Law and Gospel Contrasts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Interesting quote on Romans 7.

Quote: Notice that there is only one woman, while there are two husbands. The woman is in a very difficult position, for she can only be wife of one of the two, and unfortunately she is married to the less desirable one. The man to whom she is married is a good man; but the trouble lies here, that the husband and wife are totally unsuited to one another. He is a most particular man, accurate to a degree; she on the other hand is decidedly easy-going. With him all is definite and precise; with her all is casual and haphazard. He wants everything to he just so, while she takes things as they come. How could there be happiness in such a home?

And then that husband is so exacting! He is always making demands upon her. And yet one cannot find fault with him, for as a husband he has a right to expect something of his wife; and all his demands are perfectly legitimate. There is nothing wrong with the man and nothing wrong with his demands; the trouble is that he has the wrong kind of wife to carry them out. The poor woman is in great distress. She is fully aware that she often makes mistakes, but living with such a husband it seems as though everything she says and does is wrong! What hope is there for her? If only she were married to that other Man all would be well. He is no less exacting than her husband, but He also helps much. She would fain marry Him, but her husband is still alive. What can she do? She is "˜bound by law to the husband´ and unless he dies she cannot legitimately marry that other Man.

The first husband is the Law; the second husband is Christ; and you are the woman. The law requires much, but offers no help in the carrying out of its requirements. The Lord Jesus requires just as much, yea more (Matt. 5:21-48), but what He requires from us He Himself carries out in us. The law makes demands and leaves us helpless to fulfill them; Christ makes demands, but He Himself fulfills in us the very demands He makes. Little wonder that the woman desires to be freed from the first husband that she may marry that other Man! But her only hope of release is through the death of her first husband, and he holds on to life most tenaciously. Indeed there is not the least prospect of his passing away (Matt. 5:18). The Law is going to continue for all eternity. If the Law will never pass away, then how can I ever be united to Christ? How can I marry a second husband if my first husband resolutely refuses to die? There is one way out. If he will not die, I can die, and if I die the marriage relationship is dissolved. Verses 1 to 3 show that the husband should die, but in verse 4 we see that in fact it is the woman who dies! The Law does not pass away, but I pass away, and by death I am freed from the Law. How do I die? When Christ was crucified, I was crucified with Him. On the hill of Calvary it was forever done (Watchman Nee, The Normal Christian Life, pp.107-109).

[Edited on 8-6-2006 by JM]
 
It's interesting but a classic confusion of Law and Gospel. By recasting the Law as strictly the 10 Commandments then saying Lutherans (and Reformed by extension) have re-cast the "net too broad" all he's managed to do is make new Law whereby man is justified under the name of "Jesus" rather than grace alone. There is no "other" moral Law or greater moral Law than the 10 commandments. It subsumes ALL moral things. It is also summarized under the two great commandments to love God and neighbor and finally the Law is Love and vice versa. The very reason we stand damned is that we do not and cannot because we do not want to love God or neighbor (all contained within the 10 Commandments) and it is this that Christ fulfilled for us.

The exhortations of holy living are under the grace in the first place, to wit: Live like a Christian because you already ARE one for Christ's sake. That is live holy because you ARE holy on account of Christ's work and not your own. Not live holy to BE holy. The power to live holy comes from the Grace ALREADY and assuredly possessed, not the exhortation (command) itself. In short I love my neighbor for HIS sake and not MY NEED to be holy because IN Christ I don't need my good works, Christ is my all, so I'm free, literally, to give them away. Being rich in Christ for Christ's sake alone, I can cast my good works without worry to my neighbor PURELY for his sake.

Trying to "be holy" by exhortation alone is in reality against being holy, its trying to be holy TO BE holy. That is I only love my neighbor because I'm trying to be holy, selfishness and sin, the worst kind of all...trying to BE holy. Once you hear "Christ is for you and most assuredly" then and only then can you begin to actually love your neighbor for his/her sake alone and without hidden agenda. That is "love your neighbor as yourself", that is without effort or agenda.

Ldh
 
I think Mr. Gadsby has a lot to add to the subject.
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Lake/8890/grace/wg_law.html

GADSBY'S QUESTIONS ABOUT THE LAW
Gadsby's Questions About the Law

The following article was taken from William Gadsby's work The Present State of Religion where he dealt with the law as a rule of conduct for the Christian.
Dear Sir, Friend G. informs me you wish me to write to you, and inform you what law it is that I say the believer is in no sense under. I therefore write to say (though I cannot help thinking you must know) that it is the law given to Moses on Mount Sinai, commonly called the moral law, or ten commandments, recorded in Exod 20, and hinted at, with its curses annexed to it, in Deut 27. This is the law I intend, and do venture to say that the believer in Christ is in no sense whatever under it; so that it is not a rule of life to that man who is led by the Spirit. As you promised to answer me if I should write to you, I will propose to you a few questions, and I hope I shall do it in the fear of God, and shall expect you to answer them In plainness of speech; and,

1st. If the law Is the believer's rule of life, shall thank you to tell me what is intended by the letter written by the apostles and elders, and sent to the believing Gentiles, as recorded in Acts 15, and shall expect you to explain the chapter.

