By Tom Wells  
Originally posted on Sound of Grace
Statement on offsite articles

1. What is an antinomian?

The word antinomian is not a common word outside of theological circles. That means we need to define it before we discuss it. What does the word mean?

When we look at the word antinomian we see that it might well mean people who are against law.¹ It might describe anarchists and others who have no use for laws of any kind. But that is not its theological use. Historically it has been used to describe a debate about moral law. In a recent helpful book on this subject Jonathan Bayes has described the debate on antinomianism as follows:

The point of issue may be summarized as follows: does the moral element in the law of the Old Testament continue to have binding force and directing power in the life of the believer, such that it exercises a key role in sanctification when employed by the Holy Spirit . . .?²

Those who answer yes to this question are, from Bayes point of view (which I accept), the orthodox on this matter. What is the other view? It is the view of those who either contend that a Christian’s sanctification is only accomplished by the direct work of the Holy Spirit, “or, if He employs any means at all, [it] is the Gospel of justification by grace through faith in Christ [that is] the sole and sufficient instrument of sanctification[.] This latter position has been called ‘doctrinal antinomianism’.”³

The discussion, then, is about the application of moral law contained in the OT to Christians. Those who believe that such OT moral law has little or no application to Christians, according to Bayes, are the doctrinal antinomians.

Bayes sharpens his definition further with the following remark: “The issue is not whether Christians ought in practice to keep the [OT moral] law, but whether the law is itself a means to this end.”⁴ The point here is that some preached and taught the OT moral law to Christians, but others did not. They thought that while it was a standard for Christian living, direct teaching and preaching of it was not useful in motivating Christians to keep it. This is an important point because it would account for an occasional mention of moral law among the doctrinal antinomians, followed by very little or no emphasis upon it.

2. Some complicating factors in understanding this subject.

This is not an easy subject. Granting that Bayes’ description of doctrinal antinomianism is accurate, there are still some things that make the discussion difficult today. Let me list three:

First, both sides used their own peculiar terminology. On the orthodox side, drawing on a point made during the Reformation, there was frequent reference to the third use of the law. (For the sake of this discussion we need not go into the first two uses.) This phrase, the third use of the law, was used to say that the moral law found in the OT is an important teaching tool in the sanctification of Christians. Naturally enough, the doctrinal antinomians did not adopt this phrase for themselves.

The thing that makes this important to us is this: where this phrase is not used today, it is easy to assume that the reason is the presence of doctrinal antinomianism. But a moment’s thought shows that there is no necessary connection here at all. Any Christian is free to believe that OT moral law is very important for Christians and at the same time not use the traditional phrase.

Second, while Bayes rightly speaks of “the moral element in the law of the Old Testament,” this phrase itself has been used in more than one way. For some this phrase is equivalent to the phrase, “the Ten Commandments.” That is probably true among both historical and contemporary seventh-day Sabbatarians, that is, Christians who meet on Saturday rather than Sunday. For others, the phrase would be virtually equivalent, but they would allow some small ceremonial element in the Ten Commandments. In speaking popularly both of these groups, then, would likely use the two phrases interchangeably. They would speak of “the moral law,” of “the Decalogue,” or “the Ten Commandments” and mean the same thing.

It is clear, however, that another proper use could be made of the phrase, “the moral element in the law of the Old Testament.” It could be used simply to say that the OT has moral law within it. In fact, that is the way someone unfamiliar with the antinomian controversy would be likely to take the phrase, “the moral element in the law of the Old Testament.” He would have to be told that for many persons this was a way of referring to the Ten Commandments.

It is clear, then, that a person who held to a large number of the OT laws as moral still might be under suspicion and called an antinomian, when by Bayes’ definition he would not be antinomian at all. This is an important point that is often overlooked. Ever since the Reformation, large numbers of believers have held a position which emphasizes moral content applicable to Christians in the OT. That means there are really three positions on this matter:

1. The doctrinal antinomian view that no OT law should be applied to Christians.

2. The classical Puritan view that the Ten Commandments should be applied to Christians.

3 The view that the OT and the Decalogue contain moral law that should be applied to Christians. In this view the Decalogue and “moral law” are simply not equivalent phrases.

