The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Charles Leiter, Paul Washer, Neonomianism & New Cov. Theology

I think that while Paul Washer and Charles Leiter are generally good teachers; each with a hiccup or two (as many of us may have); but I find Charles Leiter has one disturbing caveat in his teaching: his understanding of Romans 7.

Within his attempt at exegesis on Romans 7, Leiter asserts that Paul is actually describing his UNREGENERATE self , especially with regard to the words of Rom 7:14-25. Leiter treats this as if Paul was recalling the process of his conversion, rather than Paul squarely affirming this is what he is (in his present setting) wrestling with.

The importance you say? Well, this would corrupt quite a bit (if not all) of Leiter's teaching on sanctification. Also, it seems to lean him closely to some sort of perfectionism, that others such as Zac Poonen ascribe to. While Leiter is a brilliant theologian, this one thing would have me advise you with caution with regard to his teaching on sanctification. But, as with any teacher; test all things.

We have previously made mention of Paul Washer, so I wont go into any more detail about that matter. I hope this does cause you to give thought to these things.

Grace to you, as you walk with Christ.

1. I am not privy to Leiter's interpretation of Romans 7, so I'll take your word as being accurate.

2. Regardless, I agree that verses 14ff are autobiographical and descriptive of Paul's SANCTIFICATION, i.e., the inherent and life-long struggle of a believer. There is no struggle with sin within an unregenerate sinner in the biblical sense; the old man/nature vs. the new man/nature. And, how could an unregenerate sinner:

1. confess that no good thing dwells within him? (v. 18)
2. understand and desire to do that which is good? (v. 19)
3. delight in the law of God? (v. 22)
4. yearn to be delivered from the presence of sin within? (v. 24)
5. give thanks to God for the deliverance he has in Christ and serve the law? (v. 25)

3. Does the Bible teach that conversion is a process which is consciously observable? Apparently, this is what Leiter is suggesting if vv. 14-25 is describing a pre-conversion time-line. IF, that is what he believes and teaches, then I would have to voice my objection to his view.

"IF, that is what he believes and teaches, then I would have to voice my objection to his view."

Hello Brother,

I submit this as my evidence:
"Justification and Regeneration" by Charles Leiter, page 148

"3. Paul has already described in detail the state of every Christian in Romans 6 and in Romans 7:1-6. We cannot ignore this description when we come to the last half of Romans 7. According to Romans 6 and Romans 7:1-6, all Christians have been "freed from sin" and have become "slaves of righteousness." "Sin shall not be master over" Christians, for they are "not under law, but under grace."....
The view that Romans 7:14-25 is a description of "the Christian at his best, even of Paul at the time of writing" thus flies directly in the face of everything Paul has said up to this point. How can we read Romans 6, and 7:1-6 and still contend that all true Christians are actually "of flesh, sold into bondage to sin"!"

Leiter goes on in this portion of his book to talk about the "wretched man" concept of the Christian life, where "'wretchedness' and spiritually are almost equated and the more holy we become, the more 'wretched' we are."

I think this is questionable teaching at best. What say you?

http://illbehonest.com/blog/article...talking-about-when-he-was-lost-or-saved/

This view is also held by Tim Conway, Paul Washer, Martin Lloyd Jones, and Kevin Williams. (As indicated on the linked website)

I am not too deep into the New Calvinist issue. To me, I see alot of wonderful tools within the ministry of Paul Washer and HCMS. You see, it was through Paul Washer that I heard the Gospel truth for the first time some almost four years ago now. It was through that ministry that God sovereignly chose to expose me to the true Gospel.

As to the issue of the Law, let me share what I see in Paul Washer's, as well as my own theology. The Old Covenant fulfilled in Christ, but the lost are still under said, because it is the schoolmaster which brings us to Christ. In Christ, the old Law is elevated and made deeper. How? Under the Old Covenant, it simply states that you shall not murder, but Jesus said that if you have hatred towards your brother, you are liable to judgment. Under the Old Law, it states that we are not to commit adultery, but Jesus taught us that if we look on a woman to lust after her, you have already committed adultery with her in your heart. This higher law of Christ is in Christ, and can only be fulfilled in Christ, through the power of the Spirit, a work of God.

Hope that makes sense.

1. Welcome to our community.

2. Could it be that Jesus, in His 'Sermon on the Mount', within which is contained your two examples, was expounding upon and applying the true meaning and depth of the 6^th and 7^th Commandments? This is how the vast majority of the Reformers, Puritans and those following them have understood those passages.

