Galatians 3 - Christ being made a curse

[DaveXR650]

You ate trying so hard to defend PSA that you see every passage as a threat. I am not talking about PSA. This thread is not about PSA. This topic has nothing to do with PSA.

Of course it has to do with PSA. If Christ was made a curse for us then the fact that he did so has implications. Do we make them up as theories? No. We read the Bible. He was made a curse for us because this cursing was due us. It was actually our curse. There is no other reason for Jesus to become a curse. You're the one always complaining that penal substitution requires punishment of the innocent on behalf of the guilty. In this case it does and the "becoming a curse for us" is a way of explaining it with terminology that would relate to Jews and also to gentiles who were being told to follow the law. But becoming a curse for us is another way of saying he bore our sin in his own body on the tree. It's penal substitution.

You're the one obsessed with PSA. You openly declare it a false gospel and then you follow @Martin Marprelate and myself around on this site, starting threads using our names when we didn't ask you to. Then, you claim I'm obsessed with PSA? If I am then you are certifiable.

 

[DaveXR650]

You have said things that vary significantly from mainstream Reformed theologians.

I'm sure I have, taking them as a whole. And I may be unaware of some of the nuances I'm sure. But I do know the difference between what John Owen meant by sins being propitiated by Christ and Arminius's view. And I know that Grotius governmental theory was in many of his writings quite close to penal substitution whereas later writers interpreting him presented his governmental theory as far more of a deviation. I understand that many Puritan Calvinists did not believe in a limited atonement and most by far have a questionable understanding of limited atonement based on their insistence upon a true, free and real "offer" of salvation to anyone who hears the gospel. I also know that advocates of penal substitution also believe in many other motifs of the atonement and say so in their literature. And I know that scripture as well as the early church fathers expressed it.

I know that none of the various groups of the reformers had a superficial view of sin - and would put them up any day to the theologians you mention as supporting your eclectic mix of thoughts. And I also know that your insistence that my penal substitutionary view is a false gospel comes honest - because at most of the reformers viewed opposition to penal substitution as a damnable heresy, and so do I, if done with a full understanding of the scriptural claims.

But who cares? The mainstream is nominal Christianity (the Way is narrow). And just picking a mainstream group to follow is not biblical.

Try to be consistent with your insults. You can't insist on one post that PSA is a minority view and then in another say it's part of the group going into the "wide gate", which is ridiculous on it's own anyway.

Don't be "of the Reformers". Be "of Christ".

Of course. That's what the Reformers said, quoting scripture all the time. We use names like "reformers" to identify groups for purposes of conversation. If you read the Bible and decide that the Reformers were basically correct - your Bible study conclusions don't become invalid because you identify with a group for purposes of discussion. Sheez!

 

[JonC]

Of course it has to do with PSA. If Christ was made a curse for us then the fact that he did so has implications.

What I mean is it does not have anything to for with PSA specifically as all theories of atonement and Scripture itself holds as important the fact that Christ became a curse for us.

You were just using the verse to hijack this thread to make it about PSA. You are obsessed with your theory.

You can't insist on one post that PSA is a minority view and then in another say it's part of the group going into the "wide gate", which is ridiculous on it's own anyway.

Sure I can. You extracted parts of two arguments (like you do with Scripture) and put them together to create something to argue against.

What I said was PSA is the minority virw within Christianity. That is factual.

BUT I said it is the majority view within Evangelical Christianity.

In the United States and the UK the most popular theory is PSA.

In Mecico and Europe as a whole the most popular theory is Satisfaction theory.

The most constant theory is Ransom theory. But it is a minority theory today.

You have said, several times, that you value holding the most popular view. In Mexico you would have to change your theory to Satisfaction Theory and select theologians who hold that position (there ate actually more scholars who hold Aquinas' position).

You have chosen the, as you out it, "wide gate" because that is what you value.

I do not believe we should pick the most popular view (it is a form of cowardness). We also do not choose the least popular view. We should choose to believe the Bible teaches what it states rather than follow men.

