The Highway

...The people miscalled Antinomians ?

Posted By: Anonymous

...The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Sun Jan 25, 2004 10:05 AM

A letter to Mr Legal-Definition.

"Dear Sir, friend G informs me you wish me to write to you, and inform you what law it is that I say the believer is in no sense under. I therefore write to say [though I cannot help thinking you must know] that it is the Law given to Moses on Mount Sinai, commonly called the Moral Law, or Ten Commandements, recorded in Exod.XX, and hinted at, with its curses annexed to it in Deut.XXV11. This Law I intend, and do venture to say that the believer in Christ is in no sense whatever under it; so that it is not a rule of life to that man who is led by the Spirit. As you promised to answer me if I should write to you, I will propose to you a few questions, and I hope I shall do it in the fear of God, and shall expect you to answer them in plainness of speech;

1st. If the Law is the believers rule of life, I shall thank ye to tell me what is intended by the letter written by the apostles and elders, and sent to the believing Gentiles, as recorded in Acts XV and shall expect you to explain the chapter.

2ndly Hope you will tell me what the apostle means in the first six verses of Romans V111, where he says that the believer is dead to the Law, and free from the Law; and let me know how that Law can be his rule, when he is dead to it, and free from it, as a woman is from her husband when she has burried him. Should you be disposed to say that the believer is dead to it as a COVENANT, but not as a RULE of life; you will, no doubt, point to thoses scriptures which make a distinction between the Law as a Covenant and as a rule of life; for, unless you do this, you will not move me.

3rdly You will have the goodness to inform me what is intended by the first four verses in Romans V111; and let me know how it comes to passs that the Law of the Spirit of life in Christ has made me free from the Law of Death, and yet that Law of Death [called in another place the killing letter] is my rule of life; and how it is that it is my rule of life after it has killed me, and I am made free from it.

4thly You will read 2 Corninthians 111, and let me know how it is that the administration of death, written and engraven on stones, is the living mans rule of life, and how this can be consistent with what the apostle observes in verse 11 where he says it is done away, and in verse 13 where he says it is abolished. Now my dear sir, you are to tell me how that Law which is done away and abolished still remains the believers perfect rule of life.

5thly You will also show me how it is that the Law was our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ, that when faith is come we are no longer under a schoolmaster, and yet that this schoolmaster is our rule of life after faith has come [Gal 111:24-25]

6thly You would inform me how it is that if we be led by the Spirit we are not under the Law, and yet that the Law is a perfect rule of life to that man who is led by the Spirit [Gal V:18] There are many things in the epistle to the Galatians which you will find worthy of your attention in this business. I hope you will read the whole.

7thly Shall expect you to tell me how it is that the handwriting which against us, and contrary to us, is taken out of the way, and nailed to the cross, [As Col 2:14] and yet remains a perfect rule of life. Should you be dispossed to say that the Ceremonial Law is here intended, you will tell me how that Law, which was the gospel in its day, came to be against the believer, and what there was in it contrary to him.

8thly You will be sure to inform me how it is that that Law which is not made for a righteous man is the righteous mans rule of life [1 Tim 1:9]

9thly As Christ was made under the Law, to reedem them that were under the Law [As Gal 4:4,5], you will say how it comes to pass that they still remain under it in any sense that Christ was made under it, seeing He was made under it to reedem them from under it.

10thly But as whatsoever the Law says, it says to them that are under the Law, [As Romans 3:19] and as the believer is not under the Law, [As Romans 6:14,Gal 5:18] you will inform me what the Law says to them who are not under it.

11thly If the Law contains the whole will of God, as to matter of obedience, as Fuller and others have said, you will let me know upon what ground you prove that unbelievers have no right to be baptized, and partake of the Lords supper, seeing that what the Law says it says to them that are under it; and if it contains the whole of obedience it must require unbelievers to be baptized. You will be sure to reconcille this if you can.

12thly You will infrom me how it is that while men contend for the Law being a perfect rule of life to the believers and call those ill names who do not, they can and do, openly, knowingly, and designedly, break the 4th commandment every week. You will inform me whether doing EVERY sort of work on the 7th day is walking according to that rule which says "Thou shalt not do ANY work, no, not so much as kindle a fire" [Exod 35:3]

13thly, and lastly. You will inform me how it is that Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone that believeth [Rom 10:4] and yet that the believer, who is got to the end of the Law at once, namely, by faith in Christ, must come back again, and begin at the beginning by taking it for a perfect rule of life.

It does appear that most preachers think there should be a distinction made between the sheep and goats; but it does not appear that the greatest part of preachers, in this day, are attempting to give to the goats what belongs to the sheep, and to the sheep what belongs to the goats? for when on the one hand they address the unconverted, they tell them it is there duty to look to Christ, and believe in Him, and that they are waranted to offer them all the blessings of the Gospel, thus making the Gospel the unconverted mans rule of faith and practice; they, on the other hand, send the sheep to the Law of works, and tell them that their comfort depends upon their walking according there unto. And when any poor soul is in darkness, through the power of the world, the flesh, or the devil, instead of pointing them to Christ, and telling them that it has pleased the Father that in Him should all fulness dwell, they tell them to remove the cause, and the effect will cease; and thus the goats are sent to the Law of life, and the sheep to the killing letter.

But there will be a reckoning day by and by; and a thousand to one but some of these men will be proved to have got over the wall. Thus my dear sir, I have proposed a few plain, simple questions and shall expect you to come to the point in your answers, and it shall be my prayer to the great Head of the Church that God will be with you.

Waiting your answer, I remain, yours, tried, cast, and condemned, upon the evidence of Diotrephes, by the Associated Ministers, Love-Truth.
Manchester August 8th 1806
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: ...The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Mon Jan 26, 2004 11:59 AM

I was wondering who wrote this. It says by the Associated Ministers in 1806. What ministers? Where did you get this, if you dont mind my asking.

And thanks,
Carol
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: ...The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Thu Jan 29, 2004 8:14 AM

My post was a snippet from a small book of sermons from William Gadsby who was a Strict and Particular Baptist (England). The full title of the said sermon is: The Present State of Religion;or, What are the people miscalled Antinomians?;being a dialogue between Love-Truth,Investigation and Others.
It runs for 48 pages.....

Where did I get it ? from a second-hand book shop here in Bournemouth , England.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: ...The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Fri Jan 30, 2004 8:05 AM

I am studying the Antinomian/Neonomian debate with a friend and would appreciate any thoughts regarding this thread.

Its quite a hot one as over 100 have viewed but none commented on its content. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />
Posted By: Pilgrim

Re: ...The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Fri Jan 30, 2004 1:42 PM

Quote
Its quite a hot one as over 100 have viewed but none commented on its content.

The reason only one has even bothered to reply could be for several reasons:

1) People are tired of reading of this topic since you have hijacked so many threads with your insistence that Christians are no longer bound to the Moral Law of God, etc... and you don't listen to either the biblical record nor what they have replied to you. So why bother?

2) Antinomianism has been so soundly refuted and so many times over the centuries that the amount of information available is staggering. If you can't find it, then you have more pressing problems then. laugh

3) The History of the Church shows that the overwhelming majority of Christians, pastors, theologians, apologists have all embraced the perpetuity and binding character of the Moral Law as a rule of life for the sole purpose of conforming the believer to the image of Christ. To believe otherwise is therefore quite novel and to be honest, absurd. Thus, perhaps most here can't see wasting their time arguing against someone who holds to heretical views concerning a subject that is so obviously true.

4) To the normal Christian, to even suggest that a Christian need not keep the Moral Law of God is so ridiculous that perhaps no one can take your position seriously. rolleyes2

5) Last and not least, your initial post contains so many questions that it would be too time-consuming to try and answer every one of them in a reply. You could have offered one or two of Gadby's propositions rather than then entire lot.

Read the new article here: Are the Unholy Saved?.

In His Grace,
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: ...The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Sat Jan 31, 2004 1:24 PM

You are right Pilgrim. Gadsby does ask many questions-thats why I posted it.grin Never mind, I will go through it with my friend and see if we can answer them together smile
Posted By: William

The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Sat Jan 31, 2004 3:37 PM

Bookmark I thought this is interesting by Huntington. As for me personally I am still trying to study things out which is a hard thing to do for someone who can not even name the twelve apostles. God help me please.

Let us not be afraid of the name Antinomian, which in our days is given by graceless professors to those who are partakers of the Holy Ghost; for a bad name will never hurt a good man. A real Antinomian, in the sight of God, is one who "holds; the truth in unrighteousness;" who has gospel notions in his head, but no grace in his heart. He is one that makes a profession of Christ Jesus, but was never purged by His blood, renewed by His Spirit, nor saved by His power, With him carnal ease passes for gospel peace; a natural assent of the mind for faith; insensibility for liberty, and daring presumption for the grace of assurance. He is alive without the law, the sentence of the "moral law" having never been sent home to him. The "law of faith" was never sealed on him, the "law of truth" was never received by him nor the "law of liberty" proclaimed to him. He was never arraigned at, nor taken from, the throne of judgment." He was never justified at the "throne of grace," nor acquitted at the "bar of equity." The tremendous attribute of righteousness was never seen or felt by him. The righteousness of the law was never fulfilled in him; the righteousness of the law was never fulfilled by him; the righteousness of faith was never imputed to him; nor the fruits of righteousness brought forth by him. He is an enemy to the power of God, to the experience of the just, and to every minister of the Spirit; and is in union with none but hypocrites, whose uniting ties are "the gall of bitterness and the bonds of iniquity." He is one that often changes his opinions, but was never changed in heart. He turns to many sects and parties, but never turns to God. In word he is false to Satan, in heart he is false to God, false to Satan by uttering truth and false to God by a false profession. He, is a false reprover in the world, and in the household of faith a false brother. He is a child of Satan in the congregation of dissemblers, and a bastard in the congregation of the righteous. By mouth he contends for a covenant that cannot save him, and in heart he hates the covenant that can. His head is at Mount Calvary, his heart and soul at Mount Sinai. He is a Pharisee at Horeb, and a hypocrite in Zion. He is a transgressor of the law of works, and a rebel to the law of faith; a sinner by the ministry of the letter, and an unbeliever by the ministry of the Spirit. As a wicked servant, he is cursed by the eternal law; and, as an infidel, he is damned by the everlasting gospel, And this is a REAL ANTINOMIAN in the sight of God.
Posted By: Pilgrim

Re: The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Sat Jan 31, 2004 3:56 PM

Yankee,

Interesting quote! But knowing the author, it's not surprising that he would say what he did; avoiding the theological/biblical definition of an Antinomian. The accepted and working definition of an Antinomian is one who rejects that the Moral Law of God, especially those 10 Laws which were written by the finger of God in stone tablets on Mt. Sinai are immutable, perpetual and binding upon the hearts and minds of all men and are particularly applicable to true believers as a rule of life.

Antinomians are most often heard to charge those who hold these things to be true, again particular that the 10 Commandments, being the expression of God's holy nature and define what holiness and righteousness is for Christians are "Legalists", which is unwarranted. For a "Legalist" is one who holds that the keeping of the law is necessary to obtain Justification and/or to maintain the grace of salvation through Sanctification. This charge is a strawman and there is no truth to it whatsoever. (1Cor 1:30)

Just wanted to make sure that all parties are working with the same definition of terms. grin

In His Grace,
Posted By: William

Re: The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Sat Jan 31, 2004 4:36 PM

Pilgrim,

Yes that was good what you wrote. I personally can not see any child of God rejecting his moral laws and we can never look at our keeping of them as a grounds for our Justification. Salvation is in the object of our faith Jesus Christ.


Does the word also in this verse refer to the moral character of God AND his law?
1Jo 3:4 ¶ Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
Posted By: Pilgrim

Re: The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Sat Jan 31, 2004 4:57 PM

Quote
Yankee said:
Does the word also in this verse refer to the moral character of God AND his law?
1Jo 3:4 ¶ Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

Perhaps by giving you that same passage in another translation, (for this purpose, I am using Darby's Translation), which might help clarify what the Apostle John meant?

1 John 3:4 (DBY) "Every one that practises sin practises also lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness."


The opposite of v. 3:4 can be seen in 2:29; i.e., "righteousness". And what the Apostle is here doing in v. 3:4 is emphasizing that side of sin "lawlessness" (opposition to and disregard of God's law), which makes "sin" the very opposite of "righteousness". Both "righteousness" and "lawlessness" are strong forensic terms: as the righteous Judge God declares what is righteous (2:29) and what violates His law.

Hope that helps?

In His Grace,
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Sat Jan 31, 2004 6:27 PM

Yankee, have you read Warburtons Mercies ? Willemina has a copy which she enjoyed very much.Like Gadsby and Huntington,he too has been labelled antinomian.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Sat Jan 31, 2004 6:29 PM

Greetings Yankee,

"Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness." 1 John 3:4 NKJV

Regarding this verse, The MacArthur Study Bible says:

"3:4 'commits sin.' The verb, "commits'" in the Gr. conveys the idea of making sin a habitual practice. Although genuine Christians have a sin nature (1:18), and do commit and need to confess sin (1:9,2;1), that is not the unbroken pattern of their lives. A genuinely born again believer has a built-in check or guard against habitual sinning due to a new nature ("born of God"--v.9;Rom.6:12). 'sin is lawlessness.' The first reason why Christians cannot practice sin is because sin is incompatible with the law of God which they love (Ps. 119:34,77,97;Rom.7:12,22). The term "lawlessness" conveys more than transgressing God's law. It conveys the ultimate sense of rebellion, i.e. living as if there was no law or ignoring what laws exist (James 4:17)."

Dr. MacArthur has more on the passage, but if you have a MacArthur Study Bible you can look it up for yourself. If you don't have one, get one, it is an excellent source for exegesis of Scripture and has other valuable information.

In my opinion, Dr. MacArthur is an excellent Bible teacher, specializing in the epistles of John. I hope this helps.
Posted By: William

Re: The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Sat Jan 31, 2004 6:54 PM

Bookmark,

Willemina does have a book by John Warburton called "Mercies of a Covenant God" only it is in Dutch. Perhaps I should look for a English version?

Thanks Bill
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Sat Jan 31, 2004 7:29 PM

Bill,its worth reading but I believe it is out of print. Maybe Joe will send you his copy when hes read it or Willemina can read it to you <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Mon Feb 02, 2004 8:58 AM

Pilgrim, your definition of "legalism" must mean that Samuel Bolton is a legalist as he sets up the Law as a rule for sanctification (see his Against Antinomians)

Christians are sanctified by faith that is in Christ (Acts 26:18) not in law keeping which is "works righteousness" is it not ?

What is the difference between "legalism" and "Neonomianism" ?

Please be patient as I have had great difficulty over the years about this.
Posted By: Pilgrim

Re: The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Mon Feb 02, 2004 1:37 PM

Quote
BookMark said:
Pilgrim, your definition of "legalism" must mean that Samuel Bolton is a legalist as he sets up the Law as a rule for sanctification (see his Against Antinomians)

It is one thing to recognize (Bolton didn't set up anything) that the moral law of God, being the expression of His very nature and the definitive standard of holiness and righteousness and is thus the rule by which believers are to be guided by. And, it is the same immutable standard by which all men are going to be judged and either be found guilty of trangressing it or innocent having kept it perfectly.

Quote
Christians are sanctified by faith that is in Christ (Acts 26:18) not in law keeping which is "works righteousness" is it not ?

You are confusing the issue unnecessarily. I have many times previously said that Christ is both our Justification and Sanctification (1Cor 1:30). Salvation is accomplished 100% by the perfect life and atoning work of the Lord Christ and that alone (aka: active and passive work). That work is then imputed to the one who has rests their faith in HIM; the person of Christ, believing that God has accepted HIS sacrifice as meeting all the demands of the law.

I say, BOTH, Justification AND Sanctification, for even though one is justified by faith, that doesn't mean that the individual can then live a life of sin thereafter. Righteousness, the perfect keeping of God's moral law, which the Lord Christ did, is not abrogated because the effects of Original Sin are partially eradicated. I say, partially, because although the guilt, which was imputed, is removed and replaced by Christ's imputed righteousness, the inherited corruption of nature is only partially removed in regeneration. And, it shall not be totally removed until after the death of the believer, aka: glorification. However, there is a radical work done in regeneration where the soul is "recreated"; given a propensity to righteousness and holiness and true knowledge, (Eph 4:24; Col 3:10). And this new man desires to be conformed to the image of Christ; to be perfectly holy. (Matt 5:48; Lk 1:74, 75; Jh 15:16; Rom 8:28, 29; Eph 1:4; 2:10; 1Thess 4:7; 2Tim 2:19; 1Pet 1:15, 16; 2Pet 1:5-11; et al).

Since Christ, to be holy and perfect before God to accomplish redemption for His people, had to do all that the law required, can it possibly be that those who are to follow Him as their example do otherwise? Is there some other standard by which "holiness" and/or "righteousness" are to be found other than the very same moral law which He kept, that men are to keep? Or, even more unlikely, can it be that believers are not bound by any law (lawlessness) when the Scripture everywhere condemns all those who transgress the law, even those who profess to believe in Christ? (see Rom 6)

Further, it is crystal clear that all who profess to believe on Christ; to be His disciples are to "keep His commandments" (Jh 14:15; 15:10; Lk 6:46). And the Apostle John says that believers are to "keep God's commandments". In fact they are to find them pleasing to do and not a burden. (1Jh 2:3, 4; 3:22, 24; 5:2, 3; Rev 22:14)

The Moral Law defines what holiness and righeousness is. They are the road map that guides a believer to do that which is pleasing in God's sight, which is his main desire. The doing of that law is done out of a heart of love for God. Love is the motive, Law is the duty, or substance of love expressed.

Quote
What is the difference between "legalism" and "Neonomianism" ?

Depending upon how you define those terms, they can mean the same thing or something totally different. Antinomians use the term "Neonomian" to designate anyone who believes that believers have anything to do with the law; thus a strawman term meant to justify their own heresy.

Hebrews 12:14 "Follow peace with all [men], and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord:"


In His Grace,
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Tue Feb 03, 2004 9:09 AM

Here is part of an article entitled: Against Neonomians - An answer to Samuel Bolton.

At the outset it must be emphatically stated that the Gospel Rule believer rejects the the label Antinomian.For any committed Christian this is a misnomer,as by definition he will love the law or Word of God,as it is an expressionof the Logos or Living Word;the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. To further suggest that such a one holds to loose moral standards or is a "loose-liver", is a calmuny and a direct breach of the very "Moral law" which Neonomians claim to uphold(Le 6:5;9:16;Ps101:5).

It is a fact of Church history that many of its most Godly Saints have been unkindly and untruthfully branded Antinomian by those who claim to adhere to the "Moral law".
In the NT we need look no further than Stephen who was stoned to death by "moral law" adherents for preaching Grace.He was condemned for speaking against Moses and the Law (acts 6:11-14). In the 18th century, the saintly William Huntington was mercilessly attacked as an antinomian for the same reasons. In the 19th century,men such as Gadsby, Tiptaft, Warburton, Kershaw and many other righteous preachers endured similar, unremmiting slanders from "Moral law" men..........

Bolton states ,:"That which was morally good formerly is morally good now, and is to be persued and practised". Yet in Acts 15 the Apostles, speaking by The Holy Ghost, released the the Gentiles from adherence to the Mosaic Law(vv5,9,10,19-29). Peter stood up and said " Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we are able to bear." (verse 10).
He was refering to the Mosaic law(verse 5) which embodies the so-called "moral law". Peter acknowledged that neither the Patriarchs nor the apostles themselves "were able to bear" these precepts; yet men such as Bolton insist on that professing Christians today are to gladly observe them and "delight" in them !
In Colossians 2:14 we read that Christ hath blotted "out the handwriting of ordinances that was AGAINST us and CONTRARY to us,and took it out of the way,nailing it to His cross" The context makes it abundantly plain that the supposed "Moral law" is in question. Again ,men such as Bolton insist:"that which was morally good formerly is morally good now, and is to be pursued and practised".If the ordinances in view were morally good, why did Christ take them out of the way and nail them to His cross ? If they are morally good, why are they said to be against us and contrary to us; and why did Christ blot them out ? In Ezekiel 20, we read, " Wherefore I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgements whereby they should not live," The plain meaning of this text is often denied, but Paul said, "Wherefore then serveth the Law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed (Christ) should come..." (Gal 3:19).......

Bolton agrees that we cannot be justified by the law, but he insists that we are sanctified by it. Here we must part company with him. The elect saint is not sanctified by the law any more than an Israelite was justified by it. On the contrary, we "are sanctified by FAITH" that is in Christ(Acts 26:18). Sanctification is often spoken of as an accomplished act in scripture " To them that are sanctified" (1 Cor 1:2) " But ye are sanctified" (1 Cor 6:11), " Among all them which are sanctified" (Acts 20:32), "God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification.."(2 Thess 2:13)
Sanctification is expressly sated to be by "The blood of the covenant"(Heb10:29;13:12) And it is said to come by the hand of God, rather than by obsevance of a "Moral law" (1 Thess 5:23)Yes, The Lord Jesus prayed " Sanctify them through thy truth; thy word is truth"(John 17:17).
And Paul spoke of Christ sanctifying and cleansing His church"with the washing of water by the word"(Eph 5:26), but this is the Word implanted in our hearts by The Spirit(Col 3:16). Slavish obedience to the written code is not in view.

Gospel Rule adherents are led by a rule of life and conduct much higher than the OUTWARD OBSERVANCE of a "Moral law". We do not follow the letter which killeth but THE SPIRIT of the law written on the fleshly tables of our hearts (2Cor3:3). Isn't this the main thrust of the sermon on the Mount (Matt5:20) ?

Man centerd "works righteousness" is revealed in Boltons words;"We desire to conform ourselves" and ;"Our obedience". True, his position seems to soften as he draws to a close; so much so thathe seems to argue against himself. But allow me to be unequivocal: Our bedience is ALL OF GOD. It is He who makes us willing in the day of His power(Ps 110:3)Not only our salvation , but our sanctificationis "of the Lord" (Jonah 2:9). So witnesse the overwhelming testimony of scripture: Hos 14:8;Eccl3:14;Jer32:40;Prov16:1;Isa26:12;Lam5:21;Mic7:19,1Cor3:9;Eph2:10;Ph2:13;1Cor12:6;2Pet1:3,4;Ps138:8; Acts15:8,9;2Cor3:4,5;Jn15:5; & c.
This is the Gospel rule: SOLI DEO GLORIA; Glory to God Alone.

Written by the editor, Derek Owers of "The Common Salvation" newsletter vol 1 issue 6 August 1998
Posted By: Pilgrim

Re: The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Tue Feb 03, 2004 3:01 PM

Mark,

I don't know why you posted that clip. Perhaps you could explain why you did so? I mean, what was the point other than to show that the author is unfortunately confused and doesn't have a clue as to how the word "law" is used in Scripture. I cannot accuse him of deliberately twisting passages as I don't known him. But again, he is faulty in his exegesis and interpretation of many texts.

He further doesn't even understand Bolton nor what he loves to call "Neonomians" (although he doesn't want to be called Antinomian). The Moral Law is the means by which one is sanctified; it is a guide that gives meat to the bones of sanctification. The Law no more sanctifies a believer any more than faith saves him. Faith is the means by which one is justified; Christ is the one Who saves and God Who justifies on the basis of His work. Likewise, the same Moral Law neither sanctifies but it is the means by which God has chosen to bring believers to sanctification; i.e., purity of life, holiness and righteousness.

Quote
Gospel Rule adherents are led by a rule of life and conduct much higher than the OUTWARD OBSERVANCE of a "Moral law". We do not follow the letter which killeth but THE SPIRIT of the law written on the fleshly tables of our hearts (2Cor3:3). Isn't this the main thrust of the sermon on the Mount (Matt5:20) ?

This is really a silly statement to make. The New Testament is filled with passages which affirm the Moral Law of God as that which will condemn ALL who fail to keep it; even those who profess to be believers. (cf. Rom 1:30; 1Cor 6:9-11; 2Tim 3:1-8; 2Pet 2:1ff; et al)

Here's the Antinomians major obstacle, IMHO. The moral laws of God were written in the very being of Adam as the "imago dei". In short, men KNEW it was wrong to kill, to steal, to break the Sabbath, etc. An example is Cain. He KNEW that what he did was wrong when he offered that which was not acceptable (Gen 4:5-7). After killing his brother and in his reply to God, he speaks of his fear of vengeance by others, reprisals, etc. (Gen 4:14) And there are myriad other examples that could be offered which show that men were aware of what was morally right and wrong long before the Ten Commandments were given on Sinai.

Was David not a true believer? Then why is it that he extols the law so highly? In fact, Psalm 119 is an incredible monument to the Scriptures, but specifically to God's commandments, precepts, law etc. Is the believer of today no less bound to abstain from adultery than was David or Noah? If not, then how is the Sixth Commandment no longer binding and/or a guide to sanctification today?

Next, what was it that the Lord Christ was bound to obey to secure salvation for His people? Was it not the moral law of God in it's fullest extent? Was it not the punishment due to His sheep which He Himself bore on the cross; the breaking of God's moral law? Is not the righteousness imputed to them the perfection of the moral law? Did not Christ come to save His people FROM their sins and TO holiness? And what is it that defines righteousness and holiness, if it isn't the moral law of God?

Next, what is it that the Lord Christ taught His disciples? Was it not "all that the Father had given to Him"? (Jh 14:10; 17:6-8). In short, Jesus didn't teach anything NEW in the sense that He abrogated the very core of what holiness, righteousness, sin and punishment were based on. Jesus taught what was already written. He explained the Scriptures and applied the Scriptures rightly as opposed to the distortions, additions and deletions of the Pharisees. But would you have me believe that the moral standard by which Christ had to live perfectly, the breaking of which brought about the punishment and condemnation of the human race, of which is imputed to those who believe upon Him, to which the entire N.T. often refers to, is NOT to be followed by Christ's disciples?

Next, are you suggesting that the moral law which men are condemned for breaking and which Christ taught His disciples to keep (Matt 5:17; 7:12; 22:36-40; et al) is lesser than some other law which is not written down in God's inspired Bible? I find that rather novel, personally, especially since the Epistles of the N.T. everywhere affirm the validity, perpetuity and purity of the law in their own lives. (Rom 6; 7:7-12; 14-16; 22, 25; Jam 1:19-25; 1Jh 1ff; et al) If you follow some moral standard which is not written down by inspiration, where does it come from? May I assume that you are following some "leading of the Spirit", ala Charismagic teaching? or perhaps it is via some "Oral Tradition", ala Roman State Church?

MUCH more could be said in defense of the traditional, historical, classical view of the perpetuity and binding character of God's moral law upon ALL men, but that should give you enough to ponder, hopefully.

In His Grace,
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Tue Feb 03, 2004 5:51 PM

There is much for me to ponder.

