Those
who hold to New Covenant Theology (NCT) have been publicly accused by
Richard Barcellos in Ligonier ministries monthly publication called Tabletalk
of advocating a heresy known as antinomianism.
This came as a bit of a shock to me.
Although this is not the first time such accusations have been made
against us, they usually come from less respectable sources.
I have no axe to grind against Ligonier Ministries and R.C. Sproul.
They have had a great impact in my life.
Their writings have equipped me in many ways for service for Christ.
So I want to handle their accusations fairly, in a way that honors
Jesus Christ, Whom I wholeheartedly believe we both serve.
What’s
an Antinomian?
In
an article written by Richard Barcellos the
September 2002 issue of Tabletalk called
The Death of the Decalogue,
he argues that those who hold to New Covenant Theology are antinomian.
The term antinomianism
refers to the belief that Christians do not have a law to obey today.
That is, it is the belief that Christians are “lawless” people.
A necessarily connected belief to antinomianism
is that Christians cannot sin. Sin
is defined in Scripture as breaking God’s law (1 John 3:4) and if there is
no law then it is impossible to sin. A
life of moral decadence of course results from such an abhorrent belief.
Thus, antinomianism is a
longstanding heresy that is fought against by all faithful Christians.
In theological circles the term antinomianism
is much like the term rape in
secular circles. It is usually
said in a whisper because it is so very wicked.
The
Words We Use Matter
“The
Bible encourages child abuse!
Aren’t you appalled and shocked?
“Wait
a minute! How does it encourage
child abuse?
The Bible never tells us to brutalize our children.”
“No,
it does something far more dangerous! It
encourages child abuse because it
teaches us that we need to tell our children that they are sinners.
That abuses their self-esteem! Such
treatment of a child’s delicate psyche is far more brutal than mere
physical abuse.”
Now
before you get too excited, I don’t believe that the Bible encourages
child abuse. I am a firm
believer in telling our children the Gospel, which consists of both the bad
news and the good news. I want
my child to have Christ-esteem, not self-esteem.
The purpose of the dialogue above was to make the point that the
words we use matter. The way in
which the phrase child abuse was
used above, not only slanders the one being falsely accused and connects a
label to him that is hard to shake, but it trivializes the awful crime
itself! In the same way, Tabletalk
has used the term antinomianism to
refer to New Covenant Theology. Such
a respected ministry calling us antinomian
gives us a false and ugly label that will be hard to shake. Also, using this
term in the way that they have trivializes the seriousness of the false
doctrine and will make the real thing more difficult to recognize.
Playing
With Words
Writers
and teachers are in the word business.
Words are the tools of their trades.
For Christian writers, the skill of explaining the use of Greek and
Hebrew words is a necessity since those are the original languages of the
Scriptures. But the use of
words and therefore languege, Greek and Hebrew included, is governed by
rules. Most Christian writers
are careful about how they use language, especially Greek and Hebrew.
But give a novice or a reckless Christian writer and teacher a Greek
word to play with and it is like giving a child the keys to a candy
store…you never know quite what you are going to end up with, but you know
it is going to be a great big mess. In
his article, Mr. Barcellos begins to play with the word antinomian creating
just such a mess:
“NCT
even sounds a clear alarm against antinomianism.
However, we must be careful to ascertain what NCT means when it
speaks of antinomianism. We
must ask: Against what law? And
what does the word against mean?
Does it mean against altogether?
Could it mean against in part? The
prefix anti has various nuances.
It can mean ‘against,’ ‘instead of,’ or ‘in place of.’ In
other words, although NCT may not be against law in an absolute sense, if it
denies the moral law of the Old Testament is the moral law of the New
Testament, and if it replaces the moral law with another, then it is
antinomian on two counts” (15).
Notice,
the meaning of the word antinomian now no longer has a fixed
definition. Neither the context
nor its consistent historical usage determines what the word means.
Mr. Barcellos tells us that the meaning of antinomian is now
determined by the flexibility of the Greek prefix anti.
He broadens the meaning of the word to include one who does not see
that all of the OT “moral law” is applicable today.
It also could mean one who sees one law being used in place of
another. With this magical
transformation of the meaning of the word, suddenly NCT fits the definition
of antinomian!
Why
don’t we play this game? Now
we learned from Mr. Barcellos that anti can mean against all of
something or against simply part of something.
Mr. Barcellos, along with all Christians, does not believe that the
laws that regulated sacrifices or the laws that regulated how Israelites
planted their fields or how they kept their beards are still binding today.
Therefore, Mr. Barcellos and the rest of Christendom is against part
of the Old Covenant law, so they must be antinomian!
If we play with words like this anyone can be called an antinomian.
Moral
Law
In
the article The Death of the
Decalogue in Tabletalk,
Mr. Barcellos writes: “ ‘Moderate antinomianism’ has resurfaced under
the a new banner…New Covenant Theology (NCT) extols the Lordship of Christ
in Christian ethics, which we applaud (Westminster Confession of Faith,
19:5), but it does so at the expense of moral law” (15).
