Purpose of the Law vs. Purpose of the Gospel

[Skandelon]

I have argued that God's appeal for the world to be reconciled is proof that all men have the ability to be reconciled.

Calvinists argue in rebuttal, that the command doesn't imply ability, and point to the demands of the law as proof. But here is the flaw in that way of thinking.

1. God DID provide a way for us to fulfill the law. How? Through belief in the one who fulfilled the Law in our stead...Christ.

2. What is the purpose of the Law? To act as a "tutor" to help men know they need Grace which comes through faith in Christ, right?

Thus, proof that men are unable to fulfill the law is not proof men can't have faith in the one who fulfilled the law once and for all. The law was given to show men they can't fulfill the law and need help, so what is the purpose of the gospel's call to be reconciled? Is it like the law in that the call to reconciliation through faith was given to show men they can't be reconciled through faith? Please explain?

 

[Robert Snow]

Exactly!

Why would dead men need a law to show them the requirements of God? According to Calvinism, they are dead and cannot respond anyway. When a person is physically dead, we don't explain to them that they are dead. Now if spiritual death is separation from God, which it is, it is necessary to show man his state and how to be reconciled to God.

 

[th1bill]

Exactly!

Why would dead men need a law to show them the requirements of God? According to Calvinism, they are dead and cannot respond anyway. When a person is physically dead, we don't explain to them that they are dead. Now if spiritual death is separation from God, which it is, it is necessary to show man his state and how to be reconciled to God.

This is a great and, hopefully, thought provoking string but it has been my experience that Calvinists and Aremnians refuse to think. I am, like my first teacher, a Biblicist, buying into neither popular position because both must select some scripture and therefore, ignore, the rest of scripture to stand.

 

[Robert Snow]

This is a great and, hopefully, thought provoking string but it has been my experience that Calvinists and Aremnians refuse to think. I am, like my first teacher, a Biblicist, buying into neither popular position because both must select some scripture and therefore, ignore, the rest of scripture to stand.

I understand what you are saying. The problem is, however, everyone thinks their views are biblical and those who disagree with them are the ones who are not following the biblical mandate. I have never claimed to be an Armenian, but I am certainly not a Calvinist. I don't believe either side is correct. But, good luck getting a Calvinists to agree!

 

[Old Union Brother]

I started a thread about the Law a schoolmaster a little while back.

 

[Alive in Christ]

The primary of the law is to drive us to the end of ourselves, so that we will come to our senses and embrace Christ, and the Grace of God that secures us for heaven...

15 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,

16 knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.

17 “But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is Christ therefore a minister of sin? Certainly not!

18 For if I build again those things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.

19 For I through the law died to the law that I might live to God.

20 I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me.

21 I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain.”

Glory to God!

 

[Skandelon]

The strongest points of one's argument are not typically reflected in the portion that his opponents address, but in the portions ignored.