When is the last time you've been exhorted to thank God for the sanctifying power of the Law?
Last Sunday in our church.
As your post suggests, that such an exhortation would be viewed as suspect is troublesome indeed.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
When is the last time you've been exhorted to thank God for the sanctifying power of the Law?
. . .As I was going to bed last night I was reading this article and it dawned on me why the issue saddens me at a certain level. On the one hand, I appreciate the motivation that some have to guard against any sense that we are accepted by our works or stumbling into legalism. There is also the danger that our theology is guided by an obsession with guarding against antinomianism.
I think the problem is that when you boil the Law/Gospel distinction between types of words (imperative or indicative) then when one insists that it is only the Gospel that brings life, then we're sort of stepping away from the fact that it is not the ideas presented in the Gospel about what Christ has done but that it is Christ Himself that brings life and impels us. You see, I don't have a problem with the idea that the Gospel brings life and the motivation and power to view the Law anew but my understanding of the Gospel (from the Confessions) is not insisting that the Gospel is simply limited to the indicatives about what Christ has accomplished. It has a richness to it that includes all the graces that flow from Christ's mediatorial work as our Covenant head.
Thus, when Sean gets to 19.6 in his rejoinder, there seems to be an inability to see how the laws threatenings could be an evangelical motivation for obedience. If I'm tempted to cheat on my taxes, for instance, what if one of my motivations is that I might lose my clearance and my job and, therefore my house, and imperil my family by financial ruin? Christians are motivated by these "threats" all the time. The consequences of behavior motivate them not to sin at times. Owen, in his book on Sin and Temptation has an extended section on how these (among many different kinds of motivations) are of the Lord and impel us to resist temptation.
You just don't ever hear those kinds of motivations emphasized any more. If the Gospel is abstracted from our union with Christ by limiting it to the discussion of whether we're commanded to do it or whether Christ did it then the only thing we could ever say motivates or impels us is reflecting on what Christ has done. Where would the fear of the Law's threats fit in such a schema? Would our fear of the temporal consequences (broken relationships, lost jobs) that motivate us to obey at times be a sign of our faithlessness? Should we learn to never think in such categories because they are not born out of the Gospel's power (again limited to statements about what Christ has done)?
This is sad to me and actually extremely bothersome. I agree with Sean Lucas that here is an example where these emphases are not merely minor but play out in very consequential ways. Where the WCF tells us of the blessings that the laws threats and commands are to us, the emphasis mutes these and causes the believer to doubt whether such motivations are even appropriate or may belong to a slave mentality. Where God, as our Father, has blessed us in the moment with an internal fear of the temporal consequences, we don't thank Him for the providence of keeping us from sinning but instead attribute the motivation to our carnality and the need to mature beyond the fear of temporal consequences. Where I see a multi-faceted and rich appreciation of the implications of our union with Christ in our battle against temptation in the works of Owen and in our Confessions, I see a laser like focus on a few facets at the expense of the others. When is the last time you've been exhorted to thank God for the sanctifying power of the Law?
Why? Because any claim that the law has "sanctifying power" is a real contradiction with Paul's comment that "if righteousness came by the law, Christ is dead in vain." (Gal. 3:21)
VI. Although true believers be not under the law as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified or condemned; yet is it of great use to them, as well as to others; in that, as a rule of life, informing them of the will of God and their duty, it directs and binds them to walk accordingly; discovering also the sinful pollutions of their nature, hearts, and lives; so as, examining themselves thereby, they may come to further conviction of, humiliation for, and hatred against sin; together with a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ, and the perfection of his obedience. It is likewise of use to the regenerate, to restrain their corruptions, in that it forbids sin, and the threatenings of it serve to show what even their sins deserve, and what afflictions in this life they may expect for them, although freed from the curse thereof threatened in the law. The promises of it, in like manner, show them God's approbation of obedience, and what blessings they may expect upon the performance thereof; although not as due to them by the law as a covenant of works: so as a man's doing good, and refraining from evil, because the law encourageth to the one, and deterreth from the other, is no evidence of his being under the law, and not under grace.
97 Oh how I love your law!
It is my meditation all the day.
98 Your commandment makes me wiser than my enemies,
for it is ever with me.
