The relationship of the Law with the Christian is, to this day, the subject of great debate. Should Christians keep the law?No, but in what sense?
In the following video, Mauro Meister, Old Testament professor at Andrew Jumper, talks about the classic reformed perspective of the relationship between Law and Grace.
- There are three main theological areas on the themes of law.
- The Gospel.
- And the structuring of God’s redemptive relationship with humanity: dispensationalism.
- The theology of the covenant.
- And the theology of the new covenant; it should be remembered that even in these areas there are subdivisions and that some positions are not even accepted (such as classical dispensationism?Yes.
- There is more than one type of dispensationalism).
- ) If this is your first time hearing about these topics.
- It is recommended that you read and study a lot and then defend your position.
- They are not easy questions.
- More important.
- You can then view a summary of the three fields:.
The text below is taken from: What does John Piper think of dispensationism, the theology of the covenant, and the theology of the new covenant?
It can be difficult to summarize dispensational theology as a whole, as in recent years multiple forms have developed. In general, there are three main badges.
First, dispensationalism sees God as structuring its relationship with humanity through different stages of revelation, which outline different dispensations or administrative arrangements. Is every dispensation one? Test? From humanity to be faithful to the particular revelation given at that time. Generally, seven dispensations are distinguished: innocence (before the fall), conscience (Adam to Noah), promise (Abraham to Moses), law (Moses to Christ), grace (from Pentecost to abduction), and millennium.
Second, dispensationalism supports a literal interpretation of the scriptures, which does not negate the existence of figures and languages of non-literal style in the Bible, but rather means that there is a literal meaning behind figurative passages.
Third, as a result of this literal interpretation of the scriptures, dispensationalism supports a distinction between Israel (including believing Israel) and the church. From this point of view, the promises made to Israel in the Old Testament were not intended to be prophecies about what God would do spiritually for the church, but which would literally be fulfilled by Israel itself (especially during the millennium). For example, the promise of the earth is interpreted as meaning that one day God will completely restore Israel in Palestine. Non-dispensationists generally see the promise of the earth as God’s intention to prophesy, in the dark form of the old covenant, the great reality that one day would make of the whole church, Jews and Gentiles, heirs of the renewed world (cf. . Romans 4:13).
Therefore, in many ways, it is correct to say that dispensationalism believes in “two peoples of God”. Although Jews and Gentiles are saved by Christ by faith, do you believe that Israel will be the recipient of the “Earth?”Of others (such as prosperity in the specific land of Palestine, which will be fully realized in the millennium) that do not apply to pagan believers, whose main inheritance is therefore “heavenly”.
The theology of the Covenant believes that God has structured his relationship with humanity through covenants rather than dispensations. For example, in the scriptures we explicitly read several covenants that function as stages of redemptive history, such as the covenant with Abraham, the gift of the law. , the covenant with David and the new covenant. These post-fall covenants are not new evidence of human fidelity at every new stage of revelation (as are dispensations in dispensationalism); rather, they are different administrations from the one and complete alliance of grace.
The covenant of grace is one of the two fundamental alliances of the theology of the covenant. Structure God’s relationship after the fall with humanity; before the fall, God structured his relationship by the covenant of works. The covenant of grace is better understood in relation to the covenant of works.
The covenant of works, instituted in the garden of Eden, was the promise that perfect obedience would be rewarded with eternal life. Adam was created without sin, but with the ability to fall into sin. If he had remained faithful at the time of temptation. in the Garden of Eden (the “trial period”), he would have become incapable of sin and would have obtained an eternal and unwavering right before God.
But Adam sinned and broke the covenant, and thus subjected himself and all his descendants to the problem of breaking the covenant: condemnation. Therefore, God, in his mercy, instituted the “covenant of grace”, which is the promise of redemption and eternal life for those who want to believe in the Redeemer (to come). The demand for perfect obedience to eternal life is not undone in the covenant of grace; on the contrary, it is the work of Christ on behalf of his people, for they are all now sinners, and no one can satisfy the condition of perfect obedience by their own actions. Therefore, the covenant of grace does not annul the covenant of works. ; rather, it does!
As mentioned above, the theology of the covenant emphasizes that there is only one covenant of grace and that all the various redeeming covenants we read in the scriptures are simply different administrations of that one covenant. As evidence, it is noted that an alliance is essentially simply a sovereignly given promise (often with stipulations), and since there is only one promise of salvation (i. e. through grace by faith), it is followed that there is therefore only one covenant of grace. All the specific redemptive covenants we read (Abrahamic, mosaic, etc. ) are diverse and progressive expressions of the covenant of grace.
The theology of the new covenant generally does not support an alliance of works or a complete covenant of grace (although they continue to advocate a single path of salvation). The essential difference between the theology of the new pact (hereinafter TNA) and The Theology of the Covenant (TP), however, refers to mosaic law. TP argues that Mosaic law can be divided into three groups of laws: those governing the government of Israel (civil laws), ceremonial laws, and moral laws. and civil laws are no longer in force, because the former was fulfilled by Christ and the second applied only to the theocracy of Israel, which no longer exists. But the moral law continues.
The TNA contends that no one can divide the law in this way, as if one part of mosaic law could have been repealed and the rest was still in force. Mosaic law is a unit, they say, and therefore, if it is part of it was annulled, everything was annulled. Moreover, they say that the New Testament clearly teaches that mosaic law as a whole has been replaced in Christ, that is, it is no longer our direct and immediate source of counsel. as a law, no longer binds the believer.
Does this mean that believers are no longer governed by a divine law?No, because Mosaic law has been replaced by the law of Christ. TNA distinguishes between God’s eternal moral law and the code in which God expresses this law to us. The law is an expression of eternal moral law as a particular code that also contains positive rules related to the particular temporal purpose of the code, and therefore the annulment of Mosaic law does not mean that the eternal moral law itself has been annulled. On the contrary, in the annulment of Mosaic law, did God give us a different expression of his eternal moral law?namely the law of Christ, which consists of the moral instructions of Christ’s teaching and the New Testament. TNA seeks to raise is: where do we look to see the expression of God’s eternal moral law today?For Moses or for Christ? TNA says we should look at Christ.
There are many similarities between the law of Christ and mosaic law, but that does not change the fact that mosaic law has been annulled and that we should therefore not turn to it for direct guidance, but to the New Testament. For example, England and the United States have similar laws (for example, murder is illegal in both countries). However, the English were not subject to the laws of America, but to England. If an English citizen murders in England, he is guilty of violating an English anti-murder law, not a US law.
The advantage of TNA, its supporters argue, is that it solves the difficulty of trying to understand which of the laws of Moses applies today, as far as its understanding is concerned, since Mosaic law is no longer a source of direct and immediate guidance. , we must turn to the law of Christ to obtain our direct direction. Although Mosaic law is no longer a mandatory code of law in the NT era, it still has the authority, not of the law, but of prophetic testimony. As such, it fulfills and explains certain concepts of the old and new law of the covenant.
? As this is a controversial issue, there is a high likelihood of debate. That is good, as long as it is done under this law under which we are all: “You will love your neighbor as yourself. “