2ndly. Hope you will tell me what the apostle means in the first six verses of Romans 7, where he says that the believer is dead to the law, and free from the law; and let me know how that law can be his rule, when he is as dead to it, and as free from it, as a woman is from her husband when she has buried him. Should you be disposed to say that the believer is dead to it as a covenant, not as a rule of life; you will, no doubt, point to those scriptures which make a distinction between the law as a covenant and as a rule of life; for unless you do this, you will not move me.

3rdly. You will have the goodness to inform me what is intended by the first four verses of Romans 8; and let me know how it comes to pass that the law of the Spirit of life in Christ has made me free from the law of death, and yet that the law of death (called in another place the killing letter) is my rule of life; and how is it that it is my rule of life after it has killed me, and I am made free from it?

4thly. You will read 2 Corinthians 3, and let me know how it is that the administration of death, written and engraven on stones, is the living man's rule of life, and how this can be consistent with what the observes in verse 2, where he says 'it is done away,. and in verse 13, where he says "It is abolished.' Now, my dear son, you are to tell me how that law which is done away and abolished still remains the believer's perfect rule of life.

5thly. You will also show me how it is that the law was our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ, that when faith is come we are no longer under a schoolmaster, and yet that this schoolmaster is our rule of life after faith is come (Gal 3-24,25.)

6thly. You will inform me how it is that if we be led by the Spirit we are not under the law, and yet that the law is a perfect rule of life to that man who is led by the Spirit (Gal 5:18) There are many things in the Epistle to the Galatians which you will find worthy of your attention in this business. I hope you will read the whole.

7thly. Shall expect you to tell me how it is that the hand-writing which was against us, and contrary to us, is taken out of the way, and nailed to the cross (as Col 2:14) and yet remains a perfect rule of life. Should you be disposed to say that the ceremonial law is here intended, you will tell me how that law, which was the gospel in its day, came to be against the believer, and what there was in it contrary to him.

8thly. You will be sure to inform me how it is that that law which is not made for a righteous man is the righteous man's rule of life (I Tim 1:9.)

9thly. As Christ was made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law (as Gal 4:4,5) you will say how it comes to pass that they still remain under it in any sense that Christ was made under it, seeing he was made under it to redeem them from under it.

10thly. But as whatsoever the law says, it says to them who are under the law (as Rom 3:19) and as the believer is not under the law (as Rom 6:14; Gal 5:18) you will inform me what the law says to them who are not under it.

11thly. If the law contains the whole revealed will of God, as to matter of obedience, as Fuller and others have said, you will let me know upon what ground you prove that unbelievers have no right to be baptized, and partake of the Lord's supper, seeing that what the law says it says to them that are under it; and if it contains the whole of obedience it must require unbelievers to be baptized. You will be sure to reconcile this, if you can.

12thly You will inform me how it is that while men contend for the law being a perfect rule of life to believers, and call those ill names who do not, they can and do, openly, knowingly, and designedly, break the fourth commandment every week. 'You will inform me whether doing every sort of work on the seventh day is walking according to that rule which says, 'Thou shalt not do any work, no, not so much as kindle a fire' (Exod 35:3.)

13thly, and lastly. You will inform me how it is that Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth (Rom 10.4) and yet that the believer, who is got to the end of the law at once, namely, by faith in Christ, must come back again, and begin at the beginning, by taking it for a perfect rule of life.

It does appear that most teachers think there should be a distinction made between the sheep and goats, but does it not appear that the greatest part of preachers, in this day, are attempting to give to the goats what belongs to the sheep, and to the sheep what belongs to the goats? For when on the one hand they address the unconverted, they tell them that it is their duty to look to Christ, and believe in him, and that they are warranted to offer them all the blessings of the gospel, thus making the gospel the unconverted man's rule of faith and practice; they, on the other hand, send the sheep to the law of works, and tell them that their comfort depends upon their walking according thereunto. And when any poor soul is in darkness, through the power of the world, the flesh, or the devil, instead of pointing them to Christ, and telling them that it has pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell, they tell them to 'remove the cause, and the effect will cease;' and thus the goats are sent to the law of life, and the sheep to the killing letter. But there will be a reckoning day by and by; and a thousand to one but some of these men will be proved to have got over the wall. Thus, my dear Sir, I have proposed a few plain, simple questions, and shall expect you to come to the point in your answers, and it shall be my prayer to the great Head of the church that God will be with you. Waiting your answer, I remain,

Yours, tried, and condemned, upon the evidence of Diotrephes, by the Associated Ministers,
LOVE-TRUTH
Manchester, Aug. 8, 1806.