Here they are in order.Hi, Patrick:
Just wanted to thank you for your thoughtful engagement with what I wrote earlier this week on Ref21. I think of all the comments that I’ve read, yours were the most helpful in poking holes in my thinking, for which I am very grateful. Particularly on the historical matters, I tend to agree with you: I thought at the time my generalization about Baxter as neonomian would strike people who are Baxter experts as unfair; it is unhelpful to know that you felt the same about Crisp. Of course, they were generalizations; and of course, everyone in these debates affirms law and grace, indicatives and imperatives. (But what these things mean and how they play out are the questions; Aquinas affirmed the need for grace prior to the turning of the will, but how that happens is another question). But generalizations tend to fall apart when experts get involved; so I thank you for the corrections.
Blessings,
Sean
Why? Because any claim that the law has "sanctifying power" is a real contradiction with Paul's comment that "if righteousness came by the law, Christ is dead in vain." (Gal. 3:21)
Tim,
I think we need to be careful of equivocation here. Paul does not always use Law in the same sense. I'm not speaking of the Law in the sense of that righteousness by which we attain to a righteousness that is acceptable to God.
I'm speaking of the Law in its third use, which assumes that the believer already possesses evangelical life and it is use in the upbuilding of the believer.
I believe you even quoted Psalm 119 where the Law is said to upbuild and give life. It is in the third use that the Lord uses the Law to preserve and, as the WCF notes,
VI. Although true believers be not under the law as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified or condemned; yet is it of great use to them, as well as to others; in that, as a rule of life, informing them of the will of God and their duty, it directs and binds them to walk accordingly; discovering also the sinful pollutions of their nature, hearts, and lives; so as, examining themselves thereby, they may come to further conviction of, humiliation for, and hatred against sin; together with a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ, and the perfection of his obedience. It is likewise of use to the regenerate, to restrain their corruptions, in that it forbids sin, and the threatenings of it serve to show what even their sins deserve, and what afflictions in this life they may expect for them, although freed from the curse thereof threatened in the law. The promises of it, in like manner, show them God's approbation of obedience, and what blessings they may expect upon the performance thereof; although not as due to them by the law as a covenant of works: so as a man's doing good, and refraining from evil, because the law encourageth to the one, and deterreth from the other, is no evidence of his being under the law, and not under grace.
I actually find this last phrase pretty insightful. Notice how the WCF correctly notes that being "under the law" is equivalent to a covenant of works. Thuse in the final clause, it notes that the person who stands in relationship of union with Christ is not under law but grace. That's true even when the Law is being used by God for the spiritual upbuilding and preservation of the believer.
Now, I am willing to modify my statement a bit because I can appreciate how it might be misconstrued. The ultimate sanctifying power is Christ's work in us. What I'm trying to note, however, is that there are no "magical clauses" or formula in the Scriptures where God can only use indicatives to sanctify us and not imperatives. God sanctifies us through His spirit. That sanctifying work includes both the facets of reflection on Christ's finished work as well as the other motivations that the Law gives to us to obey our heavenly father.
97 Oh how I love your law!
It is my meditation all the day.
98 Your commandment makes me wiser than my enemies,
for it is ever with me.
Is this not noting that the law is making the psalmist wise? Is this not a sanctifying grace? Is this not evangelical wisdom? Of what kind of wisdom is this?
I'm reminded what Sinclair Ferguson noted. We have to always be careful in the Scriptures about who the audience is. The above can only be understood in the context of the person who has Christ as His head for all others under the CoW could not experience the Law in this way.
Even restricting the meaning of "the law" to "the third use of the law" does not get us away from the problem Paul poses. In fact it makes Paul's point even more pointed. For if there is any sanctifying power in the third use of the law (and power is different from wisdom or light - see below), then Christ has still died in vain. Not in vain because his death did not achieve the human sanctification, but in vain because his death would not have been needed for human sanctification to be achieved.
I find it noteworthy that the WCF does not affirm that there is sanctifying power in the law in the chapters on sanctification or the Law of God and also the answer to Q94 of the WLC explicitly denies that any can attain to righteousness and life by the moral law.
