Calvinists and Arminians agree

[JamesL]

The first thing I'm going to state is I'm not going to accept James' assumptions, and "seems to me" definitions.

Yet, you'll accept McKim's "seems to me" definition of legalism?

Donald McKim, in his Dictionary of Theological Terms, defines Legalism as, "A relationship or ethical system that is governed primarily by obedience to prescribed laws or rules."

---------------------------------------------

James makes the following statement:

It would seem to me that a legalist is someone who thinks of Christianity in a primarily legal fashion. In other words, someone who is more focused on following rules, laws, commandments rather than being led by the Holy Spirit.

A Legalist subscribes to Legalism. All that has to be done is just to add the pronoun to McKim's definition.

So, in essence, a Legalist believes that "obedience to prescribed laws or rules" justifies a person before God. The Legalist either formally, or practically, de-emphasizes grace and the work of the Holy Spirit.

But that's not what your quote of McKim says. There's no mention of justification in your quote of him. I don't know the man or his writings. But your quote of him sounds almost exactly like my "seems to me" definition. He said - a relationship that is GOVERNED primarily by laws or rules.

I wrote: "someone who is more focused on following rules, laws, commandments RATHER THAN being led by the Holy Spirit"


I don't know if you are able to catch what we both were saying, and how it is the same - When he says that the relationship is GOVERNED by rules, he is relating this to believers. Not establishing of the relationship, which is where you would find justification

When I say RATHER THAN by the Holy Spirit, I am relating this to believers. Unbelievers cannot be led by the Holy Spirit

So you disagreed with me AND the guy you thought you agreed with

I think it will be helpful to point out the opposite of Legalism; Antinomianism.

That's going to depend on one's definition of legalism and Antinomian. There are two possibilities for each

McKim defines Antinomianism as, "The view that there is no need for the law of God in the Christian life....."

That's extremely biblical, as you'll see in about 7 seconds.....

Antinomianism over-emphasizes grace, mercy, and forgiveness and de-emphasizes obedience and personal holiness.

Not this one. I am an avowed antinomian, in a purely biblical sense. 1Timothy 1:9 says plainly that the law is not for a righteous man, but for sinners and unholy desecrators.

We become the righteousness of God, in Christ (2Cor 5:21)

The law is the ministry of death (2Cor 3:7)

the law is the ministry of condemnation (2Cor 3:9)

Galatians 3:10 says - For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, to perform them.”

Christ is the END of the law for everyone who believes (Rom 10:4)


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).

The Law was an old covenant, or testament. Now we have a NEW one in His blood. Hebrews 9:15-17 tells us that the New covenant could not be established while the one making it lives. Just like a "last will and testament" today is in effect when the one who make it dies


But just to be clear, I don't believe scripture sets Law against Grace. Grace can be found throughout the scriptures. What scripture does contrast is Law versus Spirit.

We are no longer to be led (or governed) by rules and regulations found in the ministry of death, we are to be led by the Spirit, who dwells in us. If you don't get that, you just might be a legalist


I think that's enough for one post. I'll try to get another bit in tomorrow night. It might take a while, but I'm willing to tough it out

 

[Yeshua1]

Yet, you'll accept McKim's "seems to me" definition of legalism?



---------------------------------------------


The notion that one cannot be spiritual, or act as we ought, apart from focusing on keeping the law, is not grounded in the Bible, as paul stated clearly to us the means to living as we ought is to remember who we now are in Christ, and submit and be controlled by the Holy Spirit!

 

[JamesL]

Yet, you'll accept McKim's "seems to me" definition of legalism?



---------------------------------------------


The notion that one cannot be spiritual, or act as we ought, apart from focusing on keeping the law, is not grounded in the Bible, as paul stated clearly to us the means to living as we ought is to remember who we now are in Christ, and submit and be controlled by the Holy Spirit!

Huh ??

I'll be honest, brother. Sometimes, your posts are impossible to read. I'm really curious...what is your natural language?

 

[JamesL]

God cares less about what you do, and more about what you think about what you do. And that goes for good or bad deeds.....

There is no biblical support for this statement, and considering the gravity of the subject matter, I would think such support would be a given.

Paul goes to the bother of elucidating the deeds of the flesh in Gal. 5:19-21

One book later Paul has more to say about "what you do":

Ephesians 4:1-3 Therefore I, the prisoner of the Lord, implore you to walk in a manner worthy of your calling with which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, showing tolerance for one another in love, being diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.