[Edited on 9-20-2006 by Blueridge reformer]
 

What is left out of view is the fact that marriage itself is a law. The law as law, as a standard of righteousness, never dies. It is the law as covenant, as a means of personal righteousness, that dies. The living and abiding nature of the law as law is made clear in this very chapter, where the apostle as a regenerate man delights in the law of God after the inward man, and hence is led to mourn his wretchedness because he does not do the things he wants, but does the things he hates. This leads him, as a believer, to thank God for Jesus Christ who shall save him from the body of this death.
 
My understanding is that there are various meanings to the terms Law and Gospel. When presented as a contrast Law refers to the covenant of works. Do thus and live, where as, Gospel is the covenant of grace or, believe thus and live. Imperatives in both the Old and New Testament fall under Law. Overtures of peace and mercy in both the Old and New Testament are Gospel.

The Mosaic Law does not belong exclusively to the Law. The Moral Law in Moses shows us Law however the Ceremonial Law is full of Gospel. The prophets are full of Gospel, especially Isaiah, who is not called without reason the Evangelical Prophet. Also, even when we become dead to the law, as to salvation, the moral law of Moses continues to be a standard for sanctification.
 
... Paul is keenly aware that his rejection of the Law with respect to justification might be interpreted as a license to sin. So he articulates the moralist´s fear by having an imaginary interlocutor raise the following objection: "œWhat then? Shall we sin because we are not under the Law but under grace?" (Rom. 6:15). 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.

But Paul passes up this perfect opportunity. Instead of reverting back to the Law which he had rejected in chapters 1-5, he forges ahead on the same path with the Gospel itself. He refuses to accept the moralist´s assumption that the Gospel of free grace is dangerous and needs to be supplemented with the Law in order to prevent a slippery slide into antinomianism. Paul maintains that the Gospel has its own logic for combating antinomianism. He shows that the Gospel itself places ethical obligations upon those who have come under its sway. He appeals to our baptism and reminds us that we have died with Christ and are raised with him to walk in newness of life. If we have died with Christ, how can we continue to live in sin? If we have been raised with Christ, we have an obligation to live in the power of that new life. In other words, Paul demonstrates our continuing moral obligation to obey God, not by placing us under the control of the Law again, but by exhibiting the controlling power of the Gospel:

The love of Christ controls us, because we have concluded this: that one has died for all, therefore all have died; and he died for all, that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised (2 Cor. 5:14-15).

How could Paul go back to the Mosaic Law again, when he regarded it, not as a timeless code, but as a covenant of works? Since the Law is a covenant of works, when sinners place themselves under it, it is utterly useless for producing righteous behavior and obedience. All the Law can do is demand, threaten, and curse. That is what Paul argued extensively in Romans 7. To be sure, the Law itself is not to blame. The Law is holy, righteous, and good. But when God´s holy Law confronts fallen Adamic humanity, not only is it unable to restrain sin, our sinful passions are actually "œaroused by the Law" (Rom. 7:5 ESV).

Excerpt from the Irons article...

Robin
 
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.

This is an argument from silence; but the silence in this case happens to be deafening. 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.
 
Robin,

Excellent excerpt! That is a crucial, crucial insight. Paul is in NO WAY introducing a "œcorrective" to the Gospel but forging the Gospel forward CLEARLY as the only power as he began setting forth in Chapter 1. Paul is not in anyway placating the "œmoralist" or even third use of the law as a "œpower" or such, in fact he´s slaying it further. This comes from seeing at the heart of the matter what sin really is, that inward curving. If one sees sin only as "œmorality" or an "œobedience" issue and the law is to prod by fear of punishment or hope of reward one will never see it and actually deceive people. Once a person sees sin as inward turning, "œselfishness" unto ALL things outwardly good or bad, then one will see the REAL peril of fallen man. But for the man who sees the true nature of sin, then the Gospel is good news and the power even unto sanctification.

E.g. A man who is outwardly a rebel and a wretch such that any of society dislikes; the thief, the robber, the killer, the adulterer, the hell raiser and so forth is showing forth his inward self obviously. He is obviously inwardly turned and externally shows it by thievery and adultery and so forth. Yet, his external actions are mere peccadilloes compared to his real condition. He seeks life in all his outward takings. That´s why he does it. One day he hears a "œhell fire and damnation" (an unbiblical use of the law) sermon. Being fixed upon himself, his sin nature, he switches from "œbrazen" rebel seeking life for himself to a "œclean" religious Christian seeking life for himself. Fear has made this inwardly turned sinner, selfish, more inwardly coiled upon himself, like a snake tightening up. Now, instead of robbery he gives, instead of adultery he is faithful, instead of hell raiser he´s the church model and so forth. The church loves him, he tithes of all that he has, he is now a "œprayer warrior", he never drinks, he never cusses, he´s always involved with evangelism campaigns and if the church doors are open only the door itself is there more than him. The church loves to hear of his PAST life and "œmiraculous" conversion changed life experience; tears and smiles and "œpraising the Lord" attend his story every time it is told (the church would never cheer a sinner STILL stuck in sin and struggling in the PRESENT that would not be "œgood fruit" or a "œgood show of "œpower"").

