» Site Navigation | | | |  | | 
02-15-2008, 11:03 AM
|  | Puritanboard Junior | | Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Holland, Michigan
Posts: 1,468
Thanks: 237
Thanked 181 Times in 150 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivanhoe Quote:
Originally Posted by Amazing Grace Quote:
Originally Posted by armourbearer Finally, I have no difficulty with the meaning of "katargein" as provided. Whether it means "delivered," "released," or "discharged" amounts to the same thing. The issue is, what is the believer released from? And it is clear from the context he is released from his obligations to the law as a covenant bond, which is what marriage is. |
Exactly, and that is all this is about. No covenant, no rule. If the woman is released from the cov bond of the first marriage, then how does it still remain in any aspect for her second marraige. Does she use the first marraige for anything in her life once remarried? | Ok, now do you see why I kept asking the adultery question? Since that commandment was under the old covenant, which no longer rules over us per your above statement, then, to be logically consistent, the adultery commandment no longer rules over us.
Unless, maybe Paul does have some role for the law in the life of the believer, to guide him perhaps. THat is why he speaks so positively of the law in 1 Timothy. |
Jacob, I am attempting to figure out the supposed 3rd use. Where does it differ from the first? I know adultery is wrong becasue God says it is wrong. THis is the first use, to point out sin. But after i go to Christ and realize I am cleansed from such sin, then where does the 3rd use come in? Is it a remender that it is sinful? Is that how it rules/guides? Becasue I do not see that as a guide or rule. For instance, when Christ healed the Lepers, He sent them to the priest, not back to the Law as a guide but to let them know they were now cleansed through Christ right?
__________________
N. Robert; Trinity Reformed Church RCA, Holland MI
Once in a while you can get shown the light, in the strangest of places if you look at it right."
| 
02-15-2008, 11:26 AM
| | Puritanboard Doctor | | Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: LA
Posts: 9,820
Thanks: 829
Thanked 754 Times in 464 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by Amazing Grace Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivanhoe Quote:
Originally Posted by Amazing Grace
Exactly, and that is all this is about. No covenant, no rule. If the woman is released from the cov bond of the first marriage, then how does it still remain in any aspect for her second marraige. Does she use the first marraige for anything in her life once remarried? | Ok, now do you see why I kept asking the adultery question? Since that commandment was under the old covenant, which no longer rules over us per your above statement, then, to be logically consistent, the adultery commandment no longer rules over us.
Unless, maybe Paul does have some role for the law in the life of the believer, to guide him perhaps. THat is why he speaks so positively of the law in 1 Timothy. |
Jacob, I am attempting to figure out the supposed 3rd use. Where does it differ from the first? I know adultery is wrong becasue God says it is wrong. THis is the first use, to point out sin. But after i go to Christ and realize I am cleansed from such sin, then where does the 3rd use come in? Is it a remender that it is sinful? Is that how it rules/guides? Becasue I do not see that as a guide or rule. For instance, when Christ healed the Lepers, He sent them to the priest, not back to the Law as a guide but to let them know they were now cleansed through Christ right? | I will try to respond to parts of it later. Quote: |
For instance, when Christ healed the Lepers, He sent them to the priest, not back to the Law as a guide but to let them know they were now cleansed through Christ right
| Strictly speaking, leprosy is not sin, so the first use of the law is moot on this question. Secondly, by sending them to the priest Jesus was precisely obeying the law, and telling them to do the same on this point. Quote: |
I know adultery is wrong becasue God says it is wrong.
| Right. Because it is revealed in the law. Now, I assume y6ou are a good Christian man and don't plan to commit adultery. That is obeying the law. Well and good.