Ephesians 4:17-24 So this I say, and affirm together with the Lord, that you walk no longer just as the Gentiles also walk, in the futility of their mind, being darkened in their understanding, excluded from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the hardness of their heart; and they, having become callous, have given themselves over to sensuality for the practice of every kind of impurity with greediness. But you did not learn Christ in this way, if indeed you have heard Him and have been taught in Him, just as truth is in Jesus, that, in reference to your former manner of life, you lay aside the old self, which is being corrupted in accordance with the lusts of deceit, and that you be renewed in the spirit of your mind, and put on the new self, which in the likeness of God has been created in righteousness and holiness of the truth.

Ephesians 5:3, 4 But immorality or any impurity or greed must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints; and there must be no filthiness and silly talk, or coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks.

It's not just Paul who instructs about "what you do":

1 John 3:17, 18 But whoever has the world's goods, and sees his brother in need and closes his heart against him, how does the love of God abide in Him? Little children, let us not love with word or with tongue, but in deed and truth.

Brevity precludes me from taking you to 1 Peter 3, 4, and 5 with other examples of "what you do" being something that God cares about very much.

I never said God doesn't care what we do. What I said is that God cares more about what you think about what you do

All one has to do is read the Sermon on the Mount to see that Jesus made examples of motive. When you do your alms, or pray, or fast, don't be like the ones who do it for the praises of men. Jesus made it clear that WHY matters more. He called those men hypocrites because of it.

In Luke 18:10-14 - The Pharisee thanked God that he did not DO the wretched things which sinners did. Instead, he fasted twice a week, and tithed of all he had. And who went away more justified? The one who THOUGHT in a more humble manner. Whoever exalts himself will be humbled. This is an issue of how one THINKS, which is more important than what one does

In Romans 9:31-10:3- Israel followed after the law of righteousness, but did not attain to the law of righteousness. Why? Because they sought it on the basis of works. They have a zeal for God, but going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves to God.

What's painfully clear here is that Israel THINKS that their works of the law will bring them into a righteous standing with God. Doing right, but thinking about it wrong.

Of course our "what you do" should be motivated by love. When we do the right things, with the right heart attitude, we are blessed in what we do. But to say God could care less about our actions is a callous disregard of the scriptural command to be "holy yourselves also in all your behavior" (1 Peter 1:15).

Yes, we should be holy in all our behavior. But if we THINK holy behavior will establish righteousness, it is all for naught.

Same with baptism. It's a good thing unless we think it will establish righteousness. It's good to confess our sins, but not if we think it simply gives us a license to continue in it. It's good to give money to the church. But not if you think it's going to give you a seat of honor. It's good to abstain from wicked deeds. But not if you think it makes you better than others.

Either Calvinist or Arminian can be legalistic, since they both believe works are a criteria for determining our eternal destination.

As a Calvinist I will flatly reject your characterization of what determines our eternal destination. Salvation is by grace through faith (Eph. 2:8). We are justified by faith, not works (Rom. 5:1). Even though we believe that good works are evidence of salvation (Eph. 2:10), they are not a criteria for determining salvation. Yes. If a professed believer is living in open, unrepentant sin, we would be greatly concerned about the veracity of his profession, but the final arbiter on his eternal destiny is God.

Considering your moniker (Reformed), you should agree with a Reformation confession, right?

Westminster: On good works (16.2)
These good works, done in obedience to God's commandments, are the fruits and evidences of a true and lively faith: and by them believers manifest their thankfulness, strengthen their assurance, edify their brethren, adorn the profession of the gospel, stop the mouths of the adversaries, and glorify God, whose workmanship they are, created in Christ Jesus thereunto, that, having their fruit unto holiness, they may have the end, eternal life.

It says that the end of our holiness is eternal life.


Baptist Confession 1689: On good works (16.2)
These good works, done in obedience to God’s commandments, are the fruits and evidences of a true and lively faith; and by them believers manifest their thankfulness, strengthen their assurance, edify their brethren, adorn the profession of the gospel, stop the mouths of the adversaries, and glory God, whose workmanship they are, created in Christ Jesus thereunto, that having their fruit unto holiness they may have the end eternal life.

Same as Westminster

Also, good works doesn't have a quantitative component. We can't ask the question, "How many good works do I have to perform to prove my salvation is real?" Good works will manifest themselves differently in each person.

