A Critique of John Colquhoun's The Law and The Gospel (Pt.10)

Section 3: The Law in the Hand of Christ the Blessed Mediator as a Rule of Life to All True Believers?

In this section, we are going to try to answer this biblically (and realistically). It is a true state of fact that the law is in the hand of Christ, but I present it as a question first so that we are bringing ourselves under the Scripture rather than a presupposition of man. We would be fools to believe that Christ did not use the law as a means to show the nature of man (Rom.7:14), for I believe we already established that fact and answered that question thoroughly in a previous observation of this debate, but this is a different statement of fact. This is presenting "the law" again as a rule of life. Therefore, we again have to define our terms and what Covenant Theology means by this term to make this a rule of life, but more importantly, we must first define what the Bible means by the law when it is used in its own Scriptural context before we obey it as a rule of life, especially since this continuous debate will go on until the Lord Himself returns as the measuring rod of this rule, for the minds of men still corrupt God's "written" thoughts, and since "the law" changes through covenantal form, as it is said in the statement above, "in the hand of Christ."

Therefore, this is a Lordship issue. How does the Lord Himself expect us to use the law? Therefore, we must first understand how the law changes (Heb.7:12). We must also ask why it changes and why only in part it doesn't change (Rom.7:14). This will help us understand why we can offer our Amen to this presupposition of one Covenant Theology's thoughts: "The law is divested of its covenant form to all who are vitally united to the last Adam, who have communion with Him in His righteousness and who are invested in the covenant of grace" (pg.29). We can confess alongside this as a "faithful saying" of the testimony of the written Word. But my objection comes from the context in which this is presented upon another presumption around the definition of the term "the law." What Covenant Theology means by "its covenant form" is the Ten Commandments as tied to what they call "the law of nature," which in (reality) is the moral law.

That's a problem because the moral law cannot change and will not change in the mind of God. We know this because John and his proponents begin this section with the definition of their terms: "The authority and obligation of the law of nature, which is the same as the law of the Ten Commandments, being founded in the nature of God, the almighty Creator and sovereign ruler of men, are necessary, immutable, and eternal. They (the Ten) were the same before the law received the form of a covenant of works" (pg.29). Again, that's the contradiction in terms!! And it's a contradiction because it ignores the context in which the law was received (in its form) under a covenant that creates a nation of "holy" people that will represent God (in a form) that speaks "against" the other nations (Gal.3:19; Rom.9:17, 30-33). So then, what is "the law" of righteousness that is according to God's righteous nature as the unchangeable moral law? It's not the Ten Commandments!! While they are spiritual, they only reveal the law of the nature of sin (Rom.7:14; Matt.5:48).

So then, if "the law," according to Covenant Theology, can be divested of its form, how can it be called the law of nature or "the moral law" as they define it (at the same time) (Mal.3:6; Heb.13:8)? Does the law lose the nature of its holiness because of a change in covenant form (Rom.7:10-14)? No, but why? It's because not all laws in their covenant form are moral and derived from God's nature. There is a law of gravity, but this is obviously a changeable law that is not derived from God's nature (Matt.14:29). The law under its covenant form, then, is not a transcript of God's holy nature (Rom.7:14). Hear their presupposition again: "His nature (God's) is infinitely, eternally, and unchangeably holy; AND THEREFORE His law, which is a transcript of His holiness, must retain INVARIABLY and ETERNALLY all its original authority (Lev.11:44; 1 Pet.1:15-16)" (pg.29). But again, look at the proof text under the context(s) in which we are called to be holy according to the contradiction of "Covenant Theology." Was there a change in "the law" or not (Rom.4:13-16; 3:27-31)? What "law" do we then establish? What form of law divests us of the law under the form of the sabbath and circumcision that made Israel a holy nation set apart for God (Jn.5:17-18; Gen.17:11; Ex.31:13; Ezk.20:20; Rom.7:1-6; Phil.2:5-11; 1 Cor.7:17-19)? Why is "the church" free from this obligation as also a holy "people" set apart for God (Heb.13:8-15; Matt.21:43; Rom.9:24-26, 33; 11:13-36)?

The law, as a rule, then, from the mouth of the Covenant Theologians, issues to true Christians directly from the mouth of Christ because He is the unchangeable and GLORIOUS mediator of a new covenant that will change our lowly bodies of flesh and blood into His glorious body redeemed for us from above (Matt.9:5; Heb.1:1-4; 1Cor.15:50-58). The moral law, then, is eternal and unchangeable, but there are "laws" given to us from God to keep us under "the nature" of sin until we are released from the power of sin to live by faith unto the day of our resurrection in Him according to "the glorious law of the new creation" to bear fruit not unto death but unto God (Gal.3:22-4:7; Rom.6:1-3, 15-23; 7:14). But there will be teachers who will deny the glorious ones and blaspheme the law of faith (Jude 8-13; 2Pet.2:2-22).