Of course. That's what the Reformers said, quoting scripture all the time. We use names like "reformers" to identify groups for purposes of conversation. If you read the Bible and decide that the Reformers were basically correct - your Bible study conclusions don't become invalid because you identify with a group for purposes of discussion. Sheez!

Stupid statement. Jehovah Witnesses quote Scripture all the time in their writings as well.
It is impossible for any man to read Scripture uninfluenced and come out with a Reformed view. The reason is Reformed theory is dependent on theogical development.

Reformed Theology would not exist if Augustine had not used a Latin mistranslation (the mistranslation was corrected in our Bibles). It would not exist if the Catholic Church had not built on Augustine's conclusion based on that error. It would not exist without Anselm' theory. It would not exist without Aquinas' philosophy of substitution in courts. It would not exist had Calvin not been a law student and part of a secular Renaissance movement trying to revive Greco-Roman jurisprudence. It could not exist before the humanistic movement in the 16th century and it could not have been formed after the 17th century began (the philosophy it uses was a short lived experiment).

Reformed Theology is a product of the Renaissance. It depends on philosophy unique to that period. Once the Enlightenment period came (17th century) the philosophy at the heart of Reformed Theology was abandoned.

Now, the influenced may not realize they are influenced, but that is their own failure. They simply read Reformed Theogy and think it best suits the Bible.

 

[JonC]

You're the one obsessed with PSA.

This is a stupid statement. I do not even believe the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement is correct.

I am obsessed with the gospel of Christ and our redemption - that is true. And when I discuss the gospel I stick with Scripture and point out where the "broad road" differs.

You are the one who follows me around talking about PSA.

At one time I held the theory, but that was a decade ago. I have absolutely no interest in going through the theory. I believe any person who claims God punished the Just to clear the guilty teach the doctrine of demons because it is the exact opposite of what God describes His justice to be. I have no interest in such foolishness.

 

[DaveXR650]

What I mean is it does not have anything to for with PSA specifically as all theories of atonement and Scripture itself holds as important the fact that Christ became a curse for us.

You were just using the verse to hijack this thread to make it about PSA. You are obsessed with your theory.

So I take it that you were not trying to set up your post #1 and #2 as an attempt to say that Christ only became a curse for Jews (those under the law) and not gentiles, the reason being that this was supposed to set up a scenario where we gentiles who came later could partake in the blessings of Abraham by faith.

@Martin Marprelate brought up this passage on another thread explaining how Christ took on our curse

i want to take the "limiting" factor @Anthony Pritchard suggested - that the biblical text is limiting - and examine the biblical text itself.

The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “All the nations will be blessed in you.” So then those who are of faith are blessed with Abraham, the believer.

In other words, when you look at Galatians 3:13 you are not trying to limit Jesus becoming a curse for "us" as being limited to the Jews. Is that correct? And I want to be clear here. The gentiles would be justified by faith, indeed. But was it necessary that Jesus be made a curse for us or did that have nothing to do with us as gentiles, directly?

 

[JonC]

So I take it that you were not trying to set up your post #1 and #2 as an attempt to say that Christ only became a curse for Jews

Obviously I was not.

Jesus was made a curse for us, even though technically we were never under the Law of Moses, and in so doing those under the Old Covenant were no longer condemned under that covenant. The Law (this certificate of debt) was canceled, it was fulfilled, it was nailed to the tree.

This was so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that all (regardless whether Jew or Gentile) would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

Christ was creating in Himself one new humanity. This is what the atonement is - it is this new creation towards which all the symbolism points.


I was pointing out that we need to be careful not to mix up the Law (the Law of Moses) and God's righteousness (God's law, the law of Christ).

The Law was canceled. It was a covensnt that has been fulfilled. It is no more. It was nailed to the tree.

God's law is eternal. It is His righteousness. It was never canceled and all of creation falls under His law.

 

[JonC]

...when you look at Galatians 3:13 you are not trying to limit Jesus becoming a curse for "us" as being limited to the Jews. Is that correct? And I want to be clear here. The gentiles would be justified by faith, indeed. But was it necessary that Jesus be made a curse for us or did that have nothing to do with us as gentiles, directly?

Correct.

But I was also pointing out the distinction Paul made in the passages leading up to this verse.