Now,
if this statement were to go unqualified, New Covenant Theology would seem
to be an utter contradiction. How
does one extol Lordship, and yet do away with moral law?
Isn’t the essence of Lordship obedience to Christ?
Aren’t Christ’s commands, and the commands of the Apostles, laws?
Aren’t these laws moral in their character so that if one were to
disobey any of those laws it would be sinful?
Yes, but this is not what Mr. Barcellos means when he uses the term
“moral law.” He uses the
loaded term “moral law” in a very specific way.
Although, when you hear the term moral law you immediately think of
absolute standards of right and wrong.
But Mr. Barcellos joins many in Reformed Theological circles to
define “moral law” specifically as the Ten Commandments.
Because NCT views the Decalogue as no longer binding on believers in
the New Covenant era, they are by definition antinomian.
Mike Adams examined this issue in a recent paper where he writes:
Our
continued use of the phrase ‘moral law’ in explaining biblical law must
be discarded altogether because it is often used to enforce unbiblical
definitions on an otherwise clear subject. Because of its long history
within both Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism, the phrase “moral
law” carries with it much implied meaning that is less than biblical and
for that reason, does not clearly convey the concept of biblical law. In
this way, “moral law” becomes a flexible medium to express what our
theological system demands of us concerning biblical law. Our interpretation
of biblical law remains unchecked because we can make “moral law” mean
whatever we want it to mean regardless of the biblical text.
What
Mr. Barcellos has done is that he has again (as he did with the term antinomian)
taken a broad term and
filled it with a specific meaning that then drives his argument.
Mr.
Barcellos makes a well-needed qualification concerning his rather shocking
accusation:
“NCT
is not morally antinomian. It
does not say that we should ‘continue in sin so that grace might
increase.’” (15).
This
is a rather short statement given to what is possibly the most important
reason why NCT is not antinomian in any meaningful sense.
But its brevity is understandable.
If Mr. Barcellos were to spell out in the beginning of his essay the
actual view of NCT in relation to the law, his thesis that they are
antinomian would lose all of its strength.
Isn’t
90% an A?
NCT
holds strongly to the binding nature of law of Christ, which is made up of
all of the commands given in the teaching passages of the New Testament.
To break any of those laws is to sin against God.
Now Mr. Barcellos begins to explain that, in fact, NCT does believe
that 9 of the Ten Commandments are binding today, because they are repeated
in the teaching passages as part of the law of Christ in the New Testament.
But somehow even this large area of agreement is a bad thing in Mr.
Barcellos’ eyes:
“NCT
does teach the perpetuity of nine of the Ten Commandments.
However, it does so upon faulty reasoning- since nine of the 10 are
repeated in the New Testament, then nine of the ten are binding.
This is a logical conclusion based on the faulty premise that the
Decalogue as a guide to sanctification went when the old covenant went.
It also presupposes that only repeated commands of the Decalogue are
moral law. NCT’s view of the
function of the Decalogue pits it against the very heart of the moral
law.”
This
is truly perplexing. Barcellos
writes this article, calling proponents of NCT antinomian.
By his own definition, antinomians are
those who don’t believe the Decalogue is binding on believers today.
He goes on to say within that article that NCT supporters believe
nine of the Ten Commandments are binding on believers today.
But the puzzle continues. He
proceeds to say the view of NCT is pitted against the very heart of the
moral law! I thought the moral
law was the Decalogue? Well if
we affirm that nine of the Ten Commandments are binding, what is the
problem? Are we heretics
because we arrive at our view of which laws are binding in a different
manner than Reformed people? Throwing around the term antinomian
and saying that NCT proponents are pitted “against the very heart of
the moral law” seems like awfully strong rhetoric towards a group who
admittedly agrees with 90% of what he calls “moral law”!
NCT,
The Bible, and the Death of the Decalogue
If
you are a believer, what law you are to obey is a very big deal. The
primary way we express our love for God is through obedience to His
commands. How can I love my
Lord if I don’t know what he wants me to do?
How can I avoid sinning against Him?
If you do not think this is an important issue, consider the Sabbath.
The fourth commandment is:
Exodus
20:8
"Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. 9 Six days you
shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a
Sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you,
nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your
animals, nor the alien within your gates.
Exodus
35:2
Whoever does any work on it must be put to death. 3 Do not light
a fire in any of your dwellings on the Sabbath day."
Does
this apply to you? If so, how
does God intend you to obey it today? These
questions are vital for you to answer because you might be committing
serious sins against God each week. It
is the responsibility of every believer to find out which of God’s
commands apply to him, why they apply, and then to make every effort to obey
God. God takes disobedience
seriously and as a personal offense. That
is why we take this issue so seriously.
We believe we have some good reasons for believing that the Decalogue
is no longer binding on believers. Here
is a brief overview of how we arrive at our conclusions about the Ten
Commandments:
1.The Decalogue is the essence of the Old Covenant and was written on
tablets
of
stone.
Exodus
34:27
Then the Lord said to Moses, "Write down these words, for in accordance
with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel." 28
Moses was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights without eating
bread or drinking water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the
covenant-the Ten Commandments.
