe in definite atonement, have been very careful to look into each of these texts, to take them seriously, and have exegeted them to a satisfactory conclusion in order to support the doctrine of particular redemption. In fact, I believe that only the doctrine of particular redemption upholds the sense of those texts. I think 1 John 2, 2, which says that Christ died for the sins of the whole world, that he's the propitiation for the sins of the whole world, can only be understood in a Calvinistic sense. If he is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world, if the wrath of God has been turned away by the blood of Jesus for the sins of all men, then why aren't all men saved? You see, If we give full weight to the meaning of the word propitiation, it is very difficult to have a universalistic interpretation of that text. But that's not on the surface. You have to go into the book of Leviticus and understand what the word propitiation means there. It doesn't mean something that is potential. It means something that is actual. But that's not a surface reading of the text. Now, those of us who believe in the Sabbath principle, Do not wish to blink our eyes at texts like Colossians 2, 16 and 17. And I had the same kind of struggle with this text that I had with a text like 1 John 2, 2 on the subject of the atonement of our Lord Jesus Christ, wanting to be faithful with the text. Now, what do you do? Well, I found something very interesting as I was reading and studying this text one day, and it's in J.B. Lightfoot's commentary on the book of Colossians. And Lightfoot points out something that is of great interest to me. He demonstrates that there are six places in the Septuagint, which is the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament. There are six places where the very words that Paul uses in Colossians 2.16, festival, new moon and Sabbath. There are six places where those words occur together in the Septuagint translation. They're at 2 Chronicles 2.4, 2 Chronicles 31.3, Nehemiah 10.33, Isaiah 1.13 and 14, Hosea 2.11 and Ezekiel 45.17. And if you were to take the time and go and look at each one of those six occurrences of this same set of three words in the Old Testament, you will find that in every case, the writers of the Old Testament use these words as a package to refer to the fullness of time-related days that were bound upon Israel to obedience. And I think that Paul, who was trained in Old Testament theology, and who understood the old. I'm sure he understood the use of technical terms as they are found in the Old Testament. I think we could even say at this point, Rabbi Paul, trained at the feet of Gamaliel, the rabbi, understood how words were used in the Old Testament. And when he uses these three words in the same way here in Colossians chapter two, he is using these words in the same way that they are used elsewhere in the Bible. This is the principle that our brother set out before us in the last hour when he said that we interpret Scripture by Scripture. A surface reading of the text seems to tell us that there are no Sabbaths and no one is to judge you on the basis of those Sabbaths. But everywhere else in the Bible, brothers and sisters, everywhere else in the Bible where these three words are used together, They are used to describe the fullness of days that were obligatory for the nation of Israel. And it's my conviction, and I think Lightfoot is right, that Paul uses these words in the same combination and in the same way. He refers to the package of Jewish days. That's what Paul is seeking to say. He's referring to the package of Jewish days. And so you and I, as those who believe that there continues to be a day of observance under the new covenant, can, alongside of Paul, gladly assert with every possible boldness that every characteristically Jewish day has been abolished. You don't have to keep a new moon. You don't have to keep any of the Jewish festivals. And on Saturday you can go to the football game and rejoice. And you don't have to go to worship on that day. We can say that with all the strength of our conviction. But saying that in no way undermines the possibility of the obligation of a distinctively Christian day, the Lord's Day, as a memorial of Christ's work in establishing the new creation, the new exodus and his eschatological triumph, which is the line of reasoning that we find in Hebrews 3 and 4. This day has substance. It has firmness. It is the body in a way that the old covenant days never could, because the first day of the week honors the final consummate fulfillment in Jesus Christ. All of those Old Testament days could only look forward in a typical way to His coming. But the first day of the week, which is the only day that we observe, in all of its fullness has substance. because on that day we rejoice in the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ. Now you see, the fact that they have not wrestled with an exegesis of the text, but 13 times have cited it, to me is a serious flaw in the argument of the book. Incomplete exegesis means incomplete argumentation. And no treatment will carry the consciences of readers until It handles thoroughly all of the exegetical questions that are relevant to the subject at hand. And up to this point in the publication of their book, New Covenant Theology, Wells and Zaspel simply have not done this. They've not provided to us a thorough exegesis of the book. I'm sorry, of the text of Scripture. Now, there is a fourth exegetical problem that I want to mention, and it has to do again with hermeneutics and even systematic theology. Now, Zaspel has written this about how New Covenant theology relates to the law. I quote. This is the specific area of concern handed to anyone studying the larger picture of the divine schema. It just works out that way in that it is such a pivotal matter from the point of view both of Scripture and of the competing