I was reading Bolton on the Highway and I thought about that article . Thanks for the care taken in your reply Pilgrim. Needless to say, this has caused me much concern over the years and it has come to surface again recently and I'm chewing on it once more. Having read much of the Puritan debates on this between 1640-1700 ,I am not convinced either way as yet. These things take much time,study and prayer for me to get to grips with so I thank you for your patience once again.


Btw, I dont think I'm going charismatic on you <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />
Posted By: Pilgrim

Re: The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Tue Feb 03, 2004 6:17 PM

Mark,

I am encouraged that at least you have shared your consternation on this subject. And, I am also encouraged that you admit to wanting to study more on the subject too.

It might help if you would at least answer SOME of the questions I have posed to you in this thread and other places. It is often helpful in working through a topic if that is done as it forces one to find inconsistencies in their logic and to see if everything squares with Scripture. grin
In His Grace,
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Tue Feb 10, 2004 1:16 AM

BookMark,
I was looking in Martyn Lloyd-Jones' book Sermon on the Mount about this question of the law and the Christian. Chapter 19 covers the area you are struggling with. You might want to get a used copy to read more.
Quote
Matthew 5: 17-20 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

5:20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.




Quote
...His teaching is in no way inconsistent with that of the law and the prophets; but secondly, it is very different from the teaching of the scribes and Pharisees. Our Lord has not come to make it easier for us or to make it in any sense less stringent in its demands upon us. His purpose in coming was to enable us to keep the law, not to abrogate it. So He emphasizes here that we must know what the law is, and then must keep it: "Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.' p. 199-200

...Now let me ask the question that is probably in your mind at this point. What then is our Lord teaching? Is He teaching salvation by works? Is He saying that we have to live a life better than that of the Pharisees in order to enter the kingdom? Patently not, because ' there is none righteous, no, not one'. The law of God given to Moses condemned the whole world; 'every mouth has been stopped'; all are 'guilty before God' and have 'come short of the glory of God'. Our Lord did not come to teach justification or salvation by works, or by our own righteousness. ' Very well,' says the opposite school; 'is He not teaching that salvation is by means of the rithteousness of Christ alone, so that it does not matter at all what we may do? He has done it all and therefore we have nothing to do.' Now that is the other extreme, and the other error. That, I argue, is an imposible exposition of this verse because of the little word 'for' at the beginning of verse twenty. It links with verse nineteen where He said, 'Whosoever therefore should break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.' He is emphasizing the practical carrying out of the law. That is the whole purpose of the paragraph. It is not to make it easy for us or to enable us to say, 'Christ has done it all for us and therefore it matters not what we do.' We always tend in our folly to consider things as antitheses which are meant to be complementary. Our Lord is teaching that the proof of our having truly received the grace of God in Jesus Christ is that we are living a righteous life.You know the old argument of course about faith and works. Some say the one is all important, some say the other. The Bible teaches that both these views are wrong: it is faith showing itself by works which is the mark of the true Christian.

Now lest you may think this is my doctrine, let me quote the apostle Paul, who of all others is the apostle of faith, and of grace. "Be not deceived', he says--not to the world, but to church members at Corinth--'be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers...nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.' It is no use saying, "Lord, Lord," unless you do the things that I command you", says Christ. It comes to this, that unless my life is a righteous life, I must be very careful before I claim that I am covered by the grace of God in Jesus Christ. For to receive the grace of God in Jesus Christ means not only that my sins are forgiven because of His death for me on the cross at Calvary's hill, but also that I have been given a new life and a new nature. It means that Christ is being formed in me, that I have become a partaker of the divine nature, that old things have passed away and all things have become new. It means that Christ is dwelling in me, and that the Spirit of God is in me. The man who has been born again, and who has the divine nature within him, is a man who is righteous and his righteousness does exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees. He is no longer living for self and his own attainments, he is no longer self-righteous and self-satisfied. He has become poor in spirit, meek, and merciful; he hungers and thirsts after righteousness; he has become a peacemaker. His heart is being purified. He loves God, yes unworthily, alas, but he loves Him and longs for His honour and glory. His desire is to glorify God and to keep and honour and fulfill His law. The commandments of God to such a man 'are not grievous'. He wants to keep them, for he loves them. He is no longer at enmity against God; but he now sees the holiness of the law and nothing so appeals to him as the living of this law and the exemplifying of it in his daily life. It is a righteousness that far exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees. pp. 207-209
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Tue Feb 10, 2004 9:10 AM

Thanks Susan.As MLJ says, the law of God given to Moses condemned the whole world.Was this law given to all who lived before Moses - including Adam ? If so, what is meant by Deuteronomy 5:3 " The Lord made not this covenant with our fathers,but with us,even us,who are all of us here alive this day" ?
The sum total of Gods commandments to Christians are to love God and to love your neighbour . This is living by faith.Faith is a friut of The Spirit.

What law had Abel, Enoch, Noah,Abraham,Jacob and Isaac ?
They had the law of faith (Romans 3:27)
Abraham lived by faith some 430 years before the law of Moses entered the world.
Yesterday, a shy Highway member sent me this to read :
http://www.ipotts.freeserve.co.uk/ianp3html

Btw, I believe Gadsbys article might have been answered near the time he penned it (1806). Does anyone know more about this. as I would like to read it ?
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Tue Feb 10, 2004 9:40 AM

Hello,

I'm new to this board, but am interested in this discussion and note that Bookmark above has posted a reference to an article on my own website. Actually his link is wrong, it should be:-

http://www.ipotts.freeserve.co.uk/ianp3.html

In case anyone is wondering I am not that 'shy' member which Bookmark references above, so someone else have obviously referred him to my article.

Anyway, as will be obvious from my article I am in agreement with the point that Bookmark has raised regarding the fact that believers are not under the law (Romans 6:14).

Bookmark is right to point out that Abraham and others before Moses were not under the law - it hadn't been given yet.

It is said that the 'moral' law is eternal. Could someone please point out some scriptures which show this? Eternal means without beginning as well as without end. Which scriptures describe the law as eternal? Also how does that idea square up with the verses which tell us that the law 'entered' and 'was added because of transgressions'430 years after the promise to Abraham (see Galatians 3:16-29)?

What IS eternal is God's righteousness. So no one denies that the believer should be righteous in the sight of God and should live a life characterised as such. The point is not a question of whether murder, for instance, is right or wrong (of course it is wrong, always has been, and no believer would contemplate it) but of the principle by which the believer walks. Does he walk by a set of rules (which also have sanctions condtional upon breaking them, which still apply - law doesn't change) or does he walk by faith. He walks by faith, having no desire to break the law, but not using the law as the means by which he walks - he looks unto Christ, the author and finisher of faith.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Tue Feb 10, 2004 9:51 AM

Welcome to the Highway Ian . Sorry about the wrong link

You made a good point about "eternal" law.

"For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed where there is no law" Romans 5:13.

How could there have been a time"where there is no law" ,if it were eternal?
Posted By: Pilgrim

Re: The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Tue Feb 10, 2004 1:23 PM

Quote
BookMark said:
Welcome to the Highway Ian . Sorry about the wrong link

You made a good point about "eternal" law.

"For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed where there is no law" Romans 5:13.

How could there have been a time"where there is no law" ,if it were eternal?

Mark,

This is a strawman argument at best. As an explanation for those writers that have referred to the Moral Law as being "eternal" in regard to man knowing them, etc.... the word "eternal" cannot be restricted to one solitary meaning ("psycho-statistical mean" hermeneutics). There are many instances where "eternal" can be seen to have a beginning, e.g., Gen 17:9; and an end, e.g., the promises given to Israel concerning the land, e.g., Ex. 6:4. Thus the words, "eternal", "everlasting" and "forever" should not and cannot be restricted to one meaning only.

Secondly, the text you chose to quote actually goes against your Antinomian view and answers the question beautifully when taken in context:

Romans 5:12-14 (ASV) "Therefore, as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin; and so death passed unto all men, for that all sinned:-- for until the law sin was in the world; but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the likeness of Adam's transgression, who is a figure of him that was to come."


Paul's point is to show that the Moral Law was existent long before it was written on tablets of stone and given to Moses on Sinai. Sin was "in the world", says Paul. The wages of sin is death and all men died, thus they sinned. And sin is the transgression of the law. If there was no law, no one would have died or had sin imputed to them, which they did. I've elsewhere challenged you to explain how men could have experienced guilt and fear for the things they did which were direct violations of those laws which are found in the Ten Commandments, but thousands of years before they came into existence? (cf. Gen 6:5, 6) How could God punish people for doing something "wrong" (aka: sin) if there was no law against what they did? If Sodom wasn't guilty of breaking what the 7th Commandment forbids, then on what legal ground did God destroy those people? (cf. Gen 13:13) How could Er have been "wicked" if there was no standard of moral righteousness known by which he was judged and consequently killed by God? (Gen 38:7) And the same for Onan his brother, whom the Lord also killed for being "wicked". (Gen 38:10)

Paul says, "but where there is no law, neither is there transgression." (Rom 4:15) And since the biblical record shows that there were millions of people who were punished as sinners, surely they transgressed some Moral Law of God. The truth is inescapable; the Ten Commandments were not "new" but iterations of that which had been known intuitively.

In His Grace,
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Tue Feb 10, 2004 1:46 PM

Pilgrim,

What is the "moral law"? You are trying to say that those who were not under the law, as given at Sinai, nevertheless sinned and are held accountable for their sins.

True. But your conclusion is that they are therefore judged according to a "moral law". You are using a term which is not given in scripture. What existed before the Mosaic Law was RIGHTEOUSNESS. God's righteousness existed then and is eternal. That is the standard by which men are judged. You seem to be calling it the "moral law" but that just confuses it with the written 10 commandments given at Sinai.

Romans 2:12 (and 16) tells us with regard to the Gentiles "For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law"..."In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel".

This shows that some perish without law. Well what standard are they then judged by? By the Gospel, in which the righteousness of God is revealed, Romans 1:16-17. This is that righteousness of God WITHOUT the law which is manifested in the Gospel, being witnessed by the law and the prophets Rom 3:21.

So righteousness exists apart from the law. What is the full revelation of God's righteousness? The Mosaic law? NO! Christ IS. He is the express image of God's person. Heb 1:3.

All mankind will be judged according to that standard of righteousness as revealed in the Gospel in Christ. This is a standard which is HIGHER than that revealed in the law, which is why in Matthew 5:20 it says "except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven." The scribes and pharisees knew the law, and tried to keep it to the letter, but Christ revealed the righteousness of God in the Gospel which exceeds what the law required, and which He actually imputes to His people through His blood.

This is the righteousness of God, the righteousness of faith, Romans 10. It is in this standard of righteousness which the believer walks, in a new principle of faith, not just outward obedience to commands engraved in stone, but obedience from the heart, by faith, to the law of faith as written upon the fleshy tables of the heart.

This is why the New Covenant as seen in Christ is so much more glorious than the Old - it fully reveals God's righteousness, and through Christ's perfect work all believers are made righteous in Him.

The Mosaic Law however isn't righteousness itself. It is a Law. It is a rule of righteousness with sanctions attached. In that it contains commandments those commandments certainly describe righteousness but they are nevertheless a 'rule' a 'law' with sanctions. The believer isn't under that. He walks in righteousness, but not in a 'law' principle, but in grace, by faith. There is no condemnation to the believer (Rom 8) because His sin has been atoned for by Christ, so he cannot be under law because law still threatens sanctions upon being broken. Walking in the Spirit by faith, he looks unto Jesus who is his righteousness.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Tue Feb 10, 2004 2:27 PM

Pilgrim, I am not yet an antinomian- nor am I yet a neonomian or legalist.

As before stated,I am still trying to sort this out in my mind before I become dogmatic about it.

I would like to hear the views of the "regulars" here, especially those who admit to still being students of these things.

Do you expect me to agree with you in a week ?
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Tue Feb 10, 2004 3:27 PM

Quote
1saved said:
Greetings Yankee,

"Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness." 1 John 3:4 NKJV

Regarding this verse, The MacArthur Study Bible says:

"3:4 'commits sin.' The verb, "commits'" in the Gr. conveys the idea of making sin a habitual practice. Although genuine Christians have a sin nature (1:18), and do commit and need to confess sin (1:9,2;1), that is not the unbroken pattern of their lives. A genuinely born again believer has a built-in check or guard against habitual sinning due to a new nature ("born of God"--v.9;Rom.6:12). 'sin is lawlessness.' The first reason why Christians cannot practice sin is because sin is incompatible with the law of God which they love (Ps. 119:34,77,97;Rom.7:12,22). The term "lawlessness" conveys more than transgressing God's law. It conveys the ultimate sense of rebellion, i.e. living as if there was no law or ignoring what laws exist (James 4:17)."

Dr. MacArthur has more on the passage, but if you have a MacArthur Study Bible you can look it up for yourself. If you don't have one, get one, it is an excellent source for exegesis of Scripture and has other valuable information.

In my opinion, Dr. MacArthur is an excellent Bible teacher, specializing in the epistles of John. I hope this helps.


Absolutely! This verse is often quoted in the way it is translated in other versions eg. AV as "sin is the transgression of the law" which seems to define righteousness as only being according to the Mosaic law, and sin as breaking that law.

That isn't correct, and isn't what the original Greek means. As you have stated the original says 'sin is lawlessness' which as you say "The term "lawlessness" conveys more than transgressing God's law. It conveys the ultimate sense of rebellion, i.e. living as if there was no law or ignoring what laws exist".

Sin is anything contrary to God's Holy righteous nature. That isn't fully revealed in the Mosaic law as is often claimed (people claim the Mosaic law to be a transcript of the divine nature). But it is fully revealed in the Righteousness of God which is revealed in the Gospel (Rom 1:17, 3:21) in the person of Jesus Christ. Christ is the 'express image of (God's) person' Heb 1:3, not the Mosaic law. Christ is the transcript of the divine nature, and it is in Christ, and His Gospel, that the Righteousness of God is revealed, apart from Law - Rom 3:21.
Posted By: Pilgrim

Re: The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Tue Feb 10, 2004 4:27 PM

Quote
But your conclusion is that they are therefore judged according to a "moral law". You are using a term which is not given in scripture.

How often have people used this weak argument to try and circumvent the "essence" of biblical truth? Perhaps the similar long-standing reply will suffice here to say that the word "Trinity" isn't found in Scripture either, but would you therefore say that the doctrine of Trinity is to be rejected? "Moral" refers to that which is holy and righteous; i.e., that which is according to the standard which reflects the nature, character of God and by which all men are to be, held responsible and will be accountable.

Quote
Romans 2:12 (and 16) tells us with regard to the Gentiles "For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law"..."In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel".

This shows that some perish without law. Well what standard are they then judged by? By the Gospel, in which the righteousness of God is revealed, Romans 1:16-17. This is that righteousness of God WITHOUT the law which is manifested in the Gospel, being witnessed by the law and the prophets Rom 3:21.

So righteousness exists apart from the law. What is the full revelation of God's righteousness? The Mosaic law? NO! Christ IS. He is the express image of God's person. Heb 1:3.

I must reject your interpretation of these texts as they are 1) taken out of context, and 2) contradict other clear statements in Scripture which affirm that the "law" being referred to is, in fact, the moral law, aka: Ten Commandments. Romans 12 is actually a statement of clarification (commentary) on what Paul had previously said in verses 6-11. What Paul is saying is that it matters not whether a person has heard of the law (Decalogue) or not, but whether they have lived according to its requirements. Even though the Gentiles did not know the law (Decalogue) they are going to be held accountable for breaking it. That it is the Ten Commandments which Paul is referring to in his use of the word "law" is obvious from verses 21, 22. (see also Rom 13:8-10) Men are judged for their "sins", i.e., the "transgression of the law".

William Hendriksen makes a valuable point here when he writes:

A word of caution is necessary at this point. It must be borne in mind that at this juncture the apostle is not drawing a contrast between justification by faith and justification by the works of the law. Those who would so interpret what he is saying would be making Paul contradict himself, for the very purpose of this letter is to show that a person is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Christ. No, the antithesis he is discussing here in 2:12, 13 is that between two groups of people: (a) those who not only hear but also obey, and (b) those who merely hear. Cf. Matt. 7:24-29. It is, of course, the former who are pronounced righteous by God. Cf. Lev. 18:5, "If you obey them [my statues] you shall live."


So interpreted, that rule holds even for those believers who are living in the new dispensation. Precisely because they have been delivered from the curse of the law, they are all the more deeply obliged not only to hear but also to obey the gospel. By their good deeds, resulting from gratitude, they show that by God's sovereign grace and power they have given their hearts to him. In him alone do they place their trust. From him they have received their status of being righteous in God's eyes.


Quote
All mankind will be judged according to that standard of righteousness as revealed in the Gospel in Christ. This is a standard which is HIGHER than that revealed in the law, which is why in Matthew 5:20 it says "except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven."

I have already dealt with this idea in a reply to BookMark a few days ago, but I'll summarize it once again here for your benefit. There is to be no bifurcation between the moral law and Christ's righteousness as found in the Gospel. For, Christ came to "fulfill" the law and thus establish that law once for all through his perfect active obedience. There are not two "laws" of righteousness. And Christ did not inaugurate a different "law" than what had been established at creation and then again iterated to Moses on the two stone tablets.

The Lord Christ did not bring his own righteousness which surpassed the righteousness required in the Ten Commandments. Jesus Himself confessed that all that He spoke and did was not of Himself but that which the Father had required of Him. (Ps 40:7, 8; Jh 4:34; 5:30; 6:38; Phil 2:7, 8; Heb 10:7-9) The Lord Christ was to live perfectly before God according to that which was required by ALL men; i.e., the righteousness defined by God's perpetual moral law. The Lord Christ was crucified so that the punishment due those for whom He came to atone for; as per the requirements of the moral law, would be fulfilled. The curse of the law was put on Him. (2Cor 5:21)

Further, it is expected that those who say they have faith in Christ; who love the Lord Christ will obey His "commandments". (Jh 14:15; 15:10) His commandments are not different than His Father's commandments, but identical to them, for they are one and the same. (cf. 1Jh 5:1-3)

Lastly, in regard to the Pharisees, it nowhere can be read that they are rebuked for keeping the law, in fact the text you refer to (Matt 5:20) shows that the Pharisees' keeping of the law didn't go far enough. They had externalized the law, distorted the law, and added to the law and thus were rebuked for doing THAT. Christ's point in saying that our righteousness must exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees is that one must keep the law in all its depth perfectly if one is to be justified; an impossible task. So that to obtain that perfect righteousness, one must embrace Christ as their righteousness.

In His Grace,
Posted By: Ruth

Re: The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Tue Feb 10, 2004 5:02 PM

Welcome to the Highway Mr.Potts!

I really have to disagree with your statement that the Mosaic Law (or the 10 Commandments) do not reveal the full righteousness of the gospel or God's righteousness. The obedience of Christ, in fulfilling the Law perfectly, reveals the true righteousness found in the law. The Pharisees did not follow the full interpretation of the law, just that which they "felt" was the keeping of the law, adding their own restrictions and admonitions to it!

What exactly is the "righteousness of Christ" that we are to live by? Is it not that law which He was in perfect obedience to? Does Jesus not tell us to obey His commandments if we love Him? What commandments are these? Are they different than His Father's commandments? Yes, we are to walk by faith, faith that Jesus has performed all that the law requires of us, and that we are to imitate Him, and follow the Law! Not for our justification, but for our sanctification! To conform us to His image.

The gospel does not tell us something new in the law, it reveals the full extent of the same law, the law that shows us the holiness, justice and perfection of God.

In His Hands,

Ruth
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Tue Feb 10, 2004 6:16 PM

Thanks for the welcome Ruth.

In your post you both disagree with me and make assertions of what you think the truth is, but you haven't demonstrated that from scripture. Take another look at Matthew 5 and see whether or not Christ contrasts the teaching of the pharisees with His own, or whether He actually contrasts what is actually written in the Law with His own teaching which reveals the righteousness of God which is in the Gospel.

Do you honestly think that God's righteous nature is completely defined by the 10 commandments? If so I suggest you take another look at them, and consider more carefully. In eternity we won't have husbands or wives for instance. The law is a rule of righteousness for man whilst living in this world (designed to show him his sin, and lead him to Christ and the righteousness of God in Him - Galatians 3) - it is not a full revelation of God's heavenly eternal nature. If you think it is then please show the scriptures for that assertion.
Posted By: Pilgrim

Re: The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Tue Feb 10, 2004 6:26 PM

Quote
Do you honestly think that God's righteous nature is completely defined by the 10 commandments?

First, no one has ever said that the Ten Commandments define God's completely. But they do display the righteous nature of God to which all men are required to conform themselves, unbeliever or believer, without discrimination. Second, this does not address the issue before us; i.e., Is the moral law which does display that moral character of God and to which all men are to perfectly conformed applicable to believers? or are believers to conform themselves to something other than the moral character of God?

Since Christ's righteousness is His perfectly keeping of the moral law of God, is there something greater than Christ's righteousness which believers are to pattern themselves after? I keep seeing you wanting to bifurcate the righteousness of Christ and God's righteousness. Can you show THIS from Scripture? grin

In His Grace,
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Tue Feb 10, 2004 6:52 PM

Mark,
Here is more for you to chew on. You'd better change your mind now since I typed this all out for you! grin

...What then is the relationship of the Christian to the law? We can put our answer in this form. The Christian is no longer under the law in the sense that the law is a covenant of works. That is the whole argument in Galatians 3. The Christian is not under the law in that respect; his salvation does not depend on his keeping of it. He has been delivered from the curse of the law; he is no longer under the law as a covenant relationship between himself and God. But that does not release him from it as a rule of life. Now I think the whole trouble tends to arise because we become confused in our minds as to the relationship between law and grace. Let me put it like this. We tend to have a wrong view of law and to think of it as something that is opposed to grace. But it is not. Law is only opposed to grace in the sense that there was once a covenant of law, and we are now under the covenant of grace. Nor must the law be thought of as being identical with grace. It was never meant to be something in and of itself. The law was never meant to save man, because it could not. Some people tend to think that God said to the nation, 'I am now giving you a law; you keep that law and it will save you.' But that is ridiculous because no man can save himself by keeping the law. No! the law was added because of transgressions'. It came in 430 years after the promise was given to Abraham and his seed in order that it might show the true character of God's demands, and that it might show 'the exceeding sinfulness of sin'. The law was given in a sense, in order to show men that they could never justify themselves before God, and in order that we might be brought to Christ. In Paul's words it was meant to be 'our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ'.
...We must realize therefore that all these aspects of the law are but our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ, and we must therefore beware lest we fall into a false view of the law. In the same way, people have a false view of grace. They think that grace is apart from law and has nothing to do with it. That is what is called antinomianism, the attitude of people who abuse the doctrine of grace in order to live a sinful, slack or indolent type of spiritual life. They say, 'I am not under law, but under grace, and therefore it does not matter what I do.' Paul wrote his sixth chapter of Romans to deal with that: 'Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? God forbid', says Paul. That is an absolutely wrong and false view of grace. The whole purpose of grace, in a sense, is just to enable us to keep the law. Let me put it in this way. The trouble with us is that we so often have a wrong view of holiness at this point. There is nothing more fatal than to regard holiness and sanctification as experiences to be received. No; holiness means being righteous, and being righteous means keeping the law. Therefore if your so-called grace (which you say you have received) does not make you keep the law, you have not received grace. You may have received a psychological experience but you have never received the grace of God. What is grace? It is that marvelous gift of God which, having delivered a man from the curse of the law, enables him to keep it and to be righteous as Christ was righteous, for He kept the law perfectly. Grace is that which brings me to love God; and if I love God, I long to keep His commandments. 'He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them,' Christ said, 'he it is that loveth me.' from Chapter 18 Christ Fulfilling the Law and the Prophets Studies in The Sermon on the Mount by Martyn Lloyd-Jones
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Tue Feb 10, 2004 9:30 PM

Its sad that MLJ calls folk like Gadsby ,Warburton etc,:"people who abuse the the doctrine of grace in order to live sinful,slack or indulent type of spiritual life" He clearly knows not what he is talking about in this instance IMHO.

At least he admits the Law came 430 years after Abraham.

Thanks for taking the time to type Susan. Anything more than a couple of sentences and Cathrine types it for me smile
Posted By: MarieP

Re: The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Tue Feb 10, 2004 10:44 PM

"I am not yet an antinomian"

eek

I'd hate to see it if you DO become one!
Posted By: Ruth

Re: The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Tue Feb 10, 2004 10:53 PM

Ian_Potts,

The "New Geneva Study Bible" says: "In Matt. 5, Jesus did not criticize the Pharisees for their strict observance of the law but for their emphasis on outward conformity to it without the proper inner attitude! By focusing on the externals, the Pharisees avoided the real intent of the law and so obscured it's real demands.The Qumran texts refer to the Pharisees as "seekers after smooth things" because they accommodated and compromised the law to fit the realities of life. Such accommodation removed awareness of the need for grace and dependence on God. In the following verses Jesus restores the true nature of God's law as demanding total and radical holiness. Jesus demands a deeper obedience, not disregard of God's commands."
That is my understanding of Matt.5. Jesus is not complimenting the Pharisees in their law keeping, He is showing how wrong they were in their interpretation of it, and saying we must go much further in it! Jesus had to fulfill it perfectly for us, and we must imitate Him! How are we to imitate Him? By keeping the law. This is how we love Him, we obey His commandments! John 14:15

God's complete nature is NOT exclusively defined by the 10 Commandments, but the laws express some of His nature, and that does not change.

In His Hands,

Ruth
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Tue Feb 10, 2004 11:08 PM

You're very welcome Mark. compute

Am I understanding you clearly?
Would you say that Cain murdering his brother Abel was not guilty of commiting a sin since he was not breaking a commandment of God, and so will not be held accountable?
Quote
Genesis 4:7
If you do well, will you not be accepted?[1] And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door. Its desire is for you, but you must rule over it.


Also, how would you explain this verse in Genesis 8?
Quote
Genesis 8:21 And when the Lord smelled the pleasing aroma, the Lord said in his heart, I will never again curse the ground because of man, for the intention of man's heart is evil from his youth. Neither will I ever again strike down every living creature as I have done.


This was before Moses and before "the giving of the law to Moses," yet we see the evil in men's hearts was so great that God destroys them. We see he holds them accountable for their sin.
We are all in agreement that we need the righteousness of Christ for our salvation. Only He could fulfill the law perfectly. We know our own righteousness is "filthy rags" before God. But then we are told by Peter and also in the Old Testament in many places to be holy and this is not only speaking of Christ's imputed righteousness, but a personal holiness and our active obedience to God's commandments.

Quote
1 Peter 1 v.13 Therefore, preparing your minds for action, [1] and being sober-minded, set your hope fully on the grace that will be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ. 14 As obedient children, do not be conformed to the passions of your former ignorance, 15 but as he who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct, 16 since it is written, You shall be holy, for I am holy. 17 And if you call on him as Father who judges impartially according to each one's deeds, conduct yourselves with fear throughout the time of your exile, 18 knowing that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, 19 but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot. 20 He was foreknown before the foundation of the world but was made manifest in the last times for your sake, 21 who through him are believers in God, who raised him from the dead and gave him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God.