All of this from a sermon that scared him to death about hell and hope of reward in heaven. In reality all he is "“ is twice the son of hell that he was before hand. He´s just on the clean side of the broad road that leads hell, as opposed to the dirty side of the road. Because he´s a greater sinner than before, more tightly coiled in upon his self than ever before. His outward appearance fools the eyes of men who are bewitched by "œgood works" as sure evidence, or at least as sure as possible evidence. Inwardly, he´s still the same. Still inwardly curved and the old nature is as alive and well, even better and more charged than before. Outwardly the church patron thinks, "œSurely this man is regenerate, surely he is elect, surely he is predestined, if not him then who" - so hypnotized the devil has them fooled. Because for some reason they still think sin to be the "œlow moral life" in spite of scriptures warnings to the contrary and they think the Devil to be so dull as to only grossly reveal himself and that their mysterious keen "œfruit searching" can ferret out the truly regenerate by secondary outward causes. They are deeply deceived and the devil laughs for his numbers are growing. Yet, this man´s "œconversion" was only a changing over of styles, he´s never seen his real need nor ever heard the real Gospel.

The problem is that we don´t see the trap. We don´t see that driving sinners by nature who are hopelessly inwardly turned, selfish, and by this nature seek by ALL means possible, even religious ones, to save themselves. We really don´t see the REAL bondage of the will. If I´m inwardly turned NOTHING I do, no act of body, soul, spirit, mind or will unto a repentance, foisted faith or otherwise can save me because it is all still the sin nature acting the doppelganger in these very religious things to "œDO" something. The only way out is the Gospel, the good news of Christ crucified and risen for me and mere passive resting trust in that. The only way unto sanctification is the same Good News, because if I do it by law unto my sanctification then it is certainly the old flesh doing it no matter how outwardly good it looks or really is. The Gospel frees PERIOD. It says, "œWhat if I do X sin again, will I still get to go to heaven with Jesus?" "œYes." "œWhat if I do X sin yet again, will I still get to go to heaven with Jesus?" "œYes." "œWhat if I do X sin yet again, will I still get to go to heaven with Jesus?" "œYes." "œWhat if I do X sin yet again, will I still get to go to heaven with Jesus?" "œYes." Finally, at length the grace begins to come through. And the real fruit arises from the grace. "œWhat if I do X sin again, will I still get to go to heaven with Jesus?" "œYes." "œWho am I that Thou has died for me! Forgive me Lord a sinner."

Then grace OPENS up a whole NEW world to you. Suddenly "œgood works" are not enumerated or measured or placed under a church yard piety kind of calculus. Finally, you get the grace and say, "œI really am right now and forever right with God for Christ´s sake. NOW I can just be human again, like before the fall and what my hands find to do they JUST do it, sin mingled and all. I can do it for the first time with some real love for my neighbor. WHY? Because 2000 years ago Jesus Christ took care of that for me and gave me ALL the righteousness of Himself and I need NOTHING more, I need not worry about it. Fear is the antithesis of faith. Even more to suppose there is more needed is complete blaspheme against His holy Cross. And when I do sin (this always gets the legalist in us, this one here), repeatedly, the same sin struggle, Christ IS STILL my righteousness. Fear of punishment or hope of reward driven by the law STILL cannot even release from continuous sin struggles, EVEN for the Christian. All that can do is vivify the old man to works again and inward turning. It may clean up the old sin, but it merely changes it to a clean sin. Thus, a struggle with sex or sloth are replaced with the sin of a pride in fidelity and hard work. Neither of which differs at all from say Mormonism. The law can "œstop" a gross sin, but due to the sin nature the holy law can only insight the clean acts of the sin nature. Yet, it is still the sin nature.

If Shepherds of the church be true shepherds they MUST get this correct or they loose no matter how clean or active their church congregation becomes. In fact the cleaner and more active they become the more deceived they will be. For what REALLY kills the old man in us, the real sin nature, the inward curving, the selfishness is NEVER the Law or house rules. The ONLY death to the sin nature (even in the Christian), the inward curving, the selfishness is that which does not appeal to it at all, for ALL such appeals are really food and life support for it. It takes the Cross of Jesus Christ. If I can scare a man unto salvation or sanctification all I´m doing is performing CPR on the old man. If I would have the old man slain and save the new man, I MUST give him the Gospel. The Gospel kills the old man that is trying to live by his doing because it leaves nothing for him TO DO, in fact it excludes him utterly, it literally crucifies him point blank. And this same Gospel raises to life the believer who trusts.