Unfortunately, this third position often seems to be overlooked. There is a reason for this. The understanding of many has been largely shaped by historical controversy over the first two choices, the Decalogue or antinomianism. This is a historical accident in the English-speaking world that needs to be recognized today for what it is.

3. How does John Reisinger come into all of this?

To understand the answer to this question we need to grasp three things.

First, there has been an enormous growth in the number of Calvinistic churches in North America in the last thirty years or so.

Second, most of this growth has been inspired by that form of Calvinism known as Puritanism. The importance of this is that Puritanism, more than most other forms of Protestantism, generally insisted on the Ten Commandments as the chief source of Christian ethics.

Third, a large number of these new churches, inspired by Puritanism, are Baptistic. It is among these churches, that by definition cannot receive everything that Puritanism taught, that the question of what is to be retained as Biblical and what is to be laid aside has become a source of conflict. And John Reisinger and a few others of these early members of the movement have become lightning rods, receiving thunderbolts from the various sides.

This article has been written in the interest of fairness in response to two of these recent thunderbolts. Since antinomian is clearly a word men do not choose for themselves, it is time to say something on behalf of a much-beleaguered brother, now accused of being “a doctrinal antinomian.”

4. What is the truth in this matter?

It is both understandable and unfortunate that John Reisinger has been labeled an antinomian. Let me first take up the reason why it is understandable.

First in order, of course, is the fact that we all like to find negative names for those who oppose us. Unfortunately, both antinomian and legalist appear as names of brothers too often in this controversy.

I do not think, however, that this is the main reason why John Reisinger has been called an antinomian. Two other things enter into the question. I have already mentioned one of them. In a tradition where there has been constant friction between the orthodox and the antinomians, it is almost instinctive to put a man who does not equate moral law with the Ten Commandments in the antinomian camp. I think this weighs more heavily even than the next reason I want to mention.

John Reisinger has not always spoken absolutely consistently on the law. In an important sense, however, he could not avoid this. He has been part of a movement, which has come to be called New Covenant Theology, that has been feeling its way toward a more biblical position for a relatively very few years. (Covenant theology is about 400 years old. Dispensationalism, its opposite number, has existed for almost two hundred years. New Covenant Theology, as a distinct and mediating position, is a mere infant in this company.) Under these circumstances, each of us who is a part of that movement has failed to be perfectly consistent. This is endemic to small and large departures from previous understandings in all theological positions. Witness, for example, the inconsistencies of both Martin Luther and John Calvin in trying to reconcile the traditional understanding of the Sabbath with their own new visions of Lord’s Day theology.⁵ John Reisinger, like the rest of us, is in process.

But if these are the reasons why John Reisinger has been misunderstood, why is it so unfortunate that it requires an extensive answer? There could only be one answer to this question. Many of us think that John Reisinger, generally speaking, is correct in the position that he holds.

5. What are the distinctive points of John Reisinger’s theology?

To lay out Reisinger’s theological position let me first characterize it in my own words and then I will try to characterize it historically.

1. On the subject of the covenants John Reisinger would hold that the Mosaic and New Covenants are two distinct covenants, and not two administrations of a single covenant of grace.

2. On the subject of law he would hold that each of those two covenants contains the law appropriate to its own place in history. The Mosaic Law and the Law of Christ, then, are distinct though they contain many common elements.

3. On the subject of the Christian’s obedience, he would hold that the believer must look to Jesus Christ alone as a slave looks to his master for ethics and direction. The Law of Christ is the law of the Christian.

Let me also characterize John Reisinger’s position historically by an analogy. He has adopted John Owen’s view of the Mosaic and New covenants, without adding Owen’s “creation ordinance” view of the Sabbath.⁶

A central thesis of Covenant Theology as most of us have known it has been the unity of the covenants. This means among other things that both the Mosaic Covenant and the New Covenant are parts of a larger entity called the Covenant of Grace. This position has led to distinctive language. The Mosaic Covenant is called “the old administration of the covenant.” The New Covenant is called “the new administration of the covenant.” This language gives unbiblical names to two things that have biblical names already. Listen to John Owen on this subject. First he canvasses the reasons men have for speaking of two administrations. Then he adds:

1.  These things being observed, we may consider that the Scripture doth plainly and expressly make mention of two testaments, or covenants, and distinguish between them in such a way, as what is spoken can hardly be accommodated unto a twofold administration of the same covenant. . . . Wherefore we must grant two distinct covenants, rather than a twofold administration of the same covenant merely, to be intended. ⁷

This, of course, raises the question of what law applies in each covenant. Here Owen speaks to that question while discussing Hebrews 7:18-19:

2. For the declaration made that the Messiah was come, that he had finished his work in the world, and thereby “made a end of sin, bringing in everlasting righteousness,” whereby the law was fulfilled, did sufficiently manifest its abrogation. The apostles, I confess, in their first preaching to the Jews, spake not of it [the abrogation of the law] directly, but left it to discover itself as an undeniable consequent of what they taught concerning the Lord Christ and the righteousness of God in him.⁸

[With reference to the question whether this “abrogation” included the moral law Owen makes repeated statements to that effect:] I have proved before that “the commandment” in this verse [ Heb. 7:18] is of equal extent with “the law” in the next. And “the law” there doth evidently intend the whole law, in both parts of it, moral and ceremonial, as it was given by Moses unto the church of Israel.⁹

[On Hebrews 8:12 Owen says:] It was the whole “law of commandments contained in ordinances,” or the whole law of Moses, so far as it was the rule of worship and obedience unto the church; for that law it is that followeth the fates of the priesthood. . . . Wherefore the whole law of Moses, as given unto the Jews, whether as used or abused by them, was repugnant unto and inconsistent with the gospel, and the mediation of Christ, especially his priestly office, therein declared; neither did God either design, appoint, or direct that they should be co-existent.¹⁰

It is important to note two things in these quotations. First, Owen is fully prepared to recognize that the chief difficulty between the law and Christ lay in its ceremonial part. Second, notwithstanding that fact, it is “the whole law of Moses” that has followed “the fates of the [Aaronic] priesthood.” That is, the whole thing without remainder has been abolished. Why was that so? Here is Owen’s answer:

[S]uch was the contexture of the law, and such the sanction of it, (“Cursed is every one who continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them,”) that if anything be taken out of it, if its order be disturbed, if any alteration be made, or any transgression be dispensed withal, or exempted from the curse, the whole fabric must of necessity fall to the ground.¹¹

And that brings us to the third point made by John Reisinger above, the source of the ethic of the Christian.

[First Owen makes his point by paraphrasing Christ as He speaks in Matthew 5:17.] “I came to bring in and accomplish the whole end which it [the Law] aimed at, and directed unto.” [Then Owen draws his conclusion:] whereon it would cease to oblige unto a further practice.¹²

If the whole law has met its end in Jesus Christ, what can possibly be the source of ethics and morality for Christians? Here is Owen’s answer:

3.           The only securing principle, in all things of this nature, is to preserve our souls in an entire subjection unto the authority of Christ, and unto his alone.¹³

These quotations from Owen will seem remarkable only to those who hold that the dichotomy between “orthodoxy” and “doctrinal antinomianism” is exhaustive. To anyone else it will be plain that Owen took a mediating position, substantially the same as many others have taken through history, including John Reisinger.

6. What mediating position lies between these two extremes?

The mediating position is as follows: a law of any kind may be the property of more than one covenant, but no covenant is still in force in any way after it has reached its end.

Applied to the present discussion that means this: many (indeed all) of the moral commands of the Mosaic Covenant reappear in the Law of Christ. But they do not do so because they are part of the Ten Commandments or the Mosaic Covenant. That covenant, with every one of its laws and with every demand it lays on anyone whatsoever, has passed away forever.

That was John Owen’s position, and that is the position of John Reisinger. It has also been the position of millions of others. Let me illustrate this position by analogy. Then I will try to determine why it has not been understood by so many from the Puritan tradition.

The illustration: When a church comes to adopt a new constitution, the moment it is adopted the old constitution has no force whatsoever. It is simply replaced, and that is that. Nevertheless if you look in the new constitution, you are likely to find many of the same articles, and some of them verbatim!

