Featured Calvinists and Arminians agree

JamesL;

You completely misunderstand the relationship between law and grace based on what and how you post here.
This is pure error.

At this point being you start with a wrong premise...it can only go wrong from here on out...

I know you posted this toward Reformed....but I could not allow this to sneak by....

The Moral law of God is eternal and in the heart of true Christians by the work of the Spirit.....God knows NO lawless Christians.

yes it is...you need to study this a bit more:thumbs:

 

Christ fulfilled the Law...it is written upon our hearts...you are drifting towards antinominianism....I used to believe it the way you do. Christ abolished the workings of the Law, the shedding of goat's, dove's, sheep's blood, the temple to approach Him, &c., but the Law is still in the hearts of His children....

 

James, it seem to me that you were downplaying Christian obedience ("what we do") to make it almost insignificant. If that was not your intent I apologize.

I am not going to disagree that our heart attitude reveals our true motive. It does. But I tread carefully at treating attitude and obedience as components that can be easily separated.

Our Lord condemned the Pharisees because they operated from corrupt motives. I daresay they operated from a heart of unbelief. Therefore their hypocrisy was a logical product of their wicked hearts. Such actions should not be named among believers. "My brothers, these things ought not to be so" (Jas. 3:10).

Over time I think it is hard to hide our true intentions with those who know us best. If a brother's attitude belies his actions (or vice versa), we should confront him in love. And we should always remember that we may be wrong in assessing our brother.

Go back one verse and we will see the reason why Jesus told that parable:

Luke 18:9 He also told this parable to some who trusted in themselves that were righteous, and treated others with contempt;

As I said previously, these were acting in unbelief. We know this because they were trusting in themselves for righteousness.

I concur. And why was their thinking wrong? Because they acted in unbelief, and while in unbelief it was impossible for them to think right.

I never suggested that holy behavior will establish righteousness. Righteousness comes on the basis of faith, and it is imputed by Christ. Holy behavior ("good works", Eph. 2:10; 1 Pet. 1:15) is a result of being declared righteous.

Again, no one has advocated differently.

Do you understand what you just quoted? The framers of the 1689 LBC (the confession that I subscribe to) were not saying that holy living earns eternal life. In the first sentence of the paragraph it says, "These good works, done in obedience to God's commandments, are the fruits and evidence of true and lively faith,". The last sentence of the paragraph, "that having their fruit until holiness they have the end eternal life" is an echo of Romans 6:22, "But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the fruit you get leads to sanctification and its end, eternal life". Certainly the Apostle Paul is not teaching that good works beget eternal life.

Which I have done. You misunderstand what the framers of both confessions meant, and you obviously did not consider Romans 6:22.

 

James, my apology. I missed your first response. I will address it as soon as I am able.

 

[JamesL

I was suggesting that you need more study on the law and grace specifically.

Yes,,,it was short and to the point,,,,and very accurate:thumbsup:

The verses you offered were all mis-used....I can answer them if you like;
The thing is...to understand law and grace properly...I think that much more study needs to take place before you can really gain understanding.
A proper discussion can branch out in many directions...ok lets look a little bit-

God does not have antinomian Christians. Antinomianism leads to legalism, and fundamentalism with it's distorted false teachings on pitting law against grace.
rom.61,2

.


The chapter did not start in verse 9 however...let's dial it back two verses;
5 Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned:

6 From which some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling;

7 Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.

8 But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;


Here the law is GOOD.....if properly used...some were teaching no law, some were teaching from the ceremonial laws, some were teaching that the law could provide a way of salvation....the false was being corrected so that the place of the law could be established;

Paul is not going to contradict what he has taught elsewhere;

31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

This speaks of our standing IN UNION with Christ. He was a perfect law keeper...as Image-bearers we are to be also.

The OT law was death in that the penalty for anyone who tried to use it as a means of justification without keeping it perfectly was death...but that was not the purpose of the law.....it was never given for that purpose.
5 Behold, I have taught you statutes and judgments, even as the Lord my God commanded me, that ye should do so in the land whither ye go to possess it.

6 Keep therefore and do them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations, which shall hear all these statutes, and say, Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.

7 For what nation is there so great, who hath God so nigh unto them, as the Lord our God is in all things that we call upon him for?