22 Having purified your souls by your obedience to the truth for a sincere brotherly love, love one another earnestly from a pure heart, 23 since you have been born again, not of perishable seed but of imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God; 24 for

All flesh is like grass
and all its glory like the flower of grass.
The grass withers,
and the flower falls,
25 but the word of the Lord remains forever.

And this word is the good news that was preached to you.

Posted By: Anonymous

Re: The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Wed Feb 11, 2004 12:06 AM

What do you think is heretical in Gadsbys "letter" Marie.

Do you hate what he has to say shrug
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Wed Feb 11, 2004 12:37 AM

This is the result of another "Lost post" .

Unless this too gets lost............
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Wed Feb 11, 2004 9:07 AM

Quote
Pilgrim said:
Quote
Do you honestly think that God's righteous nature is completely defined by the 10 commandments?

First, no one has ever said that the Ten Commandments define God's completely. But they do display the righteous nature of God to which all men are required to conform themselves, unbeliever or believer, without discrimination.


Ruth also agreed with that: “God's complete nature is NOT exclusively defined by the 10 Commandments, but the laws express some of His nature, and that does not change.”

Good, you both recognise that the Ten Commandments (“Moral Law”) do not define God’s nature completely. That is important. Nevertheless it is commonly claimed by those who insist on the law being a rule of life for the believer that “the moral law is a transcript of the divine nature”, that “the eternal moral law is the express image of God’s person”. I have read both of these statements by Reformed writers which both imply that the Ten Commandments define God’s divine nature completely. I’m glad you disagree as that isn’t true and there is no scriptural backing for it. In fact the last quote is a corruption of Heb 1:3, putting ‘moral law’ in the place of Christ.

You are right that men ought to conform themselves to the Ten Commandments. They don’t because of sin, and therefore the law exposes their sin and proves them guilty before God. But what of those who lived before the law was given at Sinai, or those Gentiles who never heard it? Well these are judged for their sins, not against the Ten Commandments as such, but according to the light they have regarding the righteousness of God. This light they have from nature and from their own conscience (Rom 2:16). Where did they get a knowledge of good and evil in their conscience? Well, think of what Adam ate in the garden.

What of those who knew the law? Is it just the law which condemns their sin? Well, the law certainly does condemn them, but the extent of their sin goes beyond that – it is sin against the very righteous nature of God. They too have the same knowledge of good and evil from nature and their conscience as the Gentiles without law do, but they also have the law plainly stated, so are completely without excuse.

What man needs in order to dwell in the presence of God eternally is a righteousness, a nature, which is conformable to God’s. Nothing less will do. The law never promised that. The law was given as a rule of righteousness for man in this present world. It commanded ‘do this and live’, but that life was never eternal life which was promised, but simply ongoing life in this world for those who kept it fully. Otherwise death.

So you see even if the law was kept perfectly, in ever way, continually, it would only give man life in this world. It never promises eternal life, or the bringing in of a righteous nature which is equal to God’s. The law was given to prove to the man under it that he is a sinner. It was ‘added because of transgressions’ Galatians 3. Life could never come from the law. (Gal 3:21)

No, eternal life, can only be received through Christ, because Christ IS eternal life. This is what the Gospel brings in which also reveals the righteousness of God – that righteousness which is higher than the law in that it is a revelation in Christ of the very nature of God. It is that righteousness which the believer needs.

Now, mankind is ultimately judged according to, not just the law (which he is judged against), but the righteousness of God. That is the righteousness he needs to enter the kingdom of heaven.

It is that righteousness which is eternal, which is why I said in a previous post that the term ‘moral law’ shouldn’t be used to refer to the eternal righteousness against which man is judged (outside of the law, eg. Those before Sinai), because it confuses it with simply being the Ten Commandments. Yet what they are judged against is more than just the Ten Commandments – it is the very righteousness of God. I wasn’t simply complaining about an extra-Biblical term (“moral law”) but the fact that that term describes something wrongly – it tries to connect the eternal righteousness of God, with the Ten Commandments given at Sinai which are not the full revelation of that righteousness.

This righteousness of God is only fully revealed in the Gospel (not in the law) which is why Romans 1:16-17 says:

“For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.”

Quote

Second, this does not address the issue before us; i.e., Is the moral law which does display that moral character of God and to which all men are to perfectly conformed applicable to believers? or are believers to conform themselves to something other than the moral character of God?


Yes, but those previous points are essential groundwork to understanding the standard of righteousness by which all men are judged (including those who never heard the law) which is higher than the requirements of the law, and a knowledge of which is helpful to the right understanding of whether or not the law is a sufficient rule of righteousness for the believer.

A fuller answer to the question you pose here will have to wait until another post, but in brief, no, the believer is no longer under the law. The law condemned him and crucified him at the cross in Christ. His flesh is reckoned dead. In respect of the law (that given at Sinai) he had been cursed by it and its penalty has been exacted upon him – it pronounced death, and he died. The law has no more to say to a dead man. He is delivered from it by the body of Christ and is risen again in Christ the other side of death, delivered from the law. See Romans 7. See also Galatians 2:20.

BUT THAT DOESN’T MEAN THAT THE BELIEVER IS FREE FROM RIGHTEOUSNESS. That is the point. He is risen with Christ, and walks in the Spirit. He is a new creation, united to Christ. He has a new nature which is righteous like Christ is righteous. He is a partaker of the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4) . He has that righteousness as revealed in the Gospel, and in which he walks (see Romans 8).

Quote

Since Christ's righteousness is His perfectly keeping of the moral law of God, is there something greater than Christ's righteousness which believers are to pattern themselves after? I keep seeing you wanting to bifurcate the righteousness of Christ and God's righteousness. Can you show THIS from Scripture? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

In His Grace,


Well, this is what I have been touching on. Let’s continue a bit.

You assert that Christ's righteousness is His perfectly keeping of the moral law of God. But it isn’t limited to that. There is no scriptural backing for stating that that is all it is. Certainly Christ did fulfil the law of God in every way. But His keeping the law didn’t ‘produce’ His righteousness as though He didn’t have any to start with, did it? It was simply a result of, an outworking, of that righteousness which He had from the time He was born. Christ had and has a divine nature, a perfect righteousness, the righteousness of God. Because of that He was sinless and as a man could do nothing else than to keep the law perfectly.

But nowhere in scripture does it tell us that Christ’s life under the law was that which wrought His righteousness. He was righteous to begin with. Certainly His righteousness was shown forth by His life and His lawkeeping, but His righteousness existed apart from that and was more than that. In fact every passage which deals with justification and the righteousness which is imputed to believers refers not to the ‘righteousness of Christ’ but the ‘righteousness of God’. Why? To emphasise that the righteousness we have imputed to us was not merely Christ’s as a man (and thus unique to Him, but not shared by Father or Spirit), but is the very righteousness of God, that righteousness which is equal to God’s nature.

I don’t bifurcate the righteousness of Christ and God's righteousness, because they are one and the same. But I do bifurcate the righteousness of the law and the righteousness of God, because the righteousness of God is above and beyond it. Christ had the righteousness of God and thus as a man fulfilled the righteousness of the law. But His righteousness is higher than that. It is God’s and it isn’t revealed in the law but in the Gospel, in Christ.

So can I show that from scripture? Absolutely. It’s all over the place. Romans 10 contrasts the righteousness in the law of Moses with the righteousness of faith. Romans 1:17, 3:21, 2 Corinthians 5:21, etc. all refer to the righteousness of God. Philippians 3:9 contrasts the righteousness of the law with the righteousness of God.

The righteousness of God which is revealed in the Gospel, is without law (Romans 3:21), is revealed on a principle apart from law, and it transcends the righteousness of the law. This can be seen in many passages of scripture which contrast the New and Old Covenant. Take a look at Hebrews 8 for example, or 2 Corinthians 3. In the latter passage the law engraved in stones (ie. the Ten Commandments) is referred to as the ‘ministration of death’ and the ‘ministration of condemnation’, as contrasted with the ‘ministration of the spirit’ which is more glorious and the ‘ministration of righteousness’ 2 Cor 3:9.

The believer is not to put himself back under the law from which he has been delivered (Rom 7) and to which he is dead being married to another, even Christ, but is to walk in the Spirit. He is a new creature, old things are passed away (2 Corinthians 5:7). He has the righteousness of God imputed to Him, and it is that standard of righteousness in which he walks. This righteousness is only revealed in the Gospel (not fully in the law, the glory of which is exceeded by the Gospel, the ministration of righteousness), is revealed in the person of Jesus Christ and is received by faith. In terms of ‘objective’ expression it is described in the whole word of God, not just the Decalogue, especially in the words from the lips of Jesus, but the believer doesn’t walk under a ‘law’ principle serving in the oldness of the letter, but walks in newness of the spirit. The walk of the believer in righteousness is on an altogether different principle, it is in the Spirit, by faith, looking unto Jesus, who is our life - eternal life.

That’s the Gospel, and righteousness is at the heart of it. It is the revelation of the righteousness of God in the Gospel of Christ which makes it the power of God unto salvation. That righteousness was veiled in the Old Covenant, it wasn’t fully revealed, but it is fully revealed in Christ, in the Gospel.

Not being under the law (but under grace) doesn’t mean that the believer is free to sin, or even wants to. He doesn’t want to. He doesn’t want to break the law. But he isn’t under law and he doesn’t fulfil it by trying to live according to it. The law is fulfilled by His walking in the Spirit, looking unto Christ by faith, being steeped in the word of God, having a hunger and thirst after righteousness, that righteousness which is of God, by faith, found in the Gospel of Christ. Freedom from law doesn’t lead to sin (“Shall we sin that grace may abound? God Forbid!”), but leads to righteous conduct in the believer, and is THE ONLY WAY in which that can be done. Why? Because the law, taking occasion by sin which is in the flesh, fuels that sin and causes men to fall under the power of sin – believer or unbeliever. Law, rather than helping man to live righteously does just the opposite. But being lawfully delivered from the law, being under grace, walking in the Spirit by faith, united to Christ the believer actually does fulfil the righteous requirements of the law (not fully because the flesh remains, sin remains, but nevertheless as the overall tenor of his life).

I could go on, but I’ll leave it there for now.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Wed Feb 11, 2004 9:44 AM

Quote
Ruth said:
Ian_Potts,

The "New Geneva Study Bible" says: "In Matt. 5, Jesus did not criticize the Pharisees for their strict observance of the law but for their emphasis on outward conformity to it without the proper inner attitude! By focusing on the externals, the Pharisees avoided the real intent of the law and so obscured it's real demands.The Qumran texts refer to the Pharisees as "seekers after smooth things" because they accommodated and compromised the law to fit the realities of life. Such accommodation removed awareness of the need for grace and dependence on God. In the following verses Jesus restores the true nature of God's law as demanding total and radical holiness. Jesus demands a deeper obedience, not disregard of God's commands."
That is my understanding of Matt.5. Jesus is not complimenting the Pharisees in their law keeping, He is showing how wrong they were in their interpretation of it, and saying we must go much further in it! Jesus had to fulfill it perfectly for us, and we must imitate Him! How are we to imitate Him? By keeping the law. This is how we love Him, we obey His commandments! John 14:15

God's complete nature is NOT exclusively defined by the 10 Commandments, but the laws express some of His nature, and that does not change.

In His Hands,

Ruth


Thanks Ruth. Of course you’re right in that the Pharisees had added to the law, and did think that outward conformity was enough. Indeed some of what Christ rebukes them about is in relation to that. But that isn’t the full picture in Matthew 5-7.

Take a look at what Christ actually says in various places:-

“ For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
21 Ye have heard that it was said of them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:
22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.”
Matthew 5:20-22

Now in verse 21 Christ quotes “Thou shall not kill”. That isn’t the interpretation of the Pharisees – it is what the actual law says. He gives the fuller depth of what the righteousness of God requires. Now certainly the law required more than just outward obedience, it required love to God and man from the heart, but Christ’s teaching in Matthew 5-7 goes even beyond that. Look further on:-

“Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
30 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.”

Again the law is quoted, not the Pharisees, and Christ gives his teaching. Look further on:

“Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.
41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.”

Now this response IS beyond the law. The law DID required an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. That is righteous according to the law. But the righteousness of God revealed in the Gospel as taught by Christ goes beyond that, it goes to turning the other cheek, going the extra mile. Read on:

“Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?
48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.”

Here again Christ quotes the law, but His teaching is way beyond it. The law says to love God and your neighbour. Christ teaches to also love your enemy. That isn’t merely a ‘fuller’ teaching of the law - it is Gospel righteousness. It is grace.

Notice the final phrase “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect”. Here Christ says to be perfect as the Father is perfect. Is that merely perfect obedience to the Ten Commandments? No, it is perfection as the Father is perfect, and you yourself have acknowledged that “God's complete nature is NOT exclusively defined by the 10 Commandments”. You are right, God’s nature is beyond the Ten Commandments, and yet here Christ teaches us to be perfect as the Father is perfect. In that case we need a righteousness which is beyond what the “Moral Law”, the Ten Commandments requires. We need the very righteousness of God – that righteousness which is revealed in the Gospel in Christ. That righteousness without which we can in no part enter the kingdom of heaven.

It is that righteousness which Christ gives to His people, through His death on the cross for them, by His being made sin, who knew no sin, that they might be made the righteousness of God in Him. 2 Cor 5:21. This righteousness is revealed in the Gospel, apart from law (Rom 3:21), and we walk in this righteousness by walking in the Spirit, by faith.

Finally think of what Christ actually came into the world to do. What his ultimate work was. It was his death on the cross where he took the punishment due to the sin and sins of His people. Now the law didn't require that of HIM. It was the ultimate fulfillment of the law in that He was the sacrificial lamb for the sins of His people, but HE wasn't the sinner, the law didn't require it of Him. But as God, as the Just One, as one who delights to show mercy, as one whose righteousness does not just consist of the holiness, justice and goodness of the law, but also consists of the grace, mercy, forgiveness of God, He willingly laid down His life for the sheep. That was the ultimate example of the righteousness of God demonstrated by the work of Christ - it went beyond law, it was an act of pure free grace. It is this righteousness which is revealed in the Gospel.
Posted By: Pilgrim

Re: The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Wed Feb 11, 2004 1:12 PM

Quote
Good, you both recognise that the Ten Commandments (“Moral Law”) do not define God’s nature completely. That is important.

It's only important to you to support your erroneous presuppositions. wink Sorry, but I can't allow you to use what I said and twist it so as to make a case for your fallacious views. What I said is true, that the Ten Commandments do not display the fullness of God's holiness/righteousness; what could? Similarly, the Bible is the revelation of God Himself and His will for mankind. But the Bible can't reveal the totality of God nor does it reveal the complete will of God for mankind. However, that does not negate the fact that everything which is written in the Bible IS the revelation of God and His will for mankind. (Dt. 29:29).

By admitting that the mankind is to conform Himself to the Ten Commandments, you have actually made my case. IT is the standard which Christ lived, fulfilled and was sacrificed for. Man is not required to become God. He was created to be man and it is required that he possess the perfection which was originally intended for him as a created being.

Next, I repeat... Christ came to do His Father's will, which was to redeem His own by offering Himself as a substitute sacrifice to accomplish two things: 1) Impute to them the righteousness to which mankind was ALWAYS responsible to have, and 2) To atone for the transgressions of that standard of righteousness (law) which mankind was responsible to keep and didn't. Those before Moses were not required to be any less perfect as men than those after Moses. The knowledge of God's moral law was simply known differently; one inherently and from the natural order and one written on tablets of stone which clarified the former. And Christ simply clarified that which was on those tablets of stone when He summarized them into two. What we see in Christ's keeping of the law is that which the law could not demonstrate but only state in words.

Lastly, you are continually misconstruing biblical texts which speak of the law vs. justification and do so in an attempt to reject the law as a guide for believers in sanctification.

In His Grace,
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Wed Feb 11, 2004 1:30 PM

Quote
Pilgrim said:
Quote
Good, you both recognise that the Ten Commandments (“Moral Law”) do not define God’s nature completely. That is important.

It's only important to you to support your erroneous presuppositions. wink Sorry, but I can't allow you to use what I said and twist it so as to make a case for your fallacious views. What I said is true, that the Ten Commandments do not display the fullness of God's holiness/righteousness; what could?


Christ could, and did, and does, display the fullness of God's righteousness which is why the righteousness of God is revealed in the Gospel of Christ.

All our righteousness is in Christ, because of His atoning work, and by union with Him. He is our righteousness 1 Cor 1:30, and that righteousness is more than just the righteousness of the law, but is the righteousness of God, 2 Cor 5:21.

I understand your position, but the New testament is extremely clear on the believer's position to the law. He is not under it, he is under grace. Rom 6:16. He is dead to it, Rom 7:4, He is delivered from it, Rom 7:6, as confirmed in Galatians 2:19-21:

"For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.
20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain."

It is not I that twists these verses but those who are unwilling to take them as written and seek to add umpteen qualifiers such as 'only not under in this sense' or 'only dead to it in this sense'. But dead means dead, delivered means delivered, and under grace in contrast to law, means under grace, not law.

The simple fact is the believer is not under law, but under grace, and is dead to the law being delivered from it by the body of Christ. He is in the New Covenant not the Old, he serves in the newness of the Spirit, not the deadness of the letter. His flesh is crucified, yet he is risen again in Christ, being made a new creation in Him. Christ is His righteousness, He is just, and the just shall live by faith. Not by law.

"Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.
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;
9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient
, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
11 According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust."
1 Timothy 1:4-11
Posted By: Wes

Re: The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Wed Feb 11, 2004 3:46 PM

Ian Potts,

We do not keep the Law to be saved. But rather, "by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments. He who says, "I know Him," and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoever keeps His word, truly the love of God is perfected in him. By this we know that we are in Him." (I John 2:3-5)

John Murray writes, "If Paul thought of himself as released from obligation to the law of God, how could he ever have confessed as a believer, ‘I consent unto the law that it is good.. . I delight in the law of God after the inward man.. . Consequently then I myself with the mind serve the law of God’ (Romans 7:16, 22, 25)? It is fully admitted that the inner conflict and tension delineated in Romans 7:14-25 pose acute exegetical difficulties; but there is surely little room for question that when Paul describes his most characteristic self, the self that he most centrally and fundamentally is as one united to Christ in the virtue of his death and the power of his resurrection (cf. Romans 6:2-6), he describes himself as delighting in the law of God and serving that law with his mind. This service is one of bondservice, of commanded commitment; and yet it is not the bondservice of enforced and unwilling servitude. It is service constrained by delight and consent in the deepest recesses of heart and mind and will. It is total commitment, but it is the commitment also of spontaneous delight. The restraint which Paul deplores in this context and which compels him to exclaim ‘O wretched man that I am’ (Romans 7:24) is not the restraint which the law of God imposes, but the restraint arising from the lack of conformity to it, that he wills the good but does not carry it into effect. The burden he bemoans is not the law but that which is its contradiction, the other law in his members warring against the law of his mind (Romans 7:23)."

Ian, you may want to read the entire article here on the-Highway. It can be found here Law and Grace by John Murray


Wes
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Thu Feb 12, 2004 8:03 AM

Very interesting posts Ian. What I dont understand is why some would be "desiring to be teachers of the law" (1 Tim 1:7)when it is crystal clear ,to me at least, that Christians live by Faith. Your posts expound the tenor of Gadsbys "letter" IMHO - which is a great help to me. It seems that to mix law with gospel is to mix oil with water ,which only serves to polute them both.
On reading the WCF chapter 19 ,sections 1 and 2 for the umpteenth time, I am starting to see where folk are confused by the subject. It sure does confuse me as I cannot marry it to scripture as yet.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Thu Feb 12, 2004 8:08 AM

Wes, 1 John 2:3-5 is not talking about a so-called moral law but Gods commandments.Read the whole chapter .
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Thu Feb 12, 2004 8:53 AM

Quote
Wes said:
Ian Potts,

We do not keep the Law to be saved. But rather, "by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments. He who says, "I know Him," and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoever keeps His word, truly the love of God is perfected in him. By this we know that we are in Him." (I John 2:3-5)


Wes,

Thanks for the article by Murray. I haven’t time to comment on that just now, but I would like to make some brief comments on what you say above.

“We do not keep the Law to be saved” you say, as though we are justified by faith alone, without the works of the law, yet for sanctification the law is a rule of life.

However the very verses which teach us that we are not justified by the law also demonstrate that we are no longer under it in an ongoing state. We are dead to the law, meaning not just for the purpose of justification but for sanctification – we are dead to it. We are married to another, Christ, and therefore to go back to our old husband, the law, would be to commit spiritual adultery – to break the very law you claim we are bound to! See Romans 7.

Galatians makes it very clear that through the law (the Ten Commandments essentially) we are dead to the law, that we might live unto God. See Gal 2:19-21. Christ is now our life. That is ongoing, not merely for justification, but sanctification. Paul continues the argument in chapter 3, where he says:

“Are ye so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect in the flesh?”. This is the ongoing walk of the believer which is being referred to. The walk which is in the Spirit by faith. This is emphasised in verses 10-12:

“For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.
And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.


Here ongoing walk is shown. Either under the law, which is not of faith, or under grace in which we walk by faith – the just shall live by faith. What applies for justification applies for sanctification too – if we are delivered from the law we remain delivered from it. If we began in the Spirit, then we continue in the Spirit – we are not to be entangled again with the yoke of bondage – the law. Galatians 5:1.


You go on to say “But rather, "by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments. He who says, "I know Him," and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoever keeps His word, truly the love of God is perfected in him. By this we know that we are in Him." (I John 2:3-5)”

Absolutely we do keep Christ’s commandments, and we keep His word. The word “Keep” here in the Greek fundamentally means to keep in our minds, to treasure, to store up, to lay hold of, not to forget. Obviously if so doing it will lead to obedience to Christ’s words, but obedience is the consequence of such keeping whereas ‘keep’ itself is the treasuring up, the remembrance, the belief of these words.

Well what are these commandments, these words of Christ? It has been said by previous posters here that as they are Christ’s then they are the same as the Father’s, and by implication must be those commandments given in the law. Oh, what a tenuous connection! Of course Christ’s commandments are one with the Father’s but to say that these here refer to the law is reading in more than is in the text, and is to ignore clear teaching about the law elsewhere in the New Testament.

If they refer to the law then we have to conclude that they mean the whole law, as the whole law was commanded by God. God commanded a priesthood to be set up, a tabernacle, sacrifices to be made, He commanded dietary laws, laws to do with uncleanness and so on and so forth. All of these were God’s commandments. Does John mean those commandments? The Law of Moses?

Oh no, you might say, the “ceremonial” and “judicial” parts of the law have clearly been abrogated - we aren’t expected to keep those commandments anymore, just the “moral law”. Well, what verses tell us that we are no longer under the “ceremonial” or “judicial” law? The very same verses that tell us that we are delivered from the law as a whole. We are dead to it, not under it, delivered from it - the whole of the law. You can’t chop it up into sections, throw some bits away, and keep others. The Bible doesn’t do that, and nor should we. “Ah!” some might answer, “But God makes a difference, because He wrote the Ten Commandments on tablets of stone”. Yes, I answer, He did, as the tablets of testimony of the whole law, which was put out of sight in the Ark of the Covenant, under the mercy seat, which is typical of its being taken out of the way by Christ at the cross, when he nailed the handwriting of ordinances contained in commandments to His cross and took it out of the way. What does God say to us now regarding the law written on stone?

“Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
7 But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:
8 How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious?

9 For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory.
10 For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth.
11 For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious.”
2 Corinthians 3:6-11

The Ten Commandments were engraven on stone, are called here the ‘ministration of death’, the ‘ministration of condemnation’ and are ‘done away’ with. The believer is not under that Old Covenant, but the New, not of the letter which killeth, but of the spirit which giveth life, the ‘ministration of righteousness’. (One reason I was very careful in earlier posts to show that what is eternal is the Righteousness of God, not the "moral law", is to show that though the believer is not under law in any way, yet he does have the righteousness of God, through the Gospel. But that isn't the same as saying that he continues to be bound by the Ten Commandments - he is delivered from the law, from that which was engraven on stone!)

So it is very clear that the commandments, the ‘words’ which we are told to ‘keep’ in 1 John do not refer to the law, be it “ceremonial”, “judicial” or “moral”, as we are not under the Old Covenant but the New, so the commandments of the Old Covenant, though from God, don’t apply to the believer who has been lawfully delivered from under the law, by the body of Christ – He is dead to it, but risen in Christ to walk in a new and living way, by the Spirit, by faith, for the just shall live by faith. In Christ the believer is ‘just’, he is a ‘righteous’ man, for His sins have been taken away at the cross (though he still has the flesh, still sins, yet the flesh is reckoned crucified with Christ), and as 1 Timothy 1 tells us, the law was NOT made for a righteous man. For unbelievers, yes, but not for believers.

What are these commandments in 1 John then? Well, 1 John tells us:

“And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.”
1 John 3:23

We also read in the Gospel of John such things as:

“For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.
And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak.”
John 12:40-50

“It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.”
John 6:63

“A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.
By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.”
John 13:34-35

Such commandments are also mentioned in John 15:

“I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman.
2 Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit.
3 Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.
4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me.
5 I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.
6 If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.
7 If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you.
8 Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my disciples.
9 As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love.
10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.

11 These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy might remain in you, and that your joy might be full.
12 This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you.
13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.


So in summary, at the heart of Christ’s words, His ‘commandments’ are “That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment”.

In other words Faith and Love are commanded in the Gospel, but not only commanded - given. Both of these are fruits of the Spirit, given to believers under the Gospel, which fulfil all the law’s demands, but both of which fruits the law never gave. We are not bound to the law, but we do walk in the righteousness of God, in the Gospel of Christ, in the ‘new commandment’ which Christ gave us “That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another”. And this commandment will be fulfilled in true believers because it is how the world can see that we are true, because we love one another.

In God's Grace,
Ian
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Thu Feb 12, 2004 9:05 AM

Quote
BookMark said:
Very interesting posts Ian. What I dont understand is why some would be "desiring to be teachers of the law" (1 Tim 1:7)when it is crystal clear ,to me at least, that Christians live by Faith. Your posts expound the tenor of Gadsbys "letter" IMHO - which is a great help to me. It seems that to mix law with gospel is to mix oil with water ,which only serves to polute them both.
On reading the WCF chapter 19 ,sections 1 and 2 for the umpteenth time, I am starting to see where folk are confused by the subject. It sure does confuse me as I cannot marry it to scripture as yet.


