A Critique of John Colquhoun's The Law and The Gospel (Pt.12)

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

By way of review, we accomplished, I believe, the fact that since Christ is the new form and substance, a new law must be established that signifies it. 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" as opposed to a holy "nation" set apart for God (Heb.13:8-15; Matt.21:43; Rom.9:24-26, 33; 11:13-36)? These are a few of the questions we will try to answer in this sitting. We also established, I believe, the fact that a new voice emerges in the conscience through the gospel (Rev.3:20; Jn.10:27; 18:37; Heb.3:7-11). This voice is an incorruptible voice that carries the soul by the Spirit into glory through the knowledge of the forgiveness of sins in Christ alone.

Therefore, what is this law in the hand of Christ as a "rule of life" to all true believers? The short answer is so obvious that it is ridiculous. It must be the only principle that endures beyond the grave of our sins (1Cor.13:13). We already established, I believe, that the law of faith is established to signify the new priesthood that comes by the new substance of Christ's resurrection and heavenly mediatorial work (Col.2:16-17; 1Cor.15:45-47), but this ministry of reconciliation that is established by faith also has an end (1Cor.15:25-28; Mk.3:23-27). The principle(s) that signify this law of faith is the Lord's Table and water baptism. These bear the marks of the earthly elements because they are only temporary signs of the eternal substance of the law of love in Christ's coming kingdom (Rom.14:15; Eph.5:1-2; 1Jn.2:10-11; 2Jn.6). Faith was required under the old form that was signified by the sabbath and circumcision, but that faith was tested by the evidence of looking forward to the fulfillment of Christ's coming in the flesh as the deliverer from Israel's enemies (Rom.4:9-16; Gal.3:5-9; Lk.2:25-26, 34-35), but our faith is tested by looking back to the fulfillment of Christ's coming in the flesh as the substitute and exclusive object of the forgiveness of sins and coming again in future "glory" to deliver us from the totality of sin and death (1Jn.2:21-23; 3:24-4:3; 2Cor.5:15-17).

So then, the substance of our faith has changed from that of a love for the kingdoms of this world to the love of the kingdom that is eternal and never changes (1Jn.2:15-17; 3:1-4; Col.1:13-14; Matt.13:57). Our love for the law of liberty in the flesh, which sets us apart from other men, is exchanged for the law of love for the sovereign kingdom of the King of kings who is the Judge of the living and the dead (Ps.2:1-12; Rev.2:25-29; 12:5-6; 19:14-16; Heb.7:11-12; 13:12-14; Rom.14:7-9, 14-17). The Spirit does, indeed, reign in us alongside the reign of the liberty of Death (2Cor.3:17-18; 4:3-6; 1Cor.13:8-13; Rom.5:12-21), which is why hope and faith limit the extent of the kingdom of the Son of His love to the regenerate alone (Rom.8:3-4, 10-11, 20-26; Col.1:13-14; Matt.21:18-22).

Now we turn the page again to the ongoing presuppositional "error" regarding the nature of the moral law (from the perspective) that it was "natural" to Adam before he sinned. This question resurfaces due to the ongoing explanation of Covenant Theology's applications of their presuppositions concerning a definition of the moral law as "the law of nature" and as "the Ten Commandments." I've already made the case in previous posts about the foundational fallacies of this premise, but since they continue to use the same argument from different angles, I must address each angle in defense of my correction of the error(s). Now, first, I must agree plainly with this statement: "The great Mediator, having admitted believers to communion with Himself in the surety of His own righteousness, writes, by His Spirit, the law on their hearts, and in His Father's name makes it the instrument of His government of them and the rule of their duty to Him" (pg.32).

