Covenant Theology vs New Covenant Theology

Well, welcome to the Striving for Eternity. This is another one of our theological discussions. Today's discussion is going to be on the topic of Covenant Theology and New Covenant Theology. Why do we do these hangouts?

We do these specific theological discussion hangouts for the one purpose, well, actually two purposes. The one purpose is so we can better understand what different people believe, different views of different theological systems or beliefs within theology.

But a second reason is because we want to try to be an example to those of you who would be watching of how we can disagree theologically with people without the name calling. Well, okay, okay, we can use first names.

But other than that, we don't want the name calling. You're not going to hear anyone calling someone a heretic or anything like that tonight. You're going to see people that can discuss where they agree or disagree with one another and not be all mean and bitter toward one another.

So the guest we're going to have tonight is, and I'm probably going to butcher Carlos' name but he's going to correct me, I hope. I'll butcher his podcast even more. But it's Carlos Montego,.

If I got that right. Did I get that right? Montego or Montijo, think of the Beach Boys song.

Yeah, okay, so anyone that knows me knows that Carlos does not know me well. I'm pop culture challenged. I don't know music, I don't know movies, so that doesn't help me at all. And Carlos is with a podcast called Supereframundum, which I probably butchered as well.

You want to.

Correct it? Yeah, Semper Reformanda Radio. And that stands for Reformed and Still Reforming,.

Correct? Right, Reformed and Always Reforming. Oh, and Always Reforming. And he is going to take the position of Covenant Theology. It is pronounced lines, right? Yes. Okay, and he's with Emmaus Road Baptist Church.

Yeah, Emmaus Road Church. Go ahead. Yeah,.

Emmaus Road Church. Emmaus Road Church. But we are Baptist but we don't have Baptist in the name.

Okay. And he's going to take a new Covenant Theology position. Now, as a joke, this is clearly just a joke, but if Carlos is Reformed and Ever Reforming, he had Reformed to be New Covenant Theology and then they both Reformed to be Dispensational as they're going to be in heaven and we'll all be happy.

You guys can't see that they are laughing. They got the joke. But that's the spirit that we want to have tonight. We want to have a good dialogue. And with that, I'm going to ask Carlos if he would just give 20 -30 minutes of explain to us what Covenant Theology is and then after that we're going to have Luis explain what New Covenant Theology is.

So go ahead.

Covenant Theology, New Covenant Theology, and Common Ground

Sure. It might not take that long, but I first of all did want to thank you, Andrew, for reaching out to us and for encouraging this kind of dialogue. I think it really is important and I think it really does help, especially in situations like these with respect to in-house discussions and debates and whatnot.

And I'm also grateful for Brother Luis for his willingness to engage on this topic. And so I'm grateful for you guys and I'm looking forward to this. So just a quick overview of, I guess, what I hold to.

I do hold to Covenant Theology, but since I'm a Reformed Baptist, it's not exactly the mainline version of Covenant Theology. And I also do want to preface the fact that since I do consider myself confessional, holding to the Second Lenten Baptist Confession of 1689, there are some...I don't fully subscribe to it, but for the most part I do agree with, I guess you could say, 95 of it.

But just to give a brief overview, in Covenant Theology, and the basic issues with Covenant Theology is that there's the three covenants that, I guess, NCT, by and large, rejects, which would be the Covenant of Works, the Covenant of Redemption, and the Covenant of Grace.

And so, by and large, there's...it's really not that much variation. There is obviously variation, but since we have standards in the Reformed tradition, like the Westminster Confession and the Lenten Baptist Confession, the standards kind of, I guess, in some ways help to keep it somewhat monolithic, even though there's obviously nuances between individuals and things that are not...that the confessions don't explicitly address.

But by and large, Covenant Theology is...there's a lot of overlap between Presbyterians and Reformed Baptists. Some of the main differences would be that, since we are not Paedo-Baptists, since I'm not a Paedo-Baptist, I'm obviously a Baptist, and so there's very crucial and important differences between how we view, in particular, the Covenant of Grace.