Thanks Mark. Yes, Christians do live by faith, not by the law. Unfortunately it is natural to all men to want to 'know what to do'. It seems much easier to just have a written list of commandments which are followed in all circumstances, than to walk by faith, looking unto Christ and seeking God's guidance on a daily basis, in a real, living, way. This is why many turn to the law as a rule of life, and try to teach others so. But the Gospel is otherwise - it is about faith, and the New Testament is very clear on the distinction between law and gospel and the believer's lawful deliverance from the law by the death of Christ. The law has had its penalty paid in full and we owe no more debt to it - we are dead to it. We are risen in Christ, and walk in the Spirit, by faith. A new and living way.

Oh the wonders of God's grace!
Posted By: Pilgrim

Re: The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Thu Feb 12, 2004 10:20 AM

Quote
We are risen in Christ, and walk in the Spirit, by faith. A new and living way.

Sure sounds like Charismania to me, sir! [Linked Image] Contrary to all your strawman arguments and false accusations, the writers of the WCF and all of us here, at least 99.99% of us, believe in Justification by Faith Alone but not by a faith that is alone. We believe that a believer walks by faith and not by sight. But we also believe that Jesus Christ has taught us the truth and that you err when you contradict His perspicuous teachings.

Therefore, could you kindly exegete 3 specific passages for us. Many of us are Greek savvy, so feel free to extrapolate in that language if you so desire and if you feel it will make your case, but take into consideration that the majority aren't schooled in the original languages as you probably are. Here are the passages that I would have you exegete:

John 14:15 (ASV) "If ye love me, ye will keep my commandments. . . . 21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself unto him."


John 15:9-10 (ASV) "Even as the Father hath loved me, I also have loved you: abide ye in my love. If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love."


1 John 5:3 (ASV) "For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous."


Thank you! grin
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Thu Feb 12, 2004 10:31 AM

Pilgrim, it is anything but Charismania, and anyone that knows me would testify that I am anything but a Charismatic!

But my rejection of the charismatic movement does not cause me go too far the other way and effectively reject the work of the Holy Spirit. We walk in the Spirit, by faith. Faith is not dead but produces works, but these works are not the works of the law, but the works of faith.

Now, as to the verses you mention - have I not touched upon them in my previous post? I have shown how the commandments mentioned are not those in the law, and the principle by which we walk is not after law but after faith. Primarily Christ's commandments respect belief in Him (faith) and love. That could certainly be regarded as a fulfillment of the law as love indeed fulfils the law, but it isn't the law which we are under, which we are bound to, or yoke to, which we try to keep.

I am happy to examine these verses in more detail if you wish, but I repeat, have I not already touched on them?
Posted By: Pilgrim

Re: The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Thu Feb 12, 2004 10:39 AM

Quote
I am happy to examine these verses in more detail if you wish, but I repeat, have I not already touched on them?

Yes, you have touched on them and I find your "touching" wanting. laugh

Therefore I have asked you to exegete those texts. I'm assuming you do know how to do that, yes? And again, do feel free to use the Greek, if you think it will make your case. I am also looking forward to your reply to Wes, re: John Murray's article. grin

In His Grace,
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Thu Feb 12, 2004 10:45 AM

Ian sounds no way "charismatic" Pilgrim . I could say Murrays article is "legalistic" , but I dont grin
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Thu Feb 12, 2004 10:49 AM

Quote
Pilgrim said:
Quote
I am happy to examine these verses in more detail if you wish, but I repeat, have I not already touched on them?

Yes, you have touched on them and I find your "touching" wanting. laugh

Therefore I have asked you to exegete those texts. I'm assuming you do know how to do that, yes? And again, do feel free to use the Greek, if you think it will make your case. I am also looking forward to your reply to Wes, re: John Murray's article. grin

In His Grace,


When I have a little time I hope do both.

But, I ask you, why is it that when Bookmark posted Gadsby's letter that you refused to answer it in any detail, yet you seem to expect me to have to answer every point, exegete texts in sufficient detail to satify your understanding, and reply to a much longer article by Murray than Gadby's?

As with many who insist on the law as 'binding' on believers you seem keen to put heavier burdens on others than you yourself are willing to take.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Thu Feb 12, 2004 11:01 AM

Ian, I dont believe anyone could easily answer Gadsby.(I have heard a rumour that it was challenged in print 196 years ago,but I have yet to see it). At least Pilgrim is "addressing" the issue- after a fashion smile
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Thu Feb 12, 2004 12:25 PM

Mark,
I swallowed the same error Mr Potts is teaching here years ago for lack of available sound teaching. You cannot read Psalm 119 and accept his conclusion. Galatians speaks of the Judizers who were saying that you must become a Jew to become a Christian and be circumcised etc. Paul is not speaking of forgetting the commandments there! I am praying for you Mark, that you will not be deceived by this incorrect handling of God's Word, even denying the Lord's own words.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Thu Feb 12, 2004 12:46 PM

Susan,
I am very aware of the teaching of John Murray, Lloyd Jones, and many other Reformed writers over the position of law. I haven't come to my understanding of Law and Grace through any lack of teaching.

Nevertheless these writers have got it wrong, and it is not I, Mark, Gadsby, Huntington, Warburton, Philpott, Martin Luther, or several others who teach what I do that are handling the word of God wrongly.

I have presented many scriptures and points in my posts above. Rather than just dismissing them, perhaps yourself, Pilgrim or Wes, could go through all the points, and Gadby's points one by one and show clearly from the scripture how we are wrong?

I think you can most certainly read Psalm 119 and accept our conclusions BTW.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Thu Feb 12, 2004 12:52 PM

Dr James Denney writes in his book :The death of Christ;"St.Paul nowhere draws any distinction in the law between ceremonial and moral;the law for him is one,and it is the law of God"

This is what I am thinking too.

Luther says in his commentary on Galatians that Paul and every Christian is dead to the WHOLE law. He says :" Wherefore when papists understand that the ceremonial law only is abolished,understand though,that Paul and every Christian is dead to the whole law,and yet the the whole remaineth"

Btw, Mr Potts is only expounding on Gadsby.

There is a lot here for all of us to think about IMHO.

I am just learning......a beggar at the table.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Thu Feb 12, 2004 1:11 PM

Yes, I thoroughly recommend Luther's commentary on Galatians. The edition published by James Clarke publishers, edited by Philip S. Watson is the best, and has the full introduction which is very clear about the difference's between Christ's righteousness and the righteousness of the law - they aren't the same thing.

Ian
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Thu Feb 12, 2004 1:27 PM

I have the James Clarke one though I have not read it yet.

Like all commentaries, I use them when I get stuck in Scripture and just dip into them.The introduction looks interesting....
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Thu Feb 12, 2004 1:31 PM

Thanks for your prayers Susan .That is most kind thanks
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Thu Feb 12, 2004 2:13 PM

Susan Rightly said:
Quote
I swallowed the same error Mr Potts is teaching here years ago for lack of available sound teaching. You cannot read Psalm 119 and accept his conclusion.


I swallowed it too, but then it was taught under the guise of Dispensationalism. It matters not how the Adversary disguises his lies, or how seductively or persuasivly they are presented, they are still lies, and I have seen the results of it worked out in the life of congregations of professors and posessors and I want no part of it ever again.

Ps 119 clearly states: "Oh how I love thy Law, it is my meditation all the day". This is one of the verses that the Lord "brought with power to my soul" when He first began to call me out of this error. Now, were I to accept Mr. Potts teaching, I could no longer do that, that is "love thy Law", for then I would be a Judaiser and I would be in bondage to the Law again. But I freely confess to Mr. Potts that I do, by the grace of the Spirit, I do love the law, all of it, for to love the law is to love the lord my God with all my heart and all my soul and all my mind and all my strength and my neighbor as myself, for in this is all the Law and the prophets.

The Lord no where taught that the Moral law was to be set aside by grace, but rather, it is too be lived out by grace, and the Spirit uses that Law to teach and guide his elect children.

When Mr Potts gets around to exegeting the verses, or even one of them, that Pilgrim has requested, it will be interesting, and revealing, to see how his exegesis of those commandments EXCLUDES God's moral Law, for that is the gist of what Mr. Potts is teaching.

It is my prayer that he might be undeceived.

In His Mercy,

Gerry
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Thu Feb 12, 2004 2:20 PM

Gerry, Psalm 119 refers to the law . Not a "moral law"

This is making me dizzy
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Thu Feb 12, 2004 2:30 PM

I too love the law Gerry in that it is holy, just and good. It reveals much of God's righteousness, but not all. There is nothing wrong with the law, except that sinful man under it is unable to keep it.

That is the same for believers as well as unbelievers as believers still have the flesh.

But the believer is not under the law, he is under grace. He fulfils the requirements of the law by faith, not by law. He is not under the law's yoke, but is yoked to Christ, whose yoke is easy.

This is exactly what Huntington teaches and I thought from some of your other posts that you liked Huntington's writings?

"Law" in Psalm 119 really refers to the Books of the Law, the books of Moses, or in other words the Word of God, as it was at the time. We all love the Word of God (Mosaic Law included) but that doesn't mean that we are under the law. We are under grace.

My exegesis of the verses you mention won't exclude the righteousness as described by the law Gerry. It is never right to steal, to commit adultery, to worship idols, to murder. That isn't the point. The point is how we fulfil such a righteous walk - by law, or by faith? I answer by faith, yoked to Christ, as led by the Spirit.

In fact I have already said enough about similar verses to those for you to understand. I have said that Christ's commandments are to believe in Him and to love Him and one another. Well, that's the fulfilling of the law isn't it? To love God and our neighbour? But that isn't the same as being bound to the law in order to achieve that. This is love which springs from the heart of the new man of grace, as a fruit of the Spirit within us, which causes us to fulfil what the law demands. But if we go to the law as an outward rule of life to TELL us to do that (rather than keeping our gaze by faith upon Christ) the result is the opposite. We actually end up breaking the very law which we strive to keep, because it stirs up the sin in our flesh. The end 'objective' is the same you see (righteousness) but there are two ways of trying to get there, one is by faith, and one is by the works of the law. The latter never achieves it, but faith does. Faith worketh by love. This is the work of God within us, which produces fruit. It's something of a mystery, a paradox perhaps, but God's children come to learn these things by experience. Believe me - I know by bitter experience what it is like to fail miserably under the law until all it became to me was condemnation, the good that I would I could not do. But God delivered me from this body of death and sin by crucifying my flesh with Christ, and raising me up in newness of life with him. And now I walk in the Spirit and actually fulfill the demands of the law, not by the law, but by faith in Christ, and by the Spirit's leading.

I don't wish to court controversy, so I am happy to leave this topic to yourselves to debate for a while. If you have any further questions of me I will be happy to answer them.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Thu Feb 12, 2004 2:43 PM

Quote
I don't wish to court controversy, so I am happy to leave this topic to yourselves to debate for a while. If you have any further questions of me I will be happy to answer them.

Not so fast Mr. Potts!
You have some 'spaining to do first about the verses Pilgrim posted.
Quote
John 14:15 (ASV) "If ye love me, ye will keep my commandments. . . . 21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself unto him."


John 15:9-10 (ASV) "Even as the Father hath loved me, I also have loved you: abide ye in my love. If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love."


1 John 5:3 (ASV) "For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous."



We are eagerly awaiting your exegesis! grin
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Thu Feb 12, 2004 2:50 PM

Quote
Gerry said:I swallowed it too, but then it was taught under the guise of Dispensationalism. It matters not how the Adversary disguises his lies, or how seductively or persuasivly they are presented, they are still lies, and I have seen the results of it worked out in the life of congregations of professors and posessors and I want no part of it ever again.


bravo Gerry, that is so true! I admit that I even had a distain for God's law at the time and I thought those who would say that they "loved the law" were negative and legalistic. blush But a true Christian loves what God loves and hates what God hates. How can we love God if we can disregard or diminish His Word?

Quote
The Lord no where taught that the Moral law was to be set aside by grace, but rather, it is too be lived out by grace, and the Spirit uses that Law to teach and guide his elect children.

When Mr Potts gets around to exegeting the verses, or even one of them, that Pilgrim has requested, it will be interesting, and revealing, to see how his exegesis of those commandments EXCLUDES God's moral Law, for that is the gist of what Mr. Potts is teaching.


I agree with you wholeheartedly, Gerry! BigThumbUp
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Thu Feb 12, 2004 2:57 PM

I'm pleased that you are so keen to read what I have to say Susan!

But as I said before, how come I have to do all 'work' here. What about a proper reply to each of Gadsby's points from yourselves?

I'll try to get to the verses, but not today. The thing is do you really want to hear the truth regarding them, are you wanting to learn from what I have to say, or are you just trying to 'trip me up'? If I don't exegete those verses I could be accused of having no answer to them, and if I do exegete them then I daresay you'll try to find flaws in my exegesis.

But actually all these verses say is similar things to the verses I have already spoken about. They mention keeping Christ's and the Father's commandments, which aren't grievous. I have shown that the 'law' is not being spoken of in 1 John already. These commandments respect believing in Christ, abiding in Him, loving Him, and loving one another. That's not the same as being bound by the law.

What else are you looking for me to say about the verses? Perhaps you'll offer your exegesis too. How can they refer to the law which was a burden the fathers could not bear? If Christ's yoke is easy then it is a different yoke, isn't it?
Posted By: Pilgrim

Re: The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Thu Feb 12, 2004 5:26 PM

Mr Potts,

Again I say, you are corrupting what Paul was inspired to write in his Epistle to the Galatians, the purpose of which was to combat and refute the heresy of the Judaisers who taught that faith must be mixed with the keeping of the ceremonial law (you must become a Jew) with faith in order to be justified. He is NOT presenting a case for a sanctification without conformity to the moral law of God. The text itself is more than clear that the focus is upon justification by faith alone, apart from the works of the law.

I give you Dr. William Hendriksen's excellent exegesis and commentary, in part, on Gal 3:10-12.





10. For as many as rely on law-works are under a curse; for it is written: “Cursed (is) everyone who does not continue in all the things that are written in the book of the law, to do them.” This is a modified quotation from Deut. 27:26, which, according to the Hebrew reads: “Cursed (is) he who does not confirm the words of this law, to do them.” In the Old Testament these words form the conclusion of the chapter that contains the curses that were to be pronounced from Mt. Ebal after the children of Israel would have passed over the Jordan. Now the curse which the law here pronounces is very real. Unless this be granted Gal. 3:13 will be meaningless. Nevertheless, it is a fact, often ignored, that in Deuteronomy not only the blessing which was to be shouted from Mt. Gerizim but also the curse occurs in a setting of love, the idea being that by means of proclamation of this blessing and curse Israel, tenderly addressed as “the people of Jehovah thy God!,” shall live a consecrated life to the glory of their merciful Deliverer. Paul’s intentional departure from the Hebrew text when he writes, “the book of the law” may have been occasioned by his desire to emphasize the thought that the entire law, with all its precepts, considered! as a unity, is meant. His reference to “everyone” and to “all the things” reminds one of the LXX rendering: “Cursed (is) every man who does not continue in all the words of this law, to do them.” But these changes are not of an essential nature.

Now what was really the purpose of God’s law? God gave his law in order that man, by nature a child of wrath, and thus lying under the curse (Gal. 3:13) ,as definitely declared in Deut. 27:26; John 3:36; Eph. 3:2, might be reminded not only of his unchanged obligation to live in perfect harmony with this law (Lev. 19:2) , but also of his total inability to fulfil this obligation (Rom. 7:24). [That total inability is brought to light even more sharply when the law is interpreted in its true, inner meaning. Thus Jesus showed that, in order to qualify as a murderer, being angry with one’s brother would suffice, while similarly the lustful glance would suffice to make one an adulterer (Matt. 5:21-48)] Thus this law would serve as a custodian to conduct the sinner to Christ (Gal. 3:24; cf. Rom. 7:25) , in order that, having been saved by grace, he might, in principle, live the life of gratitude. That life is one of freedom in harmony with God’s law (Gal. 5:13, 14). However, the Judiaizers were perverting this true purpose of the law. They were relying on law-works as a means of salvation. On that basis they would fail forever, and Deut. 27:26, when interpreted in that framework, pronounced God’s heavy and unmitigated curse upon them; yes, curse, not blessing. The law condemns, works wrath (Rom. 4:15; 5:16, 18).

11. The fact that the opponents were diverting the law from its true purpose and that this attempt was bound to result in tragic failure is brought out clearly, as Paul continues: Now it is evident that by law no one is justified before God, for “The righteous shall live by faith.” The law has no power to subdue man’s sinful tendencies. It cannot destroy the power of sin within man (Rom. 8:3). How then can a sinner ever attain to the ultimate blessing of being righteous in the sight of God? How can that true, rich, full life in which man is at peace with his Maker, and abides in sweet communion with him, ever be reached? The answer, which holds for both dispensations, the old and the new, and for people of every race or nationality, whether Gentile or Jew, is this: “The righteous shall live by faith.” It is the man who has placed his entire confidence in God, trusting him implicitly, and accepting with gladness of heart the gracious provision which that merciful Father has made for his salvation, it is he, he alone, who shall live. This living consists in such things as: a. enjoying the peace of God which passes all understanding (Phil. 4:7), in the knowledge that in the sight of God’s holy majesty the believer is righteous (Rom. 5:1; 8:15) b. having fellowship with God “in Christ” (John 17:3); c. “rejoicing greatly with joy unspeakable and full of glory” (I Peter 1 :8); d. “being transformed into the image of the Lord! from glory to glory” (II Cor. 3:18); and e., last but not least, striving to be a spiritual blessing to others to the glory of God (I Thess. 3:8)

12. Continued: But the law does not belong to faith; on the contrary, “He who does them shall live by them.” In its own setting the included quotation from the book of Leviticus (18:5) is beautiful and comforting. It is introduced as follows: “Speak to the children of Israel and say to them, I am Jehovah y o u r God” (verse 2). This encouraging assurance is repeated in verse 4, and is followed by “Y o u must therefore keep my statutes and my ordinances; which, if a man do, he shall live by them: I am Jehovah” (verse 5).. In summary this means: “As y o u r sovereign God I have a right to order y o u to keep my statutes, and as y o u r faithful and loving God I will help and strengthen y o u to observe these statutes out of gratitude.” So interpreted, observing God’s law is the believer’s joy. Did not the Psalmist exclaim: ‘O how I love thy law! It is my meditation all the day”?

However, when one begins to “rely on law-works” (Gal. 3:10), as if such obedience to law amounts to a ticket of admission into the kingdom of heaven—and that, after all, is the context here in Galatians—he should bear in mind that, so conceived, law is the very opposite of faith. The two cannot be combined. Leaning on law means leaning on self. Exercising faith means leaning on Christ. As avenues by which men attempt to obtain salvation the two simply do not mix. They are thoroughly antagonistic. Paul himself supplies the best commentary: “But when the kindness of God our Savior and his love toward man appeared, he saved us, not by virtue of works which we ourselves had performed in a (state of) righteousness, but according to his mercy through the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit” (Titus 3:4, 5). Cf. John 1:17. Those who expect to be justified by observing all the statutes and ordinances of the law should remember that “He who does them shall live by them.” They are even more foolish than those who imagine that they can quench their thirst by drinking salt water. Lev. 18:5 now becomes their accuser, but that is their fault!



In His Grace,
Posted By: Wes

Re: The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Thu Feb 12, 2004 5:34 PM

Quote
Ian Potts wrote:
Thanks for the article by Murray. I haven’t time to comment on that just now, but I would like to make some brief comments on what you say above.

“We do not keep the Law to be saved” you say, as though we are justified by faith alone, without the works of the law, yet for sanctification the law is a rule of life.

However the very verses which teach us that we are not justified by the law also demonstrate that we are no longer under it in an ongoing state. We are dead to the law, meaning not just for the purpose of justification but for sanctification – we are dead to it. We are married to another, Christ, and therefore to go back to our old husband, the law, would be to commit spiritual adultery – to break the very law you claim we are bound to! See Romans 7.


Mr. Potts, I would encourage you to read the Murry article I've provided for you in my reply because it may help you understand the purpose of the law especially as Paul deals with it in Romans 7. The law is not the problem sin is! The law reveals the will of God, it serves as a mirror for us to see our sins, and it also provides guidelines for living a life of gratitude. As Murray writes "the burden Paul bemoans is not the law but that which is its contradiction, the other law in his members warring against the law of his mind (Romans 7:23)."

You speak of being dead to the law. Well, when Paul wrote that quote in Galations he was making it clear that he had passed from under its power, in respect to non-justification or condemnation. He didn't discredit its usefulness as you do. What Paul was teaching in this Galations pasage is that he died with Christ and now lives a life of faith. This is true for every believer who can say with Paul, "It is no more I who live, but Christ who lives in me."

Quote
Ian Potts wrote:
You go on to say “But rather, "by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments. He who says, "I know Him," and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoever keeps His word, truly the love of God is perfected in him. By this we know that we are in Him." (I John 2:3-5)”

Absolutely we do keep Christ’s commandments, and we keep His word. The word “Keep” here in the Greek fundamentally means to keep in our minds, to treasure, to store up, to lay hold of, not to forget. Obviously if so doing it will lead to obedience to Christ’s words, but obedience is the consequence of such keeping whereas ‘keep’ itself is the treasuring up, the remembrance, the belief of these words.


To keep His commandments means something more than to keep in our minds, to treasure, to store up, to lay hold of, not to forget. John is saying, if we know Him, we will obey Him! This means both in word and deed. Just as he wrote in the Gospel of John where he quotes Jesus saying, "He who has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me, and he who loves me will be loved of my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him." For the believer who is in relationship with Christ there will be a hearty acceptance and willing subjection to God's whole revealed will. Faith will be demonstrated by love and obedience.

In verse 14. “all the law”— Greek, "the whole law," namely, the Mosaic law. Love to God is presupposed as the root from which love to our neighbor springs; and it is in this tense the latter precept (so "word" means here) is said to be the fulfilling of "all the law" ( Lev 19:18 ). Love is "the law of Christ" ( Gal 6:2 Mat 7:12 22:39, 40 Rom 13:9, 10 ).

Is fulfilled”--Not as received text "is being fulfilled," but as the oldest manuscripts read, "has been fulfilled"; and so "receives its full perfection," as rudimentary teachings are fulfilled by the more perfect doctrine. The law only united Israelites together: the Gospel unites all men, and that in relation to God

Quote
Ian Potts wrote:
So in summary, at the heart of Christ’s words, His ‘commandments’ are “That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment”.


Your summary here is good. Unfortunately you have changed the meanings of some of these terms along the way by your interpretation in this thread. Jesus said, "You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.'This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets." This is a summary of the law. It has been fulfilled in Christ and should be evident in the lives of all his disciples.


Wes
Posted By: Wes

Re: The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Thu Feb 12, 2004 5:44 PM

Mark,

John is saying, If we know Him, we will obey Him! He makes it very clear that if we say we know Him and don't keep His commandments we are liars, and the truth is no in us. A genuine faith will be demonstrated by love and obedience.


Wes
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Fri Feb 13, 2004 4:38 AM

Susan, when you had a disdain for Gods law,were you saved at the time or was the law working its work upon you ?

As you rightly say, Christians delight in the law of God when saved but they cannot beforehand - or can they ?

Are you saying (as Gerry is also),that so-called antinomianism stems from dispensational heresy ?
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Fri Feb 13, 2004 5:48 AM

Gerry Said

When Mr Potts gets around to exegeting the verses, or even one of them, that Pilgrim has requested, it will be interesting, and revealing, to see how his exegesis of those commandments EXCLUDES God's moral Law, for that is the gist of what Mr. Potts is teaching.

I beg to differ Gerry. The point is Gods Law not a so-called moral law. Did you ever understand Gadsby or do you think he died a heretic ? Gadsby and Potts have said they delight in the law. They refer to Law as Gods law - not a hybrid God/man (moral) law. Why do you think they hate the law ? shrug Have you a copy of Gadsbys hymns ? I will send you one should you wish to re-evaluate his position.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Fri Feb 13, 2004 7:58 AM

Wes, why do you say Mr.Potts ,Gadsby et al, "discredit its(law) usefulness" ? Or have I missed something - again ?

Are they not refering to the
whole counsel of God and his Law rather than a small section of a so-called moral law ?



What does the Bible say about "moral" law ?















The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary says of "Moral law" : the body of requirements in conformity to which virtuous action consists;one of these requirements.OPPOSED to "positive" or "insituted" laws.

So is the moral law ,as you see it , opposed to Biblically insituted law as it meaning implies ?

Are we not to delight in the insituted Law of God rather than the philosophical traditions ,customs ,ethics and morals of men ? (Col 2:8)
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Fri Feb 13, 2004 8:45 AM

Pilgrim,
Here are some thoughts on those passages for you…
I hope they will be helpful,
In God’s grace,
Ian

“A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.
By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.”

John 13:34-35


Quote

"If ye love me, keep my commandments. . . .
He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.”
John 14:15,21


At the commencement of the Gospel of John the Lord Jesus Christ is introduced as the Word of God, He who is life, who is the light of men, which shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not. He was sent unto His own (the Jews) but His own received him not.

Despite all the religion which the Jews had, the priesthood, the law, the tabernacle, the promises, they are still depicted in John 1 as being in darkness when Christ came into the world, and they received not Him who is the light of men. That’s where their enlightenment in religion, in the law brought them – darkness.

But Christ is LIGHT. John is a book about light, about life.

Christ is described as being full of grace and truth. This is contrasted with the law and Moses in 1:17 “For the law was given by Moses but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ”. Clearly there is light in Christ which wasn’t revealed in the law. Though there was a glory in the law, compared to the light in Christ, compared to the glory which excelleth it is but a shadow, like a candle held up to the light of the sun it is but darkness.

In John 14 we have this point picked up on in verse 6: “I am the way, the truth and the life, no man cometh unto the Father but by me”.

Again we see here that Christ is ‘the life’. He is the Word of God and His words are life as we read in John 6:63:

Quote

“It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.”


We can see from this that there is something different about Christ’s words, His commandments. They are life, they are life-giving commandments. They are attended with power. Why? Because of who Christ is – The Son of the Living God.

In chapter 14 Christ demonstrates how He is the revelation of the Father, that He and His Father are one. That he who believes on Christ believes on the Father, and he who rejects Him rejects the Father. The Father is glorified in the Son 14:13.

In verses 16-19 Christ talks of sending the Comforter, the Spirit of truth, as He himself is about to depart from the disciples. It is the Spirit who leads God’s people into truth. So we have a chapter in which the great truth of One God in Three Persons is set forth.

It is in this context that we read in verse 15 “if ye love me, keep my commandments”, and in 21 “He that hath my commandments and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me”. In verse 23 we read “If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.”, whereas in verse 24 “He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father’s which sent me.”

The key to understanding what these commandments, these sayings are, and what ‘keeping’ them means is picked up in verse 26, where the Comforter’s role is developed:

Quote

“But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.”


This is the keeping of Christ’s commandments, His sayings. It is to ‘keep’ them in remembrance, to be taught them, to believe them, and consequently to walk in obedience to them. It is the Holy Spirit’s work to teach us these things, to bring them to our remembrance.