The old man in us smells works and works of sanctification as life. That´s why he does them, he detects an odor of life in them. The Cross on the other hand is an odor of death to him for he thinks life, even sanctification, is found in doing. The old man cannot in anyway let go of this. This is why Paul says in chapter eight of Romans that it is impossible for the flesh to obey God. Yet, the new man finds the stench of death in works, especially works unto so called sanctification. The new man finds the real smell of life in the cross alone, the naked trusting and resting in Christ crucified and raised for him and this life delivered to him personally by the Hand of God in baptism and the holy supper. The old man thinks he´s being sanctified because after all this smells like life and thus he is drawn like we are drawn to the odor of food and drink in order to live. The new man is however BEING sanctified, that is passively by the Gospel. The new man doesn´t concern himself with what he´s doing he just does life for he is living off of the Cross. But the cross to the old man in its purity looks like spoiled meat that would kill him if he dare take and eat, and there is truth in that for the old man, for he cannot fathom that just trusting ALL his life in spite of his sin that he is so saved "“ eternal life. The old man may think he´s living off of the cross by concerning himself with what he´s doing "œfor Jesus" but he´s really returning to his vomit which he detects by odor as food for life. However, the new man finds manna from heaven in the Cross and the naked trusting, even and especially when he is weak in sin. For the Cross has the odor of a life giving feast to him, it is deeply pleasing in every way and utterly filling at all times. The bread and the wine which contain the Gospel to the old man is stinking thing that is an empty obedience. However, to the new man this small amount of bread and wine with the Word of Gospel attending is indeed a means of grace, it by faith real food and real drink, it is life and it has the odor of life sweetly issuing forth from it and this is what the new man smells and is drawn to.

Blessings,

Ldh
 
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."

ldh
 
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.

Larry, where do you learn about this "selfish curving?" Is it from the same source as you learn about stealing? Paul goes on to deal with this in Romans 7, when he says he had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. Whence arose the knowledge of the good that he would do, and the evil that he hated, except from the law of God which he delighted in after the inward man? verse 23.

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.

Where did I say the law gave power, Larry? 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. Law is Torah, instruction. Regrettably, Larry, you so often dodge the real issue by fluctuating between two definitions of the law. One moment you speak about the law as it is, and the next moment you speak about a formalist understanding of the law. Hence, you only manage to prove an ignoratio elenchi, when you argue from a formalist abuse of the law to a spiritual disuse of the law.

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."

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. Note especially how serving righteousness and serving God are one and the same. To love God is to love righteousness and holiness. A person who denigrates what is righteous and holy evidences a lack of love to God. The law is righteous and holy! It is God's law. Violate the law, and you violate the image of the one who has given us the law. If that doesn't make a Christian mourn in the lamentable tone of the apostle in Romans 7, then there is something detrimentally wrong.
 
Matthew,

Larry, where do you learn about this "selfish curving?"

From Scripture itself. The the Law is love which Christ summed up as love of God and neighbor, all completely alutristic, outwardly curved as we say. Paul makes this point perfectly clear in Cor. again.

Sin is the opposite of this, to fall short of the glory of God who at the end of the day IS His law, love. This is why we are under wrath, not peccadillos. Paul makes this, again, abundantly clear in Romans 1 where he list some sins. The list is not enumeration, "here is list of X number of sins", but similar to Galatians in which he is showing the "fruits of the flesh", the inward turning, the selfishness. The common factor that both open sinners and false saints have is this utter selfishness.

Paul´s idea behind not coveting and knowing that he did so was this very use of the Law, coveting IS by its entire nature INWARD TURNED and UTTERLY SELFISH. That´s why we covet. The Law´s REAL use unto this is not "œhere´s a rule you disobeyed and deserve wrath for", that would make God no different than pagan gods. NO, it is God is Holy Love and so giving, his Law of love shows forth your and mine utter inward turning and selfishness to the nth degree, "œDo not covet", shows this. It forces us to see I covet period. I either covet things or I can covet religious things for myself. In short I´m trying to selfishly save my rear end (live on my doing) ALL the time "“ I do not love and thus have fallen short of the Glory of God. This is why we would fear and be crushed by God´s naked Glory as sinners.

We fell because we don't love and if one does not understand that inward turning, selfishness, or pick your term that defines that, then one doesn´t really understand sin, the sin nature or by extension the holy Law, godly love, really the Gospel nor God Himself.

Which is why you keep going back to forms of "œlaw" and blunting the Gospel.

So, it is absolutely true that the Christian delights in the law, but he also finds a contrary nature STILL within him and this he laments. The lamentation is NOT I'm not obeying these rules woe is me, but I DO NOT LOVE AS I DESIRE TO LOVE, RIGHT BESIDE ME, EVERYTIME, IS THAT SELFISHNESS THAT I SO DISDAIN, THAT INWARD TURNING, THAT SIN NATURE. That's the lamentation of the Christian who above all now desires and LONGS for true love to be HIS/HER only issuance from their hearts. The Christian, tearfully, longs to be free of this inward curving forever and until glory, he/she cannot be. Thus, the SWEETNESS of the Gospel, is what frees and RE-frees him/her until then. It says, "REMEMBER, Christ has already done for you, you owe nothing To God for Christ sake, NOW GO BE FREE and serve. And even while your flesh poisons the well, YOU ARE STILL FREE. The new man begins to grow for HE realizes, Lord YOU really mean it, so I can love my neighbor.