And so, I guess I'll start with that. The Covenant of Grace is essentially just a covenant that God the Father made with Christ, and we all who believe in Him, Christ-elect in Him, elected to...well, basically purchased our salvation for us in the New Testament.

So, in Reformed Baptist theology, the New Testament, by and large, is basically what we call the Covenant of Grace. And one of the things that happened with me that got me going in this direction was, I remember reading through Calvin's Institutes, and when he was explaining the differences between the covenants and how he was saying that there's really not that big of a difference, that it's mainly a difference of administration and not so much of substance, that kind of got me thinking a little bit as to how that could be possible, because, especially in Jeremiah 31, and how the New Covenant is substantially different in certain ways from the Old.

And so, that kind of didn't sit well with me, and so I realized that Presbyterians, they have the view that the Covenant of Grace began, basically, in the Old Testament, and it was just mainly a difference of administration.

In other words, it wasn't really a difference in substance, but in administration. And so, as opposed to Reformed Baptist theology, it's much more redemptive historical, in the sense that it takes into account the fact that there are substantial differences between the Old and the New Covenant, and so, therefore, the Old Covenant, the Covenant of Grace is definitely hinted at, and it is announced, and it is typologically suggested, such as the Abrahamic Covenant, and things like that, but it's not actually realized until the New Covenant with Christ's coming.

And so, that's the major key difference between the two different types of covenant theology. And another one, because of this fact that there is a difference between the Old Covenant, where there was a corporate election of Israel as a nation, and therefore, it included unbelievers in that covenant, who weren't necessarily the elect, or the remnant.

In Reformed Baptist theology, the New Covenant, the Covenant of Grace does emphasize the fact that the covenant is composed only of believers, and not necessarily of believers' children. And so, the covenant, and so, if you think about it in terms of marriage, you have, the Bible describes marriage as a covenant between a man and a woman, and that's basically what covenant theology is with respect to the Covenant of Grace.

So, obviously, the Bible describes us as being the bride of Christ, as being married to Christ, and that is the Church, is the body, and Christ is the head, and so on and so forth. And in order for that to happen, however, there had to be some previous circumstances that Christ had to meet.

And so, that's what we call the Covenant of Redemption. And the Covenant of Redemption is basically the eternal, the covenant that the Trinity made with itself from eternity past, that in order for, that God was going to bless Christ with a gift, and that gift would be the elect, but in order for him to have the elect, he would first have to purchase the redemption, and bear the full wrath of the Father.

And so, that's what we call the Covenant of Redemption, in the sense that there was an eternal, from eternity past, there was an agreement that Christ would fulfill the Father's will through the Incarnation, and through his life, and fulfilling the law, in order to redeem us from the curse of the law.

And so, that's essentially what we call the Covenant of Redemption. And so, they're interrelated. I know there's some differences, and some people say that there's, they kind of subsume the Covenant of Grace under the Covenant of Redemption.

There is obviously a precursor. You kind of have to have the Covenant of Redemption prior to the Covenant of Grace, because of what Christ had to do in order to make us his bride. And so, and now, as to the Covenant of Works, the Covenant of Works was basically, and there's really not much difference, almost at all, from what I've seen, between the Presbyterian Covenant Theology and Reformed Baptist Covenant Theology, and that would be the, basically, the covenant that God made with Adam in the Garden, to not eat of the forbidden fruit.

And so, it was a test, essentially, that it was a test, it was testing Adam, and to see if he would, and if he would keep the test, or pass the test, then he would have been able to stay there, and fellowship with God, and have eternal life.

But because God made Adam fallible, and therefore capable of falling, which is what fallible means, God obviously did that for a reason. There was a test, because ultimately, and then this is a question, I like how Paul Washer puts this, the question really is, did God cause the fall, or was there a fall because of the cross, or was there a cross because of the fall?

And so, your answer to that question will determine a lot in how you view God's redemptive plan and God's purposes, and this kind of touches in on the issues of inferlapsarianism and superlapsarianism, but basically, the issue is that because God had the end in mind, and so, therefore, he had, his end in mind, that he had in mind, was to glorify himself.