Attain to righteousness and life is not sanctification. I really do have some respect for you and this shocks me that you're failing to distinguish what the WLC is saying here about the moral law. It is stating that the law cannot save as a covenant of works. Note what the WLC does say:Q. 94. Is there any use of the moral law to man since 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
The moral law is said to provoke the regenerate to thankfulness and conformity.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 justified415 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
Q. 38. Why was it requisite that the Mediator should be God?
A. It was requisite that the Mediator should be God, that he might sustain and keep the human nature from sinking under the infinite wrath of God, and the power of death,144 give worth and efficacy to his sufferings, obedience, and intercession;145 and to satisfy God’s justice,146 procure his favour,147 purchase a peculiar people,148 give his Spirit to them,149 conquer all their enemies,150 and bring them to everlasting salvation.151
Q. 39. Why was it requisite that the Mediator should be man?
A. It was requisite that the Mediator should be man, that he might advance our nature,152 perform obedience to the law,153 suffer and make intercession for us in our nature,154 have a fellow-feeling of our infirmities;155 that we might receive the adoption of sons,156 and have comfort and access with boldness unto the throne of grace.157
Q. 40. Why was it requisite that the Mediator should be God and man in one person?
A. It was requisite that the Mediator, who was to reconcile God and man, should himself be both God and man, and this in one person, that the proper works of each nature might be accepted of God for us,158 and relied on by us as the works of the whole person.159
Q. 41. Why was our Mediator called Jesus?
A. Our Mediator was called Jesus, because he saveth his people from their sins.160
Q. 42. Why was our Mediator called Christ?
A. Our Mediator was called Christ, because he was anointed with the Holy Ghost above measure,161 and so set apart, and fully furnished with all authority and ability,162 to execute the offices of prophet,163 priest,164 and king of his church,165 in the estate both of his humiliation and exaltation.
Q. 43. How doth Christ execute the office of a prophet?
A. Christ executeth the office of a prophet, in his revealing to the church,166 in all ages, by his Spirit and Word,167 in divers ways of administration,168 the whole will of God,169 in all things concerning their edification and salvation.170
Q. 44. How doth Christ execute the office of a priest?
A. Christ executeth the office of a priest, in his once offering himself a sacrifice without spot to God,171 to be reconciliation for the sins of his people;172 and in making continual intercession for them.173
Q. 45. How doth Christ execute the office of a king?
A. Christ executeth the office of a king, in calling out of the world a people to himself,174 and giving them officers,175 laws,176 and censures, by which he visibly governs them;177 in bestowing saving grace upon his elect,178 rewarding their obedience,179 and correcting them for their sins,180 preserving and supporting them under all their temptations and sufferings,181 restraining and overcoming all their enemies,182 and powerfully ordering all things for his own glory,183 and their good;184 and also in taking vengeance on the rest, who know not God, and obey not the gospel.185
And you show that you are a letter from Christ delivered by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts. (II Cor 3:3, ESV)
Christ hasn't died in vain if the law sanctifies. That's just a misunderstanding of the difference between sanctification and salvation. If I don't marry a cow or my daughter I'm sanctified. If I steal old ladies' purses I'm not sanctified. Christ died to make me perfect in the sight of God. I'm saved even if I slip up and grab a wallet, or cuss God when I trip.
How can the law not sanctify one? How can one be sanctified without the law?
If anyone is elect they are elect from before the foundation of the world and remain elect through whatever sins they may commit.Sampson was saved, even while drunk and in the arms of a whore. Can't I say he was low on the sactification scale at that time? And still be saved???
And the power to obey the law, while it comes from outside the law, and only by God's Spirit, doesn't change things.
Even restricting the meaning of "the law" to "the third use of the law" does not get us away from the problem Paul poses. In fact it makes Paul's point even more pointed. For if there is any sanctifying power in the third use of the law (and power is different from wisdom or light - see below), then Christ has still died in vain. Not in vain because his death did not achieve the human sanctification, but in vain because his death would not have been needed for human sanctification to be achieved.
Tim,
I'm sorry but you are simply not understanding Paul correctly if you think that he's denying any sanctifying utility in the Law of God. Paul's concern can best be summarized when he exclaims: "Have you begun in the Spirit that you are now being perfected in the flesh." You are simply not doing faithful exegesis here to allow Paul to define his terms in one context and then allow for another use of the word law in another context. There is a vast difference between being "under law" and "under grace".