There is only One "lawgiver" (Jam 4:12); GOD. And the three persons of the Godhead are surely in perfect agreement and harmony concerning the moral law, no? In short, some do make a serious mistake/error in usurping, or diminishing, or appending, or even eradicating the eternal moral law of God which was and continues to be part of the "imago dei" (image of God) that belongs to all mankind (Rom 5:12-14). The Ten Commandments were not something new or peculiar to national Israel, but rather that which was given to man internally as part of man's very being, and that which set man apart from everything else of God's creation. The moral law is an expression of God's very nature and thus is not time-bound and cannot be improved upon, God being infinitely holy, righteous and good. Lastly, the Lord Christ was the very embodiment of the moral law and fulfilled its requirements through His own personal perfect obedience. It is that "active obedience" which is imputed to every believer unto salvation. Thus, how could there be 'another law' which supersedes or surpasses it? Oh, and I don't want to be remiss by failing to mention that it was the Son of God himself who gave Moses the Ten Commandments (cf. Heb 12:18ff), thus establishing the perpetuity of the moral law, not only as "schoolmaster" to lead sinners to Christ but as the ultimate standard to which ALL mankind is under obligation to keep perfectly. Sinners are saved by Grace Alone (Sola Gratia) through Faith Alone (Sola Fide) on the basis of the merits of Christ Alone (Solus Christus), but not by a faith that is alone. True saving faith always exhibits itself through a believers life in its progressive conformity to God's moral law. Historic Christianity has always held to the "3 uses of the law"; civil (foundation for a body politic), pedagogical (to expose sin and lead sinners to Christ), normative (as a rule of life). Antinomians and the current neo-Nominans, of course, deny this truth and consequently, they most always refuse to be "confessional". (cf. [b]Praxis: The Doctrine of the Christian Life[/b]) under the first heading, "The Christian and the Moral Law".

3. Re: "This higher law of Christ is in Christ, and can only be fulfilled in Christ, through the power of the Spirit, a work of God."... See above in #2 regarding a alleged "higher law of Christ". Sanctification is accomplished indeed by and through the indwelling Spirit working in conjunction with the new man, the regenerated new nature, of the believer (Phil 2:12,13; et al).

If I may ask, how is it that the law is separated in scripture? Does the scripture specifically state such a separation between moral and ceremonial law? The reason I am asking is this, that James said, "For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it. For he who said, "Do not commit adultery," also said, "Do not murder." If you do not commit adultery but do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law." (James 2:10-11) I have always, in my reading of scripture, understood the law to be one law, and that because there is no division, if one part is broken, then the whole is broken. Because of this, when I see Christ's finished work, I have seen the law of Moses being fulfilled in total because of this belief that the law is one law. And then Christ repeated aspects of the law, and in giving His New Covenant, gave us a law that is higher and greater than the law of Moses, a law which could only be fulfilled through the work of God the Holy Spirit in the life of a believer, the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus, which has set us free from the law of sin and death.

I am by no means an antinomian. I think antinomianism is death, just as legalism is, and that to say there is no law is blasphemous heresy to say the least. However, I do believe that the law of Moses, which still serves to be the schoolmaster to bring souls to Christ, was fulfilled in Christ for the elect, and that we are now under a higher, deeper, richer law. I actually hold the law of Christ extremely high. Do I believe Christ was clarifying the Old Covenant laws in Matthew when He made mention of adultery and murder? I believe He was taking the law that many saw as physically able to be kept, and under His law showed that in Him, these parts of His law could only be kept through the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit.

I agree with what you said wholeheartedly about salvation, that as part of faith alone, the fruit of repentance will be evident in the life of a believer. And this fruit will be a keeping of the law of Christ. Yes, Christ gave the Ten Commandments, but then in His incarnation, took the Ten Commandments, and gave us a deeper set, as shown above in Matthew. Does this mean we disregard the Ten Commandments? NO, because, as I said, these are now the schoolmaster which brings us to Christ.

But, my original question still stands. Can someone show me in scripture that the law of Moses is separated in scripture into divisions of moral and ceremonial law? Thanks so much for this discussion. I hope it is iron sharpening iron.

Unfortunately, one cannot approach God's Word as if it were an encyclopedia, i.e., truth isn't alphabetized nor categorized for easy reference. The "Analogy of Faith", comparing Scripture with Scripture is how we derive any and all of God's revealed truth. Long before the Reformation, the Church recognized the tri-departmentalization of the LAW; civil, ceremonial and moral. The vast majority of Reformers and Puritans likewise held to this same view. And most every Reformed confession and catechism teaches this categorization of the law. There were some individuals and 'fringe' groups which disagreed of course. And in our day, there are those who also object to this biblical designation, e.g., those embracing NCT and many old-school Dispensationalists.