This is what has happened with the passing away of the Mosaic Covenant. It is gone forever in its entire commanding aspect. But the Law of Christ contains some of the same laws, just as if the Mosaic Law that contained those laws remained in force. Every reader can understand this illustration, whether he or she agrees with it or not.

Why, then, has the negative term antinomian stuck to so many who take this to be the best explanation of the presence of OT laws under the New Covenant?

If the answer is that this is essentially an antinomian explanation two replies seem obvious. First, if it is antinomianism in John Reisinger it is also antinomianism in John Owen. Second, it does not fall under the strictures against antinomianism in the latest volume to deal extensively with that issue, The Weakness of the Law by Jonathan Bayes, though Mr. Bayes himself holds the “orthodox” Puritan position.

Here, again, an accident of history may play an important role. In discussing John Owen on the Mosaic Covenant, Sinclair Ferguson notes some difference among the Puritans in sorting out the covenants.

How are these covenants¹⁴ related to one another? This question is all the more pressing in view of the legal character of the fourth covenant, forged at Sinai.

Owen was not, of course, alone in wrestling with this question. It had been raised and answered many times before, and in a number of different ways. . . . [Some] Puritans had adopted Calvin’s view that it was the covenant of grace, since it was given during the post-Adamic administration. Yet this latter view seemed hedged with difficulties in view of the sharp contrast presented in the New Testament between the ‘new’ and the ‘old’ covenants. Nevertheless it had been adopted by Calvin, and also received mature expression in the Westminster Confession…

This was a view which Owen was reluctant to adopt.…In company with a number of others, he adopted a third, mediating position. [Footnote at this point: “In view of this, and in some of the statements quoted, Dr Kevan [The Grace of Law, London, 1964, 113ff.] might have more accurately divided Puritan opinion on the Sinaitic Covenant into three groups.”]

This quotation deserves a number of careful comments. First, it serves to show that the Puritans were divided on the status of the Sinaitic [Mosaic] Covenant. The reasons were: 1. Its legal character, and 2. The sharp NT contrast between the old and new covenants. Second, somehow the various positions on the Mosaic Covenant have not clearly reached us. (It may even be doubted whether they were clear at the time.)

The third thing, however, is the most important for us. The standard and outstanding work on the Puritan use of the law, The Grace of Law, has failed to set forth the “mediating position.” What is the consequence of this? The position of Owen and others is largely unknown today.¹⁵ If Kevan had been clearer on this matter, perhaps there would be more charity shown all around.

7. A caution and a conclusion.

Do we need to be extremely cautious in evaluating the positions of others? Every fair-minded reader, I think, will answer Yes. But that is not enough, we must seek to make our actions follow this conviction. One reason for, and the chief occasion of, this booklet was an unfortunate (and no doubt, unintentional) breach of this rule by two otherwise admirable men. I have not met Jonathan Bayes, but I admire his work. Yet in his book he characterizes John Reisinger as a doctrinal antinomian. What was equally unfortunate for me, my good friend Erroll Hulse in Reformation Today 177 has endorsed this characterization.

Let me tabulate the evidence that Bayes cites from John Reisinger first, and then we will try to evaluate it. [The following paragraphs, except for the numerals, are direct quotations from Bayes on pages 44-46. I am not using quotation marks to bracket them because they often contain quotations within them.]

1. In 1980 and 1981 the Council on Baptist Theology meeting in Dallas articulated a doctrinal antinomian position on the law in the life of the believer. . . . The spokesman for the Dallas position will be John Reisinger.

2. Because Reisinger regards the law as “the God ordained instrument of condemnation ... to bring lost sinners to see their need of faith in Christ,” he rejects the view that the law was “a ‘gracious covenant’ given to a redeemed people for their sanctification”.

3. The Ten Commandments as a pedagogue have been replaced by the Holy Spirit . . . However the key to assessing whether Reisinger is fairly described as a doctrinal antinomian lies in the answer to the question, how is obedience produced? Is the immediate work of the Spirit regarded as the sole factor, or is there a place for law as a tool of the Spirit? His answer is ambivalent.

On one hand he is clear that there is a revealed will of God for the new covenant believer . . . Reisinger says, “The same moral rules that furnish our minds with help in pleasing our heavenly father functioned in the conscience of the Israelite as the condemning covenant of life and death.” This seems to imply a sanctifying power addressed to the mind in the law of God, albeit that the law is not equated precisely with the ten commandments.

