I'm not under Moses, I'm under the Law of Christ

[Romans922]

I did not insult you in anyway. I didn't call you hairy or fat or something. I just said, "I suggest you go read Calvin yourself. The source you provide does not seem correct on him." What I meant was, "What does CALVIN actually say?" Because the source you provide does not seem correct. Notice the word SEEM. It shows I could be wrong. I.e. where does Calvin say something to that effect, I want to know.

There was no insult, I called you no names. I questioned your statements, not you.

 

[Matthias]

I did not insult you in anyway. I didn't call you hairy or fat or something. I just said, "I suggest you go read Calvin yourself. The source you provide does not seem correct on him." What I meant was, "What does CALVIN actually say?" Because the source you provide does not seem correct. Notice the word SEEM. It shows I could be wrong. I.e. where does Calvin say something to that effect, I want to know.

There was no insult, I called you no names. I questioned your statements, not you.

In your first post you said "I suggest you go read Calvin yourself. The source you provide does not seem correct on him." I must be blind because I do not see anything in that post the even slightly resembles a question. Therefore your statement "I questioned your statements, not you" simply isnt true. You made STATEMENTS in that first post, not questions. In this last post you said

"What I meant was, "What does CALVIN actually say?" Because the source you provide does not seem correct. Notice the word SEEM. It shows I could be wrong. I.e. where does Calvin say something to that effect, I want to know."

Now that is the first time you have asked me a question, so now I can actually attempt to answer it.

This is where Calvin says something to that effect Institutes of the Christian Religion ... - Google Book Search

once you click on the link and are redirected, you will need to refresh the page in order to see the text. This is from the 1536 edition of "Institutes of the Christian Religion" by John Calvin. On page 24 Calvin makes the the statement "surpass the Jews three times over in a crass and carnal Sabbatarian superstition". Now the context in which he uses that statement.... thats another matter

 

[Contra_Mundum]

John Calvin’s Sermons on the Ten Commandments, translated by Benjamin W. Farley (Baker, 1980; paperback reprint 2000).

Preached in the summer of 1555.

From the Introduction:

“Second, Christ is the end of the Law. This is especially true of Calvin’s understanding of the “ceremonial law,” with its “figures” and “foreshadows” of the clearer revelation to be given in the gospel.48 But the “shadowy” nature of the Law is not limited to ceremonial law. The moral law is also proleptic; it points forward to the Christ and has its end in him.49

“In the sermons, few themes receive as much attention as the “shadowy” nature of the Law whose end is Christ. But what Calvin stresses is the enduring and permanent worth of the moral law, whose authority is in no way mitigated by the shadowy nature of the ceremonial law. As Calvin states in ‘The Thirteenth Sermon’:

“‘Now in particular he wanted to write … [the Law] on two tablets of stone that it might endure, for it was not given [to last] for just a brief period [of time] as something transient. It is true that the ceremonies have ended, which is why the Law is called temporal, but what we must keep in mind is that this order, which was established among the ancient people to serve until the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, has now been abolished and the things have become perfect, indeed to the extent that we are no longer under the shadows and figures which prevailed then. In any event, the truth and substance of the Law were not [confined] to one age; they constitute something permanent which shall abide forever.50′” (p.25)

And here, a few words from “The Fifth Sermon”, which, along with “The Sixth Sermon”, address the 4th commandment:

“Now from the foregoing we see what attitude68 we hold all Christianity and the service of God. For what was given to us in order to help us approach God, we use as an occasion for alienating ourselves from him even more. And as a result we are led astray. We must recover it all. Is not such a diabolical malice in men? Would to God that we had to look hard for examples and that they were more rare. But as everything is profaned, we see that the majority hardly care about the usage of this day which has been instituted in order that we might withdraw from all earthly anxieties, from all business affairs, to the end that we might surrender everything to God.

“Moreover, let us realize that it is not only for coming to the sermon that the day of Sunday is instituted, but that in order that we might devote all the rest of the time to praising God. Indeed! For although he nurtures us every day, nevertheless we do not sufficiently meditate on the favors he bestows on us in order to magnify them…. But when Sunday is spent not only in pastimes full of vanity, but in things which are entirely contrary to God, it seems that one has not at all celebrated Sunday [and] that God has been offended in many ways. Thus when people profane in the manner the holy order69 which God instituted to lead us to himself, why should they be astonished if all the rest of the week is degraded?”