1. We were never curses under the Law (obviously, as the Law has been canceled for a long time now). Gentiles were not curses under the Law (although they were guilty of sin, breaking God's law).

2. Christ canceling the Law, nailing it on the tree meant that Jews were no longer under the Old Covenant (the New Covenant has come). But Gentiles were never under the Law (the Law of Moses with the statute that a man is cursed under that Law if hung on a tree).

3. We are talking about the Law of Moses (under which one hanging on a tree is cursed). God's law was never canceled (and never will be canceled).

4. He was made a curse do that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that all (regardless whether Jew or Gentile) would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. Christ was creating in Himself one new humanity.



When I posted that He was made a curse so that in Him the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles I assumed it was clear that we were the Gentiles and He became a curse for both Jews and Gentiles.

 

[DaveXR650]

Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”— in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. (Galatians 3:8–14)

1. We were never curses under the Law (obviously, as the Law has been canceled for a long time now). Gentiles were not curses under the Law (although they were guilty of sin, breaking God's law).

If we were redeemed from the curse of the Law (and the "us" really means us) as it would in the context, then it seems that Jesus becoming a curse for us has a direct meaning - beyond covenant theology. In other words, we Jews and gentiles, like you said, are really in the same boat as guilty sinners, whether under a legal covenant as a Jew or not - and the "becoming a curse for us is not fully explained by the idea of "in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles". That statement of course is absolutely true. But it does not fully explain the meaning of what Jesus did in becoming a curse for us.

It would be like if we were stuck some place off road and I said I have to get this truck running in order to get us out of here. That would be completely true, but it would not be complete if I refused to admit that the actual replacement of a defective part was an essential act in order to get us out of here. What I am trying to say is that Jesus being made a curse for us, and us being under a curse of the law - are essential to understand if one desires a complete and serious understanding of our salvation. That does in no way diminish the truth that we gentiles come by faith, or that we are made one new people in Christ. It doesn't even really require that we fully understand it. But it does require that we not refute it or diminish it as an actual thing done for us - as people who were in a cursed state, where we were not invited to come by faith until and unless that work by Christ was done. Christ becoming a curse for us is directly the cause of us being made a new creation of one people in Christ and of us as gentiles being able to come by faith. Scripture says we were cursed. Christ became a curse for us. We find ourselves no longer under a curse but now are invited to come by faith and be saved. The implications seem plain to me what has happened. If you are in agreement with that then I have no argument with you and do not demand that you call that any certain term.

 

[JonC]

If we were redeemed from the curse of the Law (and the "us" really means us) as it would in the context, then it seems that Jesus becoming a curse for us has a direct meaning - beyond covenant theology.

I do not believe the "us" being redeemed from the Law by Christ be coming a curse under the Law (the Mosaic Law statute which says men hanging on a tree were a curse) can be applied to us in that sense.

The reason is Gentiles were not under the Mosaic Law (and after the cruvifixion no man was under the Law of Moses).


My opinion is that like the Law shows us our sin this is equated to Christ being made sin for us.

But yes, the "us" refers to those under the Law of Moses (the same Law that states those hung on a tree are a curse). This canceled the Law. This liberated those who were curses under that Law. That certificate of debt was canceled, hung on a tree.

You are forgetting that salvation came first to the Jews and then the Gentiles (this being a historical order). But the Old Covenant had to be canceled for the New to come.

We were not redeemed from the Law of Moses. Christ died to redeem us from "the bondage of din snd death", from "this evil world".


You are forgetting that we (assuming you are not a pre-Crucifixion Jew) were never made a curse under the Law - BUT be ause of din if we were placed under the Law we would be a curse.

Paul's argument in that verse, however, is not about atonement. You are extracting one verse and ignoring Paul's argument entirely.

Paul's purpose was admonishing the audience to sn extent through correction regarding falling under the Law of Moses.

He introduces the problem by relating his calling out of Peter for trying to place Gentiles under the Law (2:15) and states it is a transgression against the law of Christ to rebuild that which has been destroyed.

1. In the actual argument Paul starts with the Jews who were made a curse under the Law.

2. He then moves to Jesus redeeming them from that curse so that the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles.