4. However, at other times Reisinger appears to teach that the Gospel alone is the sanctifying instrument used by the Spirit. He asks: “How and what do we preach in order to get the ‘love that seeks to obey’ into the heart of the listener in the first place [and] how do we protect and nurture that love, so that it will continue to grow and obey?” His answer is that “nothing can fill the heart with love to God except ‘the preaching of the cross.’”

5. The emphasis in the quotations in the previous paragraph suggests that Reisinger’s theory of sanctification is indeed a version of doctrinal antinomianism. However, the quotations in the earlier paragraph suggest that it is impossible to carry through a doctrinal antinomian position consistently.

Let me discuss these items in order.

1. Did the Dallas meetings “articulate a doctrinal antinomian position?” Bayes offers no evidence for this assertion. More probably the papers given there were mixed. These meetings constituted the first national meetings to discuss these issues. I was at one of those conferences and I was not a “doctrinal antinomian” at the time. D.A. Carson spoke at one of those and lamented that his position was often characterized as antinomian, though he commended in advance an important paper by Douglas Moo that later appeared in the Westminster Theological Journal on law, including moral law, as used by Paul. In any case, nothing here directly connects John Reisinger with antinomianism.

2. Unfortunately I cannot find the quotation under this heading on page 51 of Abraham’s Four Seeds, as Bayes cites it. This may not be his fault. My edition of Reisinger’s book is undated, whereas he cites the 1987 edition for this quotation. The important point here, however, is that a number of the Puritans rejected the view that the law was “a gracious covenant” as we have already seen. If this did not make them antinomians, it is hard to see how it makes John Reisinger one.

3. The key here, as Bayes says, is whether moral law is a tool of the Spirit. What does Reisinger think about this. Let me quote him from the 1989 edition of Tablets of Stone, the same edition that Bayes uses. (Perhaps you will excuse the vehemence in the following quotation from a man who has been characterized as an antinomian and an enemy of moral law dozens, if not hundreds, of times.)

The moment that we say that the Ten Commandments are finished as a covenant, it is impossible for some people to understand what we are actually saying. In their confusion, they think we are saying, “Away with the moral law.” It does not matter how often or how loudly we affirm our belief in both moral law per se and specifically in the enduring moral principles of nine of the ten commandments written on the Tablets of the Covenant. That is not enough for these people. They insist that the Ten Commandments as written on the Tablets of Stone at Mt. Sinai are “the eternal unchanging moral laws of God.” It is all or nothing. It is impossible to even discuss the clear Biblical reasons we have for rejecting such a theological view.

The New Testament Scriptures are clear that the Ten Commandments are finished as a covenant contract between God and Israel. We are NOT saying that the morality contained in the individual commandments is finished. . . . The moral duties commanded on the Tablets of Stone did not begin at Sinai but the use of those duties as the basis of a covenant did begin at Sinai. Nine of the ten commandments were known by men and punished by God long before and after God gave them to Israel as a covenant. Every specific duty commanded in the Ten Commandments except the fourth, or Sabbath, was punished before Mt. Sinai, and likewise, every commandment except the fourth, is repeated in the NT Scriptures.¹⁶

Could anything be plainer than this? John Reisinger takes the “mediating view” of the Law. That is, the content of all but one commandment reappears in the NT.

Is this statement “ambivalent?” Clearly not. But more needs to be said. Even if all of John Reisinger’s statements were ambivalent, that would not be reason to make him the champion of either side. It would be reason to find someone else to represent antinomianism, especially when Bayes himself says, of another quotation from Reisinger, “This seems to imply a sanctifying power addressed to the mind in the law of God, albeit that the law is not equated precisely with the ten commandments.”¹⁷

4. Two things come to mind about this quotation. First, since it seems to come from a 1982 publication (which I do not have), it perhaps should be understood to assert that only the gospel is useful in sanctification. In that case it would meet one of Bayes’ criteria for antinomianism. Fair enough! John may still have been using antinomian language back then.