Deuteronomy
4:12
Then the Lord spoke to you out of the fire. You heard the sound of
words but saw no form; there was only a voice. 13 He declared to
you his covenant, the Ten Commandments, which he commanded you to
follow and then wrote them on two stone tablets. 14 And the Lord
directed me at that time to teach you the decrees and laws you are to follow
in the land that you are crossing the Jordan to possess.
2.
The New Testament tells us that The Old Covenant is now null and
void, or, as the author of Hebrews calls it, obsolete:
Hebrews
8:13
By
calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete;
and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.
The
Ten Commandments are inseparably tied to the Old Covenant.
They are so closely tied to the Old Covenant that they are called the
“words of the covenant” in Exodus 34.
Therefore, if the essence of the Old Covenant is the Ten Commandments
and the Old Covenant is no more, it follows that the Ten Commandments are
also no longer in force today. Covenant
Theologians like Mr. Barcellos clearly say that the Old Covenant is no more.
They see the clear teaching in Scripture that the Old Covenant is no
longer in force. But they
somehow conclude that although the covenant is no more, that which is the
essence of the covenant is still in force and binding on believers today.
This seems inconsistent.
3.
Christ
abolished the law of the Old Covenant.
That law which was given specifically to Israel is no longer binding:
Ephesians
2:14
For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has
destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, 15by
abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations.
His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making
peace, 16and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God
through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility.
The
Old Covenant, the essence of which is the Ten Commandments, was given to
Israel. When Christ came to
deliver His people, both Jew and Gentile, he abolished the Old Covenant and
its law to bring in a New Covenant and a new law to fit this new people.
But we want to be very clear that he did not simply throw out the law
and its commandments, but he fulfilled their purpose:
Matthew
5:17
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I
have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I 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 from the Law until
everything is accomplished. 19Anyone 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, but whoever practices and teaches these commands
will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you
that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the
teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.
Jesus
fulfilled the law and the prophets. He
did not come as something totally unrelated and declare that they were
meaningless. They are proof
that man desperately needs a Messiah; they defined the standard by which
Jesus Christ could become the acceptable sacrifice to God.
The law and the prophets are the foundation upon which the cross
stands. But unless Jesus has
already fulfilled the Old Covenant law by his work on the cross, the
minutest detail of that law must be enforced.
We believe Jesus accomplished the "everything" spoken of in
this text. Jesus fulfilled the
purpose of the law and the prophets by His perfect life and His death on the
cross. Now those who are His
people actually do surpass the righteousness of the pharisees and teachers
of the law because we have all of our sins perfectly paid for making us
perfectly righteous before God.
4.The
Law of the Old Covenant is never broken up into moral, civil, and ceremonial
categories in Scripture.
Where
in Scripture does it tell you which commands are moral and which are civil
and ceremonial? Let’s look at
some verses in Leviticus 19 and consider if the laws are divided into neat
categories:
The
Lord said to Moses, 2 "Speak to the entire assembly of
Israel and say to them: 'Be holy because I, the Lord your God, am holy.
3 " 'Each of you must respect his mother and father, and you
must observe my Sabbaths. I am the Lord your God.
4 " 'Do not turn to idols or make gods of cast metal for
yourselves. I am the Lord your God.
5 " 'When you sacrifice a fellowship offering to the Lord ,
sacrifice it in such a way that it will be accepted on your behalf. 6
It shall be eaten on the day you sacrifice it or on the next day; anything
left over until the third day must be burned up. 7 If any of it
is eaten on the third day, it is impure and will not be accepted. 8
Whoever eats it will be held responsible because he has desecrated what is
holy to the Lord ; that person must be cut off from his people.
9 " 'When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to
the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. 10
Do not go over your vineyard a second time or pick up the grapes that have
fallen. Leave them for the poor and the alien. I am the Lord your God.
11 " 'Do not steal. " 'Do not lie. " 'Do not
deceive one another.
12 " 'Do not swear falsely by my name and so profane the
name of your God. I am the Lord .
13 " 'Do not defraud your neighbor or rob him.
" 'Do not hold back the wages of a hired man overnight.
19 " 'Keep my decrees. " 'Do not mate different kinds
of animals.
" 'Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed.
" 'Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.
20 " 'If a man sleeps with a woman who is a slave girl
promised to another man but who has not been ransomed or given her freedom,
there must be due punishment. Yet they are not to be put to death, because
she had not been freed.
Notice
how these laws are all jumbled together!
Laws about sacrificial practice, animal husbandry and agriculture sit
right along side laws about lying and stealing.
Which laws transcend the Old Covenant and how can you tell?
It seems to me that all of these laws held equal weight in God’s
eyes. They were all moral,
because God said that to follow them is right and to disobey them is wrong.
Unless the Old Covenant and all of its laws, including the Ten
Commandments, are now obsolete, then what right do you have to plant your
garden with two kinds of seed, or to wear a shirt made of two kinds of
material? The viewpoint of
Covenant Theology seems to force one to be arbitrary about what laws stay
and what laws are no longer binding.