And so, and he wanted to glorify his son, and also to redeem us, the elect, and in order for that to happen, in order for there to be a cross, in other words, there had to be a fall. And so, God predestined the fall through the covenant of works by testing Adam in a state of basically in paradise when he didn't need anything, but that's also showing in order that Christ could be magnified and glorified when he was tested in the desert for 40 days in dire, in the exact opposite condition, and whereas Adam failed miserably, Christ passed perfectly with flying colors.

And so, it's basically making sense of the Bible as a whole and recognizing that God deals with men, and with himself even, in terms of covenants. And so, just a basic definition of a covenant would be, it is a commitment with divine sanctions.

And a covenant is not always made with God and man, it can be made with God and God, or with himself, within the Trinity, it can also be made among people, like in marriage, even though God is, the divine sanction is obviously the fact that God brings two people together, so therefore, let no one therefore rend them asunder.

And so, that's what we, that's basically the covenant of grace, I mean, I'm sorry, the covenant of works. And so, there's lots of overlap between Presbyterian view of covenant theology, the major difference would be in the covenant of grace, and the fact that we consider the covenant of grace, the New Testament.

And so, I think that about sums it up, and so, yeah,.

I don't think I left anything major out. Yeah. Good, thank you. And now I'll let Louis Vuon explain kind of what your view is, and then we'll have some interaction between us.

New Covenant Theology and the Law of Moses

Okay, excuse me. So, New Covenant theology is actually very similar to what Carlos described as Reformed Baptist covenant theology, and since the discussion tonight is billed as New Covenant theology and covenant theology, I just want to clarify, and I think that Carlos would agree that he holds to Reformed Baptist covenant theology, and not the two administrations of one covenant of grace, Presbyterian form.

And I would say because of that, both Carlos and I are very close. New Covenant theology and Reformed Baptist covenant theology are very close. The difference between the two primarily is going to be the way that you view the law.

How do you look at the law of Moses? How do you look at the Decalogue? Within New Covenant theology, there are those who would affirm that there was a covenant made with Adam in the garden, there are some who would deny.

I take the perspective personally that where Scripture is silent, then we should remain silent. Where Scripture speaks, we should speak. There is one text in Hosea where there's mention of, it's one little verse, mention of how Adam broke the covenant.

I tend to believe that that is referring to Adam and that there was some form of a covenant in the garden. But beyond that, I can't speak to that. And the reason I say that is because what Covenant theology puts forth is the idea that Adam was being tested in the garden, and if he would have lasted without eating the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, if he would have lasted through that probationary period, however long it was, then he would have been allowed to eat from the tree of life and secure eternal life and ultimately glorification, if you will, for the human race.

That is where I think Scripture is silent and Scripture doesn't teach those things, it doesn't put those things forth, and so I'm going to remain silent on what exactly that covenant with Adam involved, if indeed that one verse in Hosea is referring to a covenant with Adam.

From my perspective, and I think Carlos might agree with this, that whatever covenant was entered into in the garden, whether you want to call it a covenant of works or whatever you wish, covenant of creation, some are calling it, whatever you wish to call it, whatever you wish to believe about it, I think that perhaps we would find some agreement in the fact that we both agree that that covenant, whatever it was, was only for Adam, and in 2016 has no real bearing or effect on us now, and so the question that New Covenant Theology really wants to answer is what covenant are we in now, and what sorts of stipulations and requirements belong to that covenant that we're in now, and that's really, I think, where we're probably going to break with our agreement of what it is that the New Covenant requires.

Now, we agree that the covenant of grace, as covenant theologians put it, is the New Covenant. That's what the covenant of grace is. It's the New Covenant that Christ is the mediator of, that the writer of Hebrews says he's the mediator of a better covenant enacted on better promises, so we agree there.