Now, there are extremes in the Arminian and Calvinist camps in which an erroneous view of good works may fit your definition of a works based criteria. Free will Baptists believe that an individual can lose their salvation. In order for a person to maintain their salvation they have to constantly show evidence of their faith. That is a works based, heretical soteriology. In the Calvinist camp there could be an equal imbalance among those who carry perseverance of the saints into Legalism.

I am going to dismiss these as an example of your "works are a criteria" because they are extremes. The majority of believers in both camps should condemn these unbiblical works-based views.

You say there are extremes in the Calvinist and Arminian positions, and that each can be given to legalism. I contend that if you don't hold to the view that the end of our good works is eternal life, then you really aren't adhering to Reformed doctrine.

I've quoted two confession which say exactly what I have contended. The burden of proof would be upon you to demonstrate that they didn't mean what they wrote

 

[Iconoclast]

JamesL;

Not this one. I am an avowed antinomian, in a purely biblical sense. 1Timothy 1:9 says plainly that the law is not for a righteous man, but for sinners and unholy desecrators.

We become the righteousness of God, in Christ (2Cor 5:21)

The law is the ministry of death (2Cor 3:7)

the law is the ministry of condemnation (2Cor 3:9)

Galatians 3:10 says - For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, to perform them.”

Christ is the END of the law for everyone who believes (Rom 10:4)


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).

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

The Law was an old covenant, or testament. Now we have a NEW one in His blood. Hebrews 9:15-17 tells us that the New covenant could not be established while the one making it lives. Just like a "last will and testament" today is in effect when the one who make it dies


But just to be clear, I don't believe scripture sets Law against Grace. Grace can be found throughout the scriptures. What scripture does contrast is Law versus Spirit.

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....

We are no longer to be led (or governed) by rules and regulations found in the ministry of death, we are to be led by the Spirit, who dwells in us. If you don't get that, you just might be a legalist

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.

I think that's enough for one post.

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

 

[convicted1]

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....

 

[JamesL]

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:

Sneak by - lol
That's rich. And I don't disagree that I need to study more. If you think you don't, then ok.

You know the best part of your post? It had ZERO scripture references, only opinion.

You seem to be confusing "against law" with "against righteousness"

As soon as you realize that righteousness can only be through regeneration, you'll realize that the works of the law are not for the righteous.

But that's an area of agreement between you and Arminians. You're both trying to live by the law. But the scriptures say the just shall live by faith

 

[Reformed]

I never said God doesn't care what we do. What I said is that God cares more about what you think about what you do

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.

All one has to do is read the Sermon on the Mount to see that Jesus made examples of motive. When you do your alms, or pray, or fast, don't be like the ones who do it for the praises of men. Jesus made it clear that WHY matters more. He called those men hypocrites because of it.

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.

In Luke 18:10-14 - The Pharisee thanked God that he did not DO the wretched things which sinners did. Instead, he fasted twice a week, and tithed of all he had. And who went away more justified? The one who THOUGHT in a more humble manner. Whoever exalts himself will be humbled. This is an issue of how one THINKS, which is more important than what one does

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.

In Romans 9:31-10:3- Israel followed after the law of righteousness, but did not attain to the law of righteousness. Why? Because they sought it on the basis of works. They have a zeal for God, but going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves to God.

What's painfully clear here is that Israel THINKS that their works of the law will bring them into a righteous standing with God. Doing right, but thinking about it wrong.

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.

Yes, we should be holy in all our behavior. But if we THINK holy behavior will establish righteousness, it is all for naught.

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.

Same with baptism. It's a good thing unless we think it will establish righteousness. It's good to confess our sins, but not if we think it simply gives us a license to continue in it. It's good to give money to the church. But not if you think it's going to give you a seat of honor. It's good to abstain from wicked deeds. But not if you think it makes you better than others.

Again, no one has advocated differently.

These good works[/u], done in obedience to God's commandments, are the fruits and evidences of a true and lively faith: and by them believers manifest their thankfulness, strengthen their assurance, edify their brethren, adorn the profession of the gospel, stop the mouths of the adversaries, and glorify God, whose workmanship they are, created in Christ Jesus thereunto, that, having their fruit unto holiness, they may have the end, eternal life.

It says that the end of our holiness is eternal life.