The only people who will ‘keep’ Christ’s words, sayings, commandments, are those who have the Spirit sent unto them, who receive from Him FAITH. But not all men do – see verse 17. The Jews who rested in the law and rejected Christ didn’t know the Spirit, or His leading into truth, and they didn’t believe Christ’s words, or receive them let alone ‘keep’ them.

The end of all these commandments, these words, is that we love God. We love Christ. We dwell in Him. We have eternal life because Christ IS our life. The union of Father, Son and Holy Ghost is set forth in John 14, and our union with God, as those who ‘keep’ (believe, remember, treasure up) Christ’s commandments, words, sayings, is shown forth in the love we have for God and our brethren.

All of these ideas of union, of abiding in Christ, in His love, in His life, His light, keeping, loving His words, as the words of truth and grace, is developed in chapter 15 where we read of the true vine and the branches. Our life as believers is inextricably linked with Christ’s. We are branches on His vine. We abide in Him and His love, and thus we love His words, His sayings, His commandments, we ‘keep’ them. As it says:-

Quote

“As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love.
If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.”
John 15:9-10


So, if we ‘keep’ Christ’s words of truth and grace in our minds and hearts, if we abide in Him, then we shall abide in Christ’s love. There is no other way to remain in His love. And out of love we willingly do all that Christ asks us to. We love His word, we treasure it, we believe it by faith. And we walk in faith. Faith produces works, works of faith. It is all a matter of abiding, of walking in the light, which only those chosen of God, born of the Spirit can do. For they have eternal life.

This is the message of John. That light has shone in the darkness. That Christ is that light, that He has revealed the Father, that to love God we must be in that light, we must partake of that life, we must abide in Christ’s love, we must walk in the Spirit, and believe in Christ by Faith. And it is the work of God that we do just that – not of the will of man, but of God.

It is these truths, these sayings, which we believe. That Christ is the light of men. That He is eternal life. That we can only know the Father through the Son. That those who abide in Christ will love the Father. That Jesus has the words of eternal life. These sayings, are at the heart, they are the essence of the commandments mentioned in the Gospel of John and in 1st John.

These commandments are mentioned in 1 John 5:3:

Quote

“For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.”
1 John 5:3


What commandments are these? The law? No, for we are dead to the law by the body of Christ (Romans 7). And these commandments are not grievous whereas the commandments of the law were – they were a burden our fathers could not bear. This easy ‘yoke’ of Christ’s commandments is mentioned in Matthew 11:

Quote

“All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.
Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.
For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.”
Matthew 11:27-30


Now who are those who are burdened, who are heavy laden? Why, those who were under the law of course, who found it to be hard labour striving to keep all its demands, who found that the sin within them only multiplied under the law and condemned them so that the good that they would they could not do (Romans 7). But Christ calls them to take his yoke which is easy. This is the yoke of His commandments, which unlike the burdensome law, are easy to bear, they are not ‘grievous’ as 1 John 5:3 tells us.

What commandments are these? Well they are mentioned throughout 1 John, but chapter 3:23-24 summarises them:

Quote

“And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.
And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us”.
1 John 3:23-24


The commandments are summarised as to believe on the name of God’s son Jesus Christ, and love one another. How can we do that? Only by the work of the Spirit. No one without the work of the Spirit in granting the gift of faith can believe. And no one can love God or their brethren except the Spirit worketh that fruit, that love, within them. But if the Spirit does work, then we willingly believe on Christ, we love Him and our brethren. We dwell in God and He in us. He abides with us by the Spirit. We walk in the light and not in the darkness. We have eternal life. We BELIEVE these things.

All of this is just the same as that taught in John 14 and 15. The connection between abiding in Christ, and being led into truth by the Spirit, and keeping the commandments of believing in Christ, loving Him and the brethren is so strong in all these passages. When we abide in Him, we love Him. These commandments, these words of Christ are words of life – they result in the things commanded.

None of this has to do with law. It simply isn’t mentioned, though we see it contrasted in John 1:17. Christ’s commandments of believing in Him (faith) and loving Him and the brethren will certainly fulfil all the demands of the law, but it is in no way a sending of believers back to Moses. For that would be to have the burden we couldn’t bear put back on our shoulders. Those commandments ARE grievous. And they work wrath. As we see in the following verses:

Quote

“ Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?”

“For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;
That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.”
Acts 15:10, 28-29


“For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.
For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.”
Romans 7:9-11


But Christ’s commandments are not burdensome. For they are in the light, whereas the law never brought light, it left men in darkness. It is under the Gospel, by the Spirit that we have light, we receive eternal life, we abide in the love of Father, Son and Spirit, and in which we walk by faith, looking unto Jesus, the Way, the Truth and the Life, ‘keeping’, believing, holding onto His words, sayings, commandments, and by which we love God and our brethren.

In John 13:34-35 we read:-

Quote

“A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.
By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.”


A new commandment? Yes, but an old commandment too. Then why a new commandment? Because although Christ’s commandments of faith and love are a fulfilment of the old (the Law) nevertheless they are new, they are not the law, but Gospel. They are words of life, they are the living word, the ministration of righteousness, whereas the Old Covenant condemned to death, it was a ministration of death.

There is a huge contrast between the commandments in the Law of Moses and those words of life, full of grace and truth which come from the lips of Jesus. The Law demanded works from man without ever providing the ability to perform those works. All the ability was demanded from man. But man being full of sin just finds that he is utterly incapable of keeping those commandments. Even the believer who loves them and would desire to keep them finds that when he tries, the good that he would he cannot do. The law simply fires up the sin which is in the flesh, and man finds himself completely condemned by the law.

The words of Christ however are living words. They are ‘the words of eternal life’. When Christ commands power attends the command, life attends it, ability to do what is requested is provided. When Christ called to dead Lazarus to ‘Come forth’ Lazarus came forth! Nothing was expected of Lazarus – the words provided the life. When Christ commanded the impotent man at the pool of Bethesda to “Rise, take up thy bed and walk” (John 5:8) “immediately the man was made whole, and took up his bed and walked”. Such are the commands of Jesus, life giving commands, which we are called to ‘keep’.

And who do ‘keep’ these commands? Those disciples whom God has called out of this world, quickened by the Spirit, brought to life at the command of Jesus. At the time when many left Jesus he asked his disciples:-

Quote

“Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?
Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.
And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.”
John 6:67-69


To whom else shall WE go? Christ has the words of eternal life. Let us keep them in faith and love in the power of an endless life.


"For the law was given by Moses but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ"
John 1:17
http://www.graceandtruthonline.com
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Fri Feb 13, 2004 7:24 PM

This might help from Luther.

We must reject those who so highly boast of Moses's laws,as to temporal affairs, for we have our written imperial and country laws,under which we live,and under which we are sworn. Neither Naaman the Syrian, nor Job, nor Joseph, nor Daniel,nor many other good and godly Jews, observed Moses's law out of their country,but those of the Gentiles among whom they lived.

Anyone here disagree with this ?

I agree with Luther 100% on this btw
Posted By: Wes

Re: The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Fri Feb 13, 2004 7:57 PM

Quote
BookMark said:
Wes, why do you say Mr.Potts ,Gadsby et al, "discredit its(law) usefulness" ? Or have I missed something - again ?

Jesus didn't come to destroy the law but to fulfill it. (Matt.5:17) We do not make void the law through faith: yea, we establish the law. (Romans 3:31)

The moral law law of God FOREVER binds everyone, believers and non-believers alike.

Romans 13:8
“Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. 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. Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.”

I John 2: 7-8
”Brethren, I write no new commandment unto you, but an old commandment which ye had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word which ye have heard from the beginning. Again, a new commandment I write unto you, which thing is true in him and in you: because the darkness is past, and the true light now shineth.”

Neither does Christ, in the Gospel, any way dissolve, but much strengthen this obligation.

Matthew 5:17
“Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”

Romans 3:31
“Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.”


Wes
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Fri Feb 13, 2004 8:53 PM

Mark,
I always loved the Bible since becoming a Christian and have read it constantly since then. For some odd reason, I found it no problem to walk around while holding to very contradictory things.
I read a book called called The Grace Awakening, not realizing until reading it again years later that it contained much error. I remember visiting a reformed church with a friend of mine and her father taught the Sunday School lesson about the Law. My reaction to his lesson was that he was legalistic. Yes, I was a Christian, but a deceived one at the time. I didn't realize until years later reading Tabletalk Magazine that the law is good, even if we cannot be justified by it, and we are to love it, and it is given to us to guide us into all righteousness because it is based on God's holy character. (I am speaking of the moral law here.) I finally saw that the negative way I had viewed the law as something we want to get rid of had been very wrong.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:27 PM

Wes , if Christians are BOUND to the "moral law" as YOU say then we are not Free indeed. shocked

I cannot believe you said that Wes sigh

Please Wes , tell me where is the Freedom in Christ if we are still in BONDAGE to the Law.
I thinks you are more dizzy about this than I am .

At least its got you thinking about it. This has kept me awake many a night.....

Thanks for your thoughts Wes. Keep thinking and praying through it......
Posted By: Pilgrim

Re: The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:40 PM

Quote
BookMark said:
This might help from Luther.

We must reject those who so highly boast of Moses's laws,as to temporal affairs, for we have our written imperial and country laws,under which we live,and under which we are sworn. Neither Naaman the Syrian, nor Job, nor Joseph, nor Daniel,nor many other good and godly Jews, observed Moses's law out of their country,but those of the Gentiles among whom they lived.

Anyone here disagree with this ?

I agree with Luther 100% on this btw

Mark,

Do you REALLY agree with Luther 100%? I ask you this because it was Martin Luther who first coined the phrase "Antinomian", from the Greek word meaning ‘against law’. He used it of those who thought that with the coming of the Christian gospel, God’s law could now be safely relegated to oblivion. There is a sense in which this heresy arose from a misunderstanding of the Apostle John’s statement, ‘The law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ’ (John 1:17, AV). This was interpreted to mean that Moses and his law have now been superseded by Jesus Christ and His grace. Other statements about Christians not being ‘under law’ but ‘under grace’ lent weight to this view. The fact that there is no ‘but’ in the Greek original of John 1:17 should have given the Antinomians pause, quite apart from many other New Testament statements which establish the moral law as an essential element in the life of grace.

Thus, Martin Luther, if alive today would stand against you and your Antinomianism. scratchchin

And lastly, as a side note, I am rather confused by something else you have said on more than one occasion in these debates. You have confessed that you are "working your way through" this matter and have not come to any firm position. Yet, I have not found you once to argue for the traditional, historical Reformed view. But rather, you are quite adamant in arguing for the Antinomian view. Care to explain that, IF you are in fact, simply trying to "work your way through" this subject.

In His Grace,
Posted By: Tom

Re: The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Fri Feb 13, 2004 10:15 PM

Mark

It is obvious that you disagree with what Wes said, so perhaps it might be helpful to get your exegesis of at least one of the Scripture passages Wes used in his argument.


Tom
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Fri Feb 13, 2004 10:49 PM

Pilgrim, where have I said;" Gods Law could safely be relegated to oblivion" as you imply .Explain please shrug

Your last comment is unfounded Pilgrim.I am new to CT,as well you know. I am not going to agree with everything TRADITION tells me to lest I have it clear.I wont be bullied by you , the WCF , or ANY tradition. I endeavour to test things with scripture. I am not just "talking" for the sake of it.

We (some) could all quote Luther, Calvin , Watson, Zwingli and Uncle Bloody Tom Cobbly 'till the cows come home .

As previously stated, I am up to speed on the Puritan debate between 1640-1700 and ,quite frankly, there is no sign here that many are. For anyone to equate Luthers description of the Antinomians of his day to Christian men like Gadsby,Warburton,Huntington etc is just , quite frankly;not reading enough.IMHO tongue

If I agreed with my "elders" I might have been a JW not so long ago btw. grin There but by the Grace of God go i
Posted By: Saved_n_kept

Re: The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Fri Feb 13, 2004 11:10 PM

Pilgrim,

Quote
You have confessed that you are "working your way through" this matter and have not come to any firm position. Yet, I have not found you once to argue for the traditional, historical Reformed view. But rather, you are quite adamant in arguing for the Antinomian view.


I think you have "hit the nail on the head."
Posted By: Pilgrim

Re: The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Fri Feb 13, 2004 11:23 PM

Quote
Pilgrim, where have I said;" Gods Law could safely be relegated to oblivion" as you imply .Explain please

You have too many times said that the Moral Law of God is no longer binding upon Christians. Could it be said any plainer than that? scratchchin

Now, you can get feisty all you like.. to a point of course, with all your silly rhetoric, e.g., "I wont be bullied by you , the WCF , or ANY tradition.'! evilgrin But it isn't going to change the facts nor the truth that Antinomians in EVERY age have been rejected and soundly refuted. That heresies "morph" from generation to generation is nothing new, because the Father of Lies is like a chameleon who changes colors to match its surroundings so as to blend in and not be easily recognized.

So, all your empty protests will avail nothing with me nor with the vast majority of people here, who btw, don't follow men as sheep, but are students of Scripture and taught by the Holy Spirit no less than what you claim is true of yourself. So, any of those arguments are just weak strawman ploys. laugh The matter in dispute has been clearly stated by you and I'm not one to let you off the hook with some attempt to use semantics. Anti (against) nomian (law), = anyone who rejects the perpetuity and binding application of God's Moral Law, aka: Ten Commandments for believers. This would include all forms of Dispensationalism who would bifurcate the Moral Law and say it was applicable and binding upon OT Israel, but not upon NT Christians. Now, is this not your position? the one which you claim you are "working through" yet find nothing truthful in the view that opposes it? scratch1

Quote
As previously stated, I am up to speed on the Puritan debate between 1640-1700 and ,quite frankly, there is no sign here that many are.

Don't preen yourself, brother, as being the only one who has read the Puritans. And I find this statement totally at odds with what you wrote immediately beforehand where you said quoting from notable authors is basically fruitless, etc. Yet, here you are boasting of being "up to speed" of the issue having read some of the debate which took place between 1640-1700 by Puritan authors? scold

What we have so often asked for and have received so little is EXEGESIS of SCRIPTURE. Soooooo, where is YOUR exegesis of the texts that have been used against your view? Are they forthcoming or not? Can you make a case that Scripture never uses "commandments" as a synonym for the Decalogue or any of the Moral Law? I anxiously await your biblical expositions.

In His Grace,
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Fri Feb 13, 2004 11:34 PM

Hello Brian.

I thought you were living in the shadow of Ben Nevis.

Alas poor man, you do appear to be living in the shadow of Mt Sinai. Seek Zion.
Posted By: CovenantInBlood

Re: The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Fri Feb 13, 2004 11:37 PM

Quote
Alas poor man, you do appear to be living in the shadow of Mt Sinai. Seek Zion.


Mark, it is clear you have made up your mind with a statement like this!
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Sat Feb 14, 2004 12:29 AM

Hi Kyle smile

With respect old bean, why not re-read the thread,including scripture quotes, have a look at ALL of Pauls Epistles,and then consider Sinai and Zion. (1 Timothy 1:7)

Ben Nevis is a hill in Northern England-called "Scotland" by the great unwashed.

Btw , if I'd have posted that it might have been deleted grin
Posted By: CovenantInBlood

Re: The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Sat Feb 14, 2004 12:34 AM

Quote
With respect old bean, why not re-read the thread,including scripture quotes, have a look at ALL of Pauls Epistles,and then consider Sinai and Zion. (1 Timothy 1:7)


Mark, what should I re-read? You said you were "working through it" and as Pilgrim and Brian pointed out, and as you have shown with your comment, your mind is already settled on the matter.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Sat Feb 14, 2004 12:54 AM

Kyle, my comment shows that Brian is settled on the matter. wink

As I advised ,re-read .....
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Sat Feb 14, 2004 1:00 AM

Mark,
I wonder, how would you define antinomianism?
How would an antinomian's beliefs differ from what you are saying?

BTW don't you sleep Mark? The BBC news on National Public Radio just announced it is 3 AM there! wow1
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Sat Feb 14, 2004 1:23 AM

Dear Mark:

Quote
I beg to differ Gerry. The point is Gods Law not a so-called moral law. Did you ever understand Gadsby or do you think he died a heretic ? Gadsby and Potts have said they delight in the law. They refer to Law as Gods law - not a hybrid God/man (moral) law. Why do you think they hate the law ? Have you a copy of Gadsbys hymns ? I will send you one should you wish to re-evaluate his position.


Mark, everyone who disagrees with me is not an heretic. I never said Gadsby was an heretic. I believe he was in error about the Law as I believe you are. I never said they hate the Law, either Mark, now did I? No I don't have a copy of Gadsby's hymns, but I do have a copy of Hart's. I wouldn't object to Gadsby's hymns in all probability, except for the ones that are tainted with antinomianism. I happen to believe that Gadsby, and Huntington, etc were powerfully used of God and were godly men, but that they were in error in these areas, not damnable error, but fairly serious error. I also believe there is a difference between error honestly held and error stubbornly and pridefully held.

Mark, you have not responded to Pilgrims comments on this issue as in so many of your posts in the past. You never seem to interact with the scriptures. Why do believe what you believe? Spell it out so that you can see the logic or lack thereof in what you say.

What is being done, in presenting the Law as "a problem", and it is done oh so subltly, by expressing a reverence for the Law, and a respect for it, but at the same time associating it with Judaisers and confusing it with the false use of it that Paul corrected in Galations, and failing to teach and preach on it (as is done so beautifully in the Heidleberg Catechism for example) is that the Moral Law is set aside and shunned while at the same time the claim is made that it is reverenced. This results in a sowing of confusion.

I am not "under the Law" in the sense that Paul uses that term, which is as a means of salvation, but I do most assuredly love it, and am taught by it, differently than before, when the Spirit came "as a Spirit of fear, to bondage". He no longer comes to me with the Law that way, but He does, praise God, come to me with the Law to teach me ever more deeply the meaning of sin, and the meaning of His Holiness and what it means to love the Lord and my neighbor, and to live, or attempt to live, a holy life. As Pilgrim and others have repeatedly said, sanctification and justification are not to be confused.

And remember, in order to construct a doctrine, which is a Biblical truth about a given subject, you must reconcile ALL the pertinant verses on that subject. This is basic hermeneutics. PS 119:160 says "THE SUM OF THY WORD IS TRUTH", NAS. Or, the NKJ I believe, has it; "The ENTIRETY OF THY WORD IS TRUTH". We must put ALL of the applicable verses together, and reconcile APPARENT DISCREPANCIES. Because we know the Holy Spirit wrote the scriptures through men, and He doesn't contradict Himself, therefore any apparent discrepancies are a function of our misunderstanding.

What Pilgrim and others have done for you here in many posts, is explain, in different ways, how those apparent discrepancies are reconciled. That is why Paul, in Acts 20:27, when he pointed to the validity of his teaching ministry, focused on the fact that he had "taught the whole counsel" of the Word of God. Not part of it, but all of it. That is how to avoid error. But you and Ian have accused him of error when he and others clarify the scriptures by explaining the sense in which certain terms are meant. This is not error, it is exegesis, it is comparing scripture with scripture and reconciling APPARENT error.

The Arminians err because they deny the verses that focus on the Sov Choice of God and don't reconcile them with the will and responsibilty of man. The hypercalvinists forget about the verses that speak of man's responsibility and will and focus only on God's will. BOTH must be reconciled or error results. It's very simple really, Mark, but it does require work and mental effort. Scripture interprets scripture. The "whole counsel" Mark.

In Him,

Gerry
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Sat Feb 14, 2004 1:54 AM

Sleep shocked I haven't finished my beer yet grin

Seriously Susan , your concern is overwhelming.

Gods Law in action has been duly noted .

Define antinomianism ? Look at Luthers definition and compare it with Lloyd-Jones's . Both "delighted in The Law of God", yet they differ as to WHAT The Law is. Just like we here do - do we not ?

Oh for Jesus Christ to come............

Lets not loose sight of The meaning of Life here(as far as I'm aware at least), : Revelation 4:11.

Good night folks.
Posted By: CovenantInBlood

Re: The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Sat Feb 14, 2004 2:07 AM

I'm sure Brian is settled on the matter, Mark, but he never claimed to be "working through it," as you have. You implied in your response to Brian that he puts himself unduly under the burden of the Mosaic Law given at Sinai, in contradistinction to the easy yoke of the Law of Christ given at Zion. But Mark, has anyone implied that we are to observe the ceremonies and civil laws ALSO given at Sinai? No! These were temporary, and abrogated in Christ. What most here are saying is that the moral precepts of the Law, as summated in the Decalogue, are still binding, in the sense that they delineate righteousness. I am sure Brian does not think his obedience to God's moral Law will earn him salvation. We obey God in our gratitude, knowing that we could not even begin to obey Him in the first place but for His grace!
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Sat Feb 14, 2004 2:15 AM

Dear Ian;

I have already responded to you on this subject privately by email, but for the sake of the wider audience I want to respond briefly here to one of your statements:

Quote
The point is how we fulfil such a righteous walk - by law, or by faith? I answer by faith, yoked to Christ, as led by the Spirit.


What makes you think that anyone here, or the Westminster Divines, or Owen, or Edwards, etc., is "fullfilling a righteous walk, by the Law" rather than by faith? What makes you think that you are "yoked to Christ" and we are not? What makes you so sure that we are not "led by the Spirit" and you are? On what basis, as your question implies, must a walk of faith exclude the Law?


I very much value Philpots writings for their experiential nature, and was drawn to them as a breath of fresh air after years of intellectual dryness and denial of the Spirits essential work, and I still value them for that contribution. For me, there are some parts of his sermons that are simply unsurpassed with respect to insight into experiential religion. However, when I began to see, with the help of others, that there were some other areas that did not line up with scripture, I admitted my error and moved on. May the Lord give you the grace to do the same. Not to ignore or to shun his contribution, but to put it along side others of God's servants who also have been gifted of the Lord.

As I pointed out to you privately, I believe that Dr. Beeke has illucidated nicely the issue of the Reformation and post Reformation teaching on the development of the doctrine of Assurance in his work, "The Quest for Full Assurance", and I would recommend it to you to give some perspective on this issue outside of the Strict Baptist Camp. I also note that Philpots books, as well as Gadsby's, not to mention many others of an experiential nature, including most notably Owens and Calvins and Goodwins are to be found in the Catalogue of Reformation Heritage Books, a ministry of Dr. Beeke's Heritage Netherlands Reformed Church in Grand Rapids, Mi.

No group or denomination, in my view, (including Presbyterians <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />) has a corner on the truth of God's word, and, "In a multitude of counselors there is wisdom".

In Him,

Gerry
Posted By: Wes

Re: The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Sat Feb 14, 2004 3:12 AM

Quote
BookMark said:
Wes , if Christians are BOUND to the "moral law" as YOU say then we are not Free indeed. shocked

I cannot believe you said that Wes sigh

Please Wes , tell me where is the Freedom in Christ if we are still in BONDAGE to the Law.
I thinks you are more dizzy about this than I am .


Mark,

Is a fish free if you take it out of the water? Of course not, for God created it to live in the water. Is a man free it he doesn't have to live according to God's moral law? Certainly not, for God has created him to live with it. Our freedom in Christ doesn't give us a license to sin. Paul writes, "What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Certainly not!" (Romans 6:1)

Paul goes on to say, "What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? Certainly not! Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one's slaves whom you obey, whether of sin leading to death, or obedience leading to righteousness?" (Romans 6:15,16)

My Geneva Study Bible has some excellent theological notes on this topic. I'll include them here and hopefully you'll find they answer not only your questions but also help you to see the purpose for God's law.


The Law of God

Human beings were not created autonomous (that is, free to be a law to themselves) but theonomous-subject to the law of God. This was not a hardship, because God had created man in such a way that grateful obedience would bring him the highest happiness. Duty and delight would have coincided, as they did in Jesus (John 4:34; cf. Ps. 112:1; 119:14, 16, 47, 97-113, 127, 128, 163-167). The fallen human heart hates God's law, both because it is a law and because it comes from God. Those who know Christ, however, find not only that they love the law and want to keep it, both to please God and out of gratitude for grace (Rom. 7:18-22; 12:1,2), but also that the Holy Spirit leads them into a degree of obedience that was never theirs before (Rom. 7:6; 8:4-6; Heb. 10:16).

God's moral law is abundantly set forth in Scripture, in the Decalogue (the Ten Commandments), other statues by Moses, sermons by the prophets, the teaching of Jesus, and the New Testament letters. The law reflects God's holy character and His purposes for created human beings. God commands the behavior that pleases Him and forbids what offends Him. Jesus summarizes the moral law in the two great commandments, to love God and to love your neighbor (Matt. 22:37-40). He says that on these two depend all the Old Testament moral instructions. The moral teaching of Christ and His apostles is the old law deepened and reapplied to the new circumstances - life in the kingdom of God, where the Savior reigns, and in the post-Pentecost era of the Spirit, when God's people are called to live sanctified lives in the midst of a hostile world (John 17:6-19).

Biblical law is of various sorts. Moral laws command the personal and community behavior that is always our duty. The political laws of the Old Testament applied principals of the moral law to Israel's national situation when Israel was a theocracy, God's people on earth. The Old Testament laws about ceremonial purity, diet, and sacrifices were temporary enactments for purposes of instruction. They were canceled by the New Testament because their symbolic meaning had been fulfilled (Matt. 15:20; Mark 7:15-19; Acts 10:9-16; Heb. 10:1-14; 13:9,10).

The mingling of moral, judicial, and ritual law in the Mosaic books carried the message that life under God is to be seen and lived, not compartmentally, but as a many-sided unity, and also that God's authority as legislator gave equal force to the entire code. However, the laws were of different kinds, with different purposes. The political and ceremonial laws were of limited application, while it seems clear both from the immediate context and from the rest of His teaching that Jesus affirmation of the unchanging universal force of God's law relates to the moral law as such (Matt. 5:17-19; cf. Luke 16:16,17).

God requires the total obedience of each person to all the implications of His law. As the Westminster Larger Catechism, Q. 99, says. the law binds "the whole man... unto obedience forever"; it is spiritual, and so reacheth the understanding, will, affections, and all other powers of the soul as well as the words, works, and gestures." In other words, desires as well as actions must be right; Jesus condemns the hypocrisy that tries to hide inner corruption with an outward show (Matt. 15:7, 8, 23:25-28). Furthermore, the corollaries of the law are part of its content; "where a duty is commanded, the contrary sin is forbidden; and, where sin is forbidden, the contrary duty is commanded."


Wes
Posted By: Saved_n_kept

Re: The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Sat Feb 14, 2004 6:46 AM

Quote
Ben Nevis is a hill in Northern England-called "Scotland" by the great unwashed.


Mark,

I see you are geographically as well as spiritually confused. How sad! "There are none so blind as those who do not wish to see." wink
Posted By: Anonymous

Luther's view - Sat Feb 14, 2004 2:52 PM

Mark,
I read this on another forum. Note especially the last paragraph. I don't see a disagreement with Lloyd-Jones here.