But I suspect that there is a simpler explanation. One has only to think of this statement as a mild hyperbole, the kind of deliberate exaggeration that all preachers use in emphasizing a point. I know another Preacher who did this more than once. See Matthew 5:29-30; 18:8-9; 19:24.

5. This fifth point shows that Jonathan Bayes had to make a choice between the quotations from John Reisinger, and in my judgment, he chose wrongly. How else could he have handled his analysis of Reisinger’s “ambivalence?” Perhaps he should have concluded this way: “The quotations in the earlier paragraph suggest that Reisinger’s theory of sanctification is indeed the orthodox view. However, the quotations in the previous paragraph suggest that it is impossible—at least for Reisinger—to carry through the orthodox position consistently.” That would have been the charitable way to treat “ambivalence.” Had he concluded that way, he would have been very close to the truth, since Reisinger is not at all an antinomian, but he does hold an “antinomian” view of the Sabbath law. In doing that, many other lovers of God’s law join him.

It is difficult to know why John Reisinger has been thought to be an antinomian.

I suspect the reason is twofold. First, John Reisinger has questioned some parts of the 1689 Confession. Despite the assurances that strict subscriptionists give us about the importance of sola scriptura, many of them—or so it seems to me—read the Bible through those ancient and honored lenses. It would not be hard to show that great strength has come to the church through such determined clinging to documents that contain an enormous amount of truth. It has born much good fruit, but it is not sola scriptura.

The second thing, perhaps, goes even closer to the heart of the problem. Among the Puritans the Sabbath was both a sacred day and a feast day for the souls of millions. If “by their fruits you shall know them,” it might be argued, the Sabbath has vindicated itself. “Wisdom is justified of her children.”

Let us grant that the Lord’s Day has been a great blessing to the nations that have forbidden work on that day. Both worship and rest for the genuinely weary have resulted and we should be grateful for both. But still the nagging question comes, “Is it Biblical under the New Covenant?” That question has dogged the footsteps of many millions, until they have felt compelled to answer with John Reisinger: No.

We cannot solve the mystery of why John Reisinger has attracted so many thunderbolts. But it is not necessary that we know. We must all stand before the judgment seat of Christ someday. Then we’ll find out, if we still care to know.

8. An afterword.

Some may be tempted to think that all of this is much to do over nothing. At least they will want to ask the question, “Why was this defense so important to you?” A simple and true answer would be, I hate to see people misrepresented, even when that misrepresentation is not deliberate.

But there is a much more important answer.

Often when I am talking to someone who disagrees with me on the matter of the Mosaic Law, I feel the urge to cry out, “But we are Christians!” (By “we” I mean both my fellow Christian who does not see things my way, and myself.) Why would I want to do that? Because as a fellow slave of Jesus Christ I fear that he is not granting the Lord Jesus His crown rights. I do not often cry that out, of course. Even believers who outstrip me in love to Christ would hardly know what I was talking about. The message is not difficult, however. A slave looks to his master for his orders.

When I am able to make myself understood I am likely to get an answer like this: “Remember, Tom, that the Lord Jesus was also the author of the Mosaic Law.”

That answer is profoundly true, of course. The Lord Jesus is the second person of the Trinity. Along with the Father and the Spirit he inspired the Ten Commandments and all else in the Word of God.

There is a problem with this answer, however. As profoundly true as it is, it does not reflect the standpoint of the NT on the issue we have been discussing.

The longer I live, the more I see a different emphasis in the NT. It is captured best, perhaps, in the opening verses of the book of Hebrews. It reads as follows in the majestic cadences of the King James Version:

God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son . . .

This is the standpoint of the New Covenant. Did the writer of Hebrews know the doctrine of the Trinity? Of course he did. Did he know that the second person of the blessed Trinity authored Scripture, including the law of Moses? Without doubt that was clear to him. He would have agreed with my fellow believer entirely.

But he would also have said, “You must understand: that is not my standpoint! Had I wanted to,” he might have added, “I could have said that Father, Son, and Spirit spoke, but there is an important reason why I didn’t. I could also have said that God used the same kind of instruments in all eras. Certainly there was a sense that was true as well. But I chose my words carefully. I had two things I wanted to emphasize. First, we have come to a new era. Second, we are hearing a new voice, and we must listen to Him.”