Baptist Confession 1689: On good works (16.2)
These good works, done in obedience to God’s commandments, are the fruits and evidences of a true and lively faith; and by them believers manifest their thankfulness, strengthen their assurance, edify their brethren, adorn the profession of the gospel, stop the mouths of the adversaries, and glory God, whose workmanship they are, created in Christ Jesus thereunto, that having their fruit unto holiness they may have the end eternal life.

Same as Westminster

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.

You say there are extremes in the Calvinist and Arminian positions, and that each can be given to legalism. I contend that if you don't hold to the view that the end of our good works is eternal life, then you really aren't adhering to Reformed doctrine.

I've quoted two confession which say exactly what I have contended. The burden of proof would be upon you to demonstrate that they didn't mean what they wrote

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

 

[JamesL]

Christ fulfilled the Law...it is written upon our hearts...you are drifting towards antinominianism....

Maybe you didn't read my post, where I said I am antinomian.

But, just as Icon, I think you're confusing "against law" with "against righteousness"

You're trying to say in one breath that Christ abolished the law, and in the next breath that He didn't

 

[Reformed]

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

 

[Iconoclast]

[JamesL

Sneak by - lol
That's rich. And I don't disagree that I need to study more. If you think you don't, then ok.

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

You know the best part of your post?

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

It had ZERO scripture references, only opinion.

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-

Not this one. I am an avowed antinomian, in a purely biblical sense.

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

1Timothy 1:9 says plainly that the law is not for a righteous man, but for sinners and unholy desecrators

.


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.

We become the righteousness of God, in Christ (2Cor 5:21)

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

The law is the ministry of death (2Cor 3:7)

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;

Christ is the END of the law for everyone who believes (Rom 10:4)

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....

You seem to be confusing "against law" with "against righteousness"

As soon as you realize that righteousness can only be through regeneration, you'll realize that the works of the law are not for the righteous.

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

 

[Reformed]

Yet, you'll accept McKim's "seems to me" definition of legalism?

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.

primarily[/u] by laws or rules.

I wrote: "someone who is more focused on following rules, laws, commandments RATHER THAN being led by the Holy Spirit"


I don't know if you are able to catch what we both were saying, and how it is the same - When he says that the relationship is GOVERNED by rules, he is relating this to believers. Not establishing of the relationship, which is where you would find justification

When I say RATHER THAN by the Holy Spirit, I am relating this to believers. Unbelievers cannot be led by the Holy Spirit

So you disagreed with me AND the guy you thought you agreed with

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.

Not this one. I am an avowed antinomian, in a purely biblical sense. 1Timothy 1:9 says plainly that the law is not for a righteous man, but for sinners and unholy desecrators.

We become the righteousness of God, in Christ (2Cor 5:21)

The law is the ministry of death (2Cor 3:7)

the law is the ministry of condemnation (2Cor 3:9)

Galatians 3:10 says - For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, to perform them.”

Christ is the END of the law for everyone who believes (Rom 10:4)


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).

The Law was an old covenant, or testament. Now we have a NEW one in His blood. Hebrews 9:15-17 tells us that the New covenant could not be established while the one making it lives. Just like a "last will and testament" today is in effect when the one who make it dies


But just to be clear, I don't believe scripture sets Law against Grace. Grace can be found throughout the scriptures. What scripture does contrast is Law versus Spirit.

We are no longer to be led (or governed) by rules and regulations found in the ministry of death, we are to be led by the Spirit, who dwells in us. If you don't get that, you just might be a legalist


I think that's enough for one post. I'll try to get another bit in tomorrow night. It might take a while, but I'm willing to tough it out

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 THREEFOLD USE OF THE LAW
by R.C. Sproul

Every Christian wrestles with the question, how does the Old Testament law relate to my life? Is the Old Testament law irrelevant to Christians or is there some sense in which we are still bound by portions of it? As the heresy of antinomianism becomes ever more pervasive in our culture, the need to answer these questions grows increasingly urgent.

The Reformation was founded on grace and not upon law. Yet the law of God was not repudiated by the Reformers. John Calvin, for example, wrote what has become known as the “Threefold Use of the Law” in order to show the importance of the law for the Christian life.

1. The first purpose of the law is to be a mirror. On the one hand, the law of God reflects and mirrors the perfect righteousness of God. The law tells us much about who God is. Perhaps more important, the law illumines human sinfulness. Augustine wrote, “The law orders, that we, after attempting to do what is ordered, and so feeling our weakness under the law, may learn to implore the help of grace.”

2. The law highlights our weakness so that we might seek the strength found in Christ. Here the law acts as a severe schoolmaster who drives us to Christ.