So the general outline of New Covenant Theology is really based upon trying to answer the question, how do you deal with the Old Testament? And I really think that almost all of the covenant views, even Dispensationalism, Covenant Theology, New Covenant Theology, Baptist and Presbyterian forms of Covenant Theology, they're all trying to answer the question, how do we deal with the Old Testament, the law of Moses, what we see there.

Obviously, we don't take all of Moses and bring it over. We eat bacon. I eat bacon. I love bacon, and praise God that He's given us the freedom to do that. So there's a lot of Moses that we ignore, and this is usually a critique that you'll hear from an atheist or a skeptic, who will say, yeah, yeah, yeah, you quote Leviticus when it comes to something like homosexuality, but what about not wearing a fabric made out of two different types of material?

What about not eating from a tree until it's more than, what is it, three, four years old, whatever the limit was? And so they bring up those sorts of things, and I think each Covenant view is really designed to answer the question, what does pertain and how does it pertain to us in the New Covenant, in the Church, to Christians in 2016, and so forth.

And so New Covenant Theology is going to answer the question this way. The Covenant that was entered into with Moses at Mount Sinai was entered into with the people of Israel, and the commandments that were given to them were given only to them, and it did not pertain to any other nation, any other people.

They were the chosen people of God, the children of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. And so when you get to the New Covenant, Jeremiah 31, from 31 on, where Jeremiah promises that God would make a New Covenant with his people, not like the Covenant that he made with the people as he took them out of the land, the Covenant that they broke, but he would make a New Covenant with them.

New Covenant Theology sees that that Old Covenant with Moses is abolished, completely, wholly, that take every law that is in there, it has been fulfilled, it has been abolished, disannulled, it's gone.

And what Christ has put in its place is a New Covenant, and the New Covenant comes with new stipulations. In fact, that's the very definition of Covenant. A Covenant is an agreement that imparts stipulations on both parties or on one particular party within that Covenant, that someone is required to do something or not do something.

And so since we have a New Covenant, we can be assured that there is a new standard, a new requirement, that there's new stipulations that are in place that were not in place in the Old Covenant with Moses.

And so we're going to see the New Covenant that Christ instituted as better, as greater, as heightened, so that you have Christ as the ultimate moral standard, and it's no longer that we are to live our lives according to the law of Moses, because that Covenant has been abolished, and the New Covenant has been established, and so we live our lives according to Christ.

And I think we see that throughout Scripture when you look in Philippians 2, Paul says, look to Christ as your example, considering others more important than yourselves, and he says, just like Christ, who though he was equal with God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but he emptied himself, dying, even a criminal's death on a cross.

And that's the standard that we're called to. You look in the Old Covenant, and the commandment is, love your neighbor as yourself. You look in the New Covenant, and the standard is, love your neighbor more than you love yourself.

Jesus says, this is the new commandment that I give you in, I believe it's John 13, this is a new commandment that I give you, that you love one another as I have loved you. For greater love has no man than he lay down his life.

And so when you look at the Old Covenant, it was a standard to show Israel their sin, their need of a Savior, but now that the Savior has come, now that Christ is here, we're no longer in need of that Old Covenant, that old law, to show us our sin.

Now we walk according to the Spirit, which I think Paul highlights that idea in Galatians, when he says that the law was like our nanny, our babysitter, until Christ should come. So the way that New Covenant theology looks at the question of how do we deal with Moses, the answer is, we deal with Moses not as law, as something that is binding on us, but we look at Moses and we deal with Moses as something that is didactic.

It's a teacher, it teaches us. And to give a quick example of that, you see throughout the book of First Corinthians, Paul especially shows us how he deals with the law of Moses. For example, in First Corinthians 5, remember that you have the circumstances with the man that has his father's wife, and Paul says that we as Christians, now we have the true Passover lamb.

The true Passover lamb has been sacrificed, therefore let us keep the Passover in truth, without malice, without sinfulness. Let us get the leaven out. And so Paul looks to the law of Moses, specifically the law governing how you observe Passover in the week of unleavened bread, and he applies it to the church, but not as binding law specifically, but he pulls it through what a New Covenant theologian guy would call the lens of Christ, or through the lens of the gospel, and he applies it to the church.

