Brian
Puritan Board Freshman
I searched around, and none of the threads I could find dealt with this issue explicitly enough (please point me in the right direction if there are). Several threads like here have broached the subject anew in my mind. Hopefully this is fruitful for others.
According to the Westminster Standards, there is a three-fold distinction to be seen in the Law of God: moral, ceremonial, and civil. Others have offered other suggestions:
Bahnsen: moral vs. ceremonial/restorative
Kline: law as unity with moral and typological elements
Dispensational: just a mess
Lutheran
etc.
My problem with this began when I did a paper on Law/Gospel last spring, and could find no external support for the WCF distinction - exegetical, theological, or otherwise.
So here is the voting:
Thanks. I hope this isn't
According to the Westminster Standards, there is a three-fold distinction to be seen in the Law of God: moral, ceremonial, and civil. Others have offered other suggestions:
Bahnsen: moral vs. ceremonial/restorative
Kline: law as unity with moral and typological elements
Dispensational: just a mess
Lutheran
etc.
My problem with this began when I did a paper on Law/Gospel last spring, and could find no external support for the WCF distinction - exegetical, theological, or otherwise.
So here is the voting:
- How do you parse the Law, or should we?
If you follow the WCF, who and how do we determine which law falls in which category?
If you distinguish the law in a different way, explain how you practically relate to the Law in life and how you understand Christ's fulfillment/abrogation.
Thanks. I hope this isn't