I sometimes fear that even at this late date, the simple message of Hebrews 1:1-2 is lost. And it seems worthwhile to underline it once more. Perhaps that is the reason that good men in all ages have denied the Mosaic Law in the first place. Perhaps that is why some, even among the Puritans, have insisted, “We have nothing to do with the law in Moses’ hand. We have only to do with it in the hand of Christ.”¹⁸

^1. The word is of Greek origin. Anti means “against.” Nomian comes from nomos meaning “law.”

^2. Jonathan F. Bayes, The Weakness of the Law (Carlisle, UK: Paternoster, 2000), 4.

^3. Weakness, 4.

^4. Weakness, 4.

^5. For the most sympathetic treatment of this issue as regards John Calvin, see Sam Waldron, Lectures on the Lord’s Day (Grand Rapids?:Reformed Baptist Church?, n.d.). 70-82. Other important discussions of Calvin’s Sabbath views are R. J. Bauckham, “Sabbath and Sunday in the Protestant Tradition,” 315-317, in D. A. Carson, ed., From Sabbath to Lord’s Day (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982), and John H. Primus, “The Puritan Sabbath,” 40-75, in David E. Holwerda, ed., Exploring the Heritage of John Calvin (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1976).

^6. My analogy is not meant to imply that John Reisinger learned these things from John Owen. They rather lie on the face of the Scriptures themselves, at least as many of us read them. John Owen’s mature thought on the covenants is found in his voluminous commentary on Hebrews, the product of his old age and said by Thomas Chalmers to be “the greatest work of John Owen.” While I have the set bound in four volumes as issued in 1960 by Sovereign Grace Publishers in Evansville Indiana, I will refer to the seven-volume division which is really the only accurate way to do it. Since it is now available from Banner of Truth, bound in seven volumes, this is most likely the edition my readers will have.

^7. Owen, Hebrews, 6:76. [Italics in the original. The numbers before the quotations from Owen correspond to the points John Reisinger is said to hold above.]

^8. Hebrews, 5:462.

⁹  Hebrews, 5:464. [Italics in original.]

^10. Hebrews, 5:428, 429.

^11. Hebrews, 5:431. This insistence on the abolition of the whole law of Moses appears in a number of other places in Owen.

^12. Hebrews, 5:461. Here also Owen pays attention to the principal aim of the law in the passage he is examining, Matthew 5:17. “The end it was directed to was righteousness before God,” showing that the moral law was included in his understanding of the verse. He adds, “This end, therefore, is principally to be considered in this law; which when it is attained, the law is established, although its obligation unto obedience unto itself doth necessarily cease. Now this end of the law was Christ and his righteousness . . .” Owen is aware that the law also prescribed particular duties. Of these he writes: “The law may be considered with respect unto the particular duties that it required and prescribed. And because the whole law had its end, these were appointed only until that end might be, or was attained.”

^13. Hebrews, 5:464. In light of Owen’s comprehensive view of the whole law (as cited earlier from this same page), we cannot doubt that Christ has replaced the whole law for him.

^14. Ferguson includes in “these covenants” more than the two we are discussing. This is in keeping with the complex understanding of covenants that prevailed among them. His remark about Owen on the subject of the covenant of grace applies to many more since: “He would have been on more secure biblical ground if he had begun with a clear exegesis of the notion of the covenant as it appears in Scripture, and refrained from employing this term except where exegesis demanded its use” (John Owen on the Christian Life, Edinburgh, Banner of Truth, 1987, 31).[Italics added.]

^15. The British Reformed Baptist journal, Reformation Today 137, pp.27- 32 did contain an article on this subject by Don Strickland showing agreement between John Owen, John Bunyan and Samuel Petto. As good as the article is, however, it shows the wisdom of Ferguson’s remark cited in my footnote 13 immediately above.

^16. John Reisinger, Tablets of Stone (Southbridge, MA: Crowne, 1989), 79-80.

¹⁷ Weakness, 45.

^18. See the discussion in Ernest F. Kevan, The Grace of Law (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1976), 184-187. Most of the Puritans, of course, would have held to the over-arching covenant of grace and used the two-administration language rather than the two-covenant language common in the NT.