__________________
J. B. Atken
John Knox PCA
Layman, M.A. student at Louisiana College
| 
02-15-2008, 11:34 AM
|  | Puritanboard Junior | | Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Holland, Michigan
Posts: 1,468
Thanks: 237
Thanked 181 Times in 150 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by SemperFideles I thought I described the 3rd use fairly clearly through a number of analogies. Are my descriptions confusing? | I am losing the spcific meaning at times with analogies Quote:
Originally Posted by SemperFideles Why was the mountain where God gave the Law to Moses so threatening to the people? God's Holy presence was there but why would that seem like utter death to the people in the wilderness? Well, for one thing, Hebrews 3-4 note that these were stiff-necked and rebellious and were mostly unbelievers. The Law is an expression of God's Holiness and, to the flesh, it is fearful, frightening, and condemning. When we finally have eyes to see it, the Law kills us in our "flesh" and causes us to fall down at Christ's feet for deliverance. | I agree. This example is the first 2 uses of Law right? Point out sin then point us to Christ. Quote:
Originally Posted by SemperFideles I said this earlier, the only thing the Law can do to the unregenerate is terrify them or judge them for their sin. The only thing the unregenerate can do with the Law is ask for the minimal boundaries that they believe they can stay within and still be considered obedient. They're not looking beyond the Law to a desire for God but merely looking at it as if it is a slavemaster or something to restrict them. | First use right? Condemn, point out sin. Yet the unregenerate are still commanded to obey Law. Quote:
Originally Posted by SemperFideles
The redeemed individual, however, understands that Christ has fulfilled all righteousness and removed their reproach and the condemnation of the Law. They have eyes to see now that the Law is not what they suspected it was when they were blind and dead. They don't see in it a minimal set of performance markers but as something that reflects the character of God who they love. It is pursued not for the "thou shall not" but for its end which is to guide us deeper into our understanding of the God we love for redeeming us.
I hope this helps. I keep trying to use different analogies. The important key to remember is that the Law is not really the thing that changes. It's us. This is why Paul can say on the one hand that the Law kills us and then say that the Law is just, holy, and good. He's really saying that the Law stays the same but the effect it has on the individual is based upon the disposition of the heart of the individual. | Yes I agree here to a point Rich. So when I hear of this 3rd use of Law, that means it reveals the moral character of God to man? This is where I get confused. I thought Christ did that. Where the fullness of God dwells. I know we cannot turn grace into a lisence to sin, I hope noone here thinks I am espousing that. And think that because Christ fulfilled it i am now at liberty to break it willfully. Just becasue Christ fed the poor does not mean I am also not called to do that.. Where I think I am missing is the 3rd use seems to be telling me to affix a Mezuzah on each doorpost in our homes. every time I enter or leave, the mezuzah reminds me that I have a covenant with God. Not physically perhaps, but spiritually in my mind. Then i wonder, do I need to be reminded daily of what is right or wrong and can the Law do this for me or is it even designed for this purpose for the gentile? Acts 15 would have been a perfect point to exaplin this, yet it does the opposite:
5Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, "The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses."
6The apostles and elders met to consider this question. 7After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: "Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? 11No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are."
23With them they sent the following letter: The apostles and elders, your brothers, To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia: Greetings. 24We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. 25So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul— 26men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. 28It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell.
This seems to be it for the gentile believers. And we know this is not only about salvation, but how they should live according to the rules set forth. I just think it would have been a perfect time for Luke to say the 10 words are to be your rule of life. AS the pharisse believers wanted the Law of moses to be upheld completely. Yet they did not agree with them. I ask why not?
Look, guys, like I said earlier, I am probably wrong. To think I am against a great witness in questioning the 3rd use is nothing I take lightly.
Last edited by Amazing Grace; 02-15-2008 at 02:48 PM.