Because what I think is happening, and what I think Paul sees, is that the people of Israel, the earthly people of Israel, were created to be a type and a shadow of the true people of God, which Paul says again in Galatians, that those who are of faith are Abraham's children.

And so what Paul does is he takes that law that was given to the earthly shadow, and he takes the spiritual truth out of that law, and he applies it to the true spiritual children of Abraham, those who are of faith.

And he says, yes, back in the Old Testament, they had to get yeast out of their house. They couldn't have yeast in their bread. They had to sweep their houses clean, clean out their pantries, have no yeast at all.

He applies that in a truer spiritual sense to the truer spiritual people of Abraham, those who are of faith, and he says, listen, the spiritual truth of this commandment is that we celebrate the Passover without the leaven of malice and sinfulness, and the things that he mentions in that passage.

You see it again with not muzzling the ox, which Paul says God wasn't concerned with the ox, was he? No, he was concerned with those who ministered the gospel. It's an earthly picture that has spiritual realities to it, and so that's how New Covenant theology is going to deal with the question of, how do you deal with Moses?

Well, we agree with the Reformed Baptist covenant guy who says, yeah, the whole thing is abolished, but we're going to disagree at the point where the Reformed Baptist covenant guy is going to say, yeah, yeah, well, it's abolished, but we're going to go back and we're going to pick up the Decalogue, and we're going to bring it into this New Covenant, and that's going to be the summation of moral law and our guide for living, which I think is selling the New Covenant short, because you look at the Decalogue itself, and you have commandments like thou shalt not steal.

You look in Ephesians 4, for example, Paul says, the thief who used to steal, let him no longer steal, but let him work with his own hands so that he might have something to give to those who are in need, and so the commandment is furthered, it's heightened, it's made to where it requires truth from the inward parts, where under the Old Covenant, Israel would have been allowed to live in the land as long as they didn't make idols, as long as they honored their father and mother outwardly, as long as they did these things, they were allowed to stay in the land and to live in the land.

It wasn't until they began to make idols and worship idols and break the commandments outwardly that God brought oppression upon them throughout the Book of Judges, and then later ultimately dispersed them with, well, took them into captivity with Babylon.

So I think the New Covenant theologian is going to look at the Law of Moses, see it as something that we can glean spiritual truths from, spiritual realities from, and use it after we pull it through the lens of Christ, through the lens of the Gospel, and apply it to the church, the children of Abraham who are of faith.

And so that's ultimately, I think,.

New Covenant theology. Okay, so, and before we get into you guys discussing it, one of the things I always use as an example, when I was in a class on dispensationalism, so I actually would be the third major category between these, and you're hearing some of, for folks who might be watching, you're seeing both Carlos and Louis saying where they agree or disagree with each other.

I remember taking a dispensationalism class and so at the seminary I went to, you always had to read the opposite side of an argument, which I really appreciated that being forced into me because it helped me to get to the point where I could argue someone else's position before I try to attack that position, which is something we should all try to do.

But the thing is, is that I remember taking this class and reading through dispensational books, explaining dispensationalism, and at a high level, I'm paraphrasing the book, but basically this is what it said, it said that a dispensationalist, it said that New Covenant theology believes in two ways of salvation, grace in the New Testament and works in the Old.

But dispensationalists always believed that ever since the beginning it has always been by grace, ever since the fall, I should say. And so the argument they made against covenant theology was that there was this covenant of works, and you heard Carlos mention a covenant of works, and they go, oh, see covenant of works, that means works salvation.

So, okay, I read everything on dispensationalism. I go to read some stuff on covenant theology, and by the way, this was before there were books on New Covenant theology, but I do have a paper on New Covenant theology when it was just getting started.

But the thing was that I'm reading on covenant theology, and here they have, and I'm paraphrasing again, but basically it said the exact same thing. They said dispensationalists, you know, the problem with dispensationalism, they believe in two ways of salvation, works in the Old Testament, grace in the New.