I find it noteworthy that the WCF does not affirm that there is sanctifying power in the law in the chapters on sanctification or the Law of God and also the answer to Q94 of the WLC explicitly denies that any can attain to righteousness and life by the moral law.
Tim, forgive me, but I am really shocked by your appeal to WLC 94.
Q. 94. Is there any use of the moral law to man since 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
Attain to righteousness and life is not sanctification. I really do have some respect for you and this shocks me that you're failing to distinguish what the WLC is saying here about the moral law. It is stating that the law cannot save as a covenant of works.
Note what the WLC does say:
The moral law is said to provoke the regenerate to thankfulness and conformity.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 justified415 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
Your standard that one finds the phrase where someone actually says "the law has sanctifying power" neglects GNC. 2 Tim 3:16-17 states that ALL scripture builds up the man of God and fully equip him. The Law is certainly part of Scripture.
If you think by sanctifying power, I mean that the words themselves contain some sort of force for the believer then I've already distinguished that I believe it is union with Christ through the Spirit that is the power of sanctification. Words of comfort or words of reproof are means to the end of sanctification and I'm willing to thank Christ for anything He uses to build me up to the perfect man.
Rich, I affirm that Paul knew that the imperatives of the law would have a different result in lives of a believer and an unbeliever. But I still think my exegesis is fair: for if there is sanctifying power in the law, it is hard to see how Paul could have written: "Having begun by the Spirit are you now being perfected by the flesh" as he did, because setting oneself to obey all the law, in such a context, would be a legitimate path to sanctification and holiness.
Tim,
In creation God spoke and it was created. The Word is connected to the creating power somehow. It seems to be a part of the whole of the source in creation. Would this not be true for us also. What do we do with Psalm 19:7 and the many other passages that we have quoted and you seem to be ignoring?
I'm actually clear on salvation and sanctification. I think you misunderstood the implied premise: which was that if the law has any power to sanctify, all one has to do to be saved is follow it perfectly. As one follows the law (if the law has power to sanctify) one is increasingly conformed to the divine nature the more one does so and the vivifying circle continues until one arrives at holiness.
I've said that all along. I think the problem is that you very narrowly define "the law" as the Covenant of Works where neither Scripture nor the Westminster Standards do. If, by law, I only consider the law as a rule of life by which men might attain righteousness unto life then I fully reject any such notion. I do not believe that this is the only way that the Law is spoken of throughout Scripture. Again, all is conditioned upon being in the Covenant of Grace first (being in Christ) and then and only then is there even such a thing as sanctification. It is quite pointless to speak of sanctification if one is not in Christ because the Law only condemns men. Sanctification is (and only can be) by the Spirit.I'm not sure that it does. For if we narrow the question to the means by which the law builds up the believer, as far as his sanctification is concerned, we discover afresh, as you agree, that the power to sanctify is not in the law but in the Spirit.
Tim,
In creation God spoke and it was created. The Word is connected to the creating power somehow. It seems to be a part of the whole of the source in creation. Would this not be true for us also. What do we do with Psalm 19:7 and the many other passages that we have quoted and you seem to be ignoring?
We simply interpret Scripture by Scripture and recognize that Scripture later goes into greater detail about how we are sanctified, matters not fully considered at this point in salvation history.
(Jos 1:7) Only be thou strong and very courageous, that thou mayest observe to do according to all the law, which Moses my servant commanded thee: turn not from it to the right hand or to the left, that thou mayest prosper whithersoever thou goest.
(Jos 1:8) This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein: for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success.
(Jos 1:9) Have not I commanded thee? Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the LORD thy God is with thee whithersoever thou goest.
(Deu 8:3) And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live.
Rich, I affirm that Paul knew that the imperatives of the law would have a different result in lives of a believer and an unbeliever. But I still think my exegesis is fair: for if there is sanctifying power in the law, it is hard to see how Paul could have written: "Having begun by the Spirit are you now being perfected by the flesh" as he did, because setting oneself to obey all the law, in such a context, would be a legitimate path to sanctification and holiness.
Tim,
Isn't the passage in Galatians about justification and not sanctification Tim? Your exegesis is lacking brother. You are poorly attributing sanctification on this text. And the text is about circumcision and justification. Not about the sanctifying power of the law as you put it.