A second purpose for the law is the restraint of evil. The law, in and of itself, cannot change human hearts. It can, however, serve to protect the righteous from the unjust. Calvin says this purpose is “by means of its fearful denunciations and the consequent dread of punishment, to curb those who, unless forced, have no regard for rectitude and justice.”

3. The law allows for a limited measure of justice on this earth, until the last judgment is realized.

The third purpose of the law is to reveal what is pleasing to God. As born-again children of God, the law enlightens us as to what is pleasing to our Father, whom we seek to serve. The Christian delights in the law as God Himself delights in it. Jesus said, “If you love Me, keep My commandments” (John 14:15). This is the highest function of the law, to serve as an instrument for the people of God to give Him honor and glory.

By studying or meditating on the law of God, we attend the school of righteousness. We learn what pleases God and what offends Him. The moral law that God reveals in Scripture is always binding upon us. Our redemption is from the curse of God’s law, not from our duty to obey it. We are justified, not because of our obedience to the law, but in order that we may become obedient to God’s law. To love Christ is to keep His commandments. To love God is to obey His law.

Summary

1. The church today has been invaded by antinomianism, which weakens, rejects, or distorts the law of God.
2. The law of God is a mirror of God’s holiness and our unrighteousness. It serves to reveal to us our need of a savior.
3. The law of God is a restraint against sin.
4. The law of God reveals what is pleasing and what is offensive to God.
5. The Christian is to love the law of God and to obey the moral law of God.

Biblical passages for reflection:
Psalm 19:7-11
Psalm 119:9-16
Romans 7:7-25
Romans 8:3-4
1 Corinthians 7:19
Galatians 3:24
1. Calvin, Institutes, bk. II, 1:304-310.
2. Calvin, Institutes, bk. II, 1:306.
3. Calvin, Institutes, bk. II, 1:307.

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.

 

[convicted1]

Maybe you didn't read my post, where I said I am antinomian.

But, just as Icon, I think you're confusing "against law" with "against righteousness"

You're trying to say in one breath that Christ abolished the law, and in the next breath that He didn't

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.

 

[JamesL]

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.

You sound like an Arminian, Willis.

 

[convicted1]

You sound like an Arminian, Willis.

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?

 

[JamesL]

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

Read this article from Arminians:

http://wesley.nnu.edu/arminianism/t...c-disputations/disputation-12-the-law-of-god/

Here is a portion:

5. (3.) The third use of the moral law is towards a man, as now born again by the Spirit of God and of Christ, and is agreeable to the state of grace, that it may be a perpetual rule for directing his life in a godly and spiritual manner: (Titus 3:8; James 2:8.) Not that man may be justified; because for this purpose it is rendered "weak through the flesh" and useless, even if man had committed only a single sin: (Romans 8:3) But that he may render thanks to God for his gracious redemption and sanctification, (Psalm 116:12, 13,) that he may preserve a good conscience, (1 Timothy 1:19,) that he may make his calling and election sure, (2 Peter 1:10,) that he may by his example win over other persons to Christ, (1 Peter 3:1,) that he may confound the devil, (Job 1 & 2,) that he may condemn the ungodly world, (Hebrews 11:7,) and that through the path of good works he may march towards the heavenly inheritance and glory, (Romans 2:7,) and that he may not only himself glorify God, (1 Corinthians 6:20,) but may also furnish occasion and matter to others for glorifying his Father who is in Heaven. (Matthew 5:16.)

6. From these uses it is easy to collect how far the moral law obtains among believers and those who are placed under the grace of Christ, and how far it is abrogated.

(1.) It is abrogated with regard to its power and use in justifying:

"For if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by that law." (Galatians 3:21.)

The reason why "it cannot give life," is, "because it is weak through the flesh:" (Romans 8:3) God, therefore, willing to deal graciously with men, gave the promise and Christ himself, that the inheritance through the promise and by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.

But the law which came after the promise, could neither "make the latter of none effect," (for it was sanctioned by authority,) nor could it be joined or super-added to the promise, that out of this union righteousness and life might be given. (Galatians 3:16-18, 22.)

(2.) It is abrogated with regard to the curse and condemnation: For "Christ, being made a curse for us, hath redeemed us from the curse of the law;" (Galatians 3:10-13) and thus the law is taken away from sin, lest its "strength" should be to condemn. (1 Corinthians 15:55, 56.)