| 
02-15-2008, 11:38 AM
|  | Puritanboard Junior | | Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Holland, Michigan
Posts: 1,468
Thanks: 237
Thanked 181 Times in 150 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivanhoe Right. Because it is revealed in the law. Now, I assume y6ou are a good Christian man and don't plan to commit adultery. That is obeying the law. Well and good. | So the 3rd use is obedience? I think this is what I have been after for the whole thread!!!  I just do not know if I need to be reminded of this by Law not to do it. I see very little evidence Law kept anyone from sinning, and that is my struggle with the 3rd use. David for example. | 
02-15-2008, 11:46 AM
|  | Puritanboard Freshman | | Join Date: May 2006 Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 421
Thanks: 19
Thanked 83 Times in 57 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivanhoe Quote:
Originally Posted by Amazing Grace Quote:
Originally Posted by armourbearer Finally, I have no difficulty with the meaning of "katargein" as provided. Whether it means "delivered," "released," or "discharged" amounts to the same thing. The issue is, what is the believer released from? And it is clear from the context he is released from his obligations to the law as a covenant bond, which is what marriage is. |
Exactly, and that is all this is about. No covenant, no rule. If the woman is released from the cov bond of the first marriage, then how does it still remain in any aspect for her second marraige. Does she use the first marraige for anything in her life once remarried? | Ok, now do you see why I kept asking the adultery question? Since that commandment was under the old covenant, which no longer rules over us per your above statement, then, to be logically consistent, the adultery commandment no longer rules over us. | Which is why I thanked Moral Neccessity for his most useful post #75. For he distinguishes between the Mosaic Law as God's moral principles expressed externally and applied to a particular nation in covenant with him, and, on the other hand, the character of God as the source of those principles.
My own comment is this (and I think I am following Paul's argument in Rom. 5-8,) is that since the elect are united with Christ as an ontological reality (Rom. 5:12-6:10, certain things are true of us. We are no longer in Adam but in Christ, and we are no longer living under the reign and rule of sin and death, but under the reign and rule of grace, just as Christ is no longer living under the reign of sin and death (Rom. 6:9). But since the Law came in so that sin increased (Rom. 5:20), once we are out of that realm of sin, we no longer relate to the Law as such. But being united with Christ (who is in union with God) in the realm of grace (Rom. 6:5,8-10) does not make us free from walking in those aspects of God's character that are expressed in what is called the moral law. For, at the lowest, the Christian is one who not only intellectually knows the concept that God is love, but is one who goes beyond an intellectual knowledge of the concept "God is love" to experiencing the love of God as a present reality. Jesus pointed out that if we love him we will obey his commands and abide in his love, "just as I have kept my Father's commandments and abide in his love" (John 15:10). Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivanhoe Unless, maybe Paul does have some role for the law in the life of the believer, to guide him perhaps. THat is why he speaks so positively of the law in 1 Timothy. | I would say that Paul's role for the moral law in the life of the believer is that of written statement of God's character teaching us what he likes and does not like, so that we may know what things please him so that we may do them and please him and continue to abide in his love.
__________________
In Christ's love and service
Mr. Tim Cunningham, Dip. CS (Regent College)
Member, First Baptist Church
Vancouver, BC
------------
"The Reformation was a time when men went blind, staggering drunk because they had discovered, in the dusty basement of late medievalism, a whole cellar of 1500-year-old, 200 proof grace—a bottle after bottle of pure distillate of Scripture, one sip of which would convince anyone that God saves us single-handedly. The word of the gospel—after all these centuries of trying to lift yourself into heaven by worrying about the perfection of your own bootstraps—suddenly turned out to be a flat announcement that the saved were home-free before they started. Grace was to be drunk neat: no water, no ice, and certainly no ginger ale." – Robert Farrar Capon
Last edited by timmopussycat; 02-15-2008 at 01:24 PM.
| 
02-15-2008, 12:00 PM
|  | Puritanboard Freshman | | Join Date: May 2006 Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 421
Thanks: 19
Thanked 83 Times in 57 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by armourbearer Quote:
Originally Posted by Amazing Grace This appears to be a big leap Matthew. Is paul stating that the fruit is from the tree of Law? And this serving is serving Law? ...
Example of how I understand this: "that we should SERVE in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter." We should be led by the Spirit, not the Law which is the 'oldness of the letter... |
Your understanding of "spirit" is unproven. You simply assume it is something antithetical to law. The very fact that the apostle contrasts "spirit" with "letter" shows that he has in mind a certain "bearing" of the law and not the nature of law itself. The rest of the chapter clearly expresses the virtues of the law, and limits the weakness of the law to the sinner's own carnality. The Holy Spirit deals with the carnality so that the believer can serve in newness of spirit. | Although Nicholas didn't supply proof for his understanding, he is arguably correct. For Paul specifically says that "We were made to die to the Law that we might be joined to another...that we might bear fruit for God" v.4. Inference: if we are still alive to the law in any way we are not bearing fruit for God.