Quote
The Law & The Gospel
Martin Luther & Others -- A Reformation Sampler



Martin Luther, Sermon On Galatians, 1532
This difference between the Law and the Gospel is the height of knowledge in Christendom. Every person and all persons who assume or glory in the name of Christian should know and be able to state this difference. If this ability is lacking, one cannot tell a Christian from a heathen or a Jew; of such supreme importance is this differentiation. This is why St. Paul so strongly insists on a clean-cut and proper differentiating of these two doctrines.



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


Martin Luther, (see Luther's Works, Saint Louis edition, 11:81ff)
The law is the Word in which God teaches and tells us what we are to do and not to do, as in the Ten commandments. Now wherever human nature is alone, without the grace of God, the Law cannot be kept, because since Adam's fall in paradise man is corrupt and has nothing but a wicked desire to sin and in his heart cannot be favorably disposed toward the Law, as we know by our own experience. For there is no one who would not rather have no Law at all, and everyone finds and feels within himself that while it is difficult to be pious and do good, it is easy to be wicked and to do evil. And this difficulty or this unwillingness to do what is good prevents us form keeping Godís Law; for what is kept with dislike, difficulty, and unwillingness, rates before God as not having been kept at all. And so the Law of God convinces us by our experience that we are naturally wicked, disobedient, lovers of sin, and enemies of Godís commandments.

Now from all this one of two things must follow: presumption or despair. Presumption follows when a man sets himself to fulfill the Law with works and diligently sees to it that he does what the letter of the Law asks him to do. He serves God, does not swear, honors father and mother, does not kill, does not commit adultery, and the like. Meanwhile, however, he does not observe his heart, does not note the reason why he is leading such a fine, good life, that he is merely covering the old hypocrite in his hear with such a beautiful life. For if he looked at himself aright, at his own hear, he would discover that he is doing all these things with dislike and out of compulsion; that he fears hell or seeks heaven, if not also far more insignificant matters, namely, honor, goods, heath; and that he is motivated by the fear of shame or harm or diseases. In short, he would have to confess that he would rather lead a different life if the consequence of such a life did not deter him; for he would not do it merely for the sake of the Law. But because he does not see this bad reason, he lives on in security, looks only at the works, not into the heart, and so assumes that he is keeping the Law of God well. The face of Moses is, therefore, covered for him, that is, he dose not recognize the meaning of the Law--that it wasnít to be fulfilled with joyful, free, cheerful will. Just so an unchaste person, when asked why he commits the act, can only answer: Because of the pleasure I find in it. For he commits it for the sake of neither reward nor punishment, does not proposes to gain anything by it or to escape any evil through it.

Such pleasure the Law would also find in us, so that when you ask a chaste person why he is chaste, he should say: Not for the sake of heaven or hell, not for the sake of honor or shame, but simply because it appears to me to be very find, and I heartily approve of it even if it were not commanded. See, a heart such as this really loves God's Law and keeps it with pleasure. Such people love God and righteousness, fear and hate nothing but unrighteousness. But no man is thus constituted by nature. The others, however, love the reward and the benefit, fear ant hate the punishment and the pain. Therefore they hate God and righteousness, love themselves and unrighteousness; they are hypocrites, shams, deceivers, liars, and boasters. Without grace all men are of this kind, but especially the self-righteous. Hence Scripture says and concludes: "All men are liars" Ps. 116:11); and again (Ps 39:5; "Every man at his best state is altogether vanity"; and (Ps 14:3) "There is none that does good, no, not one." But despair follows when a man becomes aware of the reason why he is keeping the Law and recognizes that to love Godís law is impossible for him, since he finds nothing good in himself but only hatred of the good and lust for the bad. Then he recognizes that works cannot do justice to the Law. Therefore he despairs of works and disregards them. He ought to have love, but he does not find any and of and by himself can have none. The result must be a poor, miserable, humbled spirit, a man oppressed and frightened through the Law by his conscience, which demands and requires of him what he has not a penny to pay. Yet the Law alone is of benefit to such presumptuous people, for it was given to work this knowledge and humiliation. This is it's (the Law's) proper work...

The other word of God is not Law or commandment, nor does it require anything of us; but after the first Word, that of the Law, has done this work and distressful misery an poverty have been produced in the heart, God comes and offers his lovely, living Word, and promises, pledges, and obligates himself to give grace and help, that we may get out of this misery and that all sins not only be forgiven but also blotted out and that love and delight to fulfill the law may be given besides. See, this divine promise of his grace and of the forgiveness of his is properly called Gospel. And I say again and yet again that you should never understand Gospel to mean anything but the divine promise of his grace and of the forgiveness of sin. For this is why hitherto St. Paul's epistles were not understood and cannot be understood by our adversaries even now; they do not know what Law and Gospel really are. For they consider Christ a Legislator and the Gospel nothing but the teaching of new laws. This is nothing else but locking up the gospel and obscuring everything. For "Gospel" is Greek and means "good news," because in it is proclaimed the saving doctrine of life, of the divine promise, and grace and the forgiveness of sins are offered. Therefore works do not belong to the gospel; for it is not laws but faith alone, because it is nothing whatever but the promise and offer of divine grace. He, then, who believes the Gospel receives grace and the Holy Spirit. Thereby the heart becomes glad and joyful in God and then keeps the Law gladly and freely, without the fear of punishment and without the expectation of reward; for it is sated and satisfied with that grace of God by which the law has been satisfied.
Posted By: MarieP

Re: The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Sat Feb 14, 2004 3:12 PM

Amen Wes!

Just the other day, the words to William Cowper's "No Strength of Nature Can Suffice" (also called "Love Constraining to Obedience) were running through my head (and heart!):

No strength of nature can suffice
To serve the Lord aright;
And what she has, she misapplies,
For want of clearer light.

How long beneath the Law I lay
In bondage and distress!
I toiled the precept to obey,
But toiled without success.

Then to abstain from outward sin
Was more than I could do;
Now, if I feel its power within,
I feel I hate it too.

Then all my servile works were done
A righteousness to raise;
Now, freely chosen in the Son,
I freely choose His ways.

What shall I do was then the word,
That I may worthier grow?
What shall I render to the Lord?
Is my inquiry now.

To see the Law by Christ fulfilled,
And hear His pardoning voice;
Changes a slave into a child,
And duty into choice.

http://www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/n/s/nsncsuff.htm
Posted By: MarieP

Law and Liberty, Law and Gospel - Sat Feb 14, 2004 3:19 PM

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/topic/lawliberty.html

Enjoy!
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Sat Feb 14, 2004 3:33 PM

Dear Marie:

That hymn by Cowper is beautiful isn't it? No doubt, according to some, he was "under the Law" but didn't know it.

In Him,

Gerry
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Luther's view - Sat Feb 14, 2004 4:00 PM

Dear Susan:

Thanks for that excerpt from Luther as it makes it pretty clear what Luther taught, does it not? Not only that, but he explains, very clearly, the difference between law and gospel.

In Him,

Gerry
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Sat Feb 14, 2004 4:45 PM

Quote
BookMark said:
Gerry Said

When Mr Potts gets around to exegeting the verses, or even one of them, that Pilgrim has requested, it will be interesting, and revealing, to see how his exegesis of those commandments EXCLUDES God's moral Law, for that is the gist of what Mr. Potts is teaching.

I beg to differ Gerry. The point is Gods Law not a so-called moral law. Did you ever understand Gadsby or do you think he died a heretic ? Gadsby and Potts have said they delight in the law. They refer to Law as Gods law - not a hybrid God/man (moral) law. Why do you think they hate the law ? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/shrug.gif" alt="" /> Have you a copy of Gadsbys hymns ? I will send you one should you wish to re-evaluate his position.


You know Mark I didn't want to get involved in this because there were better people than I answering your questions. However with regards to Gadsby perhaps you don't know him as well as you think. Here is a quote from Gadsby's Catechism:

Quote

Question L. What is meant by the law of works?
Answer. The law of God, commonly called the moral law, chiefly contained in the ten commandments.

Ex. 20.1-17; Deut. 5.6-21.


You may find this here Gadsby's Catechism

Now it seems to me your in a bit of dilemma here Mark Gadsby recognized that the "moral Law was the law of God chiefly contained in the ten commandments" but you are using him to argue to the contrary. So now either it is or it isn't and if it is then perhaps you need to readjust your view. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/Ponder.gif" alt="" />

Pete
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Sat Feb 14, 2004 4:53 PM

Quote
BookMark said:
Susan, when you had a disdain for Gods law,were you saved at the time or was the law working its work upon you ?

As you rightly say, Christians delight in the law of God when saved but they cannot beforehand - or can they ?

Are you saying (as Gerry is also),that so-called antinomianism stems from dispensational heresy ?


Antinomianism doesn't always stem from Dispensationalism (although I have mostly seen it displayed by extremist dispensationalists) it can also stem from Hyper-Calvinism too Mark. I give you this article: A primer on Hyper-Calvinism

Pete
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Sun Feb 15, 2004 12:08 AM

Quote
Antinomianism doesn't always stem from Dispensationalism (although I have mostly seen it displayed by extremist dispensationalists) it can also stem from Hyper-Calvinism too Mark.


Thanks, Pete, for pointing out the error in what Mark attributed to me.

I never said that Antinomianism stemmed from dispensational error. What I said was that I was taught it under the guise of dispensationalism, and I agree with you that this particular error has been responsible for much of the teaching of the error of antinominaism. But there are many ways in which the enemy can come with the error. And the post by Susan wherein she quotes Luther clearly attributes the error to more fundamental causes, and in a time when dispensationalism didn't even exist, it having been introduced by Darby in the late 1800's if memory serves. At any rate, dispensationalism came along several hundred years after Luther.

As I pointed out in a post yesterday to Mark, the fundamental reason for the error lies in faulty exegesis, or at least that is true from a mechanistic or functional perspective. The real reason is the perversity of the heart, and part of the problem there is pride of course, but as Pilgrim has pointed out, plain old laziness is part of it too, because one must think about how these many scriptures, that bear on the same subject, can be reconciled.

In essence we are trying to understand a little bit of the Mind of God, and how He sees things, and that is difficult, but not impossible, for our puny minds to grasp.

In Him,

Gerry
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Law and Liberty, Law and Gospel - Sun Feb 15, 2004 9:05 AM

There sure is a lot for you to read at that site Marie.You are going to have to set alot of time aside to read it all <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Sun Feb 15, 2004 9:10 AM

Thanks Pete, but we've been there before a couple of times already <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />
Posted By: Anonymous

Just curious Mark - Sun Feb 15, 2004 5:16 PM

Quote
Define antinomianism ? Look at Luthers definition and compare it with Lloyd-Jones's . Both "delighted in The Law of God", yet they differ as to WHAT The Law is. Just like we here do - do we not ?

It seems to me they are saying the same thing.
What differences did you notice between Martyn Lloyd-Jones' view and the quote from Luther ?

<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:37 AM

Quote
acts2027 said:
Quote
The point is how we fulfil such a righteous walk - by law, or by faith? I answer by faith, yoked to Christ, as led by the Spirit.


What makes you think that anyone here, or the Westminster Divines, or Owen, or Edwards, etc., is "fullfilling a righteous walk, by the Law" rather than by faith? What makes you think that you are "yoked to Christ" and we are not? What makes you so sure that we are not "led by the Spirit" and you are? On what basis, as your question implies, must a walk of faith exclude the Law?

On what basis must a walk of faith exclude the law if led by the Spirit? On this basis:-

“But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.”
Galatians 5:14

I have no doubt that you believe you are walking by faith. But add law to grace and it is no more grace. Scripture continually contrasts faith in Christ with the works of the law. The two are never mixed. Add law to faith and it becomes just law.

I am yoked to Christ because I am MARRIED to Christ and dead to my former husband, the law. See Romans 7. If you return to law then you commit adultery, breaking the very law you profess to keep. How foolish.

We WERE yoked to the law, and it was a burden we couldn’t bear. We are now freed from that bondage and are yoked to Christ whose yoke is easy. We walk in the Spirit, and “are not under the law”.

As Romans 6 and 7 makes clear:-

“For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.
What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.”
Romans 6:14

“Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.
For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.
But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.”
Romans 7:4-6

Quote

I very much value Philpots writings for their experiential nature, and was drawn to them as a breath of fresh air after years of intellectual dryness and denial of the Spirits essential work, and I still value them for that contribution. For me, there are some parts of his sermons that are simply unsurpassed with respect to insight into experiential religion. However, when I began to see, with the help of others, that there were some other areas that did not line up with scripture, I admitted my error and moved on. May the Lord give you the grace to do the same. Not to ignore or to shun his contribution, but to put it along side others of God's servants who also have been gifted of the Lord.

As I pointed out to you privately, I believe that Dr. Beeke has illucidated nicely the issue of the Reformation and post Reformation teaching on the development of the doctrine of Assurance in his work, "The Quest for Full Assurance", and I would recommend it to you to give some perspective on this issue outside of the Strict Baptist Camp. I also note that Philpots books, as well as Gadsby's, not to mention many others of an experiential nature, including most notably Owens and Calvins and Goodwins are to be found in the Catalogue of Reformation Heritage Books, a ministry of Dr. Beeke's Heritage Netherlands Reformed Church in Grand Rapids, Mi.

No group or denomination, in my view, (including Presbyterians <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />) has a corner on the truth of God's word, and, "In a multitude of counselors there is wisdom".


I repeat some of what I said to you in a PM Gerry:

I am pleased to hear you set forth your position in some consistency – that you reject Huntington’s, Philpot’s, Warburton’s, and Gadsby’s teaching over the law as well as mine. I am in good company. All these men knew much of the truth about the workings of the Holy Spirit which is why they are so clear on the truth that “if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law”. Gal. 5:18. Both truths go together Gerry – yet what God has joined together you seek to put asunder.

You seem to have presumed from the fact that I worship at a Gospel Standard SB chapel that I have always done so, or that I have been ‘brought up’ in these doctrines. No Sir – you presume too much. I have only worshipped in this chapel for the last three years, being brought by God among a people who know and love the same truths which He experimentally taught me. I didn’t even know that Huntington or Philpot existed until a good few years after I had come to know the truth regarding deliverance from the law. When I discovered their writings it was with much joy that I found others who knew and wrote the same truths I loved. But I neither received this Gospel from them, nor was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. Gal 1:12

I know of others too, outside the SBs, who believe these things. Some of their writings are on my website. But what of that? If a hundred men believed it, or if only one believed it, what is important is whether God’s word teaches it, whether the Spirit testifies to it, whether it is the truth of God. I believe it is. And I speak as I have been taught.

I live in no cocoon Gerry. I have read many, many writers on these matters. Lloyd Jones, Owen, Trail, Calvin, Luther, Edwards, Hodge, Ryle, etc etc. I am not trapped on some GS Strict Baptist tramline. But by God’s grace I have been shown the flaws in the understanding and exegesis regarding Law and Grace of such men as those listed above, whosoever they may be.

When Paul writes in Romans 6:14 “Sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace” he means what he says. You simply cannot say “that’s just for justification”. It is ONGOING, it is what we are UNDER – not what we look to for justification. It is talking about how sin ceases to have dominion over us. If we remain under law, it dominates. If we are under grace then righteousness dominates. The way people try to dismiss the message of Galatians, or these verses in Romans, by claiming it is all just ‘justification’ is no less than sleight of hand and cunning craftiness. It is confusion.

Read 2 Corinthians 3 again Gerry, and understand.

Your experiences from the past in a dispensational church, probably was real Antinomianism Gerry. All truth is subject to abuse. There are many who take the truth of deliverance from the law, and abuse it by sinning ‘that grace may abound’. That is wrong. But it doesn’t alter the doctrine itself. The word must be mixed with faith in the hearers, and faith is NOT dead – it produces works, it produces righteous conduct. Don’t judge what I preach by your ‘experience’ of others from the past who abuse the truth. I contend for the righteousness of God – that believers should be holy. But I repeat Romans 6:14 “Sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace”. The law made NOTHING perfect Gerry, but the bringing in of a better hope did. Keep your eyes upon Christ by faith, and STOP SQUINTING, with one eye on Christ, the other on Moses…

Quote

For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.
I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.”
Galatians 2:19-21
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Just curious Mark - Mon Feb 16, 2004 9:14 AM

Ian, I believe I understand your points and feelings here quite well.

What is concerning me is that some here talk about Gods Law and a moral law.

1 Timothy 1:7 sums this up very well and is often ignored.

Some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling,DESIRING TO BE TEACHERS OF THE LAW;UNDERSTANDING NEITHER WHAT THEY SAY,NOR WHEREOF THEY AFFIRM.

Thankyou Ian for your input on this thread.Many here are learning about Grace for the first time I would imagine.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Just curious Mark - Mon Feb 16, 2004 9:37 AM

Quote
BookMark said:
Ian, I believe I understand your points and feelings here quite well.

What is concerning me is that some here talk about Gods Law and a moral law.

1 Timothy 1:7 sums this up very well and is often ignored.

Some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling,DESIRING TO BE TEACHERS OF THE LAW;UNDERSTANDING NEITHER WHAT THEY SAY,NOR WHEREOF THEY AFFIRM.

Thankyou Ian for your input on this thread.Many here are learning about Grace for the first time I would imagine.


God bless you Mark.

As it says in Romans...

Quote

"And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work."
Romans 11:6


And in Galatians...

Quote

"But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.
And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them." Galatians 3:11-12


And in Philippians...

Quote

"And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:" Philippians 3:9


You are right about 1 Timothy 1:7. I am still waiting for someone to give an answer to the following:-

Quote

"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;
9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
11 According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust."
1 Timothy 1:7-11


The same question as posed by Gadsby in your article Mark. If the law was not made for a righteous man then how can it be set before him as a rule of life? Better to walk by the rule of faith as a 'new creature', as Paul says:-

Quote

"But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world.
For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.
And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God."
Galatians 6:14-16
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Mon Feb 16, 2004 10:31 AM

Quote
Wes said:
The moral law law of God FOREVER binds everyone, believers and non-believers alike.

Matthew 5:17
“Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”

Romans 3:31
“Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.”

Wes


Wes,

What makes you think that those who say we are not UNDER law but UNDER grace are in any way destroying the law? They are not. It is not a question of whether the law changes or not – it is immutable. It remains just where it is.

No it is a question of the believer’s POSITION relative to law. Once he was under it, now he is no longer under it, delivered from it, dead to it by the body of Christ – Romans 7.

In London there is a bridge over the River Thames called Tower Bridge. If I took a boat and stood under that bridge I would be under it. If I sailed upstream I would no longer be under it. Have I destroyed the bridge? Of course not.

Likewise with law. As unbelievers we are brought under it, so that it can condemn our sin. It is a schoolmaster unto Christ. But once faith has come we are no longer under the schoolmaster. Read Galatians 3:-

Quote

“Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.
22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.”
Galatians 3:21-29


Faith you see establishes the law. It proves it to be right, but to have been fulfilled in Christ who paid its debt for us on the tree. All the laws demands have been met in Christ. We are now dead to it by the body of Christ, but risen again, being new creations in Christ. The other side of death we are no longer under law but under grace, and grace reigns through righteousness. The law isn’t destroyed, we are just not under it. Now that faith is come, we are no longer under the schoolmaster.

Quote

“For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.”
Romans 8:3-4


But does being under grace and not under law lead to sin? No! At it is written:-

Quote

“What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?”

“For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.
What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.”
Romans 6:1-2, 14-15


How then is the law destroyed?

Well one way is by altering the law. Those who divide it into three sections, moral, ceremonial and judicial (which God never did), and then set aside, abrogate, two sections leaving only the ‘moral’ bit, and then remove the teeth from the law, its curse, and present the remaining hub as some ‘rule of life’ for the believer, are destroying the law.

This is setting asunder what God joined together as one for all time. Law is law, as a whole, with sanctions intact. Put yourself under it and you are a debtor to keep the whole law – not just ten commandments of it…

Quote

Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?
22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.
23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.
24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.
27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.
28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.
29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.
30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.
31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.

Galatians 4:21-31


Oh put both eyes upon Christ! Set your gaze entirely upon Him by faith. Walk in the Spirit, and by doing so you won’t fulfil the lusts of the flesh. This is the way to escape the dominion of sin: “For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace”.

Amazing grace, how sweet the sound!
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Mon Feb 16, 2004 1:09 PM


Quote
If I agreed with my "elders" I might have been a JW not so long ago btw.<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> There but by the Grace of God go i


Mark,
When have Pilgrim and others here led you astray in the past? Why are you listening to these others who are contradicting the truth and following error?
I fear for you Mark! Pilgrim has been so patient with you for so long. Why don't you trust his teaching now and other solid teachers such as Luther and Martyn Lloyd-Jones? May God open your eyes so you will not be deceived by these "friends" of yours who are leading you astray! I have seen God working in you greatly in the time you have spent here.

Quote
Galatians 4 v.16 Have I then become your enemy by telling you the truth? 17 They make much of you, but for no good purpose. They want to shut you out, that you may make much of them. 18 It is always good to be made much of for a good purpose, and not only when I am present with you, 19 my little children, for whom I am again in the anguish of childbirth until Christ is formed in you! 20 I wish I could be present with you now and change my tone, for I am perplexed about you.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Mon Feb 16, 2004 1:14 PM

Amen Ian. Thanks for all your informative posts. Such a help to me.

In him,
Carol
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Mon Feb 16, 2004 1:29 PM

As Luther has been quoted a bit as seemingly agreeing with the idea of the law being a rule of life for the believer, which, alas, he DID NOT hold to, I think it might be advisable if folk were to actually go and buy Luther's Commentary to the Galatians, published by James Clarke and read it for themselves.

Short of that, there is an online edition here:-

http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/gal/web/gal-inx.html

http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/gal/web/gal2-17.html

From which I quote the following:-

Quote

We conclude with Paul, that we are justified by faith in Christ, without the Law. Once a person has been justified by Christ, he will not be unproductive of good, but as a good tree he will bring forth good fruit. A believer has the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit will not permit a person to remain idle, but will put him to work and stir him up to the love of God, to patient suffering in affliction, to prayer, thanksgiving, to the habit of charity towards all men.

VERSE 19. For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.

This cheering form of speech is frequently met with in the Scriptures, particularly in the writings of St. Paul, when the Law is set against the Law, and sin is made to oppose sin, and death is arrayed against death, and hell is turned loose against hell, as in the following quotations: "Thou hast led captivity captive," Psalm 68:18. "O death, I will be thy plagues; O grave, I will be thy destruction," Hosea 13:14. "And for sin, condemned sin in the flesh," Romans 8:3.

Here Paul plays the Law against the Law, as if to say: "The Law of Moses condemns me; but I have another law, the law of grace and liberty which condemns the accusing Law of Moses."

On first sight Paul seems to be advancing a strange and ugly heresy. He says, "I am dead to the law, that I might live unto God." The false apostles said the very opposite. They said, "If you do not live to the law, you are dead unto God."

The doctrine of our opponents is similar to that of the false apostles in Paul's day. Our opponents teach, "If you want to live unto God, you must live after the Law, for it is written, Do this and thou shalt live." Paul, on the other hand, teaches, "We cannot live unto God unless we are dead unto the Law." If we are dead unto the Law, the Law can have no power over us.

Paul does not only refer to the Ceremonial Law, but to the whole Law. We are not to think that the Law is wiped out. It stays. It continues to operate in the wicked. But a Christian is dead to the Law. For example, Christ by His resurrection became free from the grave, and yet the grave remains. Peter was delivered from prison, yet the prison remains. The Law is abolished as far as I am concerned, when it has driven me into the arms of Christ. Yet the Law continues to exist and to function. But it no longer exists for me.

"I have nothing to do with the Law," cries Paul. He could not have uttered anything more devastating to the prestige of the Law. He declares that he does not care for the Law, that he does not intend ever to be justified by the Law.

To be dead to the Law means to be free of the Law. What right, then, has the Law to accuse me, or to hold anything against me? When you see a person squirming in the clutches of the Law, say to him: "Brother, get things straight. You let the Law talk to your conscience. Make it talk to your flesh. Wake up, and believe in Jesus Christ, the Conqueror of Law and sin. Faith in Christ will lift you high above the Law into the heaven of grace. Though Law and sin remain, they no longer concern you, because you are dead to the Law and dead to sin."

Blessed is the person who knows how to use this truth in times of distress. He can talk. He can say: "Mr. Law, go ahead and accuse me as much as you like. I know I have committed many sins, and I continue to sin daily. But that does not bother me. You have got to shout louder, Mr. Law. I am deaf, you know. Talk as much as you like, I am dead to you. If you want to talk to me about my sins, go and talk to my flesh. Belabor that, but don't talk to my conscience. My conscience is a lady and a queen, and has nothing to do with the likes of you, because my conscience lives to Christ under another law, a new and better law, the law of grace."

We have two propositions: To live unto the Law, is to die unto God. To die unto the Law, is to live unto God. These two propositions go against reason. No law-worker can ever understand them. But see to it that you understand them. The Law can never justify and save a sinner. The Law can only accuse, terrify, and kill him. Therefore to live unto the Law is to die unto God. Vice versa, to die unto the Law is to live unto God. If you want to live unto God, bury the Law, and find life through faith in Christ Jesus.

We have enough arguments right here to conclude that justification is by faith alone. How can the Law effect our justification, when Paul so plainly states that we must be dead to the Law if we want to live unto God? If we are dead to the Law and the Law is dead to us, how can it possibly contribute anything to our justification? There is nothing left for us but to be justified by faith alone.

This nineteenth verse is loaded with consolation. It fortifies a person against every danger. It allows you to argue like this:

"I confess I have sinned."
"Then God will punish you."
"No, He will not do that."
"Why not? Does not the Law say so?"
"I have nothing to do with the Law."
"How so?"
"I have another law, the law of liberty."
"What do you mean--'liberty'?"
"The liberty of Christ, for Christ has made me free from the Law that held me down. That Law is now in prison itself, held captive by grace and liberty."

By faith in Christ a person may gain such sure and sound comfort, that he need not fear the devil, sin, death, or any evil. "Sir Devil," he may say, "I am not afraid of you. I have a Friend whose name is Jesus Christ, in whom I believe. He has abolished the Law, condemned sin, vanquished death, and destroyed hell for me. He is bigger than you, Satan. He has licked you, and holds you down. You cannot hurt me." This is the faith that overcomes the devil.

Paul manhandles the Law. He treats the Law as if it were a thief and a robber He treats the Law as contemptible to the conscience, in order that those who believe in Christ may take courage to defy the Law, and say: "Mr. Law, I am a sinner. What are you going to do about it?"

Or take death. Christ is risen from death. Why should we now fear the grave? Against my death I set another death, or rather life, my life in Christ.