3. The argument concludes that this was do that all would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. (Christ was creating in Himself one new humanity).

4. Paul then explains the intent of the Law in relation to the superior Promise (the covenant made with Abraham).

5. The Law ame 430 years after that covenant of the Promise and was to Abraham (apart from the Law) and his Seed singular, Christ).

6. The Law was added because of transgressions, having been ordained through angels by the agency of a mediator, until the seed would come to whom the promise had been made.

7. Scripture has shut up all things under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.

8. The Law did not impart righteousness but was a tutor of Christ.

9. The Law is canceled. The Jew and Gentile division is no more. There is one people of God.


That is Paul's argument up to Chapter 5.

You are not the only one guilty of pulling out one verse out of Paul's argument to try and make a different point. I did at one time, and many still do because the words sound good and can be applied many ways. BUT that verse is given in a different context.

Christ becoming a curse to cancel and fulfill the Law is not our salvation itself (even according to PSA). You do not even believe that the canceling of the Law equates to salvation (I hope).

We have to be more respectful to God's words than larger mainstream sects are willing.

You would make the same observation (I think) if the verse was "do not judge" and the claim was Christians cannot identify sin because that is not what those words mean in context of the argument.

But you are doing the same thing with one verse here (you are taking it out of Paul's argument to give it a new meaning).

 

[DaveXR650]

I do not believe the "us" being redeemed from the Law by Christ be coming a curse under the Law (the Mosaic Law statute which says men hanging on a tree were a curse) can be applied to us in that sense.

Well, there's the difference. I believe the train of logic used by Paul has verse 13 saying that we were redeemed from the curse of the Law by Christ being made a curse for us. "Us" meaning us. Your points 1-9 are fine but verse 13 clearly states the reason for our being able to come by faith as being that Christ became a curse for us who were cursed as sinners, whether as Jewish violators of the official Law, or as gentile transgressors of God's law.

But you are doing the same thing with one verse here (you are taking it out of Paul's argument to give it a new meaning).

It's not that I am taking something out of Paul's argument. It is there. And I leave the meaning as it is stated. But I do believe that all important doctrines in scripture are repeated in many ways and using different illustrations. He became a curse for for us is another way of saying that he bore our sins in his own body on a tree. (This is not a stretch, no matter what you think, especially in light of the fact the the phrase (on a tree) removes no doubt as to the curse aspect of this.)

While it's true that the argument Paul is making in Galatians is that gentiles don't have to follow the Law, as a means of salvation, and therefore do not have to submit to circumcision, the point is that performance of the Law was not salvific for even the ancient Jews so how can it be required of gentile Galatians? The fact is, our position as Jew or gentile, when it comes to righteousness of our own coming before God - is one of being cursed. And yes we can come by faith, and yes now we, Jew and gentile who do so can be one new creation, it remains a true and central point that this is because Christ became a curse for us. Whether you have any previous notion of theology or not verse 13 is there. It would seem that you are the one taking it out of Paul's argument completely, even though it is right in the middle of his argument.

 

[JonC]

"Us" meaning us.

"US does mean "us". BUT you are ignoring proper hermeneutics. Before you can determine exactly who the "us" is you must determine the audience and circumstances they faced..

1. Galatia was located in central Anatolia (modern Turkey). The church was composed of a mixture of Jewish and Gentile Christians.

2. The main problem in this church was a sect of Jewish-Christian agitators who insisted that Gentile believers must undergo circumcision and obey the Mosaic Law to be fully saved and accepted by God.

Now let's look at the audience:

1. They were distorting the gospel.
2. They were foolishly confusing the Law and the New Covenant.
3. They had been a curse under the Law.
4. They were kept in bondage by the Law.
5. They desire to be under the Law.

The "us" in Galatians 3:13 could be only the Jews or both Jews and Gentiles. This is not the path of Paul's argument.

Paul's point was that the Law was canceled and the believers distorted the gospel of Christ by trying to rebuild to what had been destroyed.

Paul speaks of Jesus being made a curse for us under the Law by hanging on a tree to emphasize the destruction of the Law.