Is not the decalogue a means of grace for the Christian to know God's Character and His will? If it is a means of grace then it has sanctifying power in the Spirit.
If that is your point then you've been shadow boxing Tim. I never stated anything other than the above. This is why I took such pains throughout this thread to emphasize union with Christ and then and only then did I attribute sanctifying power to the law insofar as Christ (our Covenant head) is sanctifying us by the means of the law.The single point I am trying to discuss is whether we may correctly attribute sanctifying power to the law alone apart from the Spirit. I am not saying there is no sanctifying power in the law when God works through it.
(Rom 13:8) Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law.
(Rom 13:9) For the commandments, "You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet," and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."
(Rom 13:10) Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.
(Gal 5:1) Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.
(Gal 5:2) Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.
(Gal 5:3) For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.
(Gal 5:4) Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.
(Gal 5:5) For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.
(Gal 5:6) For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.
(Gal 5:7) Ye did run well; who did hinder you that ye should not obey the truth?
(Gal 5:8) This persuasion cometh not of him that calleth you.
(Gal 5:9) A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.
(Gal 5:10) I have confidence in you through the Lord, that ye will be none otherwise minded: but he that troubleth you shall bear his judgment, whosoever he be.
(Gal 5:11) And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? then is the offence of the cross ceased.
(Gal 5:12) I would they were even cut off which trouble you.
(Gal 5:13) For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.
(Gal 5:14) For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
(Gal 5:15) But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another.
(Gal 5:16) This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.
(Gal 5:17) For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.
(Gal 5:18) But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
(Gal 5:19) Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
(Gal 5:20) Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
(Gal 5:21) Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
(Gal 5:22) But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
(Gal 5:23) Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
(Gal 5:24) And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.
(Gal 5:25) If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.
(Gal 5:26) Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another.
(Gal 6:7) Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.(Gal 6:8) For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.
(Gal 6:9) And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not.
Tim,
In creation God spoke and it was created. The Word is connected to the creating power somehow. It seems to be a part of the whole of the source in creation. Would this not be true for us also. What do we do with Psalm 19:7 and the many other passages that we have quoted and you seem to be ignoring?
We simply interpret Scripture by Scripture and recognize that Scripture later goes into greater detail about how we are sanctified, matters not fully considered at this point in salvation history.
Tim, you lost me on that one. Especially in light of all the exhortations about how scripture play a part in keeping the heart and feeding the soul.
(Jos 1:7) Only be thou strong and very courageous, that thou mayest observe to do according to all the law, which Moses my servant commanded thee: turn not from it to the right hand or to the left, that thou mayest prosper whithersoever thou goest.
(Jos 1:8) This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein: for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success.
(Jos 1:9) Have not I commanded thee? Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the LORD thy God is with thee whithersoever thou goest.
(Deu 8:3) And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live.
Tim,
You are way out there in my estimation. And your defenses are very lacking. This one didn't even make sense to me. I hope I am not that dense if you are speaking in a truthful manner. There are just too many passages in the Old Testament about how the Word of God (His Law) is life and how He uses it in the soul of man.
addition...
What is there not to consider about the sanctifying power of scripture in this passage. Are you implying that the following passage doesn't say anything or reveal anything about the sanctifying power of the Law of the Lord because King David at this time wasn't being precise about it? What scripture would there be to say or enlighten me as to how you would interpret this differently than what it says. The Law of the Lord is perfect reviving (converting) and making wise. I simply am not getting your point about interpreting scripture by scripture. And you seem to really be missing the point of Galatians 3 also.
"The law of the LORD is perfect, reviving the soul; the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple; the precepts of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart; the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes; the fear of the LORD is clean, enduring forever; the rules of the LORD are true, and righteous altogether. More to be desired are they than gold, even much fine gold; sweeter also than honey and drippings of the honeycomb. Moreover, by them is your servant warned; in keeping them there is great reward."
But we are not told that all scripture sanctifies us by it's own inherent power
If that is your point then you've been shadow boxing Tim. I never stated anything other than the above. This is why I took such pains throughout this thread to emphasize union with Christ and then and only then did I attribute sanctifying power to the law insofar as Christ (our Covenant head) is sanctifying us by the means of the law.The single point I am trying to discuss is whether we may correctly attribute sanctifying power to the law alone apart from the Spirit. I am not saying there is no sanctifying power in the law when God works through it.