 

[MW]

It seems, so far as Calvin and early reformed thought is concrened, that their polemic against the Jewish Sabbath is often misconstrued as some form of rejection of the Sabbath itself, which is a blunder. It is true that early reformed thought regarded the precise day as a matter to be fixed by the church and that the first day of the week is simply the most appropriate day; in this they offered a slightly different emphasis from the later reformed argument for the moral-positive importance of the first day of the week, but they did not in any sense negate the moral obligation for keeping one day in seven holy to the Lord.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

I'd say, "That's funny (ridiculous). The Law of Christ is the Law that Christ the Lawgiver gave to Moses. It's also the Law written on the hearts of men. It didn't begin at Sinai. Oh, and it's also the Law that the Psalmist calls 'perfect.' Oh, and ..."

No no Joshua (playing wrong answer advocate), the law was abrogated (Hebrews 8?) fulfilled by Christ (Matthew 5)

I Keep posting this link....

It is a response from Greg Welty to D. A. Carson concerning this very topic.

Response to D. A. Carson

# Eschatological Fulfilment and the Confirmation of Mosaic Law (2002)

* This is my critical evaluation of D. A. Carson's exegesis of Matthew 5:17-48. His interpretation of this crucial text — which includes Jesus' relation to the law (vv. 17-18) and the nature of his six 'antitheses' (vv. 21-48) — is often appealed to by New Covenant Theology (NCT) advocates as emphatically supporting their distinctive teachings concerning the moral law of God, and as undermining the traditional Reformed or classical covenant theology (CCT) view of the same. After the Critique, I set forth my alternative view in the Conclusion, and go on in the Appendix to briefly consider Fred Zaspel's view of the same passage.

BTW, this is not Reformed or Particular Baptist thinking that the decalogue or moral law has been abrogated. Nor is it our thinking that the Law of Christ is better law than He has given to us in the decalogue.

 

[Wannabee]

From the Institutes:

It is of little consequence which of these be adopted, provided we lose not sight of the principal thing delineated—viz. the mystery of perpetual resting from our works. To the contemplation of this, the Jews were every now and then called by the prophets, lest they should think a carnal cessation from labour sufficient. Beside the passages already quoted, there is the following: “If thou turn away thy foot from the sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the Lord, honourable; and shalt honour him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words: then shalt thou delight thyself in the Lord,” (Isaiah 58:13, 14). Still there can be no doubt, that, on the advent of our Lord Jesus Christ, the ceremonial part of the commandment was abolished. He is the truth, at whose presence all the emblems vanish; the body, at the sight of which the shadows disappear. He, I say, is the true completion of the sabbath: “We are buried with him by baptism unto death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we should walk in newness of life,” (Rom. 6:4). Hence, as the Apostle elsewhere says, “Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holiday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days; which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ,” (Col. 2:16, 17); meaning by body the whole essence of the truth, as is well explained in that passage. This is not contented with one day, but requires the whole course of our lives, until being completely dead to ourselves, we are filled with the life of God. Christians, therefore, should have nothing to do with a superstitious observance of days.
32. The two other cases ought not to be classed with ancient shadows, but are adapted to every age. The sabbath being abrogated, there is still room among us, first, to assemble on stated days for the hearing of the Word, the breaking of the mystical bread, and public prayer; and, secondly, to give our servants and labourers relaxation from labour. It cannot be doubted that the Lord provided for both in the commandment of the Sabbath. The former is abundantly evinced by the mere practice of the Jews. The latter Moses has expressed in Deuteronomy in the following terms: “The seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy man-servant, nor thy maid-servant;—that thy man-servant and thy maid-servant may rest as well as thou,” (Deut. 5:14). Likewise in Exodus, “That thine ox and thine ass may rest, and the son of thy handmaid, and the stranger, may be refreshed,” (Exod. 23:12). Who can deny that both are equally applicable to us as to the Jews? Religious meetings are enjoined us by the word of God; their necessity, experience itself sufficiently demonstrates. But unless these meetings are stated, and have fixed days allotted to them, how can they be held? We must, as the apostle expresses it, do all things decently and in order (1 Cor. 14:40). So impossible, however, would it be to preserve decency and order without this politic arrangements that the dissolution of it would instantly lead to the disturbance and ruin of the Church. But if the reason for which the Lord appointed a sabbath to the Jews is equally applicable to us, no man can assert that it is a matter with which we have nothing to do. Our most provident and indulgent Parent has been pleased to provide for our wants not less than for the wants of the Jews. Why, it may be asked, do we not hold daily meetings, and thus avoid the distinction of days? Would that we were privileged to do so! Spiritual wisdom undoubtedly deserves to have some portion of every day devoted to it. But if, owing to the weakness of many, daily meetings cannot be held, and charity will not allow us to exact more of them, why should we not adopt the rule which the will of God has obviously imposed upon us?
33. I am obliged to dwell a little longer on this because some restless spirits are now making an outcry about the observance of the Lord’s day. They complain that Christian people are trained in Judaism, because some observance of days is retained. My reply is, That those days are observed by us without Judaism, because in this matter we differ widely from the Jews. We do not celebrate it with most minute formality, as a ceremony by which we imagine that a spiritual mystery is typified, but we adopt it as a necessary remedy for preserving order in the Church. Paul informs us that Christians are not to be judged in respect of its observance, because it is a shadow of something to come (Col. 2:16); and, accordingly, he expresses a fear lest his labour among the Galatians should prove in vain, because they still observed days (Gal. 4:10, 11). And he tells the Romans that it is superstitious to make one day differ from another (Rom. 14:5). But who, except those restless men, does not see what the observance is to which the Apostle refers? Those persons had no regard to that politic and ecclesiastical arrangement,211 but by retaining the days as types of spiritual things, they in so far obscured the glory of Christ, and the light of the Gospel. They did not desist from manual labour on the ground of its interfering with sacred study and meditation, but as a kind of religious observance; because they dreamed that by their cessation from labour, they were cultivating the mysteries which had of old been committed to them. It was, I say, against this preposterous observance of days that the Apostle inveighs, and not against that legitimate selection which is subservient to the peace of Christian society. For in the churches established by him, this was the use for which the Sabbath was retained. He tells the Corinthians to set the first day apart for collecting contributions for the relief of their brethren at Jerusalem (1 Cor. 16:2). If superstition is dreaded, there was more danger in keeping the Jewish sabbath than the Lord’s day as Christians now do. It being expedient to overthrow superstition, the Jewish holy day was abolished; and as a thing necessary to retain decency, orders and peace, in the Church, another day was appointed for that purpose.
34. It was not, however, without a reason that the early Christians substituted what we call the Lord’s day for the Sabbath. The resurrection of our Lord being the end and accomplishment of that true rest which the ancient sabbath typified, this day, by which types were abolished serves to warn Christians against adhering to a shadowy ceremony. I do not cling so to the number seven as to bring the Church under bondage to it, nor do I condemn churches for holding their meetings on other solemn days, provided they guard against superstition. This they will do if they employ those days merely for the observance of discipline and regular order. The whole may be thus summed up: As the truth was delivered typically to the Jews, so it is imparted to us without figure; first, that during our whole lives we may aim at a constant rest from our own works, in order that the Lord may work in us by his Spirit; secondly that every individual, as he has opportunity, may diligently exercise himself in private, in pious meditation on the works of God, and, at the same time, that all may observe the legitimate order appointed by the Church, for the hearing of the word, the administration of the sacraments, and public prayer: And, thirdly, that we may avoid oppressing those who are subject to us. In this way, we get quit of the trifling of the false prophets, who in later times instilled Jewish ideas into the people, alleging that nothing was abrogated but what was ceremonial in the commandment,212 (this they term in their language the taxation of the seventh day), while the moral part remains—viz. the observance of one day in seven.213 But this is nothing else than to insult the Jews, by changing the day, and yet mentally attributing to it the same sanctity; thus retaining the same typical distinction of days as had place among the Jews. And of a truth, we see what profit they have made by such a doctrine. Those who cling to their constitutions go thrice as far as the Jews in the gross and carnal superstition of sabbatism; so that the rebukes which we read in Isaiah (Isa. 1:13; 58:13) apply as much to those of the present day,214 as to those to whom the Prophet addressed them. We must be careful, however, to observe the general doctrine—viz. in order that religion may neither be lost nor languish among us, we must diligently attend on our religious assemblies, and duly avail ourselves of those external aids which tend to promote the worship of God.

Jean Calvin and Henry Beveridge, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Translation of: Institutio Christianae Religionis.; Reprint, With New Introd. Originally Published: Edinburgh : Calvin Translation Society, 1845-1846. (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997), II, viii, 31.​

I tried to keep it in context so as to avoid misunderstanding, so it's a long quote. I also attempted to highlight the sentences that get right to the point, but it should be read for the richness of it. Left out are paragraphs 28-30 because they focused more on what the ceremonial law. Paragraph 30 had one long sentence tying the previous paragraphs to the thought above that I thought might be confusing if I pasted it here. If you'd like to get a broader view then simply go to V.II, Section 8 (paragraphs 28-34).