You are misusing that verse. You were using it to speak of PSA rather than the Law being canceled, nailed to the tree. Worse, however, is you are looking at this Law which was "destroyed" as God's own righteousness (which would mean that Christ destroyed the righteousness of God, delivering men from God's righteousness).

Yes....the verse is there. What I mean is you are taking that verse from Paul's argument and using it in a way other than how that verse is used in the passage.

When we use only a few words out of another's argument we can make it mean whatever we desire. We have to keep Paul's words in the context of his argument in order to be faithful to God's words.

 

[DaveXR650]

Paul's point was that the Law was canceled and the believers distorted the gospel of Christ by trying to rebuild to what had been destroyed.

Paul speaks of Jesus being made a curse for us under the Law by hanging on a tree to emphasize the destruction of the Law.

In verses 22 through the end of Galatians 3 I think there is a better description of the role of the law than that it was "destroyed". It says it served it's purpose. I don't see how you get Jesus being made a curse to have as it's main function the destruction of the Law. The whole chapter is emphasizing that the Jews failed to keep it and were cursed and thus never was the Law a help or method of salvation even for them. This illustrated the absurdity of the same people now putting on the gentiles that which they themselves couldn't do.

Jon, we differ in many areas and really do believe separate gospels. I and the teachers I read and admire have no problem linking Christ becoming a curse for us to other explanations of penal substitutionary atonement. I do see and am constantly aware of the work of Christ in saving us as directly bearing our sin - in our place and instead of us, and I do see it almost everywhere in scripture. I think you realize that.

Also, I perceive that I have a different view of the Law than you do. I do not find the law odious or bad in any way since as a believer it does not condemn me but is still a revelation of the will of God in our lives and a pattern for us to follow - but not for salvation. It's claims against us were nailed to the cross indeed, but the law itself doesn't need to be destroyed. I even question the take that some theologians have that the law was never for gentiles. True, it was never given to any group of ethnic gentiles in the same way it was given to the Jews, as God's people, in Exodus. But before Christ, if a gentile desired to follow God it seems the prescribed way was to learn of the Law's precepts just like a Jew and try to obey them. And, as Paul argues in Galatians, they would have also found their inability to really obey it yet I believe it would have functioned as a schoolmaster to them just as the Jews. The Law itself is good, as Paul said when writing to the Roman audience, the problem is our flesh even at best.

 

[JonC]

In verses 22 through the end of Galatians 3 I think there is a better description of the role of the law than that it was "destroyed". It says it served it's purpose. I don't see how you get Jesus being made a curse to have as it's main function the destruction of the Law. The whole chapter is emphasizing that the Jews failed to keep it and were cursed and thus never was the Law a help or method of salvation even for them. This illustrated the absurdity of the same people now putting on the gentiles that which they themselves couldn't do.

Jon, we differ in many areas and really do believe separate gospels. I and the teachers I read and admire have no problem linking Christ becoming a curse for us to other explanations of penal substitutionary atonement. I do see and am constantly aware of the work of Christ in saving us as directly bearing our sin - in our place and instead of us, and I do see it almost everywhere in scripture. I think you realize that.

Also, I perceive that I have a different view of the Law than you do. I do not find the law odious or bad in any way since as a believer it does not condemn me but is still a revelation of the will of God in our lives and a pattern for us to follow - but not for salvation. It's claims against us were nailed to the cross indeed, but the law itself doesn't need to be destroyed. I even question the take that some theologians have that the law was never for gentiles. True, it was never given to any group of ethnic gentiles in the same way it was given to the Jews, as God's people, in Exodus. But before Christ, if a gentile desired to follow God it seems the prescribed way was to learn of the Law's precepts just like a Jew and try to obey them. And, as Paul argues in Galatians, they would have also found their inability to really obey it yet I believe it would have functioned as a schoolmaster to them just as the Jews. The Law itself is good, as Paul said when writing to the Roman audience, the problem is our flesh even at best.

There are several ways Paul has described the Law. It was just, taught of sin, was destroyed, was canceled, is fulfilled in us, was nailed to the tree, was one manifestation of God's righteousness, bound men, held men captive, ... probably more.