8 And what nation is there so great, that hath statutes and judgments so righteous as all this law, which I set before you this day?

9 Only take heed to thyself, and keep thy soul diligently, lest thou forget the things which thine eyes have seen, and lest they depart from thy heart all the days of thy life: but teach them thy sons, and thy sons' sons;

you misquote this verse to totally pervert it....it does NOT....say Christ is...the END OF THE LAW

Here is what it does say-

4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth
....Jesus law keeping in His active obedience on behalf of His sheep...results in justification for the elect.

5 For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them

This isn't overemphasizing grace, this I simply recognizing that the Law has been abolished in Christ. He didn't COME to abolish the Law, He DIED to abolish it (Ephesians 2:15). [/QUOTE]

This is speaking of ceremonial law from the ot that excluded gentiles from the worship of the true God....these were fulfilled in Christ....

I am not the one confused here:wavey:

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

9 For 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.

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

 

Your definition seemed sloppy. Perhaps it is the way I am wired when it comes to defining terms. Because there are so many different view points represented on this board, I appealed to a scholar who is independent of this discussion.

Also, I do not know whether you are in a pastoral position, but I am. Words mean things, and I strive for accuracy when using them. Sometimes I fail. But when dealing with important topics we cannot afford to play fast and loose with what we say.

All I did was cite McKim for a textbook definition of Legalism. The rest was my understanding of how Legalism impacts soteriology. Remember, McKim defined Legalism, not a Legalist. Someone who practices Legalism is a Legalist. That is pretty standard English grammar. If a Legalist brings his works-based system into soteriology, he is as I explained him in my earlier post.

McKim does not state whether his definition applies to believers or unbelievers. It is just a definition. I will state quite emphatically that a Legalist cannot be a Christian if his view of justification is dependent on his legalism. Why? Because he would be seeking a works-based justification.

Can a believer be a Legalist? Yes and no. 'Yes' in the sense that a genuine believer may stray into error. This is most prevalent in progressive sanctification. Paul addressed this with the Galatians:

Gal. 3:3 Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected in the flesh?

But the answer is also 'no'. A genuine believer is not justified by works, nor is he sanctified by works, even though he may fall into error. Even in his error he is sanctified by the Spirit.

If you understand the division between law and gospel, you will understand there is no biblical antinomianism.

First, do you understand how the Reformers understood the Law? Most held to a three-fold use of the Law. R.C. Sproul did a good job of explaining the three-fold use of the Law:

The link to this can be found --> HERE

The Reformers also saw three parts of the Law: Ceremonial, Judicial, and Moral.

The ceremonial part of the law was fulfilled in Christ. This included the sacrificial system and temple ceremonies. The judicial aspect was also fulfilled in Christ, but a better way of looking at it is that it passed into obsolescence with the inauguration of the New Covenant. The moral law is still with us today. It is the knowledge of good and evil, right and wrong. It pre-dated the Mosaic Law (see the Garden narrative). We are no justified by the moral law. We are only justified through Christ. But the moral law of God is what Paul was invoking when he wrote, "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Rom. 3:23).

Your references to the Law are only valid in the context of someone trying to achieve righteousness by keeping the Law. The point has already been made that no one can be made righteous by keeping the Law. The Law can only condemn. But the Law is not without merit. Back in Galatians, Paul wrote:

Gal. 3:24 So then, the law was our guardian* until Christ came, in order that we may be justified by faith.

*some translation use 'schoolmaster' or 'tutor'.

The Law cannot justify, but it plays a valuable role in revealing our sin. Any presentation of the Gospel that calls attention to an individual's sin is making use of the moral law of God, whether the presenter admits it or not.

 

Christ abolished the ceremonial portion(s) of the Law, but the moral Law is alive and well. Without the Law, there would be no sins.

 

Howso? The Law is written on the believer's heart...Jer. 31, Heb. 8 & 10...

If they're abolished, how are they written upon our hearts?

 

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/12/antinomianism_the_soft_heresy.html

This teaching apparently started with the gnostics. If true, not good company to be associated with....

 

http://www.wopc.net/2014/01/legalism-and-antinomianism/

 

Antinomianism and legalism are lock-step doctrines....

One's as bad as t'other, imo...