systems of theology today. Your view of the law winds up shaping your entire hermeneutical grid. Your view of the law winds up shaping your entire hermeneutical grid. Let me quote again from Professor Greg Welty, because I think his comment is especially helpful. He says this. This statement is disturbing because one would hope that a distinctive view of the law would be the last thing which shapes an entire hermeneutical grid. Shouldn't it be precisely the reverse? Shouldn't our view of the law be a result of carefully worked out hermeneutical principles and conclusions gathered from the entirety of Scripture? I regard Zaspel's statement as a blunt concession that for New Covenant theology's view of how one should interpret the rest of the Bible, Matthew 5, 17 through 18 is the tail that wags the dog." Now, our brother Greg has diagnosed that exactly right at that point. And we should be troubled that this prominent proponent of New Covenant theology wants his doctrine of the law to drive his hermeneutics. when it ought to be his hermeneutics that determine his doctrine of the law. But that's what he says. And that ought to lead us to concern. Now, those are simply four exegetical concerns that I have along the way. I'm sure that there are others we could present. But this leads us to our second area of critique, which I'm calling theology. In the second place, New Covenant theology proponents exhibit a dangerous tendency popular in modern critical treatments of the text of Scripture and among those enamored with what is called biblical theology, but dangerous in both its approach to the text of Scripture and in the conclusions that it produces. In general, this might be described as the triumph of biblical theology over systematic theology. Now, by this, I speak of the tendency to view scripture exclusively through the lens of the progress of redemptive history to the exclusion of a synthetic approach which attempts to formulate doctrine. And it is effectively a rejection of the analogy of faith. The former method that is a biblical theology of seeing the progression of history, redemptive history, highly useful in its proper place may tend to maximize differences and to minimize commonalities. And so it needs the checks and the balances that are provided by a systematic approach to Scripture. In the hands of the critics, systematic theology is irrelevant since the Bible is only the product of men in religious communities. It has no divine origination. Now, I spent a good part of the end of my summer in the first part of September involved in preparation for a debate that I did with James White against two men from the Jesus Seminar. Who argue that the Gospels are not a historical record of the life of Jesus, who argue that they are not trustworthy. that they are, to a large degree, the product of the later Christian movement desiring to give some kind of credibility to its own presence, to provide for itself some kind of doctrinal formulation, and to give itself some roots in the life of Jesus, and that there's very little in the Gospels that can be dependable or that can be depended upon in order to give us any reality of history. They recognize that there is no such thing as systematic theology. Now, when evangelicals who acknowledge inerrancy and inspiration and argue for the full canonicity of the Bible, the exclusive use of the biblical theological method is problematic, since one would think that they must acknowledge the rightful place of systematic theology. The Bible's own testimony concerning what it calls the faith or sound words or sound doctrine is everywhere on its pages. Over and over again, the Word of God testifies to the existence of a body of truth, a body of truth that is not to be equated with any one text of Scripture, but which reflects the truth of the entirety of Scripture. And ministers and exegetes must labor to understand this body of truth a body that may be only recognized by careful study of the whole Bible, Genesis through Malachi, Matthew through Revelation. The result of this study is the doctrines that we formulate into our confessions of faith. And with great care, we labor to ensure that they reflect the fruit of careful exegesis and that they form a coherent and cohesive system of theology. Undue stress upon biblical theology, simply the progress of revelation, minimizes the place and importance of systematic theology, oftentimes with dire consequences. Because the checks and balances of the disciplines together fail to function properly and the result is error. Now this can be illustrated in two or three ways as we move forward. First, New Covenant theology advocates deny the concept of the moral law as it is found in the Bible. Tom Wells says this on page 166. No law that can be compiled by us and in this age can qualify for the title the moral law. And even the category moral law is difficult to recognize with certainty. End quote. Another author says this. The phrase moral law fails to convey clear biblical truth and must be discarded. Now, these statements and there are many others, you can find them on the various websites, Demonstrate that New Covenant theology men deny the doctrine expressed in the various reformation confessions, which say in one way or another, the moral law doth forever bind all reformed theology has asserted that there is a universal law summarized in the two great commandments. Love the Lord your God and love your neighbor as yourself. summarized in the Ten Commandments and in the Decalogue, which exhibits the righteous nature of God to all men at all times. Now, the denial of the doctrine of the moral law has serious implications because theology is a carefully woven fabric. If you pull out one thread, much of it will unravel. Have you ever walked along and you found a thread down here in your trousers and you give it a pull and your wife slaps your hand and says, don't do that. And