But all of those things God says about the Law in His Word are true - we do not get to pick the ones we like.


You have again allowed your assumptions to lead you into misunderstanding my posts.

I never once said the Law was "odious" or "bad".

Contrary to your assumptions, I said the Law was one of two manifestations of God's righteousness, that the Law was just, and that the Law was designed to show us our sin.


What is "a distortion of the gospel" is the practice of applying the Law to men today. That was the point Paul was making in his argument.


If we read the Bible we know that the Law was given not to bring righteousness but to show us our sin (like a teacher), that the Law was just, that the Law has been fulfilled, that the Law - having served its purpose - was "destroyed", "canceled", "nailed to a tree".

This is also how we know that the Law was a manifestation of God's righteousness rather than God's righteousness itself. God's righteousness is eternal. It is never "destroyed" or "canceled". God's righteousness is eternal because God is eternal.

My point is that we have to look to God's law rather than the Law. When we look to the Law we are guilty of "distorting the gospel", holding "a different gospel, which is not really another". We go back to "what has been destroyed", to what has been "canceled", to what showed us not the righteousness to be gained with God's law but our sin.


Reformed doctrine has a sickness. Typically it preaches the Law, but rarely does it approach God's law. It is not uncommon for Reformed preachers to preach the Old Testanent for years and rarely venture into the New Covenant (John MacArthur once mentioned this when he preached on a NT book. It was in just, but it was also true. He noted that he had not preached from the NT in years).


You have a strange obsession with the Law, with God's wrath, and with punishment while apparently oblivious to God's law and the New Covenant in Christ's blood. When you mention the New Covenant Atonement you always end up with God's righteousness manifested through the Law rather than apart from it.

 

[Van]

Then please post the passage itself. I obviously did not say that you were wrong - I said I am not sure that you are right.

It just seems off to me that if a person has faith but dies before God declares him just that the person will not be "in Christ" (a hypothetical, but true if the order is chronological rather than elucidating).

If a person has faith such as soil #2 or #3 of Matthew 13, such that God does NOT credit that faith as righteousness, then yes, that person will "not be "in Christ," and will be taken to Hades when they die. The folks of Matthew 7 who professed "faith" saying "Lord, Lord" did not receive salvation, but were separated like goats and sent to Hades.

The assertion that if a person proclaims faith in Christ, they are automatically saved is precluded by scripture. It must be deep seated, all-encompassing, and be like the faith of Abraham as determined by God, according to scripture.

 

[DaveXR650]

What is "a distortion of the gospel" is the practice of applying the Law to men today. That was the point Paul was making in his argument.

It was wrong to apply the Law to men at any time as a means of salvation. But I notice you always leave that part out and just say in general "applying the Law to men today". I see nothing in scripture that prohibits using the Law today for Jews or gentiles like it was always intended, as a means to show and validate authoritative claims against sin. Indeed, this is especially needed today. Nor do I see it improper to use the Law as a guideline for living life, both to have a tolerable society, and even for a Christian as a rule of life.

Contrary to your assumptions, I said the Law was one of two manifestations of God's righteousness, that the Law was just, and that the Law was designed to show us our sin.

Yes. Except it still is and still does. The "contrary to your assumptions" is another example of your constant insulting attitude which although shameful for a moderator on a Baptist board, is not unexpected.

What is "a distortion of the gospel" is the practice of applying the Law to men today. That was the point Paul was making in his argument.

Once again, any day, not just today, and to the Jews too, who never were saved by keeping it. That's the argument.

If we read the Bible we know that the Law was given not to bring righteousness but to show us our sin (like a teacher), that the Law was just, that the Law has been fulfilled, that the Law - having served its purpose - was "destroyed", "canceled", "nailed to a tree".

This is also how we know that the Law was a manifestation of God's righteousness rather than God's righteousness itself. God's righteousness is eternal. It is never "destroyed" or "canceled". God's righteousness is eternal because God is eternal.