 

[Romans922]

Just an update, I did not know this about my friend but he just said (because of Heb. 8):

"All 10 commandments are abrogated, along with the rest of the 603 commandments. Although we are not under the law, it is valuable because it reveals God's character, His mind, values, personality, priorities, etc...and it points forward to Jesus who fulfills it."

He denies a difference between moral, ceremonial, civil law. All law of OT is abrogated.

 

[historyb]

So do we have to observe the 10 commandments? If we do why did the sabbath change get accepted? It seemed that the sabbath was at the end at the week, now it's at the beginning.

 

[Romans922]

My friend says we don't obey the 10 commandments (that includes the sabbath). I am assuming he would say, whatever the NT commands us we are under (law of Christ).

 

[Contra_Mundum]

So do we have to observe the 10 commandments? If we do why did the sabbath change get accepted? It seemed that the sabbath was at the end at the week, now it's at the beginning.

1) Worship is meeting with God.

2) The principal purpose for the Sabbath is for worship, uninterrupted by regular-day distractions.

3) God calls meeting, and we respond appropriately to his summons.

4) Jesus is God.

5) Jesus is the Lord of the Sabbath.

6) He gets to change the day, if that's what he wants.

7) Starting with the resurrection, God the Son keeps a weekly meeting on the First Day with his gathered disciples all the way up to his Ascension.

8) Before he left, Jesus told them to wait and prepare; and in Acts1, they were gathered 24/7, yet Jesus came and poured out his Spirit on... you guessed it, ten days later on Sunday.

9) Apparently, the apostles and the church of the NT took all the post-resurrection meetings of Christ with them for a sign that God expected them to keep this regular meeting with him, because that's the pattern they kept.

 

[Scott1]

Romans922
Puritanboard Junior

My friend says we don't obey the 10 commandments

Ask him what is his (New Testament) basis for saying the ten commandments do not apply?

Ask him why our Lord and the apostles throughout quoted the Old Testament authoritatively?

If he says, nine of the ten commandments apply (but not the fourth) because they are "re-commanded", ask him why did Jesus observe the fourth commandment?

Eventually, you can explain the ceremonial, civil and moral law distinctions. I have found most who assume dispensationalism have never heard of the different kinds of law in scripture.

 

[Romans922]

Romans922
Puritanboard Junior

My friend says we don't obey the 10 commandments

Ask him what is his (New Testament) basis for saying the ten commandments do not apply?

Ask him why our Lord and the apostles throughout quoted the Old Testament authoritatively?

If he says, nine of the ten commandments apply (but not the fourth) because they are "re-commanded", ask him why did Jesus observe the fourth commandment?

Eventually, you can explain the ceremonial, civil and moral law distinctions. I have found most who assume dispensationalism have never heard of the different kinds of law in scripture.

He believes all 10 commandments and also all the law of moses 613 commandmetns of the OT are abrogated. He uses Hebrews 8 as his basis. He is familiar with the different types of law (moral/civil/ceremonial) but since Scripture does not show a distinction (clearly, as in a person did not distinguish between them) he does not. Thus, to him it is all 1 law (law of moses).

Because of Heb. 8 we are not under the law of moses but under the law of Christ now.

That is what he would say.

As to your second question about why the apostles quote OT authoritatively he would mention 2 Tim. 3:16. It would be highly applicaple and principles of such are worth knowing and understanding to guide us, but we are still not under that law (it has been abrogated).

 

[Romans922]

Ask him what is his (New Testament) basis for saying the ten commandments do not apply?

Ask him why our Lord and the apostles throughout quoted the Old Testament authoritatively?

If he says, nine of the ten commandments apply (but not the fourth) because they are "re-commanded", ask him why did Jesus observe the fourth commandment?

Eventually, you can explain the ceremonial, civil and moral law distinctions. I have found most who assume dispensationalism have never heard of the different kinds of law in scripture.

He believes all 10 commandments and also all the law of moses 613 commandmetns of the OT are abrogated. He uses Hebrews 8 as his basis. He is familiar with the different types of law (moral/civil/ceremonial) but since Scripture does not show a distinction (clearly, as in a person did not distinguish between them) he does not. Thus, to him it is all 1 law (law of moses).