Check of inference: v.6 "we have been released from the law, having died to that which we were bound"
Given the parallel passage: Gal 5:16-18 where "Spirit" is clearly the Holy Spirit as is made explicit in vv.22-25, it is quite possible that "newness of Spirit" in Rom. 7:6 is either a reference to the new man created in Christ Jesus by the Holy Spirit or a shorthand for a new kind of life lived in the power of the Holy Spirit. | | The Following User Says Thank You to timmopussycat For This Useful Post: | | 
02-15-2008, 12:42 PM
|  | Puritanboard Junior | | Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Holland, Michigan
Posts: 1,468
Thanks: 237
Thanked 181 Times in 150 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by timmopussycat
I would say that Paul's role for the moral law in the life of the believer is that of written statement of God's character teaching us what he likes and does not like, so that we may know what things please him so that we may do them and please him and continue to abide in his love. |
Timcat: you have touched on something here that I believe I am missing. The 3rd use of the Law is directly related to the understanding we need it for our sanctification. Why did it take me so long to realize what I am disagreeing with. Sheesh. For justification, I am pointed to Christ alone, the Cross, yet for some odd reason for sanctification I am pointed to Sinai. That once justified by Faith alone in Christ alone, the Spirit who now indwells the believer takes him back to sinai for sanctification.
Now I know the Law is Holy, but I also know it cannot make me holy. In fact the more law the more I know I am unholy. Doesnt Paul set forth the believer’s RULE OF LIFE in Galatians 6:14-16, "But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature. And as many as walk ACCORDING TO THIS RULE, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God." | 
02-15-2008, 01:32 PM
|  | Puritanboard Freshman | | Join Date: May 2006 Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 421
Thanks: 19
Thanked 83 Times in 57 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by Amazing Grace Quote:
Originally Posted by timmopussycat
I would say that Paul's role for the moral law in the life of the believer is that of written statement of God's character teaching us what he likes and does not like, so that we may know what things please him so that we may do them and please him and continue to abide in his love. |
Timcat: you have touched on something here that I believe I am missing. The 3rd use of the Law is directly related to the understanding we need it for our sanctification. Why did it take me so long to realize what I am disagreeing with. Sheesh. For justification, I am pointed to Christ alone, the Cross, yet for some odd reason for sanctification I am pointed to Sinai. That once justified by Faith alone in Christ alone, the Spirit who now indwells the believer takes him back to sinai for sanctification. | I would say rather that the last clause should read "the Spirit who now indewlls the believer takes us back to God's character as expressed through pre-Mosaic teachings, Mosaic teachings and New Testament teachings in order that we may learn how to please God." It is God's character, and not Sinai itself as a system, that is the ultimate source material for the
"3rd use of the law". Quote:
Originally Posted by Amazing Grace Now I know the Law is Holy, but I also know it cannot make me holy. In fact the more law the more I know I am unholy. Doesn't Paul set forth the believer’s RULE OF LIFE in Galatians 6:14-16, "But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature. And as many as walk ACCORDING TO THIS RULE, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God." | No disagreement here, but how does the new creature know what to do? and why does he do it? are the key questions. | 
02-15-2008, 02:12 PM
|  | Puritanboard Junior | | Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Holland, Michigan
Posts: 1,468
Thanks: 237
Thanked 181 Times in 150 Posts
| | [quote=timmopussycat;358389] Quote:
Originally Posted by Amazing Grace Quote:
Originally Posted by timmopussycat
I would say that Paul's role for the moral law in the life of the believer is that of written statement of God's character teaching us what he likes and does not like, so that we may know what things please him so that we may do them and please him and continue to abide in his love. |