(3.) The law is abrogated and taken away from sin, so far as "sin, having taken occasion by the law, works all manner of concupiscence" in the carnal man, over whom sin exercises dominion. (Romans 7:4-8.)

(4.) It is abrogated, with regard to the guidance by which it urged man to do good and to refrain from evil, through a fear of punishment and a hope of temporal reward. (1 Timothy 1:9, 10; Galatians 4:18.) For believers and regenerate persons "are become dead to the law by the body of Christ," that they may be the property of another, even of Christ; by whose Spirit they are led and excited in newness of life, according to love and the royal law of liberty. (1 John 5:3, 4; James 2:8.) Whence it appears, that the law is not abrogated with respect to the obedience which must be rendered to God; for though obedience be required under the grace of Christ and of the Gospel, it is required according to clemency, and not according to strict [legal] rigor. (1 John 3:1, 2.)

You probably didn't know you had so much in common.

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

You are our letter, written in our hearts, known and read by all men; being manifested that you are a letter of Christ, cared for by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts.

Such confidence we have through Christ toward God. Not that we are adequate in ourselves to consider anything as coming from ourselves, but our adequacy is from God, who also made us adequate as servants of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

But if the ministry of death, in letters engraved on stones, came with glory, so that the sons of Israel could not look intently at the face of Moses because of the glory of his face, fading as it was, how will the ministry of the Spirit fail to be even more with glory? For if the ministry of condemnation has glory, much more does the ministry of righteousness abound in glory. For indeed what had glory, in this case has no glory because of the glory that surpasses it. For if that which fades away was with glory, much more that which remains is in glory.

Therefore having such a hope, we use great boldness in our speech, and are not like Moses, who used to put a veil over his face so that the sons of Israel would not look intently at the end of what was fading away. But their minds were hardened; for until this very day at the reading of the old covenant the same veil remains unlifted, because it is removed in Christ. But to this day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their heart; but whenever a person turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit. (2Cor 3:2-18)


For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another. For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another. This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would. But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law. (Gal 5:13-17)

 

[convicted1]

In case you are wondering, Antinomianism is a Christian heresy. This gentle and soft heresy is popular for many reasons. First, it's very old. The original Antinomians were Gnostics. They believed that Christianity was a secretive and privileged message that only the learned understood. They were the climate-changers of their day. The Gnostics held those who just didn't get it in contempt. With that secret knowledge, you could do whatever you wanted in this life, because the material world was ultimately unimportant. Antinomianism made a return during the Reformation, and Luther had to formally put the heresy in its place. Sure, the Just shall live by Faith. Sure, good works don't get the job done. However; Faith and bad works means all bets are off. Even the Council of Trent made a case for its specific heresy. All Christians get to clearly understand this one:antinomianism is an equal opportunity Salvation destroyer.

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....

 

[convicted1]

Paul almost in all his epistles sets himself against legal preachers and false teachers. It was a common error in the primitive times to confound the law and grace in the point of righteousness, or to make free justification inconsistent with the moral law. Therefore our apostle makes it his chief study to vindicate the doctrine of the gospel. He preaches the gospel, and yet is no Antinomian. He preaches the law, and yet is no legal preacher. He exalts Christ more than the Antinomian can do, and yet he presses holiness more than the mere legalist can do. He excludes the law in the point of justification and pardon, and then brings it in again to the justified man’s hand. If these words [of 1 Timothy 1:5] were rightly understood and made use of, it would put an end to many useless controversies of the present time, and reform many of our practices. (Works, p. 601)Hugh Binning

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

 

[convicted1]

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

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

 

[JamesL]

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....

Like I said before...
you're confusing "against law" with "against righteousness"


You are, in essence, accusing me of teaching licentiousness. What does your "Moral Law" speak of false witness? You desire to pick and choose which laws you strive to observe, and which laws you are willing to toss aside?

Your issue is that you don't have any understanding of righteousness by the Spirit, which is not based on law


And you need to be careful which "thinkers" you're listening to and reading. Your quote misrepresented "why" some Gnostics taught and practiced licentiousness.

And I say "some" because there were other Gnostics who taught self-denial and asceticism. Another misrepresentation in that quote of yours.


Trust me, Willis, and I say this in all honesty - You are ill equipped to start throwing around charges of Gnosticism. You have no knowledge of the matter. (pun intended)


You would do best to simply agree that your view of the Law is shared with your Arminian cousins