A cursory reading of the Old Testament and New Testament will clearly show that the word "law" is used in various ways. If one uses, what I like to label a "psycho-statistical-mean" hermeneutic" (method of interpretation), then this error will surely result, i.e., giving a singular meaning to the word "law", e.g., moral.

I have previously provided a link to a section of articles on The Highway that deal with this matter specifically. But let me provide you with a short list of the most salient articles which I would encourage you to spend time reading:

Law: Civic, Ceremonial and Moral
The Moral Law: The Law not Abrogated by Christ to Believers
The Moral Law and its Relation to Believers
The Moral Law a Rule of Obedience
The Law and the Saint
The Law and the Gospel

I perceive several errors in your statements above:

1. The "fulfillment of the law" by Christ is to be understood as Christ, as the second Adam, i.e., a substitute law keeper for those whom the Father sent Him to redeem, perfectly kept the Moral Law of God, that eternal law which expresses the very essence of God's holiness of which no man in his fallen state can keep and must keep from conception to his eventual death. In short, the law wasn't abrogated but confirmed as the standard of righteousness which all must possess, regardless of one's spiritual state.

2. The New Covenant did not introduce a "new law", but rather iterated that eternal moral law of God, for there can be no standard of moral perfection that surpasses God's own moral perfection, aka: holiness. The law (moral) delivered unto Moses on Mt. Sinai by the pre-incarnate Son of God is the same law (moral) which the incarnate Christ lived and taught throughout His earthly life and ministry. In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus didn't deliver a "new, superior" law but rather compared the distorted teaching of the law of the Pharisees, showing that their understanding was woefully deficient. What the Lord Christ taught was the depth of the moral Law given to Moses, which was in fact, a reiteration of the law which was written upon the heart of Adam and all his subsequent progeny.

3. Because God is One, in essence and harmony of will, and the Holy Spirit, being the third Person of the Godhead, guides and empowers all believers to embrace and strive after that perfect holiness; the keeping of the eternal moral law. However, the Holy Spirit does not provide an infallible obedience to the moral law, thus it cannot be said that believers have a "higher and greater law" which can be fulfilled by the indwelling Spirit. There is nowhere in Scripture that even intimates that perfection of the moral law is possible by a believer. Again, how can there be a "higher and greater law" than the perfect moral law given to Moses, since it is an expression of God's personal moral being?

4. Yes, Christ has set true believers free from "the law of sin and death", i.e., the curse of the law which is upon all who do not keep God's moral law perfectly. That perfect obedience was accomplished by Jesus Christ. And it is His "active obedience" which is imputed to true believers at the moment they embrace Him with saving faith. However, not only is the believer saved from the penalty of sin; the transgression of the moral law, but also he is saved from the power of sin, so that he is "free" to render obedience to it. (Romans 6 & 7)

Answered already above via the provided links.

John Piper has other problems in addition to the problem of mono-covenantalism. He is also infected with a form of the New Perspective on Paul. His professor at Fuller Theological Seminary was Daniel Fuller, a known advocate of the NPP. Piper teaches "future vindication". Sound familiar? Yes, you got it. N. T. Wright teaches the doctrine of "future justification". Piper claims to believe in justification by faith alone but faith is not enough to "vindicate" anyone in the judgment. Your faith must be "vindicated" by your works. Yes, Piper is a neo-nomian and a heretic, imo.

You can find many good articles at The Trinity Foundation on the neo-nomian errors of Piper, John MacArthur, and others. The Trinity Foundation is dedicated to the Scripturalist apologetics of the late Dr. Gordon H. Clark.

See: The Pied Piper and John Piper on Justification

Sincerely yours in Christ,

Charlie J. Ray

Reasonable Christian blog.

Since Romans 7 comes between chapter 6 and 8 it would be hard to see how this fits with a pre-conversion testimony of Paul. That is an argument of the Arminians and the perfectionists, imo.

Frankly, the whole "Lordship salvation" think smacks of Arminianism and perfectionism. Arminianism must lower the demands of God's moral law so that it can appear more holy than it actually is. But the standard God requires is one that is impossible to meet.

That's why sanctification could never be the basis for salvation or justification. That is not to say that sanctification is optional. It isn't. Those who are in open sin should be disciplined by the church. Those who are secretly in sin will be disciplined by God if they are truly elect. And those who never repent and die in that condition reveal themselves as reprobates.

But the bottom line here is that the worst Christian is saved while the most holy Muslim, Buddhist or Catholic is lost. That's because only the cross of Christ can justify anyone and faith is the only means of applying that objective basis for salvation.

Romans 4:1-8

Charlie