you're thankful that she told you that because if you did, you'd be in trouble. Well, that's what happens with theology. You begin to pull out threads and it will unravel and you will be in trouble. I wonder. Have the New Covenant theology men thought through the implications of their rejection of the moral law and its effects on other Christian doctrines? Because Christian theology is a system which beautifully fits together. And when you change one doctrine in one place, It can have profound consequences elsewhere. Profound consequences you may not realize at first when you make that adjustment. Go into a recording studio sometime while the engineer is watching you and walk over to one of the knobs and try to turn it and see what he does. That one turn of a knob can utterly destroy everything that he has set in the recording process. Well, brothers and sisters, one turn of a theological knob can have serious consequences on all the rest of the sound that comes through. When one abandons, for example, the doctrine that there is a universal moral law, one must also revisit the doctrine of sin. And one must revisit the doctrine of the atonement. We might ask, for example, and I did this once at a seminar that was held by a proponent of New Covenant theology, We might ask the question, if there is no universal law to which men are held as an eternal standard, what law are they guilty of breaking? What law will condemn unconverted men on the day of judgment? As I said, I once asked a question like this to one of the major proponents of New Covenant theology. He came to a certain place where he was given a seminar and I went and sat through his seminar. And his answer was really frightening when you think about it. I proposed this question to him. And his answer was something like this. Whatever law happens to be in force when and where he lives. Now, I was absolutely astounded by that response. Do the standards of righteousness and judgment change? When a man stands before God on the last day and is pronounced a sinner, is he pronounced a sinner on the basis of the law in place when and where he lived? Or is He condemned, judged as a sinner on the basis of the moral law of God that He has broken? A law that is applied to all men at all times and all places. Or to put it another way, if we apply this to the doctrine of atonement, what law did Jesus die to satisfy? Did He die to satisfy the traffic laws of Mansfield, Texas? What were the righteous demands of His Father? for which He was crushed. That's what Isaiah says. The brutal portrait that Isaiah presents to us in Isaiah 53, when he speaks about the crushing death of our Lord Jesus, is a death of atonement that He offered up in order to satisfy the eternal demands of His Holy Father in Heaven. And when we change the doctrine of moral law, brothers and sisters, perhaps without knowing it, we begin to change the doctrine of atonement And we need to go to the doctrine of atonement and ask questions about the law that Jesus dies to satisfy before we come to change the doctrine of moral law. To use another illustration, Christian theology is not a cafeteria plan. It's not a buffet. It's not a smorgasbord. But it's a finely prepared meal and it all fits together. Now, the second problem, the second theological problem, is interesting today because the circumstances of this problem are a little bit different from what they were February 23rd, 2004, when I originally prepared this material. And that has to do with the question of justification by faith alone. Now, remember, I told you that I received two responses, one through the grapevine, the other by email. And the one by email, you would know the name of the person who sent me the email if I told it to you. I won't. But you would know it was a rather current email. And it said something like, who are you accusing of being wrong on the doctrine of justification by faith? And I wrote back and I said, well, I wasn't accusing anybody. I was simply pointing out a reality based on some information that's posted right on the Internet. And here's the information and go and look at it. And it was that there was a certain website that had posted on its front page an article that was entitled Justification and the Active Obedience of Christ. And in that article, I've actually heard the fellow who wrote the article lecture at an ETS meeting out on the West Coast. In that paper, which was on the front page of this New Covenant Theology website, The author denies the doctrine of active obedience, and he denies the doctrine of the imputation of the active obedience of Christ to the Christian believer. Now, that's central to the doctrine of justification, and this was posted on the front page of what I think is probably the largest New Covenant theology website on the Internet. This fellow wrote to me, who are you accusing of being wrong on the doctrine of justification? I wrote back and said, well, here's the website. Go and look at it. I wasn't accusing anybody of being wrong. I was just pointing out reality. Well, I never heard again from him. But you know what's interesting? They remove this stuff from their website and it takes a little bit of work, but you can still find it if you work hard. It was taken off of the New Covenant Theology website. The article itself was removed, but two of the men who were involved in New Covenant Theology wrote their own expression of it. And they moved it over to their church's website and you have to find it in the writings of the local church. It's very interesting that they did that, but it's still there. Not the same article, but the same doctrine is there. Now, that's very interesting, isn't it? But the point that I was trying to make is that when you. Do away with an eternal standard, You also toy with the doctrine of justification. Because the act of obedience of Christ, that is His obedience to the moral law, His life, His holy