As Luther said, Faith alone serves God and love your neighbor...God does need your works but your neighbor DOES!

So, stop doing them in a religious way as if to gain favor with God, confidence that your saved, assurance and certitude...IF the Cross cannot give you those things, THEN NOTHING CAN or WILL!

This is the Romans 7 lament.

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.

"œInstruction" in our country is a loosely used term and often an excuse for misuse in many pulpits today, so I´ll enlighten you a bit. If by "œinstruction" you mean for the believer pure "œguide", then we agree. But if you are using the term "œinstruction" as many do here as a hidden way to set forth a prodding or "œcarrot on a stick", then we are in complete disagreement.

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.

If I do so it is because of the danger of your foisting the Law as if it is power and your notable reaction against Grace every single time it is purely and truly given, its almost like your fear it similar to many who have ALWAYS argued the same way, "œtoo much grace and ethics won´t arise", as if that is possible. Just because evil men abuse the Gospel does not in ANY way give us the right to change the message OR mitigate it OR offer a "œcorrective" NEVER offered by Paul or the other Apostles. I agree that the Christian desires to live this righteousness, hence Romans 7, but the righteousness is NOT a legal language righteousness but a loving relational righteousness, it is LOVE and not LAW for the Christian. That´s why God is called by His children Holy Father as the Lord´s Prayer opens. It is similar to the loving relationship one pictures in a marriage, the two don´t need law or legal instruction to love each other they just do. However, they may need to know how to manifest that love so formal instruction is set forth in "œhow to be husband and wife in some ways."

The difference can be "ferreted out" in this: It all depends on what one means by "Grace is the Power". It is not, "Grace is the power whereby the Law is now served so that I may be assured of grace." As a visiting pastor from our prebytery said a few months back in a sermon, Living by grace is a VERY literal statement. One literally lives, alone, by grace, ESPECIALLY when one fails and sins. Or as Dr. ML Jones once said describing the greatest test of faith (in Christ the object), "Can your faith survive your own sin."

Strong Gospel words to live by.

Matthew, don't take my words as hurtful toward you, I do NOT mean them that way. I dearly love your defense of the faith and have said so in many other posts. You have been given a wonderful gift of mind. Just be careful in how and what you communicate and don't loose site of the real force of the Gospel. That's what Paul was doing in Romans. He was not saying to the question "what shall we sin since grace abounds", NO here is the law back in your lap to "correct" that. He was saying the Gospel IS what clean the conscience and sets us forth, it is impossible for you to remian in sin, inwardly turned, because the Gospel will always pull you back out of yourself so you can LOVE as Christ loved, ever so Romans 7ish it may be.

As always blessing in Christ alone,

Larry

[Edited on 9-23-2006 by Larry Hughes]
 
Well it looks like the old question of "Is the law compatible with the gospel" is raised again.

I don't see the law in and of itself (note the emphasis) to be contrary to the gospel. Rather, what Paul speaks of in regards to the Pharisees is a misuse of the law under the covenant of grace. The law of God is a good thing. All one has to do is read the Psalms to understand that David regaded the law of God (refering to the whole of Scripture) as a GOOD thing. It is us who turn it into a bad thing under the covenant of grace when we seek to be justified by it. In essence, this misunderstanding is a denial of the Covenant of works (that's right, a denial) because one denies that Adam BROKE the CoW, and therefore it takes the Christ to fulfill it on our behalf.

If one were to have a proper understanding of the law, one should realize that

1) as a CoW, it was failed in Adam and it takes the Christ to fulfill it on our behalf

2) that the law is the eternal standard by which God judges

3) that viewed in the CoG, the law does not obligate us to earn our justification (a misunderstanding of the law in the CoG), but rather Christ has freed us to obey the law (Christian Liberty)

4) and of course it restrains sin in this world

And to be sure, more could be said...

I may not be understanding the contention of this discussion fully, but these are some thoughts of mine.
 
That's it in a nutshell Jeff.

The hair cutting contrast lies in what some call the third use of the law. If it is by third use the guide, the content, the this "is a Christian", its correct use then it does not in any sense contrast the Gospel. If by third use we return to some form of whip or carrot then we've returned to the second use, to show us our sin and drive us to Christ.

But even within those context it is crucial to understand what the heart of the Law is and that is love, the altruistic love that goes out without hope of return for itself, in fact in opposition to it (like Christ on the Cross, that's why death could not hold Him). One may say, "But yes is not joy in that love doing for another a reward?" It's the intrinsic reward of love and not an extrinsic unrelated reward, and the very fact that the joy rests upon seeing the other "helped" or loved shows it to be an outward inflecting that as a natural effect gives back joy, as Christ saw the joy before Him. That's very different than doing the same "good act" with an eye towards justification for myself, assurance for myself, certitude for myself and so forth.