Oh, the sweet names of Jesus! He is called my law against the Law, my sin against sin, my death against death. Translated, it means that He is my righteousness, my life, my everlasting salvation. For this reason was He made the law of the Law, the sin of sin, the death of death, that He might redeem me from the curse of the Law. He permitted the Law to accuse Him, sin to condemn Him, and death to take Him, to abolish the Law, to condemn sin, and to destroy death for me.

This peculiar form of speech sounds much sweeter than if Paul had said: "I through liberty am dead to the law." By putting it in this way, "I through the law am dead to the law," he opposes one law with another law, and has them fight it out.

In this masterly fashion Paul draws our attention away from the Law, sin, death, and every evil, and centers it upon Christ.

VERSE 20. I am crucified with Christ.

Christ is Lord over the Law, because He was crucified unto the Law. I also am lord over the Law, because by faith I am crucified with Christ.

Paul does not here speak of crucifying the flesh, but he speaks of that higher crucifying wherein sin, devil, and death are crucified in Christ and in me. By my faith in Christ I am crucified with Christ. Hence these evils are crucified and dead unto me.

VERSE 20. Nevertheless I live.

"I do not mean to create the impression as though I did not live before this. But in reality I first live now, now that I have been delivered from the Law, from sin, and death. Being crucified with Christ and dead unto the Law, I may now rise unto a new and better life."

We must pay close attention to Paul's way of speaking. He says that we are crucified and dead unto the Law. The fact is, the Law is crucified and dead unto us. Paul purposely speaks that way in order to increase the portion of our comfort.

VERSE 20. Yet not I.

Paul explains what constitutes true Christian righteousness. True Christian righteousness is the righteousness of Christ who lives in us. We must look away from our own person. Christ and my conscience must become one, so that I can see nothing else but Christ crucified and raised from the dead for me. If I keep on looking at myself, I am gone.

If we lose sight of Christ and begin to consider our past, we simply go to pieces. We must turn our eyes to the brazen serpent, Christ crucified, and believe with all our heart that He is our righteousness and our life. For Christ, on whom our eyes are fixed, in whom we live, who lives in us, is Lord over Law, sin, death, and all evil.

VERSE 20. But Christ liveth in me.

"Thus I live," the Apostle starts out. But presently he corrects himself, saying, "Yet not I, but Christ liveth in me." He is the form of my perfection. He embellishes my faith.

Since Christ is now living in me, He abolishes the Law, condemns sin, and destroys death in me. These foes vanish in His presence. Christ abiding in me drives out every evil. This union with Christ delivers me from the demands of the Law, and separates me from my sinful self. As long as I abide in Christ, nothing can hurt me.

Christ domiciling in me, the old Adam has to stay outside and remain subject to the Law. Think what grace, righteousness, life, peace, and salvation there is in me, thanks to that inseparable conjunction between Christ and me through faith!

Paul has a peculiar style, a celestial way of speaking. "I live," he says, "I live not; I am dead, I am not dead; I am a sinner, I am not a sinner; I have the Law, I have no Law." When we look at ourselves we find plenty of sin. But when we look at Christ, we have no sin. Whenever we separate the person of Christ from our own person, we live under the Law and not in Christ; we are condemned by the Law, dead before God.

Faith connects you so intimately with Christ, that He and you become as it were one person. As such you may boldly say: "I am now one with Christ. Therefore Christ's righteousness, victory, and life are mine." On the other hand, Christ may say: "I am that big sinner. His sins and his death are mine, because he is joined to me, and I to him."

Whenever remission of sins is freely proclaimed, people misinterpret it according to Romans 3:8, "Let us do evil, that good may come." As soon as people hear that we are not justified by the Law, they reason maliciously: "Why, then let us reject the Law. If grace abounds, where sin abounds, let us abound in sin, that grace may all the more abound." People who reason thus are reckless. They make sport of the Scriptures and slander the sayings of the Holy Ghost.

However, there are others who are not malicious, only weak, who may take offense when told that Law and good works are unnecessary for salvation. These must be instructed as to why good works do not justify, and from what motives good works must be done. Good works are not the cause, but the fruit of righteousness. When we have become righteous, then first are we able and willing to do good. The tree makes the apple; the apple does not make the tree.


And so on, and so forth. Go read Luther in full.

I am generally reluctant to quote author's like this, as it is very clear from both my quote here, and quotes that others have made above, that 'selective' quoting can be done to prove almost any position. However if the honest reader reads Luther in full he will see that he preaches just as the Apostle Paul does - that we are not under law but under grace.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Just curious Mark - Mon Feb 16, 2004 1:35 PM

Quote
Some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling,DESIRING TO BE TEACHERS OF THE LAW;UNDERSTANDING NEITHER WHAT THEY SAY,NOR WHEREOF THEY AFFIRM.

Thankyou Ian for your input on this thread.Many here are learning about Grace for the first time I would imagine.


Mark you make me very sad by these comments of yours. I am praying for you.


Quote
This is discovered by a contemplation of the law, for by the law is the knowledge of sin (Rom. 3:20). Where there is no enforcing and expounding of the holy law of God there can be no true, deep, saving knowledge of sin; as the apostle Paul so plainly affirms, I had not known sin, but by the law(Rom. 7:7). The exceeding sinfulness of sin (Rom. 7:13) is only exposed when the Spirit turns the light of God's law upon our conscience and heart. But this is preeminently an age of lawlessness, and that in every respect. And it cannot be otherwise: where the law of God is flouted, where thousands of preachers are declaring that the law has no place in this dispensation of grace, we cannot expect people to have much respect for human law. God has caused the people to reap that which they have sown: having sown the wind, they are now reaping the whirlwind. Bolshevism and anarchy are the inevitable rebound from having slighted and rejected the Ten Commandments!

Practical godliness consists in a conformity of heart and life to the law of God, and in a sincere compliance with the gospel of Christ. But it is only as we rightly understand both the law and the gospel that we can discern wherein a conformity to the one and a compliance with the other really consists. Now the requirements of the law are summed up in that word, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might (Deut. 6:5; cf. Matt. 22:37). Observe carefully the three things here specified: first, the duty required, namely, love to God. Second, the ground or reason for this, namely, because He is the Lord our God. Third, the measure or extent of this duty, namely, to love Him with all the heart. Nothing other than this, nothing less than this, will ever meet the righteous claims of God upon us.--Arthur Pink from the Highway article Chapter 1 posted by Wesley in Repentance thread

http://www.the-highway.com/repenttoc_Pink.html
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Just curious Mark - Mon Feb 16, 2004 1:49 PM

Quote
Susan said:
Quote
Some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling,DESIRING TO BE TEACHERS OF THE LAW;UNDERSTANDING NEITHER WHAT THEY SAY,NOR WHEREOF THEY AFFIRM.

Thankyou Ian for your input on this thread.Many here are learning about Grace for the first time I would imagine.


Mark you make me very sad by these comments of yours. I am praying for you.


Susan,

If you are concerned to guide Mark into the truth as you see it, then why not help him out in the way in which he requested by addressing each of the points that Gadsby raises in the article which Mark printed at the start of this thread?

And if that seems like too much 'work' to you (and I grant you, it could take a while), then why not start off just by explaining 1 Timothy 1:9 as we have both requested:

"Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient..."

How then is it a rule of life for the believer? It wasn't made for him was it? It isn't 'put on him' or 'laid on him' as a yoke, because he has Christ's yoke, and he isn't 'under' it, because he is 'under' grace.

(BTW it would be nice to have someone's own exegesis rather than just running off to more Geneva notes, MLJ, Luther etc. As I have shown we can quote Luther until the cows come home and get nowhere...)

Many thanks,
In Grace,
Ian
Posted By: Wes

Re: The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Mon Feb 16, 2004 5:31 PM

Mr. Potts,

The Christian community as a whole has rejected antinomianism over the years for several reasons. It has regarded the view as damaging to the unity of the Bible, which demands that one part of the divine revelation must not contradict another. Even more important, it has argued that antinomians misunderstood the nature of justification by faith, which, though granted apart from the works of the law, is not sanctification. In general, orthodoxy teaches that the moral principles of the law are still valid, not as objective strivings but as fruits of the Holy Spirit at work in the life of the believer. This disposes of the objection that since the law is too demanding to be kept, it can be completely thrust aside as irrelevant to the individual living under grace.

Your view of grace suggests no usefulness for the law in the life of the believer. In fact you go out of your way to make your antinomian views clear by using terms like, “the law is dead,” “to abolish the law,” and “the law is crucified and dead to us.” However as I have pointed out in my previous replies to you and Mark faith doesn’t make the law void, rather it establishes it. The law is summarized by loving God and your neighbor. May I remind you that God gave the law to His covenant people who He already had been delivered out of bondage. The law reveals the character of God and His will for His people. It is not nor ever has been a means of justification. What seems to be missing in your theology is a clear definition of sanctification. When the Lord tells us to live holy lives what is He asking of us?

As far as your Antinomian views are concerned the Bible condemns it. The apostles condemn it. Jesus Christ condemns it. Antinomianism is a heresy that must be rejected. We are saved by grace through faith alone and we are saved and indwelt by the Holy Spirit in order that we may keep God's moral law. And keeping the moral law is the sure evidence that a Christian is justified by grace through faith alone. May God help us not to believe in antinomianism, but to believe in the true doctrine of the Holy Scriptures. Amen.


Wes
Posted By: Wes

Re: Just curious Mark - Mon Feb 16, 2004 5:38 PM

Quote
BookMark said:
Ian, I believe I understand your points and feelings here quite well.

What is concerning me is that some here talk about Gods Law and a moral law.

1 Timothy 1:7 sums this up very well and is often ignored.

Some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling,DESIRING TO BE TEACHERS OF THE LAW;UNDERSTANDING NEITHER WHAT THEY SAY,NOR WHEREOF THEY AFFIRM.

Thankyou Ian for your input on this thread.Many here are learning about Grace for the first time I would imagine.

Mark,

Are you learning about Grace here for the first time? In your opinion, has salvation by grace alone been missing here on The-Highway until Ian Potts happened along?


Wes
Posted By: Pilgrim

Re: Just curious Mark - Mon Feb 16, 2004 5:43 PM

Mr. Potts,

I suppose I should actually thank you for pressing this issue, i.e., answering Gadsby's erroneous statements. You want an exegesis of 1Tim 1:9 since both you and he and all Antinomians love to use it as evidence for your position. But in fact, it goes to show exactly what I have been saying all along. You are confusing the Scriptural teaching concerning "justification" with "sanctification". It is YOU who cannot rightly divide the Word of Truth and fail to see the distinction between Law and Gospel as the vast majority of the Church has for centuries.

Quote
And if that seems like too much 'work' to you (and I grant you, it could take a while), then why not start off just by explaining 1 Timothy 1:9 as we have both requested:

"Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient..."

'The idea that Paul here teaches that "the justified Christian" has "nothing to do with the law" is burdened by the following objections:
  • It is totally foreign to the context in which the apostle (barring the salutation which pertains to the entire letter) as yet has said nothing about justified Christians.
  • Here in verse 9 he is speaking entirely in general about "a (notice a, not the) righteous person; and he is saying that for such a righteous person law is not laid down.
  • A word is often explained by its antonyms. Here "a righteous person" stand over against persons who are "lawless, insubordinate, impious, sinful, unholy, profane, murderers of fathers, murderers of mothers," etc., all of which terms have to do with sins in the moral-spiritual realm, sins of attitude and conduct, sins against the moral law of the Ten Commandments. Hence, it certainly seems very probably that we are here in the moral, not in the forensic realm.

Paul is addressing the false teachers in Ephesus who were more focused upon finding their ancestral heritage than being found sinners before God; being convicted of their sin by the law. This can be clearly seen from verse 7 and also 1Tim 6:2:, 20; 2Tim 3:2 and Titus 1:10; 3:5. These men had not been humbled by the law but were puffed up, haughty boastful, proud, arrogant, etc. Thus Paul contrasts himself with them in his self-appellation in verse 15. These men also are like those whom Jesus rebuked when He said,

Quote
Mark 2:17 (KJV) "When Jesus heard [it], he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance."


Thus, this passage deals with sinners who need to be convicted under the law, repent and believe on Christ unto justification. It has nothing to do with a Christian's relationship to the law for sanctification.

Quote
2 Timothy 2:15 (KJV) "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."


In His Grace,
Posted By: Ruth

Re: The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Mon Feb 16, 2004 6:50 PM

Thanks Wes,


What a great post! We must continue to point out to Mark, and Carol, that Mr. Potts teaching goes against that of the historic church teaching and if they want to learn the truth they should stick to "old ways".

In His Hands,

Ruth
Posted By: Wes

Re: The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Mon Feb 16, 2004 7:16 PM

Ruth,

As John writes: "I write no new commandment to you, but an old commandment which you have had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word which you heard from the beginning." (I John 2:7)

As we consider the two-fold work of the Holy Spirit I love the way Thomas Hastings put it in his song, Rock of Ages, Cleft for Me.

  • Rock of Ages, cleft for me,
    Let me hide myself in Thee;
    Let the water and the blood,
    From Thy wounded side which flowed,
    Be of sin the double cure,
    Save from guilt and make me pure.

    Not the labors of my hands
    Can fulfill the laws demands;
    Could my zeal no languor know,
    Could my tears forever flow,
    All for sin could not atone;
    Thou must save, and Thou alone.

    Nothing in my hand I bring,
    Simply to Thy cross I cling;
    Naked, come to Thee for dress;
    Helpless, look to Thee for grace;
    Foul, I to the fountain fly;
    Wash me, Savior, or I die.

    While I draw this fleeting breath,
    When my eyelids close in death,
    When I rise to worlds unknown,
    See Thee on Thy judgment throne,
    Rock of Ages, cleft for me,
    Let me hide myself in Thee.



Wes
Posted By: Tom

Re: The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 PM

Wes

This conversation reminds me of another conversation I had with an Antinominian. I gave him 1John 2:3 "And by this we know that we know Him, if we keep his commandments."
I can't remember his response, but it was evident that he didn't believe this verse had anything to do with the matter.

Tom
Posted By: Wes

Re: The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:46 PM

Tom,

"Love is the fulfilling of the law" ( Rom 13:10 ), and the fulfilling of the law is the sure test of love. "The commandment is this," namely, love, in which all God's other commandments are summed up.

As love and truth go hand in hand ( 2Jo 1:3, 4 ), John also writes that its needful to give warning against teachers of untruth. For--giving the reason why he dwelt on truth and on love, which manifests itself in keeping God's commandments ( 2Jo 1:6 ).


Wes
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Tue Feb 17, 2004 12:04 AM

Dear Ian:

You haven't answered my question, depsite your many words, or have you? Lets look at what I asked you and what you responded.

What I asked you was this:

Quote
What makes you think that anyone here, or the Westminster Divines, or Owen, or Edwards, etc., is "fullfilling a righteous walk, by the Law" rather than by faith? What makes you think that you are "yoked to Christ" and we are not? What makes you so sure that we are not "led by the Spirit" and you are?


Part of your response to my question was simply to reassert to us that you have greater wisdom and understanding, given by God's grace, of course, than men such as Owen, Edwards, Luther, Hodge etc, as you say in the following quote:

Quote
I have read many, many writers on these matters. Lloyd Jones, Owen, Trail, Calvin, Luther, Edwards, Hodge, Ryle, etc etc. I am not trapped on some GS Strict Baptist tramline. But by God's grace I have been shown the flaws in the understanding and exegesia regarding Law and Grace of such men as those listed above, whosoever they may be.


So it seems that you believe that God has shown you something of great import that all these godly and faithful men of the faith missed somehow, probably, in your mind at least, because they, unlike you, were not sufficiently taught by the Spirit, and "led of the Spirit".

That belief would of course indicate that you have been given, from God of course, greater wisdom and insight into these things than the greatest men of the faith in the history of the church since apostolic times. Correct?

That would mean then that you are superior in wisdom and understanding than the most emminent men in the history of the church wouldn't it, Ian? Pretty thin air up there you're breathing isn't it? Hard to think straight when you don't get enough oxygen (or humility) to your axons and dendrites, Ian.

And, not only that, but you have been given this wisdom in an area which you have told me you believe to be critical to saving faith. That is to say, if I, or these other deceived men persist(ed) in our false belief on this subject we will ultimately be lost. Well, perhaps you're correct and we're all wrong, but I don't think so.

The following quote from John Owen's "Justification by Faith", The Works of John Owen, Vol 5, page 194, makes a lot more sense to me than your contradictory, confused, eisogetical error ever will:


Quote
Upon this complete justification[color:"FF0000"]The law is not abolished, but established, by faith. It is neither abrogated nor dispensed withal by such and interpretation as should take off its obligationin any thing that it requires, nor in the degree and manner it requires it.[/color] Nor is it possible it should be so;
for it is nothing but the rule of that obedience which the nature of God and man makes necessary from the one to the other. And that is an Antinominan of the worst sort, and most derogotory unto the law of God, which affirm it to be divested of it's power to oblige perfect obedience, so as that what is not so shall (as it were in despite of the law) be accepted as if it were so, unto the end for which the law requires it. There is no medium, but that either the law is utterly abolished, and so there is no sin, for where there is no law there is no transgression, or it must be allowed to require the same obedience that it did at its first institution, and unto the same degree. Neither is it in the power of any man living to keep his conscience from judging and condemning that, whatever it be, wherein he is convinced that he comes short of the
perfection of the law.


You, in an acknowledgement that perhaps I may have correctly interpreted some of my experience, state the following:

Quote
Your experiences from the past in a dispensational church, probably was real Antinomianism Gerry.


Well I appreciate your approval of my assesment, sir, and I note that therein you admit that there is such a thing as "real Antinominism". So at least there is such a thing, according to you?

Finally, I close with an example, again of your confusion, pointed out to you already, in the hopes that you might be enabled to see your error.

Quote


"For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.
I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.”
Galatians 2:19-21


Ian, please read that last verse very carefully, It says: "If righteousness COME BY THE LAW, then Christ is dead in vain".

That means that we don't earn our righteousness by the Law, before, or after, faith in Christ. Thats what I, and all these gracious men believed and taught.

To find value and beauty and instruction in the Law, Ian, after coming to Christ alone for salvation is not, as you believe, and have been taught, to deny Christ. Not that there are not those that do so. To be sure there are, and many no doubt.

I close with a verse from John's first epistle, written late in his life primarily to warn the faithful of the many heresies that had crept into the church:

"Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is lawlessnes" 1Jn3:4

You will no doubt object to the translation, it not being the KJV, however, as Philpot was want to do on many occasions, I point out the marginal reading of : "the transgression of the Law" is actually "lawlessness", which is the more literal translation as the origial
is simply "anomia" from the greek, noun form, "a" or "without" + "nomia" or "Law", or "lawlessness", to yield: "Sin is lawlessness".

Thus, Ian, what you are advocating, lawlessness, is nothing other than sin, for the two are made equivalent here by the Apostle John.

In Him,

Gerry
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Tue Feb 17, 2004 2:30 AM

Quote
Carol said:
Amen Ian. Thanks for all your informative posts. Such a help to me.

In him,
Carol


Yes and a hindrance to those who truly wish to live a Godly Life. I suggest you read a better man who truly knew what he spoke of: THE PERPETUITY OF THE LAW OF GOD. Charles H. Spurgeon


Pete
Posted By: Tom

Re: The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Tue Feb 17, 2004 5:24 AM

Which backs up what I said even more. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Tom
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Tue Feb 17, 2004 7:57 AM

Quote
acts2027 said:
You haven't answered my question, depsite your many words, or have you?

I have Gerry. “If ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law”. Gal 5:18.

Your replies here give no answer to that, merely the following slurs:-

Quote

Quote
What makes you think that anyone here, or the Westminster Divines, or Owen, or Edwards, etc., is "fullfilling a righteous walk, by the Law" rather than by faith? What makes you think that you are "yoked to Christ" and we are not? What makes you so sure that we are not "led by the Spirit" and you are?


Part of your response to my question was simply to reassert to us that you have greater wisdom and understanding, given by God's grace, of course, than men such as Owen, Edwards, Luther, Hodge etc, as you say in the following quote:

Quote
I have read many, many writers on these matters. Lloyd Jones, Owen, Trail, Calvin, Luther, Edwards, Hodge, Ryle, etc etc. I am not trapped on some GS Strict Baptist tramline. But by God's grace I have been shown the flaws in the understanding and exegesia regarding Law and Grace of such men as those listed above, whosoever they may be.


So it seems that you believe that God has shown you something of great import that all these godly and faithful men of the faith missed somehow, probably, in your mind at least, because they, unlike you, were not sufficiently taught by the Spirit, and "led of the Spirit".

This is an emotive argument, but quite a fallacious one Gerry.

Despite all your criticism here that for me to disagree with some of these men (not Luther by the way) over their teaching about the law is to demonstrate some attitude of pride, that is simply not true. As taught of God I speak what I know. If that means I ‘differ’ from some lauded names in the church then so be it. It also means I speak as one with many other names, which though not held in such great esteem by yourself and others who follow Moses, nevertheless were men greatly used of God, Huntington, Philpot, Warburton, Kershaw, Toplady, Luther and Gadsby for instance. You disagree with these gracious men.

I cannot allow the teaching or influence of men to turn me from the Spirit’s leading. Of couse I walk in all humility before God, I am acutely aware that I like all men can be deceived; I recognise that God sends men into the church with gifts to teach us, and I am thankful to God for them as far as they preach the truth, but ultimately we test what ALL these men say by two things – the word of God, and the witness of the Holy Spirit. If something they teach differs with those two witnesses then we must reject that teaching. Not quickly or rashly, but with much prayer and trembling, rather fearing God than man. There is no pride in that. In fact it is one of the very principles that the Reformation was started on isn’t it? Sola scriptura.

“But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him. “
1 John 2:27

“And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage:
To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.
But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person:) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me:

Galatians 2:4-6

Quote

And, not only that, but you have been given this wisdom in an area which you have told me you believe to be critical to saving faith. That is to say, if I, or these other deceived men persist(ed) in our false belief on this subject we will ultimately be lost. Well, perhaps you're correct and we're all wrong, but I don't think so.

Gerry this is nonsense. I never said that rejecting this error is critical to saving faith. Indeed the Galatians were bewitched, but Paul wrote to them as believers. Nevertheless he recognised the seriousness of their error of mixing law and grace, wrote his strongest epistle to them, and warned of the grave consequences of doing so.

My point to you Gerry, written in a private PM with loving concern, is that this truth is of fundamental importance – not fundamental to saving faith, but certainly with regards to the Christian walk. You recognise that, otherwise you wouldn’t attack me so strongly, so don’t be hypocritical in getting ‘upset’ that I made a strong statement to you. In rejecting this truth I say that you are resisting the Holy Ghost (you especially Gerry, having read Huntington, Philpot and so on), and if you intentionally reject one truth then you demonstrate a spirit that would also reject other truths. Because of that you are drawing back and you should return to the pathway of faith. It greives me to see you doing so. The just shall live by faith Gerry. Now what do we read of those that draw back from living by faith?

“Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him.
But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul.”
Hebrews 10:38-39

Quote

Ian, please read that last verse very carefully, It says: "If righteousness COME BY THE LAW, then Christ is dead in vain".
That means that we don't earn our righteousness by the Law, before, or after, faith in Christ. Thats what I, and all these gracious men believed and taught.

Yes righteousness comes by faith Gerry. And it continues to be the ‘righteousness of faith’ as opposed to the ‘righteousness of the law’. See Romans 10. For righteousness does not come by the law, but by Christ, so why turn our gaze to the law when we can look with both eyes upon our precious Saviour?

You realise that believers are INDWELT by the Holy Spirit? Doesn’t that strike you as amazing? Don’t you think that if GOD dwells within you that He is able to lead you aright? Or must you add something to Christ’s finished work? You ‘hedge’ the Spirit about with Moses’ law ‘just to be safe’….?

Quote

"Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is lawlessnes" 1Jn3:4

You will no doubt object to the translation, it not being the KJV, however, as Philpot was want to do on many occasions, I point out the marginal reading of : "the transgression of the Law" is actually "lawlessness", which is the more literal translation as the origial
is simply "anomia" from the greek, noun form, "a" or "without" + "nomia" or "Law", or "lawlessness", to yield: "Sin is lawlessness".

Thus, Ian, what you are advocating, lawlessness, is nothing other than sin, for the two are made equivalent here by the Apostle John.

Before responding to me Gerry you would be better informed if you actually read my posts. I commented on this passage earlier in this thread and stressed the correct translation as being ‘lawlessness’. Again you make unwarranted presumptions about me.

You cannot accuse me of sin, of lawlessness Gerry, because I am not without law to God. I walk by the law of faith (Rom 3:27), the law of Christ (Gal 6:2), and the perfect law of liberty (James 1:25). And what are these laws? Faith, love (see Gal 6:2), and liberty in Christ. They cannot be Moses’ law because to stand fast in liberty we are told:-

Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.”
Galatians 5:1
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Just curious Mark - Tue Feb 17, 2004 8:37 AM

Quote
Pilgrim said:
I suppose I should actually thank you for pressing this issue, i.e., answering Gadsby's erroneous statements. You want an exegesis of 1Tim 1:9 since both you and he and all Antinomians love to use it as evidence for your position. But in fact, it goes to show exactly what I have been saying all along. You are confusing the Scriptural teaching concerning "justification" with "sanctification". It is YOU who cannot rightly divide the Word of Truth and fail to see the distinction between Law and Gospel as the vast majority of the Church has for centuries.

Oh how I wish you hadn't made such sweeping statements Pilgrim, because by going on to complete confuse justification with sanctification in your exegesis of the verse below you really contradict yourself here.

Quote

Quote
"Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient..."

'The idea that Paul here teaches that "the justified Christian" has "nothing to do with the law" is burdened by the following objections:
  • It is totally foreign to the context in which the apostle (barring the salutation which pertains to the entire letter) as yet has said nothing about justified Christians.
  • Here in verse 9 he is speaking entirely in general about "a (notice a, not the) righteous person; and he is saying that for such a righteous person law is not laid down.
  • A word is often explained by its antonyms. Here "a righteous person" stand over against persons who are "lawless, insubordinate, impious, sinful, unholy, profane, murderers of fathers, murderers of mothers," etc., all of which terms have to do with sins in the moral-spiritual realm, sins of attitude and conduct, sins against the moral law of the Ten Commandments. Hence, it certainly seems very probably that we are here in the moral, not in the forensic realm.


A few comments on your points above. The context is that amongst those to whom Paul writes were those who had turned aside from the simplicity of Christ's commandments in the Gospel of faith and love, “unto vain jangling: Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.”.

These were believers (or professing believers) who sought to teach the law to their fellow believers. They felt that it was important that believers used the law as a rule of life. So they desired to teach it, “understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm”. But as Paul says in verse 9 “the law is not made for a righteous man”, so why insist that he is bound to it? These people were guilty of not using the law lawfully. The law is made for sinners – to them it is addressed. But believers have paid the law’s debt in Christ’s death for them – the law has no more to say to them, having been completely fulfilled in Christ. Thus to return to it is to use it unlawfully.