life of keeping perfectly all of the commands of God is the righteousness that is imputed to us when we are justified. Brothers and sisters, this is the white robes in which we are clothed. This is the way of access to the Father. I remember standing in a conference or sitting in a conference at Westminster Seminary and Dr. Scott Clark was preaching on justification in response to the federal vision preachers. And he said he had such a poignant remark. He said, I don't want to present my righteousness to God on that day. He said, I want to hide behind the Lord Jesus. He was absolutely right on the day of judgment. I want to hide behind the Lord Jesus. I want to be clothed in his righteousness. Well, you see, these men, I think, were beginning to understand that when you make changes in one place, they can have implications elsewhere. And this email that came in to me, I think, was a recognition of the fact that maybe the New Covenant theology men need to do a little bit more thinking and need to be a little bit more careful about the way that they express themselves. Because there are implications to the changes that one makes when one alters any topic of systematic theology. It often has profound effects on other topics as well. And because the movement is still developing and emerging, we have to ask the question, have the New Covenant theology men grappled with the theological implications of their system? Are those implications consonant with all of the doctrines clearly grounded in Scripture, which we confess? Well, that's an issue that they need to struggle with and that has to do with theology. The third theological criticism or critique that I have is this. You will find regularly in the writings of these men a statement to the fact that there is no evidence in the Bible for a division of the law into moral and ceremonial and civil. Now, I wish that we could take the time to go through this. I was just lecturing on this on Tuesday in one of my classes back in Escondido. But it is also a mistaken conclusion and assertion. Jonathan Bays has written a very good little article that was published in Reformation Today in the year 2000. If I remember correctly, it's issue number 79. I think probably, Larry, you guys probably get Reformation today here. You may have access to that. I could certainly point you to it. Jonathan Bayes wrote this article in response to this position that is often promoted by New Covenant theology men. And he demonstrates from Old Testament and New Testament that there is certainly indication within the text itself that the Jews recognize distinctions within the law as a whole. For example, In 1 Samuel chapter 15, when King Saul has disobeyed the clear command of the Lord to destroy all of the Amalekites, he keeps Agag alive and he keeps some of the livestock alive. And you remember Samuel comes along and he says, what is this bleeding of sheep and lowing of cattle? And Saul says that he kept it in order to sacrifice it to the Lord. You remember what Samuel says in reply? To obey is better than what? Now, wait a minute. Isn't sacrifice part of the law? But to obey something is better than sacrifice? What is happening in these words? To hearken than the fat of rams. Turn with me to 1 Corinthians 7.19. Someone has said this is one of the more remarkable texts that Paul has written. I wish we had the time to exegete it. It is a marvelous text. Now, actually, you know what? I don't want you to look at the text in your Bible for a moment. All right. Let me let me translate it for you a little bit differently. What I do in my class is I put it up on on the board in Greek and I have the guys work through it with me because there's something very interesting that Paul does literally translated. The verse says something like this. Circumcision is nothing. And uncircumcision is nothing. But observing or observance of the commandments of God. And that's all it says. Circumcision is nothing. Uncircumcision is nothing. And then the reason I don't want you to look at your Bibles, it says keeping the commandments of God, it looks like a verb, but it's actually a noun. Teresis. It's a it's a nominative feminine singular. It's a noun. And I like to use the word observance, observance of the commandments of God. And that's it. It's elliptical. It's an ellipsis. You have to fill in the rest of the thought. And I put it up on the board and I asked the question, OK, circumcision is nothing. Uncircumcision is nothing. But observance of the law of God. What and what's what's the response? What do you fill in? And Keith Thompson was sitting on the front row and he got it right. Circumcision is nothing. Uncircumcision is nothing. Observance of the commandments of God. is everything. It's everything. That's the contrast. Udenesten, Udenesten, and then blank. It's everything. Now, what's Paul saying? Circumcision is nothing. Isn't that part of the law? Isn't that a ceremony that is instituted in the law? Paul says it's nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is everything. Again, I wish that we had the time to exegete the text. But you see, in that text, we have a clear distinction between moral and ceremonial. And Paul emphasizes that as he writes to the Corinthians and urges them to remain in their own place. Is there evidence for a division of the law, theological division of the law into its constituent elements? Certainly there is. There is textual evidence for it. And that distinction is an important theological distinction. Well, we could say more about theology, but there are several theological criticisms that I have of New Covenant theology, acknowledging that it's still in its developing and formulating stages. Thirdly, I want to talk very briefly in conclusion about church history. Now, this this is the area where I have the most expertise. And I would say this, brothers and sisters, there are no precedents in the history of the