The Gospel and the Law are not mortal enemies, but to reverse them is to ruin both and at length not have either.

Today this is not so much done under "justification by faith alone" which all good protestants affirm with their lips if so explicitly stated or set forth in a creed. But over time we have a tendancy to follow the letters while eschewing the principle and elements for which the letters stand. Thus, it is over thrown today more by a subtle form of "Yes, your justified by faith alone, but you better prove it (explicitly in some circles and heavy implication in other circles)". This is just a return in principle and element to Rome's "faith formed by love" that over throws the Gospel. Now "faith formed by love" is blatantly identified with Rome so IMMEDIATELY a "good" protestant will repulse and say, "That's not what I meant". Yet, the protestant version might be best coined as, "Justification formed by love or law". Protestants should remember that Rome doesn't blatantly over throw the idea of grace, they believe in A grace. Rome over threw it in the "growth" and "proof" categories of their doctrines and so do many protestants today. That's why there is once again a battle going on for the Gospel in increasing intensity.

Since the final apostacy has yet to occur and Rome is already apostate in her official capacity, it is hardly out of the realm of possibility that the final great apostacy will come from the very churches and denominations that once championed against Rome. We are not there yet, but some time in the future the apostacy has to come from those who most immediately formerly held the Gospel, else there's nothing to apostacize from. What can Rome apostacize from now? I think this is why the great battle for the Gospel in our day is forming and growing mainly in the prostestant realm. And we should expect such, Satan doesn't rest.

I have to get off of here were getting hammered with storms.

Blessings always,

Larry
 
Irons Excerpt:

God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh; in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit (Rom. 8:3-4 ESV).

Conclusion

Defining the Law-Gospel contrast is no easy task. It requires making important distinctions and avoiding common pitfalls. It is not a timeless contrast between God´s grace and God´s demand. Nor is it a contrast between two competing ways of salvation. The Law-Gospel contrast is a contrast between two covenants based on contrary principles (works vs. faith). When covenantally defined the Law-Gospel contrast is an extremely useful paradigm for understanding Pauline theology, and has important systematic implications. In particular, it is the key to understanding Paul´s teaching that we are both justified and progressively sanctified by faith in Christ apart from the Law.


:book2: This is a tight explanation of how the Law/Gospel - works/faith distinctions are necessarily tied to the idea of covenant.

Be edified!

R.
 
I'll be honest with you that I have a problem reading and being edified by anything that Irons has produced. Perhaps I will have to grow in Grace in that regard.

I have a hard time separating the paths that a man's theology leads him down and then parsing out the good bits and saying "Oh yeah, at least he had something good to say here...."

The bottom line with Irons is that he was disciplined by a Presbytery and had an opportunity to show himself true to vows taken and he refused to listen to the counsel of fellow elders. In my estimation, Irons' Biblical Theology was terribly imbalanced. I was a member of a Church in the SoCal Presbytery at the time and am familiar with many things that are not public knowledge.

That was a period of tremendous tension and "side taking" in the SoCal Presbytery. I never quite understood, initially, why a few folks in my Church would constantly accuse our Pastor of "preaching the Law" everytime he exeted a passage that spoke to the imperatives of the NT. Of course, when influenced by Irons, who would say that you should never give any application but simply tell people what Christ has done for them, I can understand the genesis of that ignorant charge. For their part, they just didn't know any better. Scripture is either good for reproof and training in righteousness (2 Tim 3:16-17) or it is not.

Frankly, it is one thing to hold these lofty ideas in your head and another to work them out in a practical theology. The irony is that I never met a BT that would train their kids that way. I might have said to them: "Don't teach your kids to read, just tell them that Christ was the Perfect Word" or "Don't spank your kids, just tell them that Christ received our Judgment." The point is that all of us understand that folly is bound up in the heart of a child and that children need close attention, discipline, and rules until they grow to maturity. The fact that some of us are called immature or "babes" seems to elude people who have very little practical experience training young adults.

Anybody who has had any experience in the leadership of adults knows that you have to begin with practical discipline and then that paves a way toward prudence and wisdom. Refusing to counsel a young Christian with practical Godliness, assuming he's filling in the proper blanks when you just "give Him what Christ has done" is simply naive.

In the end, when it came down to brass tacks, Lee Irons violated his oath. Was it a less Godly oath than the oath taken by Joshua to the Gibeonites? Perhaps Christ is the oath-keeper now so we don't have to keep our oaths. I'm sorry but his refusal to listen to his fellow presbyters who, imperfectly, rebuked his imbalance is very telling.