Because of Heb. 8 we are not under the law of moses but under the law of Christ now.

That is what he would say.

As to your second question about why the apostles quote OT authoritatively he would mention 2 Tim. 3:16. It would be highly applicaple and principles of such are worth knowing and understanding to guide us, but we are still not under that law (it has been abrogated).

If he thinks the Ten Commandments started with Moses, then the Lord was unjust to punish people before Moses' time for breaking them (i.e. murder, idolatry, etc.)

Good point, I was trying to get to this. And this is a good point for a new thread (this one can obviously continue, but this thread I think might have a mind of its own and a good one to think about): http://www.puritanboard.com/f54/10-commandments-before-moses-40875/#post504175

 

[Wannabee]

Bills points in the new thread were good. Another consideration is that fact that the ten commandments are an exposition of the two great commandments. These represent the character of God, who cannot lie, murder, covet, idolize, etc. The laws that reflect the character of God are as eternal as God's character. The challenge with the fourth commandment will be that it is not restated in the NT and the argument will be that the ceremonial sabbath was a shadow of our rest in Christ. Added to the difficulty is the change from Saturday to Sunday. All of these Calvin mentions in his Institutes, as posted earlier. If you can't convince your friend on all of these, then you won't convince him.

 

[Iconoclast]

Just an update, I did not know this about my friend but he just said (because of Heb. 8):

"All 10 commandments are abrogated, along with the rest of the 603 commandments. Although we are not under the law, it is valuable because it reveals God's character, His mind, values, personality, priorities, etc...and it points forward to Jesus who fulfills it."

He denies a difference between moral, ceremonial, civil law. All law of OT is abrogated.

Hebrews 3 does not indicate what your friend indicates Hebrews 8 speaks of.
Christ is the lawgiver as was earlier posted. As a matter of fact it is His perfect law keeping and magnifying of the law that stands as one of the very pillars of the gospel.
Moses was "faithful" in all his house as a servant, but Christ as a Son.
The law is the schoolmaster to lead us to Christ.Once in Christ we are free to serve God and man by law keeping. Hebrews 8 Romans 13

1Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus;

2Who was faithful to him that appointed him, as also Moses was faithful in all his house.

3For this man was counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as he who hath builded the house hath more honour than the house.

4For every house is builded by some man; but he that built all things is God.

5And Moses verily was faithful in all his house, as a servant, for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken after;

6But Christ as a son over his own house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end.

8Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.

9For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

10Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

 

[Scott1]

Romans922
Puritanboard Junior

He believes all 10 commandments and also all the law of moses 613 commandmetns of the OT are abrogated. He uses Hebrews 8 as his basis. He is familiar with the different types of law (moral/civil/ceremonial) but since Scripture does not show a distinction (clearly, as in a person did not distinguish between them) he does not. Thus, to him it is all 1 law (law of moses).

There are so many problems with this reasoning, it's hard to know where to begin. Perhaps your friend is heavily influenced by dispensationalism- a "that was then, this is now" view of the Old Testament. Yet, Scripture tells us God is unchanging.

Hebrews 13:8
8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever.

I wonder if he has considered the framework of the Old Testament pointing to salvation by grace through faith in Christ prospectively and the New Testament retrospectively. This kind of continuity reflects God's unchanging character yet your friend's presupposition is dramatic changes of application between time periods (Old and New testament).

Does he really believe "thou shalt not kill" does not apply? Has he answered why Jesus kept the sabbath? If he says something like, "Well Jesus had to keep the Old Testament law because He had not (quite) been resurrected when this was recorded," I would ask him if he believes we are to follow Jesus' example for living at all? How would He pick and choose amongst our Lord's example?

Does your friend believe there is an explicit abrogation of each of the ten commandments in the New Testament- if so, where? If he bases this on one non-specific passage in Hebrews, ask him if it reasonable to interpret that so integral a part of the life of God's people would not be repeated and made very, very explicit in the New Testament. (His interpretation hangs by a thread, and against a tidal wave).

Matthew 5:18

18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

-----Added 12/6/2008 at 08:24:37 EST-----

Although the Bible does not explicitly categorize the law for us in the New Testament, it does implicitly. The Bible does not explicitly define the trinity either but we know it is there by good and necessary consequence from Scripture.

If your friend would abrogate the ten commandments, ask him why our Lord so eloquently expanded their application in the Sermon on the Mount (e.g. Matthew 6).