I have been reading Andy Wilson's "The Marrow of the Marrow of Modern Divinity" and came across something that puzzles me. I'll quote from the original Marrow, Chapter 2; Section 2; 3.
"Nom. But yet, sir, methinks it is somewhat strange that the Lord should put them upon doing the law, and also promise them life for doing, and yet never intend it.
Evan. Though he did so, yet did he neither require of them that which was unjust, nor yet dissemble with them in the promise; for the Lord may justly require perfect obedience at all men's hands, by virtue of that covenant which was made with them in Adam; and if any man could yield perfect obedience to the law, both in doing and suffering, he should have eternal life; ..."
Yet the Westminster Confession (Chapter 6, III) speaks of the guilt of original sin being imputed to us:
"They being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed, and the same death in sin and corrupted nature conveyed, to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation."
So surely even if someone was able to keep the law, according to the Westminster Confession it wouldn't work because we are born guilty. Is God saying "If you were able to keep the law, you would live"? Isn't that what Nomista means by saying "never intend it" and what Evangelista denies by saying "nor yet dissemble"?
What I'm saying is, according to the Westminster Confession, not only is it an impossibility (which is, perhaps, the point of the Law being our Schoolmaster to bring us to Christ), but even if it wasn't impossible we would still be guilty.
Are there any alternatives to this apparent contradiction that do not contradict the Bible?
"Nom. But yet, sir, methinks it is somewhat strange that the Lord should put them upon doing the law, and also promise them life for doing, and yet never intend it.
Evan. Though he did so, yet did he neither require of them that which was unjust, nor yet dissemble with them in the promise; for the Lord may justly require perfect obedience at all men's hands, by virtue of that covenant which was made with them in Adam; and if any man could yield perfect obedience to the law, both in doing and suffering, he should have eternal life; ..."
Yet the Westminster Confession (Chapter 6, III) speaks of the guilt of original sin being imputed to us:
"They being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed, and the same death in sin and corrupted nature conveyed, to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation."
So surely even if someone was able to keep the law, according to the Westminster Confession it wouldn't work because we are born guilty. Is God saying "If you were able to keep the law, you would live"? Isn't that what Nomista means by saying "never intend it" and what Evangelista denies by saying "nor yet dissemble"?
What I'm saying is, according to the Westminster Confession, not only is it an impossibility (which is, perhaps, the point of the Law being our Schoolmaster to bring us to Christ), but even if it wasn't impossible we would still be guilty.
Are there any alternatives to this apparent contradiction that do not contradict the Bible?