The fact that the law must be written on the heart demonstrates the fact that, at least as sinners, we come into the world without the law written on our hearts, but I want to add the reality that not even Adam had "the law" in the fulness of what Covenant Theologians call the "the law" written on Adam's heart. Adam was created in God's image (and likeness), the likeness meaning the moral law of the nature of the Spirit of God in relation to God's sovereign grace. But this doesn't mean he was created with a full knowledge (or conscience) of the law. He was created "corruptible" but was innocent of things not yet seen (Rom.5:13-14; Gen.2:16-17). We, however, as sinners by nature, are created corruptible but are guilty of things not yet seen (Jn.3:3, 36; Eph.2:1-3). This is why the law must be written on our hearts, which is another way of saying it must be written on our conscience (1Cor.15:34; 1Cor.8:5-7/emphasis:v.7a).

The moral law is not natural law since the moral law is the law of the Spirit of Life, meaning the law of eternal life through Jesus Christ (Rom.8:1-2). The old economy that Adam was created under died with Christ as the last Adam of the natural order of law but was resurrected as the life-giving spirit of the newness of life (Gen.3:22-24; Rom.6:5-6; 8:1-4, 8-11; 1Cor.15:45-49). This is why statements like: "Were believers to keep the moral law only as a law of nature and without any relation to the Mediator, their obedience would but be natural religion," and, "Were they to obey it merely as a covenant of works, their obedience would be but legal righteousness," are very "weird" (Heb.13:9). The law, as they define it, in correlation to the natural law, made nothing good or perfect apart from the economic correlation to the nature of the tree of life (Rom.7:18; 8:3-4; Heb.7:18-19), by which they were separated from through the law of the knowledge of sin (Rom.1:18-21; Gen.2:17). So then, the moral law cannot be the same as the Ten Commandments since they were added because of sin and could only increase the strength and power of the law of sin (according to) the nature of man's economic depravity concerning the order of natural law (Gal.3:19; Rom.5:19-20; 1Cor.15:6).

The moral law, then, is a supernatural gift of grace that produces eternal life and incorruptibility through the law of the Spirit of Christ (Rom.8:1-2). So then, when I understand the law as it truly is in the hand of Christ, I can, with a clean and free conscience, offer an Amen to this statement: "But when they obey it in its relation to Christ and the covenant of grace, their conformity of heart and life to it is true holiness, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ (1Pet.2:5)" (pg.32). However, the error of Covenant Theology continues under this deluded presupposition that there is a covenant of works that promises eternal life through perfect obedience to it. This is what I must continue to expose as false as their heretical minds continue to unfold it in defense of their systematic application of this theological presupposition by "neither understanding what they say nor what they affirm" in opposition to the truth as the law is in the hand of Christ (1Tim.1:5-11).

They say that "the great design of God in giving the law in the hand of Christ to His people is not that by their obedience to it, they may procure themselves a right to eternal life, but that it may direct and oblige them to walk worthy of their union with Christ, of their justification in Him, of their legal title to and begun possession of life eternal, and of God Himself as their God in Him" (pg.34). While this may be granted as a half-truth (in the Christian's 'motive' to live a holy life), it must not be granted as a whole truth to be counted as God's design. The purpose behind the law doesn't change in the hand of Christ just because there is a change in the law for the believer. This change of law doesn't apply to the unbeliever because the law demands their death, and the nature of God demands no partiality to the violators of the law (Rom.2). Consider what the law is in the hand of man versus in the hand of Christ (Jn.1:17). Notice that it doesn't teach that truth came through Moses, for in the hand of man, there comes no grace. Equity demands no partiality in the law, which is why no one lives under 'the letter" of that covenant (2Cor.3:4-6). So then, it is through the Lord that we understand the law as truth (Jn.18:38), for its old form is no longer true for the Christian (Phil.1:18).

