God be praised for what we’ve been “given” in Christ Jesus. Truly, our hope, our sanctification, our love is Jesus.

Peace to you, brother.

It is a subtle and often unrecognizable distinction (by those in the pews). “Driven” often turns into law preaching. You should, ought, or must. And since we do not very often do what we ought (Romans 7), then we are either driven to despair…or pride, if we have fooled ourselves into thinking that we are doing ‘alright’.

The gospel is just announced. Handed over to sinners who are not up to the job. Freely given. It’s actually just ‘done to us’.

Keeping the onus on Christ and off of us is very difficult. That is where the importance of the law/gospel distinction comes in. And that is an area where far too many preachers are ignorant.

Thanks, so much.

Indeed, the Spirit of Christ is the sole driving force of all that we do “in Christ.” (Gal.3.3) And, our hearing the Word of Christ (Rom.10.17) with faith (Gal.3.2) is the sole medium whereby the Spirit (Gal.5.6) grows us up in Christ (1Pt.2.2).

So, I heartily agree…the Spirit alone drives us in the Way of the Gospel. Thus, our boast is in the Lord alone (Gal.6.14), with whom we are crucified to the world of sin (our focus is on Christ not sin). Such boasting (beholding) leads to our becoming like Him (2Cor.3.18).

Peace to you!

I much more prefer Gospel-Centered becasue we always must recenter our minds on the Gospel as we daily fall into sin and disbeleif. As we continue to recall the Gospel in our lives, it really does drive us in freedom to live for Him.

Regards

Anirudh

I draw your attention to J. Barton Payne’s (1922-1979) title for his book, The Theology of the Older Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1962). Payne is very clear in his Preface concerning his operative theological presupposition which explains his choice of a title: “Since there is only one saving death of Christ, it follows that there is only one testament. Chronologically considered, however, the testament possesses both an older aspect and a newer aspect. The difference between these two rests upon the historical question of whether the death of the Savior is still being anticipated or has become a matter of commemoration….the theology of the older testament becomes in fact the theology of the Old Testament.” (no page numbering) In his obituary in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society this personal conviction is reinforced: “Due to his influence Covenant Seminary now displays in its chapel the blue banner of our Scottish antecedents with the motto “For Christ’s Crown and Covenant.” For Barton Payne those were not just words; they were the driving motivation of his life.” [JETS 23:1 (March 1980), pp. 95-96.] Payne’s book was dedicated to John Murray, by the way. It constitutes:
1) the expansion and conversion in 1961 while teaching at the Wheaton College Graduate School of Theology of a syllabus,
2) which in turn had been produced by the author in 1956 of mimeographed lecture outlines,
3) which themselves grew out of ten years of teaching the subject in seminary classes (“Preface”).

It should come as no surprise therefore that his students, those who were trained with such textbooks, or those who share an identical theological presupposition would continue to speak in such terms. If they were perfectly honest and consistent, then they would never speak of an “Old” Covenant, but only of a lower case comparative “older” Covenant. Likewise, if they were perfectly honest and consistent, then they would never speak of a “New” Covenant, but only of a lower case comparative “newer” Covenant. It seems quite obfuscatory or negligent of them to do otherwise. The bottom line is that in reality they do not believe in a “New Covenant” at all! Any apparent discontinuity between the “older” and “newer” aspects of their one testament are just that, apparent, and not really discontinuous in fact. The true Biblical discontinuity between the Scriptural covenants is hopelessly confused in their stress on the unity and continuity of their extra-Biblical/theological covenant.

On another subject, Payne’s comment in his Preface on Vos is interesting: “The most frequent reference is made to Geerhardus Vos’ excellent work, Biblical Theology (Grand Rapids: 1948). Vos, however, is somewhat incomplete and was outdated before it first came to be published.” Does this then make Vos “old” or merely “older” in Payne’s estimation?

Soli Deo Gloria,

John T. “Jack” Jeffery
Pastor, Wayside Gospel Chapel
Greentown, PA

Writer to the Hebrews stated that Jesus Christ (revisor of the covenant scheme) “is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant (Heb.9:15).”

St. Paul (former Zionist) refers to Christ as converting the Old Covenant Passover into a New Covenant Fulfillment: “In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me (1Co 11:25).”

The ‘True Exodus’ is in the person and work of Jesus Christ! This, all ‘true believers’ are to hold fast to and proclaim faithfully.