So, I say, be warned. If your theological formulation so isolates you that a Presbytery rebukes you and "you know better" then there is something very wrong. God's Word has something to say about that and maybe Irons ought to consider what God thinks of such things and how He might honor God instead of ignoring it preferring only to think of how Christ did honor such things.
 
We need applications or we won't be able to appreciate what Christ did for us. Maybe Irons' presentation of the Gospel is incomplete? Don't know much about the guy.
 
I think another problem of Iron's is the re-publication theory. Israel is the church not the world. The church is under the covenant of grace not works. The world is under the covenant of works not the church. It is nonsense to say that Israel is in the CoG yet God would put them under a Law that is a republication of the CoW.

The History of Israel is type of the christian life not the reprobate life. If anything the Law of Moses is a republication of the CoG. Egypt is the covenant of works. The wilderness is the life in the world in grace. Sinai is in the wilderness.
 
Larry,

"Let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth."

In Christian love I plead with you to consider where your mystical path will eventually lead you and others. The "spirit" of the law can be made a legalistic and self-promoting device as easily as the "letter" of it. We are to observe the weightier matters of the law, but we are not to leave its minuter requirements undone. Formalism is to be shunned; but formlessness should not be adopted in the process. As the body without the spirit is lifeless, the spirit without the body is formless. To advocate spirituality without duty is to hold out a "formless form of a formal profession," to borrow the words of John Preston.

In this thread you have managed to denounce reformed ministers as false teachers and harbingers of apostasy because they do not share your mystical law-gospel contrast. Please read the Epistle of Jude, and see what it thinks of men who turn the grace of God into lasciviousness, speak evil of dignities, and separate themselves.

You charge me with blunting the gospel with the law. I offer Christ and salvation through Him to all men without qualification. At the same time I insist that those who have come to Christ bear a solemn responsibility to walk worthy of God who has called them to His kingdom and glory (1 Thess. 2:11, 12). Christ came to save from sin and to righteousness. If a man professes Christ he is required to take up the "duties" of the Christian faith. He that names the name of Christ must depart from iniquity. You fail to observe this fundamental point of the gospel, and in so doing you make the gospel of none effect. I hope better things for you, Larry. Many blessings!
 
Originally posted by turmeric
Rev. Winzer,

What do you think of this?

The book is a gem -- very helpful in showing how the believer is to take the law out of the hand of Christ. It is good to see it available online. I especially appreciate the emphasis on considering our privileges in Christ as a means to fulfil the duties of righteousness and holiness. I suggest also reading the next chapter, where he shows how the ordinances of God are means of sanctification. Blessings!
 
Titus 2:11-14
11 For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people,
12 training us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age,
13 waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,
14 who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works.

11 Indicative
12 Imperative
13 Indicative
14 Indicative and Imperative.

The gospel saves us from lawlessness unto lawfulness. We are redeemed so we can be zealous for good works. Of course they are prepared beforehand and that it is he who is working in us both to will...

While we're here...notice the grace that appears in 11 is the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ!
 
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

:detective:

Robin
 
Rev. Winzer, here's an excerpt from teachings at your website:

Reformed Spirituality:

The advantages of experience are felt in all the affairs of life. The truths we know by experience are worth more to a wise man than all he can learn from the demonstrative sciences or the reasonings of others. In all the departments of life, he who has experience has qualifications denied to the mere theorist or scholar. Religious experience puts us on our guard against the snares of the world, the flesh, and the devil. It teaches us modesty, self-distrust, and humility. It causes us to abound in all prudence. It gives us a delightful confirmation in the truth. It fits us for doing good to an extent far beyond what we could ever attain by instruction in the letter of God's word

http://www.pap.com.au/plumer/wp_exp01.htm

Not to highjack Allan's original question and thread...but be aware that given the obvious differences in what you espouse and true Reformed/Biblical doctrine...you may wish to re-think a few things. ??

Where does Holy Scripture teach an individual's religious experience override the authority of God's Word?

New thread?

:book2:

Due respect,

Robin
 
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

:detective:

Robin
Read: "The Presbytery and General Assembly got it wrong. I got it right. They just don't understand me...."

It sounds strangely familiar to a present controversy.

I have no axe to grind with you Robin. Submission is meaningless if we only do so when it suits us. It's when it is hard that the real test of our vows comes into play.

As I stated before, Irons can wear you down with the volume of his writing justifying his actions. In the end, it is so much water splashing drawing attention away from the beach ball that keeps coming to the surface as he tries to push it back under.

He broke his vow. He was bigger than the Presbytery and the GA.

I don't care to read him.
 
Robin,

You are failing to see the difference between the Word and the mere letter of it. Reformed and Puritan writers stress time and again the need of personal experience in what the Word of God teaches. It is treated in the locus called the Testimony of the Spirit.

[Edited on 9-26-2006 by armourbearer]
 
quote from Irons' article

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.

Robin, do you want to think about removing the mention of Ursinus and Heidelberg from your signature line?

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

Ursinus

All 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.
491-492 Ursinus's commentary on HC
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top