And what they quoted was the original Schofield study notes, the Schofield study Bible, where he did say that, or things that at least really seem to be saying that. People say that's not what he meant, but that argument could be made.

And then they, what the covenant theologians went off to say is that, hey, we covenant theologians believe that ever since the fall it's been by grace. And I went, wait a minute, pulled the other book off the shelf, I'm comparing, I'm like, these guys are killing trees.

Much of what they're doing is talking past one another. And if they'd actually listened to what each other is saying, they would realize they're both making the same false argument against each other, making the same claim for themselves.

And I often find that to be the case. I'm glad to see here that as both of these guys were discussing, they explain where they agree and where they disagree. So I just want to put that out there. So now I'll just, you know, Carlos, I'll just ask what, you know, if you have any questions with, you know, just really, I just want to open up for you two to have an exchange and I might just butt in every once in a while.

Sure. I actually, I did want to kind of maybe get into a little bit of the difference between our views. And so, yeah, and I agree with a lot of what Lewis was saying, that there's actually a lot of common ground with Reformed Baptist theology and New Covenant theology.

But yeah, as he was saying, one of the main differences is how we view the law and the Old Testament law and how it relates to the New Testament. And one of the things that I guess that he had mentioned earlier was that with respect to the covenant of works being exclusively for Adam, that's actually not quite what the covenant theology holds to.

The issue with the covenant of works or the teaching behind it is that when God made that covenant with Adam, it was a, this is where the concept of federal headship or representative comes in. And so basically the covenant theology teaches that that covenant was made with Adam and all of his posterity.

And so basically the issue becomes that in order to be saved, the reason we're condemned is because Adam broke the covenant of works. And so we are therefore guilty of breaking that covenant in Adam. And so this is where we start tying into, I guess, the differences between the concept of the moral law and because of the fact that it wasn't just the explicit command not to eat of the forbidden fruit.

The implication that we see as covenant theologians in the text is that he also revealed the moral law to Adam in addition to that. You have instances like Cain obviously knew was wrong to commit murder and things like that.

And so I think this is where some of the differences come into play where from my understanding, new covenant theology holds to the fact that the absolute law or the law of conscience, they hold as being the two great commandments.

Whereas in covenant theology, the view is that the moral law that was revealed to Adam and all of us in Adam is the moral law which would be summarized in the Ten Commandments. So it's almost the same thing.

And I see a lot of overlap there. I think one of the main differences is the fact that the Sabbath comes into play and things of that sort. But really the issue is that what we must be redeemed from as unbelievers is because in Romans 5 and in 1 Corinthians and places in the New Testament where it says, in Adam all die.

In Adam we're all condemned. And that's because we are guilty of breaking the covenant of works and of not just our personal sin, in other words, but of also breaking the covenant of works in Adam. And so we must be redeemed from the curse of the law that was imposed on us by the covenant of works.

And therefore that's where this whole issue of the moral law and the ceremonial and the civil law comes into play as well. So a lot of that stems where some of our slight disagreements come into play.

Defining the Law: Moral, Ceremonial, Civil, and the Law of Christ

Yeah, so let me ask this because I think.

Both of you mentioned, and I think for people that may not be super familiar with the differences, law becomes a big thing. So let me ask Louis first, what would you define as the law? Are.

There different meanings of law? And then Carlos, what's the law? Well, I would say that just to be clear, within New Covenant theology, there are four different streams that try to answer that particular question.

What is the law? How do you identify what the law is? You'll hear Paul in 1 Corinthians 9 talk about being in law to Christ. And in Galatians 6, bear one another's burdens and therefore fulfill the law of Christ.

And the question is, what is this law of Christ? And there are different camps, different streams that attempt to answer this in different ways. The answer that I personally give, because I'm a Bible guy and I want to stick to Scripture and stay as close to Scripture as I can, and what I see is within the Old Covenant, in order to receive the blessings of the Covenant, you had to keep the law, and not just most of it, but you had to keep all of it.