Christian church. for New Covenant theology. There are no precedents in the history of the Christian church for New Covenant theology. Now, someone might say, well, what about the Anabaptists? Well, none of them were Calvinists. And Dr. Estep, who used to teach over here at Southwestern, he's now gone to heaven. Dr. Estep has written the definitive book, The Anabaptist Reformation. Or no, it's The Anabaptist Story. And I had a course from Dr. Riestep once. He didn't have much use for Calvinism. Some of you may remember his article about the dunghill, right? He didn't have much use for Calvinism, but he loved the Anabaptists. One of the reasons I think that he loved the Anabaptists is that they weren't Calvinists. And if you want to if you want to trace the roots of New Covenant theology to Anabaptism, then do away with your Calvinism. See, New Covenant theology is an attempt to wed Calvinism with a kind of Anabaptist ethic. And my argument is there's no precedent for Calvinism being wed together with this New Covenant ethic. Now, I know what the next thing that people will say. What about the First London Confession? Well, the First London Confession has been seriously abused by the authors of New Covenant theology. And I've written a very lengthy rebuttal. Now I see our brother Tony Matias here on the front row and he and Richard Belcher put out a very fine little pamphlet a couple of probably 10 15 years ago. An examination of the Baptist confessions of faith. It's out of print. Oh it's out on the table. All right. And I've I've written something at length that sort of supplements what our brother and Dr. Belcher have written. And it should be published in the next issue of the Reformed Baptist Theological Review. It's actually available on the Internet right now. But Richard Barcellos has asked me to put it in print in the Reformed Baptist Theological Review and it will be there. And it's a demonstration that the Baptists from their earliest days. I realize I'm making an assertion to you here. I can back it up if you'd like. But the Baptists from their earliest days. From the time that they first appeared from 1642, 43, 44, which is when the First London Confession first appeared. Are you hearing me? The Baptists from their earliest days believed in covenant theology, the perpetuity of the moral law, and they believed in the continuing validity of the Sabbath. And it's very easy to demonstrate. And I think that what's happened with the First London Confession and especially the historical preface that was written by this fellow, Gary Long, who I guess is down here in the Austin area. I don't think that he had the expertise in the middle of the 17th century and in the documents of the era to be able to write the things that he did. Because when you go back into the primary sources and look at the writings of these men who wrote that confession of faith, they were clearly covenantal. They clearly believed in the continuing validity of the moral law, and they clearly were first day Sabbatarians. There's just no way to deny this. from the primary documentation. And so you cannot go back to the first London confession and say, well, it's an authentically Baptist document that supports the doctrine of New Covenant theology. What I would say is that New Covenant theology is a theological novelty without precedent in church history. And if it's a theological novelty without precedent in church history, you know what we ought to say? I doubt that it's right. Because if it is, The Lord has kept his church in the dark for 2000 years. And I don't think that that's the intention of God to keep his church in the dark. Now, what can we say in conclusion? Well, New Covenant theology has serious exegetical work still to do. And without this, it can only be theoretical. Secondly, New Covenant theology has serious theological consequences and only time will tell where it will lead. Thirdly, New Covenant theology has no historical precedent. And we must ask the church the question, why has the Holy Spirit kept this truth from the church until now? And fourthly, and here's an area that we haven't even investigated, New Covenant theology has serious practical implications because it is. In fact, I don't mean to be crass and remember what I said at the beginning. But I think that New Covenant theology is a practice in search of a doctrine. I think that that's what it is. It's a practice in search of a theology. And I would ask the question, in the light of New Covenant theology, how do God's people live to His glory? How? How do God's people live to His glory? But that would deserve a whole sermon in itself. Now, remember what I said at the beginning. These are good brothers. As far as I can tell, they're godly men. They're serious minded. Heaven will reveal to us that we're all in error on something. I wish I knew what it was now, because I'd try to fix it. But I know that when I get to heaven, my own darkened understanding will not have a perfect system of theology and there will be things I will say, oh, oh. And and so we have to address this subject with a certain amount of humility and say we're going to be wrong on things, too. But let us not be afraid with that kind of humility to point out to our brothers that as far as we understand the scriptures, they are wrong. And they're developing or have developed and are developing a difficult, troubling and by all appearances, novel doctrine. Doesn't fit exegesis. It doesn't fit theology. It doesn't fit church history. Well, I hope that by the grace of God, I've been able to present this in a brotherly way. I hope that if any of those brothers, if any of you are present, I hope I haven't offended you. If any of those brothers listen to this on MP3 sometime, I hope I haven't offended you. That has not been my desire, but it has been. to try to uphold the truth as we see it in the Lord Jesus. And I hope He's been glorified in that.