Timcat: you have touched on something here that I believe I am missing. The 3rd use of the Law is directly related to the understanding we need it for our sanctification. Why did it take me so long to realize what I am disagreeing with. Sheesh. For justification, I am pointed to Christ alone, the Cross, yet for some odd reason for sanctification I am pointed to Sinai. That once justified by Faith alone in Christ alone, the Spirit who now indwells the believer takes him back to sinai for sanctification. | Quote:
Originally Posted by timmopussycat
I would say rather that the last clause should read "the Spirit who now indewlls the believer takes us back to God's character as expressed through pre-Mosaic teachings, Mosaic teachings and New Testament teachings in order that we may learn how to please God." It is God's character, and not Sinai itself as a system, that is the ultimate source material for the
"3rd use of the law". | Well your way sounds more pleasing than the ultimate words spoken by many Tim. Are you a spin doctor in the political race?  I will settle for the last one. NT teachings. See it still has God's character revealed at Sinai instead of Clavary only, where Paul focuses on. Quote:
Originally Posted by Amazing Grace Now I know the Law is Holy, but I also know it cannot make me holy. In fact the more law the more I know I am unholy. Doesn't Paul set forth the believer’s RULE OF LIFE in Galatians 6:14-16, "But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature. And as many as walk ACCORDING TO THIS RULE, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God." | Quote:
Originally Posted by timmopussycat No disagreement here, but how does the new creature know what to do? and why does he do it? are the key questions. | Paul says by grace and the Spirit pointing Him to the corss and Christ in full.. I guess what i am saying is I agree with the pedological use of the Law,(Patrick Svensen taught me that word here..lol) And the Spirit is what guides now, not the elementary rudiments in stone. Well that is how I read Paul. I guess I take the reformation warcry of ""THE JUST SHALL LIVE BY FAITH." literally in all aspects, including sanctification. Translating it to mean the justified by faith in Christ Jesus, shall live(be sanctified) by faith alone in Jesus. My law keeping is terrible timcat, everytime I strive and look to sinai i live in despondency, my flesh cannot keep it, The emphasis is not "do and thou shalt be sanctified" (the legal formula) but it is this: "You have been blessed with every spiritual blessing in Christ Jesus (Eph. 1:3) therefore walk accordingly by faith. (Eph. 4:1). Romans 7 is a great place for the believe to view how helpless we are. Paul realized it. But paul moved from romans 7 to romans 8 for the cure. .
8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. [1] 2 For the law of the Spirit of life has set you [2] free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death.
Does God intend for me to walk according to Sinai and be miserable all my days? I do not believe that's the intention. Ilove the following from Bunyan.
"Run, John, run! The Law commands!
But gives me neither feet nor hands.
Far grander news the Gospel (grace) brings:
It bids me fly and gives me wings!"
– John Bunyan | 
02-15-2008, 02:31 PM
|  | Puritanboard Graduate | | Join Date: May 2004 Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 3,559
Thanks: 31
Thanked 152 Times in 78 Posts
| | | One thing to mention...The moral law existed prior to Sinai and if we view the moral law as a representation of God's righteous character it will have existed even prior to creation and the Covenant of Works. I have seen a couple of times people have posted about living according to Sinai. Just want to reiterate that the moral law existed prior to and in fact if we look at Sinai it was actually a part of the Covenant of Grace. In the NT there are still imperatives. We want to properly see them after the indicative. Because we are now sons and daughters...do this. But if we look closely at the decalogue, we also see that in the Preamble God professes to be Covenant LORD and had delivered them out of Egypt out of the house of bondage.
We keep the law (our Father's commands/wishes) out of love and gratitude. We want to please Him - not obedience for fear or obedience's sake.
I'm pretty sure this is the classic reformed/confessional understanding of the law in the life of the believer. Open to correction.