What was cancelled was the conclusion that the one who violates the commandments becomes a guilty, cursed "lawbreaker" and must die. God's righteousness is eternal, as well as his revealed standards of righteousness. The fact that Christ has become a curse for us and bore our sin in his own body on the tree (directly related to becoming a curse by hanging on a tree), makes it possible for those of us who come by faith to Christ to view the Law in it's beauty and perfection as a revelation of God's will - rather than as a handwriting of ordinances against us. We can truly claim to love the Law now because it doesn't condemn us.

Reformed doctrine has a sickness. Typically it preaches the Law, but rarely does it approach God's law. It is not uncommon for Reformed preachers to preach the Old Testanent for years and rarely venture into the New Covenant (John MacArthur once mentioned this when he preached on a NT book. It was in just, but it was also true. He noted that he had not preached from the NT in years).

I don't know where you are getting this. I have listened to MacArthur for years and he seems fairly balanced. He did spend huge chunks of time in one book. It may come from critics like Andy Stanley who don't believe the OT has anything to say to NT Christians. He's wrong. I will say that it wasn't until I started listening to reformed preachers that I did hear good preaching from the OT and found it beneficial. One of the things I like about reformed preaching is how they show almost everything in the OT and NT is about Christ.

You have a strange obsession with the Law, with God's wrath, and with punishment while apparently oblivious to God's law and the New Covenant in Christ's blood. When you mention the New Covenant Atonement you always end up with God's righteousness manifested through the Law rather than apart from it.

As usual, you are partially right but mostly full of beans. If you really preach "God's law and the New Covenant in Christ's blood" I guarantee you you will cause the same offense and almost violence you get from preaching Law and God's wrath. Of course, I believe Christ's blood is directly connected to God's wrath and so I don't expect you to believe me on this. Your last statement makes no sense in relation to the other things you say, but that's what happens when you try to maintain a position of being above any kind of theology of any identifiable group. I think if anything, God's wrath is not spoken of enough nowadays in most cases, the reason being that most people you are talking to are fully aware of the basics of God's will for living life - and are living a life that actively and consciously defies Him. So yes they need some "wrath", as scripture says such are still under God's wrath. To avoid this is malpractice if you are a preacher or teacher.

 

[JonC]

If a person has faith such as soil #2 or #3 of Matthew 13, such that God does NOT credit that faith as righteousness, then yes, that person will "not be "in Christ," and will be taken to Hades when they die. The folks of Matthew 7 who professed "faith" saying "Lord, Lord" did not receive salvation, but were separated like goats and sent to Hades.

The assertion that if a person proclaims faith in Christ, they are automatically saved is precluded by scripture. It must be deep seated, all-encompassing, and be like the faith of Abraham as determined by God, according to scripture.

That was not my question, but I agree.

I am not sure that anybody on this thread claimed that a proclamation of faith saves a person, or that all beliefs are the same (James addressed that error).

Did you mean this post in response to me (I think you may have intended your post to address another on a different thread).

 

[JonC]

It was wrong to apply the Law to men at any time as a means of salvation. But I notice you always leave that part out and just say in general "applying the Law to men today". I see nothing in scripture that prohibits using the Law today for Jews or gentiles like it was always intended, as a means to show and validate authoritative claims against sin.

I do not know that Scripture prohibits presenting a form of the Law, as many do today. But it is not the actual Law (it is moral parts of the Old Covenant). This (even the whole Law, if dealing with Jews) may help some to understand (I do not see why it would be wrong to use parts of the Law to explain sin, as long as the evangelist continues on to explain God's law and sin under that law).

But I agree if we are very selective we can use parts of the Law to introduce those unfamiliar to the concept of sin (probably not 1-4 of the Ten Commandments as they assume a religious position, and hopefully not 6 unless followed by God's law).

I prefer to get to God's law a bit quicker (I like Jesus' explanation). So I like using the sixth commandment and going directly to God's law because all I have encountered view murder as wrong while at some time in their life have harbored hate.

The problem is I have watched too many Reformed evangelicalists start with the Law and go streight to the atonement (which results in the "distorted gospel" of which Paul spoke). They never get to God's law so the listener is left thinking of sins as nothing but violations of the Law (rather than the violations of God's law to which the Law pointed). This is a problem especially present with modern PSA theorists because sin and righteousness among that group has often become a minor things.