And when you break the law of the Covenant, then the curses of the Covenant are to come upon you. That's what's due. There were blessings and curses offered at Mount Sinai. And so you have, within that Old Covenant, a responsibility to keep the commandments.

Within the New Covenant, what do you have to keep in order to remain in that Covenant? Well, there's only one commandment, specifically, that brings you into the Covenant and keeps you in the Covenant, and that's faith.

That's faith in Christ. We're saved by faith, and it's faith in Christ that sustains us. It's believing. You look in Romans 11.

Go ahead. I want to try to keep, so we can get through lots of questions, keep them concise. In New Covenant theology, you would refer to, you would view an Old Testament law and then a law of Christ.

You have a law of Christ. Why don't you differentiate those two?

Okay, so the law of Christ, I'm going to say, is the spiritual principles that are pulled out of the law of Moses, like I described Paul doing in 1 Corinthians when he says we have to keep the Passover, when he says we have to keep the law of not muzzling the ox.

Those sorts of things which aren't to be followed by the letter, but the spiritual principle comes out of that. So there's all of Scripture, both Old and New Testaments, interpreted rightly through the lens of Christ that puts forth the law that we are to follow, or I would prefer to say the ethical standard that we are to follow.

There's the example of Christ. As I mentioned in Philippians 2, you see in 1 Peter 2, Christ suffered that we might have an example to follow. Christ, when he washes his disciples' feet, he says, I've given you an example that Christ is the example of the ethical standard that we are to follow, to love not just our neighbor as ourself, but like the commandment says, husbands love your wife just like Christ loved the church.

So you have Christ as an example that we are to follow, that's a law that we are to follow, and you have specific imperatives throughout the epistles that are written in the New Testament that those are commandments, those are imperatives that we are to follow.

So I would say those three things, the example of Christ, the Old Testament passages read correctly, and the New Testament imperatives are the New Testament law. Although you can break those laws and not be out of the covenant, just like, very unlike the Old Covenant, and that's what I was trying to say, is that the only true law of the covenant is faith.

Okay, Carlos, now you mentioned law in a three-fold. So, I mean, you would see, you know, really, I'll let you explain. What's a three-fold view of the law?

Yeah, so in the Reformed tradition, I think there's, again, a lot of overlap between the Presbyterian view and the Reformed Baptist view. It's basically the law of Moses, the Old Testament law of Moses was distinguished by three parts, which would be the ceremonial, the civil, or the, I forgot, the judicial, and the immoral.

And so, there's a lot of reasons why the distinction is made, and I think one of the issues that I've seen when New Covenant theology guys interact with our view is, I think there's a misunderstanding between distinction and division.

There's like a semantic criticism that I don't think really applies. It's mainly just the fact that, so, a lot of the criticism that I've heard from New Covenant, we divide the law of Moses into three separate parts, as if we didn't recognize that it's the same law.

We do believe that the law of Moses is a unit, that it is a whole, but within that law, there's three primary distinctions, you can say, being those three. So, we don't deny that the law of Moses is a unit, or that it's a whole.

One of the reasons that distinction is made is because of the concept of the doctrine of the moral law, which predates Moses. And so, the moral law is prior to Moses, because that's, in Covenant theology, that's essentially the law that is always binding on men at all times, from Adam to, you know, and so forth, to everybody after that.

And so, the issue is, and obviously, and I don't think New Covenant theology guys would necessarily disagree with that. I think a lot of that might just be, there might have been a misunderstanding as to what, you know, Reformed theologians, maybe they could have used a better terminology, but division doesn't mean that we break it up into three separate parts.

It just means that it's distinguished into those three parts, and so, the ceremonial basically being the ritual, priests, sacrifices, and the food laws, and things like that, which were abolished because Christ fulfilled them.

And then, the civil law is basically the moral application, the application of the moral law to the political or to the society. And so, that obviously, we don't have to follow letter for letter, because we are not a theocratic nation of Israel.

And so, that's why the Confessions say that the general principle of it, it can still be applicable for today, but it doesn't apply exactly the way it did before. So, yeah.