__________________
Chris Rhoades -33 Good Shepherd Presbyterian Church (PCA) Nashville, TN-Under Care Vera theologia non theoretica, sed practica est; Finis siquidem eius agere est hoc est vitam vivere deiformem. - Martin Bucer ""True theology is not theoretical, but practical. The end of it is living, that is to live a godly life." | | The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to crhoades For This Useful Post: | | 
02-15-2008, 02:36 PM
|  | Puritanboard Junior | | Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Holland, Michigan
Posts: 1,468
Thanks: 237
Thanked 181 Times in 150 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by crhoades One thing to mention...The moral law existed prior to Sinai and if we view the moral law as a representation of God's righteous character it will have existed even prior to creation and the Covenant of Works. I have seen a couple of times people have posted about living according to Sinai. Just want to reiterate that the moral law existed prior to and in fact if we look at Sinai it was actually a part of the Covenant of Grace. In the NT there are still imperatives. We want to properly see them after the indicative. Because we are now sons and daughters...do this. But if we look closely at the decalogue, we also see that in the Preamble God professes to be Covenant LORD and had delivered them out of Egypt out of the house of bondage.
We keep the law (our Father's commands/wishes) out of love and gratitude. We want to please Him - not obedience for fear or obedience's sake.
I'm pretty sure this is the classic reformed/confessional understanding of the law in the life of the believer. Open to correction. |
Chris, when speaking of the 3rd use of Law, we are specifically talking of the 10 words given clearly at Sinai. Is there another one that I am amissing prior to Sinai? It is obvious the mosiac code was cut at sinai, the 10 words. Or else why would God speak of " delivering them out of egypt" to Abraham? | 
02-15-2008, 03:54 PM
|  | Puritanboard Graduate | | Join Date: May 2004 Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 3,559
Thanks: 31
Thanked 152 Times in 78 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by Amazing Grace Quote:
Originally Posted by crhoades One thing to mention...The moral law existed prior to Sinai and if we view the moral law as a representation of God's righteous character it will have existed even prior to creation and the Covenant of Works. I have seen a couple of times people have posted about living according to Sinai. Just want to reiterate that the moral law existed prior to and in fact if we look at Sinai it was actually a part of the Covenant of Grace. In the NT there are still imperatives. We want to properly see them after the indicative. Because we are now sons and daughters...do this. But if we look closely at the decalogue, we also see that in the Preamble God professes to be Covenant LORD and had delivered them out of Egypt out of the house of bondage.
We keep the law (our Father's commands/wishes) out of love and gratitude. We want to please Him - not obedience for fear or obedience's sake.
I'm pretty sure this is the classic reformed/confessional understanding of the law in the life of the believer. Open to correction. |
Chris, when speaking of the 3rd use of Law, we are specifically talking of the 10 words given clearly at Sinai. Is there another one that I am amissing prior to Sinai? It is obvious the mosiac code was cut at sinai, the 10 words. Or else why would God speak of " delivering them out of egypt" to Abraham? | Sure the 10 words were given at Sinai but they are a summary of the moral law not the totality of or a new law itself. The moral law existed prior to Sinai. It was wrong to murder, committ adultery, bear false witness etc. during Abraham's time and before. Sabbath is a creation ordinance and is perpetual as well. So the 3rd use of the law has always been around. OT believers were justified by faith just as NT believers. After Abraham was justified he entered into sanctification (as did Moses etc.) and the law wasn't contrary to their Christian walk. | | The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to crhoades For This Useful Post: | | 
02-15-2008, 04:56 PM
|  | Puritanboard Junior | | Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Holland, Michigan
Posts: 1,468
Thanks: 237
Thanked 181 Times in 150 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by crhoades Quote:
Originally Posted by Amazing Grace Quote:
Originally Posted by crhoades One thing to mention...The moral law existed prior to Sinai and if we view the moral law as a representation of God's righteous character it will have existed even prior to creation and the Covenant of Works. I have seen a couple of times people have posted about living according to Sinai. Just want to reiterate that the moral law existed prior to and in fact if we look at Sinai it was actually a part of the Covenant of Grace. In the NT there are still imperatives. We want to properly see them after the indicative. Because we are now sons and daughters...do this. But if we look closely at the decalogue, we also see that in the Preamble God professes to be Covenant LORD and had delivered them out of Egypt out of the house of bondage.
We keep the law (our Father's commands/wishes) out of love and gratitude. We want to please Him - not obedience for fear or obedience's sake.
