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.
Originally posted by RAS
Any thoughts?
http://www.upper-register.com/mosaic_law/law_gospel_contrast.html
Originally posted by Robin
This would have been the perfect opportunity for Paul to introduce the Law again in order to mollify the moralist. He could have easily said that although the Law plays no role in our justification, it is still the God-ordained means of promoting sanctification "“ the third use of the Law.
1st, how does one define the sin that a person not under the law should not continue in?
2nd, how does one define the righteousness that a person under grace should yield his members servants of? It is the law as a teacher of good and evil which makes these definitions possible.
It is quite clear that the Irons article needs sharpening. We are not under the law of Moses, but we are under the law to Christ, 1 Cor. 9:21.
Originally posted by Larry Hughes
1st, how does one define the sin that a person not under the law should not continue in?
Simple: The same as all sin, the inward selfish curving be it clean or dirty outwardly. There´s no difference in a thief that steals to live and a religious person or Christian "œevangelizing" to hiddenly save or sanctify himself, both are sin. There´s nothing more insidious than the "œdo gooder" that condescends to me because he´s doing something for himself, ESPECIALLY, if it is to make him feel better about himself and ESPECIALLY if a religious component is attached to it. This is the crux of all sin. So it is easily seen how the Gospel mitigates this and hence Paul´s argument here.
2nd, how does one define the righteousness that a person under grace should yield his members servants of? It is the law as a teacher of good and evil which makes these definitions possible.
Simple again: Since the person under grace no longer need to play the hypocrite only doing "œgood" to save or sanctify himself, being right with God for Christ´s sake alone, he can now use his good works, whatever they are, for his neighbor (family, job, etc"¦). He is NOW truly free to serve without fear of how, when, where or why he serves and as he in as much as he still sins, Christ is still his righteousness. Thus the Cross utterly turns him from himself. The Law can NEVER give the power as you suppose. The laws function for the believer, presupposes FIRST that he is under grace and second becomes ONLY a guide unto things. It protects the believer, ironically, from church yard piety and false religious requirements by those who would invent them. The Law for the believer is a thing they love but they love it BECAUSE of Grace not FOR Grace and the Law not protects the believer without thunderings from the poison of church monkery that says, "œOver hear in THIS box is only good works", all other things are secular.
It is quite clear that the Irons article needs sharpening. We are not under the law of Moses, but we are under the law to Christ, 1 Cor. 9:21.
The Law of Christ is first and foremost FROM Grace and not to earn it, gain it, secure it or otherwise be assured of it. The law of Christ is really no law at all but pure love. And pure altruistic love can ONLY be had if Christ has ALREADY secured grace for me so that I´m outwardly turned. Inwardly turned = sin, outwardly turned = godly love, grace gives the way of the later. One is a fool to think that "œlaw" will make one altruistic and outwardly turned. I´ve said this before, "œIf your doing for me, then thank you for your love. But if your doing it for your religious confidence, feelings, assurance or sanctification, then I don´t want your sin."
Larry, where do you learn about this "selfish curving?"
I believe the law gives instruction, so that Christians, to whom grace has given the power, will look to express their thankfulness to God in heeding God's instructions.
Please read the latter part of Romans 6. The idea that a Christian would live his life without the purpose of serving righteousness is a moral abomination to the apostle to the Gentiles.
Read: "The Presbytery and General Assembly got it wrong. I got it right. They just don't understand me...."Originally posted by Robin
Excerpt from Lee Irons' Trial
.... Throughout the trial at the presbytery level, I appealed to numerous passages in Paul's epistles which teach the antithetical contrast between the Law and the Gospel, that the Law is a covenant of works with blessings and curses (Gal. 3:10), a ministry of condemnation and death (2 Cor. 3:6-11), that it is not based on faith (Gal. 3:12), and that believers have died to it and are no longer under it (Rom. 7:1-6). I was eager to hear how the presbytery would interpret these texts, but the OPC failed "to minister and declare the Word of God, the only infallible rule of faith and practice, and to subordinate all human judgments to that infallible rule" (BD IV:A.1.a). At every meeting of the trial judicatory, as well as at every session of GA, the moderator read this admonition with which you are all familiar. ... absolutely no attempt was ever made by the presbytery to provide a counter exegesis of the Pauline statements concerning the Law to which I had appealed. On paper the OPC claims that the secondary standards are subordinate to the Word of God, but it behaved as if the reverse were true.
The 25 commissioners who protested the GA's denial of my appeal hit the proverbial nail on the head:
The Assembly failed to recognize the difference between [Mr. Irons'] substantive agreement with our Standards, which contain the system of doctrine taught in Scripture, and his manner of expressing his views with regard to the unchanging and binding nature of the moral law. Not only has the assembly made an erroneous judgment in this matter but by this determination has also called into question the teaching of a significant and vital stream of Reformed, Presbyterian, and confessional thought.
The whole story: http://www.upper-register.com/irons_trial/letter_to_presby
Robin
The NT imperatives lose their lively evangelical thrust when they are subsumed under the rubric of the ten commandments. This is seen most clearly in the Reformed catechisms, which use the Decalogue as ten "œhooks" upon which to hang the various OT commands and NT imperatives.
Question 90. What is the quickening of the new man?
Answer: It is a sincere joy of heart in God, through Christ, (a) and with love and delight to live according to the will of God in all good works. (b)
Question 91. But what are good works?
Answer: Only those which proceed from a true faith, (a) are performed according to the law of God, (b) and to his glory; (c) and not such as are founded on our imaginations, or the institutions of men. (d)
Question 92. What is the law of God?
Answer: God spake all these words, Exodus 20:1-17 and Denteronomy 5:6-21
491-492 Ursinus's commentary on HCAll good laws, which alne deserve the name of laws, are to be traced to the moral law as their source, wyhich agrees in every respect with the Decalogue and may also, by necessary consequence, be deduced from it, so that ge who violates the one, violates the other likewise...
We must observe in passing along the difference which exists between the moral law, the natural law, and the Decalogue, The Decalogue contains the sum of the moral laws which are scattered throughout the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. The natural and moral law were the same in man before the fall when his nature was pure and holy. Since the fall however which resulted in the corrruption and depravity of our nature a considerable part of the natural law has become obscured and lost by reason of sin, so that there is only a small portion concerning the obedience which we owe to God still left in the human mind. It is for this reason that God repeated and declared to the church the entire doctrine and true sense of hgis law as contained in the Decalogue. The Decalogue is therefore the renewal and re-enforcing of the natural law which is only a part of the Decalogue...
The ordinary and correct anser to this question is that the ceremonial and judicial law, as given by Moses, has been abrogatred in as far as it relates to obedience and the moral law has also been abrogated as it respects the curse, but not as it respects obedience.