 

[DaveXR650]

The problem is I have watched too many Reformed evangelicalists start with the Law and go streight to the atonement (which results in the "distorted gospel" of which Paul spoke).

Sure. On another thread they are discussing a type of evangelism where you tell people "Look, you have sinned against God's laws but Christ has died for all your sins and so if you will accept this as true then you are saved". And, in the Puritan days, Richard Baxter noticed while he was a chaplain in the army, that many of his Calvinist fellow soldiers had no desire or intention to consider anything in scripture as important as far as actual living was concerned, relying instead on their "faith" or maybe just their faith in being elect. In trying to fix those impressions he went so far as in many people's opinions, to mess up justification. And John Owen, in discussing 1 John 2:2, says to please remember that the emphasis was not just that he is the propitiation for our sin, but that there is a verse 1, where it is said the purpose of writing those things was "that ye sin not"!

So yeah. We can and do have a tendency to be legalistic as well as antinomian and some of the detailed discussions of this point out that neither extreme takes the Law serious enough. Thinking what God says doesn't make any difference to us is a low view of God's requirements, and thinking "I can do this and in fact am doing fine" is also a low view.

 

[JonC]

Yes. Except it still is and still does.

Yes, we can use parts of the Law to show sin. But the Law does not show us our sin in the same way it did when it was in effect (before it was canceled). It can be helpful, but it is toothless (nobody is under the curse of the Law anymore as the covenant has been fulfilled and canceled. There is a new and better covenant which carries greater blessings (and given your focus on punishment, you'd appreciate that it carries greater punishment).

But what we can use of the Law is very limited. The Law is 613 commandments along with statutes. We are able to use only a few that fit into secular culture (that those who are not saved will identify with). Unless, of course, we are witnessing to Jews.

A better way is to use God's law (perhaps introducing God's Law using the Law...maybe use "thou shalt not kill" then follow Jesus' use of God's law).

The lost are under God's wrath. But what of you used God's law and explained the consequences of their wickedness under that law instead of the Law? I would think that the Second Death would be a greater punishment and the blessing of God's kingdom a greater blessing.

 

[JonC]

Sure. On another thread they are discussing a type of evangelism where you tell people "Look, you have sinned against God's laws but Christ has died for all your sins and so if you will accept this as true then you are saved". And, in the Puritan days, Richard Baxter noticed while he was a chaplain in the army, that many of his Calvinist fellow soldiers had no desire or intention to consider anything in scripture as important as far as actual living was concerned, relying instead on their "faith" or maybe just their faith in being elect. In trying to fix those impressions he went so far as in many people's opinions, to mess up justification. And John Owen, in discussing 1 John 2:2, says to please remember that the emphasis was not just that he is the propitiation for our sin, but that there is a verse 1, where it is said the purpose of writing those things was "that ye sin not"!

So yeah. We can and do have a tendency to be legalistic as well as antinomian and some of the detailed discussions of this point out that neither extreme takes the Law serious enough. Thinking what God says doesn't make any difference to us is a low view of God's requirements, and thinking "I can do this and in fact am doing fine" is also a low view.

Yep. And wasn't that the very thing one said to Jesus?

I think we do a disservice when we define sin as breaking one of the Ten Commandments (I have watched videos where this was done) and the Ten Commandments as summarizing God's righteousness. It is too superficial.

But seeing how often this is done is it no wonder we have such weak churches holding a shallow view of God and a superficial view of sin?

I am not saying we cannot use a few commands in the Law to introduce the concept of sin. But we can't stop at the introduction. We have to go on to God's law, the better covenant.


When I was younger we had systems to witness to people, little tools to keep us focused and guide the conversation. The goal was to guide the discussion to the gospel of Jesus Christ.

But today we see the results of stopping with the Law, prior to God's law and prior to the gospel. We see what becomes of "Christians" look when they view the Ten Commandments as a summary of God's righteousness. They will never approach the throne of God because they never get to the gospel of Christ.


I do wonder if the methods we used in the past as tools to help us has not contributed to these "distorted" gospels.