Notice how you concluded your sentence: ". . . and how he (God uses it (his law) in the soul of man." I'm not denying that God uses his law. I'm just asking: if God is the blacksmith and his law is hammer, where does the power reside? In the hammer or the blacksmith?
(Heb 4:12) For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
I've said that all along. I think the problem is that you very narrowly define "the law" as the Covenant of Works where neither Scripture nor the Westminster Standards do. If, by law, I only consider the law as a rule of life by which men might attain righteousness unto life then I fully reject any such notion. I do not believe that this is the only way that the Law is spoken of throughout Scripture. Again, all is conditioned upon being in the Covenant of Grace first (being in Christ) and then and only then is there even such a thing as sanctification. It is quite pointless to speak of sanctification if one is not in Christ because the Law only condemns men. Sanctification is (and only can be) by the Spirit.I'm not sure that it does. For if we narrow the question to the means by which the law builds up the believer, as far as his sanctification is concerned, we discover afresh, as you agree, that the power to sanctify is not in the law but in the Spirit.
If that is your point then you've been shadow boxing Tim. I never stated anything other than the above. This is why I took such pains throughout this thread to emphasize union with Christ and then and only then did I attribute sanctifying power to the law insofar as Christ (our Covenant head) is sanctifying us by the means of the law.The single point I am trying to discuss is whether we may correctly attribute sanctifying power to the law alone apart from the Spirit. I am not saying there is no sanctifying power in the law when God works through it.
Tim,
What conversation have you been having and who have you been having it with? As far as I can tell by your eisegesis of Galatians 3 we were having some of the same conversation but you were poorly defending your points. Now from reading your comment above you were shadow boxing. I can't tell who your foe was either. Especially since no one ever implied such a thing.
The problem with this definition is that it is not consistent with Christ's own Jewish division of the Scriptures which consisted of Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings (TANAKH). Torah is what we translate Law and encompasses Genesis through Deuteronomy. Genesis 15 is part of Torah (Law) as an example.I'm certainly not defining the Law as the covenant of works but as the Mosaic law.
Galatians is about more than justification. Chapter 5:16-6:10 makes this explicit.
Galatians is about more than justification. Chapter 5:16-6:10 makes this explicit.
Tim, Galatians 5 is a summation of the book and it's purpose. You can see what sanctification is as opposed to justification. Paul is combating false teaching about justification, not sanctification or being conformed to the image of Christ.
The problem with this definition is that it is not consistent with Christ's own Jewish division of the Scriptures which consisted of Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings (TANAKH). Torah is what we translate Law and encompasses Genesis through Deuteronomy. Genesis 15 is part of Torah (Law) as an example.I'm certainly not defining the Law as the covenant of works but as the Mosaic law.
. . . the sanctifying power of the Law?
I explained clearly what I meant Tim. I used it as shorthand for the fact that it is the Spirit that sanctifies the believer and that the Law of God can (and is) used by the Spirit to sanctify the believer. You have insisted (in your appeal to Galatians) on a single definition or use of the term. In other words, for you, when Paul speaks in a certain way for a given situation, the use becomes normative for all other uses of the term and, consequently, there is no sense in which the word can have a wider semantic domain by your myopic application from one context to all contexts. I was pointing out an example where the word Law has a broader definition and the use of the word needs to be understood in the context where it is used.The problem with this definition is that it is not consistent with Christ's own Jewish division of the Scriptures which consisted of Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings (TANAKH). Torah is what we translate Law and encompasses Genesis through Deuteronomy. Genesis 15 is part of Torah (Law) as an example.I'm certainly not defining the Law as the covenant of works but as the Mosaic law.
Rich, now I'm confused.
This discussion started with me querying the propriety of using the phrase:
. . . the sanctifying power of the Law?
When you used that phrase I read “the Law” as a reference to the Torah, the Law of Moses, or the first 5 books of the bible, and I’ve been understanding and using those words in that sense ever since. Did I misunderstand what you meant by the term? If I did misunderstand, then what did you mean by the term the Law in post 889457?