So then, by what standard do we find it as a rule of life to be true? How is a Christian, who is now a slave of righteousness (Rom.6:15-18), commanded to apply the law as a rule of life (Rom.6:1-2)? Does he continue to command it as "do and live" under the standard of the old covenant, or does he preach it as "live and do" by the standard of the gospel (Rom.6:19-23)? Is the law now a double standard to the unbeliever as one standard that demands death and to the Christian as a different standard that doesn't demand death (2Cor.5:14-17; Lk.23:39-43)? A double standard is what I hear from the voice of Covenant Theology, especially when they say, " The law as a rule of life to believers, especially in this view of it, is very different from the law as a covenant of works. The precept of the law as a covenant is 'Do and live,' but the command of the law, as a rule, is 'Live and do;' the law of works says, 'Do or you shall be condemned to die,' but the law in the hand of Christ says, 'You are delivered from condemnation; therefore do.'" (pg.34). But again, this is sheer imagination, a dream of a corruptible use of the law. How is Paul joining the law to the gospel when instructing Timothy about misuses of the law (1Tim.1:5-11)? The purpose behind the law doesn't change in its demand that calls for the death of the violator (1Tim.1:9-10). So then, what changes "for the righteous person" behind (the purpose) of the law (1Tim.1:11)? It's the incorruptible moral of love, according to the pure and holy nature of God's heart (1Tim.1:5), that changes the nature of the believer to obey the law according to the nature of God's life and mind behind the law (1Cor.2:14-16).

The law under the form of the old covenant that demands our death is fulfilled according to the moral nature that demands eternal life through the grace of Jesus Christ (Jn.1:16; Matt.5:17-20, 48; 1Cor.15:54-58). Therefore, there is no change in the law according to nature (Rom.7:14), but there is a change in the relationship of the believer to the law in the hand of Christ (Rom.8:31-39). It is not changed from 'do or die' to that of 'live and do' as the double standard of Covenant Theology teaches (Rom.7:9-10); rather, it is changed from 'do or die' to 'live and be.' The Christian life isn't about "doing" anything but about being what we are made to become (Rom.11:5-6; 2Cor.2:14-16). The works that Christians do are only the fruit of what they are in the progression of the knowledge and grace of the gospel of Jesus Christ (2Pet.3:17-18; 1Cor.1:18; Rom.1:16-17). The gospel doesn't set us free from the responsibility of the natural law ordered for the economy of this world but sets us free to obey it according to the moral law of our reconciliation with God (Matt.22:17-22; Rom.6:23; 7:14; 12:6-9; 13:8-14).

So then, is there a difference for Christians between the law as a rule of duty and a rule of life? If so, how can that be? Was it Christ's obedience to the old form as a covenant of works that is the cause of our eternal life? I believe these questions were sufficiently answered in previous posts in more detail, so I'm not going to invest the time to try to answer why there is no difference between a rule of life and a rule of duty again. This problem reoccurs because of the deluded imaginations of Covenant Theologians. Christians are obligated to love, which is the fruit of the moral law of eternal life. Love is our rule of life, and it is our duty to our neighbor. It is true that Christ had to fulfill the law, but then why does he die "contrary to the law" since he was shown innocent by the one who had the authority to crucify Him (Jn.18:23, 38; 19:11; Acts 23:3)? He was born under the law, yes, which meant that He was subject to its curse, but the law was never His righteousness (Rom.3:28; Mk.2:24-28). In case you believe I am misrepresenting the teaching of Covenant Theology, consider their own confession: "The promise of eternal life to the saints is the promise of the covenant of grace, or the gospel, and not of the law as a rule of duty. Eternal life is promised to them not in consideration of their sincere obedience to the law as a rule of life but on account of Christ's perfect obedience to it as a covenant of works received by faith and imputed by God" (pg.35).

Why is that confession wrong on so many levels? Well, we already explored why 'eternal' life doesn't come through conformity to the law, so we must agree that the promise of life comes exclusively through the covenant of grace. In this, we do and must agree. But that doesn't change our obligation to the law as a rule of duty and as a rule of life. Consider that the law continues as a rule of duty and a rule of life in its fulfillment through Christ, yet continuing its obligation to us to "put to death the deeds of the body" while at the same time living by the law of the Spirit of life in Christ (Rom.8:10-13). By what means do we then "live" to God expect by our full confession that the law is fulfilled in the statement "if Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin," but the rule of love's duty and life is also in us by the Spirit who gives "life to our mortal bodies because of the righteousness of Christ" (Rom.8:10-11). Therefore, we live by not loving our fleshly life in the death of our bodies while living for the love of God in Christ's life (1Jn.2:15-17; Rev.12:11).