I'm pretty sure this is the classic reformed/confessional understanding of the law in the life of the believer. Open to correction. |
Chris, when speaking of the 3rd use of Law, we are specifically talking of the 10 words given clearly at Sinai. Is there another one that I am amissing prior to Sinai? It is obvious the mosiac code was cut at sinai, the 10 words. Or else why would God speak of " delivering them out of egypt" to Abraham? | Sure the 10 words were given at Sinai but they are a summary of the moral law not the totality of or a new law itself. The moral law existed prior to Sinai. It was wrong to murder, committ adultery, bear false witness etc. during Abraham's time and before. Sabbath is a creation ordinance and is perpetual as well. So the 3rd use of the law has always been around. OT believers were justified by faith just as NT believers. After Abraham was justified he entered into sanctification (as did Moses etc.) and the law wasn't contrary to their Christian walk. | Instead of saying "The" moral law, it should be noted as "A" moral law. Or covenants right? it cannot be denied that "The" moral law referenced in the writ was cut at Sinai. Or else God would ot have said "Rescued out of Egypt"
For before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. ROM 5:13
What, then, was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was put into effect through angels by a mediator. GAL 3:19
WHen we read Law in the Bible, it always refers to Sinai. But it is never refered to as an exact replica of the cow given to adam. I do not know what you mean when you say summary not a totality. What other moral laws existed? | 
02-15-2008, 05:52 PM
|  | Puritanboard Graduate | | Join Date: May 2004 Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 3,559
Thanks: 31
Thanked 152 Times in 78 Posts
| | One of the best treatments of the law of God can be found in the Westminster Larger Catechism. I can't highly recommend enough to take time to read through it and pay careful attention to the Scripture proofs. Here is an online copy: Westminster Larger Catechism 91-150
Below is a couple excerpts showing that the moral law was given to Adam and also that it is useful for the regenerate man. We could go in circles but I hope on any discussion I would give would be to merely restate what is already stated there - and I would probably goof it up. More than likely Mr. Winzer, Jacob or most others will be doing the same. Q. 92. What did God at first reveal unto man as the rule of his obedience?
A. The rule of obedience revealed to Adam in the estate of innocence, and to all mankind in him, besides a special command not to eat of the fruit of the tree knowledge of good and evil, was the moral law. [398] [398] Genesis 1:26-27. And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. Romans 2:14-15. For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another Romans 10:5. For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them. Genesis 2:17. But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. Q. 93. What is the moral law?
A. The moral law is the declaration of the will of God to mankind, directing and binding every one to personal, perfect, and perpetual conformity and obedience thereunto, in the frame and disposition of the whole man, soul and body, [399] and in performance of all those duties of holiness and righteousness which he oweth to God and man: [400] promising life upon the fulfilling, and threatening death upon the breach of it. [401] Q. 94. Is there any use of the moral law to man since the fall? (presupposes its existence prior to the fall...)
A. Although no man, since the fall, can attain to righteousness and life by the moral law: [402] yet there is great use thereof, as well common to all men, as peculiar either to the unregenerate, or the regenerate. [403] Q. 97. What special use is there of the moral law to the regenerate?
A. Although they that are regenerate, and believe in Christ, be delivered from the moral law as a covenant of works, [414] so as thereby they are neither justified [415] nor condemned; [416] yet, besides the general uses thereof common to them with all men, it is of special use, to show them how much they are bound to Christ for his fulfilling it, and enduring the curse thereof in their stead, and for their good; [417] and thereby to provoke them to more thankfulness, [418] and to express the same in their greater care to conform themselves thereunto as the rule of their obedience. [419] [414] Romans 6:14. For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace. Romans 7:4, 6. Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.... But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter. Galatians 4:4-5. But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. [415] Romans 3:20. Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. [416] Galatians 5:23. Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. Romans 8:1. There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. [417] Romans 7:24-25. O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin. Galatians 3:13-14. Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. Romans 8:3-4. For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. [418] Luke 1:68-69, 74-75. Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people, And hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David.... That he would grant unto us, that we being delivered out of the hand of our enemies might serve him without fear, In | |