Of course this passage deals with ‘justified’ Christians. The only men who are righteous are those who are justified by faith in Christ. And that passage says that “law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient”, or in other words, “law is not made for a justified man, but for the lawless and disobedient”.

A righteous man IS a justified man. A justified man IS a righteous man. And the law is not made for a righteous man.

That is SO obvious it hardly needs stating. Yet it seems you are SO obstinate that I do need to state it. It grieves me that that is so. Oh may ears be opened to the truth of God's word, by His grace!

The lawful use of the law is to preach it to sinners to convict of sin. It is a schoolmaster unto Christ. But when faith is come we are no longer under the schoolmaster. The law is made for sinners, not the righteous.

Quote

Paul is addressing the false teachers in Ephesus who were more focused upon finding their ancestral heritage than being found sinners before God; being convicted of their sin by the law. This can be clearly seen from verse 7 and also 1Tim 6:2:, 20; 2Tim 3:2 and Titus 1:10; 3:5. These men had not been humbled by the law but were puffed up, haughty boastful, proud, arrogant, etc. Thus Paul contrasts himself with them in his self-appellation in verse 15. These men also are like those whom Jesus rebuked when He said,

Quote
Mark 2:17 (KJV) "When Jesus heard [it], he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance."


These comments are pretty good, and just go to prove what I am saying. It is the sick which need a physician. The law was made for the ‘sick’ to prove them to be sinners, and is thus a schoolmaster unto Christ (Gal 3:24). But after that faith is come we are no longer under a schoolmaster (Gal 3:25). Once made whole by Christ, we are righteous in Him. We have no need to be under that law which was ‘not made for a righteous man’.

Yet these men taught it, probably because they had never been completely slain by the law – it had never finished its work upon them, they were never truly delivered from it, so continued to teach it as binding upon believers and unbelievers alike, whereas Paul firmly responds by showing that it is made for unbelievers not believers. For sinners, not the righteous.

Quote

Thus, this passage deals with sinners who need to be convicted under the law, repent and believe on Christ unto justification. It has nothing to do with a Christian's relationship to the law for sanctification.

The passage’s comments regarding “the lawless and disobedient” for whom the law is made certainly deals with sinners who need to be convicted under the law, repent and believe on Christ unto justification. But that is CONTRASTED with those for whom the law is NOT made – righteous men, justified men.

Thus the passage certainly deals with justified men, in contrast to those who are NOT justified. The law is not made for a righteous, a justified, man. So who are these people who are “desiring to be teachers of the law, understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm”?

Why, they are those who would teach justified believers who are righteous in Christ, that the law is ‘laid’ upon them for their sanctification! That though justified by faith alone, now they must use the law as rule of life. BUT, says Paul, the law is NOT laid upon a righteous man, a justified man, but upon the lawless and disobedient.

And to say otherwise about the law is to use it unlawfully, having swerved aside from faith unto vain jangling.

Quote

“If ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law”. Gal 5:18.

For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.
Romans 6:14

“But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.”
Romans 7:6

For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Romans 8:3-4
Posted By: Saved_n_kept

Re: The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Tue Feb 17, 2004 8:38 AM

Quote
Yes and a hindrance to those who truly wish to live a Godly Life.


AMEN BROTHER
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Tue Feb 17, 2004 9:00 AM

Quote
Wes said:
The Christian community as a whole has rejected antinomianism over the years for several reasons. It has regarded the view as damaging to the unity of the Bible, which demands that one part of the divine revelation must not contradict another. Even more important, it has argued that antinomians misunderstood the nature of justification by faith, which, though granted apart from the works of the law, is not sanctification. In general, orthodoxy teaches that the moral principles of the law are still valid, not as objective strivings but as fruits of the Holy Spirit at work in the life of the believer. This disposes of the objection that since the law is too demanding to be kept, it can be completely thrust aside as irrelevant to the individual living under grace.

The Christian community as a whole has NOT rejected the truth that the Gospel is the believer’s rule of life not the law. They may reject ‘Antinomianism’, but then that is something different.

The fact that Luther, Huntington, Toplady, Gadsby and many more preached these things shows the falsity of your assertions.

Your comment here “In general, orthodoxy teaches that the moral principles of the law are still valid, not as objective strivings but as fruits of the Holy Spirit at work in the life of the believer” is, I am sad to say, sleight of hand. The fact is that by putting believers under the law as a rule of life you are going against the work of the Spirit, and encouraging works of the flesh, as objective strivings. You try to represent it as ‘fruit of the Spirit’ here but that is not in accord with scripture, for…

If ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law”. Gal 5:18.

(A verse taken from the very chapter which goes on to describe the fruit of the Spirit!)

Also, your appeal to history, to ‘orthodoxy’ in the church, is much the same appeal that the Roman Catholic Church opponents of the Reformers would have made when these ‘upstarts’ started to preach the doctrine of ‘Justification by Faith alone’ – “Oh dear, orthodoxy doesn’t teach that Antinomian error! Just read Saint so and so, or Friar so and so…..”. By all means, value sound doctrine, but underlying your sentiments are too strong an appeal to your heritage. You claim to be a child of the Reformation but you lack its spirit and its emphasis on the authority of the scriptures. Sola scriptura Sir. Your sentiments would have opposed the Reformation, not supported it.

Quote

Your view of grace suggests no usefulness for the law in the life of the believer. In fact you go out of your way to make your antinomian views clear by using terms like, “the law is dead,” “to abolish the law,” and “the law is crucified and dead to us.” However as I have pointed out in my previous replies to you and Mark faith doesn’t make the law void, rather it establishes it.


Oh I don't say there is no usefulness in the law for the believer. It is part of scripture and we read that "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:" 2 Timothy 3:16. But nevertheless we should rightly divide the word of God, and if God says that we are no longer under the law but under grace then so we are. The law certainly reveals God's holiness, justice and goodness, but it is not binding on the believer, he is not under it, it is not his rule of life. The law demands righteousness but doesn't give it. The Gospel actually brings in the Righteousness of God. Once the schoolmaster and Moses have done their work, and we have been led to Christ, and faith has come then we are no longer under the schoolmaster. We are dead to it by the body of Christ. Certainly what it says is true, but Christ has fulfilled all its demands and all our righteousness is to be found in Christ. The just shall live by faith.

It is interesting that the quotes here which you attribute to me were actually made by Luther. I think I worded things slightly differently, but nevertheless you obviously reject Luther’s counsel too. The counsel of one of the most important of the Reformers who risked life and all to stand up and preach the truth of the Gospel of Christ, despite the opposition of the 'church' at the time.

The Gospel I preach is NOT Antinomianism. It is free and Sovereign Grace from start to finish, which gives all the glory to God for our justification, sanctification, glorification. It mixes no works of man with the works of God. All is of grace. It is the very same Gospel preached by Christ and the Apostles at the beginning and which continues to be preached by those despised, maligned, rejected servants of God in the church down through history, who suffer just what the prophets of old did, and their Master the Lord Jesus Christ did – persecution for righteousness sake.

It is the Gospel of which Paul writes in Romans 1:16 “For I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God unto Salvation”. The power of God unto Salvation! How is that Paul? Well Ian, “For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith”. The righteousness of God! That righteousness, revealed in the Gospel, in Christ, which fulfils all the law’s demands (Romans 8:3-4). By what means Paul? By faith Ian, for …

The Just shall live by faith.

Quote

“Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.
Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.

Matthew 5:10-12



“For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.”
Romans 8:3-4



“And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.
29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

31 What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us?
32 He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?
33 Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth.
34 Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.
35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?
36 As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.
37 Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us.
38 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,
39 Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Romans 8:28-39
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Tue Feb 17, 2004 9:53 AM

Quote
Sanctus_Stultus said:
Quote
Carol said:
Amen Ian. Thanks for all your informative posts. Such a help to me.

In him,
Carol


Yes and a hindrance to those who truly wish to live a Godly Life. I suggest you read a better man who truly knew what he spoke of: THE PERPETUITY OF THE LAW OF GOD. Charles H. Spurgeon

Pete


Hardly Pete. Scripture is very clear that sin will have dominion over us if we are under law, but doesn't because we are not under law but under grace. Take a look at your own life Pete, the thoughts and lusts within your heart and be honest with yourself - the law isn't quenching them is it? They are still there. In fact the more you tell yourself "Thou shalt not commit adultery", the more your mind starts to lust after women, the more the law condemns you. It brings no life Pete, no deliverance. As Paul found out in Romans 7, the law only fires up the sin within.

You see it is what comes out of the heart that defiles a man Pete. It is in the inward parts, in the heart, in the mind, that sin in the flesh springs up. You can put on a fair show of religion outwardly using the law. Before other men you can appear very holy, but what are you like within? Are the sinful thoughts and desires still there? As Christ said unto the Pharisees:

Quote

"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.
26 Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.
27 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.
28 Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity."
Matthew 23:25-28


Likewise Paul speaks in 2 Timothy 3:5 of those who have "a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof". Outward conformity to the law isn't enough. What of the inward parts? God desires truth in the inward parts, and the law doesn't produce that, it cannot produce it, in fact it simply stirs up sin within us. It demands righteousness but produces the very opposite because of the sin which is in our flesh - believer or unbeliever. The law exposes the sin which is within us, even reaching to the thoughts and intentions of the heart but it provides no ability to alter those thoughts and intentions. It just condemns us.

Only the Gospel produces this righteousness which is not only outward, but inward. It is entirely the work of God. As David knew, and wrote of in Psalm 51:

Quote

"Behold, thou desirest truth in the inward parts: and in the hidden part thou shalt make me to know wisdom.
7 Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean: wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.

8 Make me to hear joy and gladness; that the bones which thou hast broken may rejoice.
9 Hide thy face from my sins, and blot out all mine iniquities.
10 Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me.
11 Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me.
12 Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation; and uphold me with thy free spirit."
Psalm 51:6-12


What we need Pete, what we long for, what we desire is more than a form of godliness, more than outward appearances. No, we want the real thing. Truth in the inward parts. Deliverance from sin, and the dominion of sin. In the mind, the thoughts, the affections, the heart. True Godliness in the inward man, producing Godly conduct outwardly as a result.

Now listen to Paul, a better man than both myself and Spurgeon, a man who wrote as inspired by the Holy Spirit, who gives us this Godly wisdom, to lead us unto Godly lives:-

Quote

"For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.
What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid."
Romans 6:14-15




"For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit."
Romans 8:3-5




"O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?
2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
3 Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?

4 Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain.
5 He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.
7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.
8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.
9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.
10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.
12 And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.
"
Galatians 3:1-12
Posted By: Wes

Re: The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Tue Feb 17, 2004 2:36 PM

Mr. Potts,

I noticed you concluded your last reply to me with a quote from Matthew 5:10-12 which speaks about being persecuted for righteousness sake. You even highlighted part of that quote.

Quote
Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.
Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.”

Don't go getting a martyr complex on me now. Just because I'm refuting your errors doesn't mean I'm persecuting you. Unless you choose to take it that way. I've only been trying to point out what the rest of Scripture has to say on this topic since you choose to exclude verses that disagree with your position. I sincerely hope that the Spirit of the Lord enables you to see this. Finally, I will conclude my thoughts to you with those in my previous message that you haven't responded to in your last reply.

I have pointed out in my previous replies to you and Mark faith doesn’t make the law void, rather it establishes it. The law is summarized by loving God and your neighbor. May I remind you that God gave the law to His covenant people who He already had been delivered out of bondage. The law reveals the character of God and His will for His people. It is not nor ever has been a means of justification. What seems to be missing in your theology is a clear definition of sanctification. When the Lord tells us to live holy lives what is He asking of us?

As far as your Antinomian views are concerned the Bible condemns it. The apostles condemn it. Jesus Christ condemns it. Antinomianism is a heresy that must be rejected. We are saved by grace through faith alone and we are saved and indwelt by the Holy Spirit in order that we may keep God's moral law. And keeping the moral law is the sure evidence that a Christian is justified by grace through faith alone. May God help us not to believe in antinomianism, but to believe in the true doctrine of the Holy Scriptures. Amen.


Wes
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Tue Feb 17, 2004 2:56 PM

Quote
Wes said:
I've only been trying to point out what the rest of Scripture has to say on this topic since you choose to exclude verses that disagree with your position.

I 'choose to exclude verses that disagree with' my 'position'?

I don't think so Wes. What I preach is taught throughout scripture. I haven't 'chosen' to exclude any verses, but obviously I can't quote all scripture in my posts, and not all scripture deals with the same doctrine. But all scripture IS agreed - the believer is not under law, but under grace.

I do believe that I have rightly divided scripture and given the true sense and meaning of it, in as far as God by His grace has enabled me and the Spirit has led me. And any verses which you have presented to me I have tried to deal with and explain in response to you.

In fact, I feel much the same way about yourselves. I have presented many passages which I don't feel that you have explained or answered. Trying to dismiss many of them with the idea that they only refer to justification just won't wash. Many of the texts I have quoted can be clearly shown to apply equally to sanctification as well as justification as they refer to the ongoing state and position of the believer. If the believer is not under law, but under grace, then that is where he is, ONGOING. Not merely 'for justification' but for 'sanctification' also.

Quote
Wes said:
Finally, I will conclude my thoughts to you with those in my previous message that you haven't responded to in your last reply.

I have pointed out in my previous replies to you and Mark faith doesn’t make the law void, rather it establishes it. The law is summarized by loving God and your neighbor. May I remind you that God gave the law to His covenant people who He already had been delivered out of bondage. The law reveals the character of God and His will for His people. It is not nor ever has been a means of justification. What seems to be missing in your theology is a clear definition of sanctification. When the Lord tells us to live holy lives what is He asking of us?

As far as your Antinomian views are concerned the Bible condemns it. The apostles condemn it. Jesus Christ condemns it. Antinomianism is a heresy that must be rejected. We are saved by grace through faith alone and we are saved and indwelt by the Holy Spirit in order that we may keep God's moral law. And keeping the moral law is the sure evidence that a Christian is justified by grace through faith alone. May God help us not to believe in antinomianism, but to believe in the true doctrine of the Holy Scriptures. Amen.


OK, Wes, I’ll answer these points also. The only reason I didn’t before was lack of time.

I have already replied and shown that faith establishes the law – it doesn’t destroy it. See my other post.

With respect to your analogy of when the law was given, I will remind you that it was given to Israel, through Moses, in the wilderness. The children of Israel travelled through the wilderness for 40 years and because of disobedience many of them never entered into the land of Canaan – Moses included. Who did take them in? Joshua did.

The figurative teaching of that is that the work of Moses led up to Joshua. Moses’ law brought condemnation, and Moses himself never entered the promised land (on earth). However, Joshua (Hebrew version of Jesus), figurative of the Lord Jesus Christ, took the people through the river Jordan into the promised land.

That is a pictorial illustration of what Moses represented (law) being replaced by what Joshua/Jesus represented (Grace in the Gospel). It was Joshua who took the people into the promised land.

That’s the analogy. Now of course we can stretch things with analogies. Israel crossed the Red sea as well as the Jordan. The law (all aspects of it) continued to be observed of course until the coming of Christ. But nevertheless the truth taught of Christ following Moses is important. Moses never entered the promised land with Joshua – they didn’t mix, law and grace don’t mix. Once faith has come we are no longer under the schoolmaster.

When the Lord tells us to live a holy life he is calling us to walk by faith, fulfilling the law of faith, the law of Christ and the law of liberty, freed from the bondage of Moses’ law, but walking in faith and love to God, and love to our brethren. The Gospel of Christ fulfils all the law’s demands, but it doesn’t put us back under the law’s legal rule as a rule of life. We walk in the spirit, and if we are led of the spirit then we are not under the law. We walk in a 'new and living way' as indwelt by the Holy Ghost. Read Hebrews 8 and 2 Corinthians 3.

I have expanded on much of that in previous posts so I won’t repeat myself here.

As to your comment “We are saved by grace through faith alone and we are saved and indwelt by the Holy Spirit in order that we may keep God's moral law”. That is utterly rejected by scripture.

We are saved by grace through faith alone and we are saved and indwelt by the Holy Spirit in order that we might walk in righteousness by faith - Yes.

But "in order that we might keep the moral law" (by which you mean the Ten Commandments)? No. Because that law is part of the Mosaic law which is one whole, including ceremonial and judicial laws and which retains its curse and sanctions. Put yourself under it and you are a debtor to keep all of it. But the 'righteousness of the law is fulfilled in us' through Christ, by faith in Him, by walking in the Spirit, in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, freed from the yoke of bondage - the law.

As I said early on in this thread there is a difference between law and righteousness. God's grace produces righteousness in the believer, it causes him to walk in a Godly manner. But that isn't done by means of the law. The law certainly delineates certain aspects of righteousness, but it doesn't produce it. The Gospel does. We fulfil what the law demands, not by using the law as a rule, but by walking in the Spirit, by faith, looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of faith. It is all of God, all of grace, so that all the praise and glory might be unto God, for Salvation is of the Lord!

I refer you to the following verses (which I have also quoted before, but which you sadly don’t seem able to accept, or understand):-

Quote

“If ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law”. Gal 5:18.




For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.
Romans 6:14




But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.
Romans 7:6




“For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.”
Romans 8:3-4




“Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?
22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.
23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.
24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.
27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.
28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.
29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.
30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.
31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free
.”
Galatians 4:21-31




Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.
Galatians 5:1
Posted By: Pilgrim

Re: Just curious Mark - Tue Feb 17, 2004 5:43 PM

Mr. Potts,

You consistently fail to rightly distinguish the difference in the writings of the inspired biblical writers in regard to the law as it relates to "justification" and "sanctification". In nearly every case, you perform your surgical procedure of eisogesis upon those passages where the subject is justification and implant your preconceived view of sanctification, aka: "Antinomianism".

You are also wanting to make Luther one of your disciples but we have rejected this novel idea of yours many times. Perhaps Luther's own words will put this idea to flight, although I seriously doubt you will believe Luther's own doctrine over that which you would have him own.

Quote
18. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law.

I have said often enough above that “to be under the Law” means failing to fulfill it or fulfilling it in a slavish fashion, without a cheerful disposition. It is not the Law, however, or nature that acquires this cheerful disposition; faith in Christ Jesus acquires it. And this being led by the Spirit, this obeying the desires of the Spirit, this battle and struggle which constitutes our whole life, brings it about that God mercifully pardons us for failing to do the things we want to do.

(Luther’s Works – Galatians 1519, Volume 27, p. 365-66)

Paul cannot forget about his doctrine of faith; but he keeps on repeating and emphasizing it, even when he is dealing with good works. Here someone may raise the objection: “How can it be that we are not under the Law? After all, Paul, you yourself teach that we have a flesh whose desires are against the Spirit, a flesh that opposes, vexes, and enslaves us. And we are really conscious of our sin; nor can we be set free in the sense in which we would most like to be free. This is surely what it means to be under the Law. Then why do you say, Paul, that we are not under the Law?” “Do not let this bother you,” he says. “Only concentrate on this, that you be led by the Spirit, that is, that you obey the will which is opposed to the flesh and that you refuse to gratify the desires of the flesh; for this is what it means to be led and drawn by the Spirit. And then you will not be under the Law.” Thus Paul speaks of himself in Rom. 7:25: “I serve the Law of God with my mind; that is, in the Spirit I am not guilty of any sin. But with my flesh I serve the law of sin.” And so the godly are not under the Law, namely, by the Spirit; for the Law is unable to accuse them and to carry out its sentence of death against them, even though they are conscious of their sin and confess that they are sinners. Through Christ, “who was born under the Law to redeem those who were under the Law” (4:4-5), the Law has been deprived of its legal hold on them. In the godly, therefore, the Law does not dare accuse as sin that which truly is a sin against the Law.

(Luther’s Works – Galatians 1535, Concordia Publishing House, Volume 27, p. 77)

I would also offer you a couple of brief comments from one of the most capable and distinguished New Testament commentators in modern time, William Hendriksen, on two of your most often "proof texts". Clearly, Hendriksen has understood Paul's Epistle to the Galatians rightly, in opposition to your "eisogetical gymnastics".

Quote
Gal. 5:13. For you were called to freedom, brothers; only (do) not (turn) this freedom into an opportunity for the flesh . . .

When Paul warns the Galatians not to turn freedom into an opportunity for the flesh but through love to be serving one another, he is placing service over against selfishness, the positive over against the negative. Paul does this frequently: see Rom. 12:21; 13:14; I Cor. 6:18-20; Eph. 4:28, 31, 32; 5:28, 29; 6:4; Col. 3:5-17; I Thess. 4:7, etc. Vice can only be conquered by virtue, which is the Spirit’s gift, man’s responsibility. Continued: 14. For the whole law is fulfilled in one word, namely, in this: “You must love your neighbor as yourself.” Paul quotes Lev. 19:18. One can also say that he is quoting the words of Jesus (Matt. 22:39, 40; Mark 12:31; Luke 10:27; cf. Matt. 7:12; 19:19; Rom. 13:8-10; and I Cor. 13). Love, then, is both the summary (interpretive epitome or condensation) and the realization in practice of the entire God-given moral law, viewed as a unit. True, in harmony with the immediately preceding context (“through love be serving one another”), the apostle here refers specifically to the second, not to the first, table of the law, but that first table is in the background, for the two are inseparable (I John 4:20, 21). Paul’s teaching throughout is that though it would be a gross error to say that the sinner must love God and his neighbor in order to be saved, it is entirely true that the “saint,” saved by grace, out of gratitude for (and by dint of) this salvation loves God and his neighbor.

(N.T. Commentary – Galatians, Baker Book House, pp. 211)

Gal 5:18 But if you are being led by the Spirit you are not under law.

(2) What It Is to be “led by the Spirit”?

Before giving a positive answer to this question it may be well to point out what is not meant by being led by the Spirit. Naturally, it cannot refer to being governed by one’s own sinful impulses and inclinations, nor to “being easily led” into waywardness by evil companions. Also definitely excluded here is the idea of those moral philosophers, ancient and modern, who hold that in every man there is a higher and a lower nature, and that each human being has within himself the power of causing the former to triumph over the latter. This idea is excluded even if for no other reason than this, that throughout, in Paul’s teaching, the Holy Spirit is a distinct person, of one substance with the Father and the Son. He is not “our other or better self.” See Rom. 8:26, 27; I Cor. 2:10; II Cor. 13:14. This also shows that, strictly speaking, being led by the Spirit cannot even be identified with the triumph of ‘‘the new man’’ (the regenerated nature) within us over ‘‘the old man’’ (our corrupt nature, not yet fully destroyed) That victory and that implied struggle are certainly very real; yet they are not in and by themselves what is meant by being led by the Spirit, but are rather the result of the Spirit’s active indwelling. They are certainly implied, but are not basic.

What then does the leading of the Spirit — to change from the passive to the active voice, for the sake of the definition — actually mean? It means sanctification. It is that constant, effective, and beneficent influence which the Holy Spirit exercises within the hearts of God’s children whereby they are being directed and enabled more and more to crush the power of indwelling sin and to walk in the way of God’s commandments, freely and cheerfully.

By so defining it extremes are avoided. Thus, on the one hand, to be led by the Spirit means more than to be guided by him, though, to be sure, the Spirit is also our Guide (John 16:13; cf. Matt. 15:14; Luke 6:39; Acts 8:31; Rev. 7:17) . But the very fact that, according to the passage now under consideration (Gal. 5:18), the enslaving power of the law has been broken for all those who are being led by the Spirit, indicates that this leadership which the Spirit provides implies more than “pointing out the right way.” It reminds us not so much of the Indian guide who pointed out to the pioneer white explorers the pass through the Rockies, as of the blind man of Jericho who was led to Jesus (Luke 18:40; cf. Matt. 21:2; Luke 10:34; John 18:28; Acts 6:12; 9:2). Merely pointing out the way to him would not have helped him. When the Holy Spirit leads believers he becomes the controlling influence in their lives, bringing them at last to glory.

On the other hand, however, this representation also steers clear of the opposite extreme, that of denying human responsibility and activity. The blind man of Jericho was not carried or borne (II Peter 1:21) to Jesus, but did his own walking. Warfield has said very aptly: “It is his [the Holy Spirit’s] part to keep us in the path and to bring us at length to the goal. But it is we who tread every step of the way; our limbs that grow weary with the labor; our hearts that faint, our courage that fails — our faith that revives our sinking strength, our hope that instills new courage into our souls — as we toil over the steep ascent” (The Power of God unto Salvation, p. 172). Being led by the Holy Spirit, to be fully effective, implies that one allows himself to be led. As to the interrelation of these two factors — the believers’ self-activity and God’s (the Holy Spirit’s) leading —, Paul’s own Spirit-inspired statement cannot be improved upon: “With fear and trembling continue to work out y o u r own salvation; for it is God who is working in you both to will and to work for his good pleasure” (Phil. 2:12, 13).

(N.T. Commentary – Galatians, Baker Book House, pp. 216-17)


And lastly, I do share Wes' concern over your persistent application of particular biblical passages which speak of those who would be justified by the works of the law to us, in fact the overwhelming majority of believers throughout history, who hold firmly to Sola Fide, thus implying despite your denial, that we are without grace, and therefore subject to damnation. Let it be perfectly clear in your sectarian mind that we categorically deny that anyone can or will be saved by doing the works of the law. But salvation is only secured by grace through faith in the Lord Christ alone. And in the spirit of the Reformers, we say, we are saved by faith alone, but not by a faith that is alone. I personally do not take kindly to this unwarranted inferences and appellation to those of us here who reject your Antinomianism as "Legalists".

Exodus 20:16 (KJV) "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour."

Proverbs 6:16-19 (ASV) "There are six things which Jehovah hateth; Yea, seven which are an abomination unto him: Haughty eyes, a lying tongue, And hands that shed innocent blood; A heart that deviseth wicked purposes, Feet that are swift in running to mischief, A false witness that uttereth lies, And he that soweth discord among brethren."

Matthew 15:19 (KJV) "For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:"

Romans 13:9-10 (ASV) "For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not covet, and if there be any other commandment, it is summed up in this word, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. Love worketh no ill to his neighbor: love therefore is the fulfilment of the law."


In His Grace,
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Just curious Mark - Tue Feb 17, 2004 11:24 PM

Quote
And lastly, I do share Wes' concern over your persistent application of particular biblical passages which speak of those who would be justified by the works of the law to us, in fact the overwhelming majority of believers throughout history, who hold firmly to Sola Fide, thus implying despite your denial, that we are without grace, and therefore subject to damnation. Let it be perfectly clear in your sectarian mind that we categorically deny that anyone can or will be saved by doing the works of the law. But salvation is only secured by grace through faith in the Lord Christ alone. And in the spirit of the Reformers, we say, we are saved by faith alone, but not by a faith that is alone.


Well said, brother.<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bravo.gif" alt="" />

In Him,

Gerry
Posted By: Wes

Re: The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Wed Feb 18, 2004 1:01 AM

Quote
Ian_Potts said:
I 'choose to exclude verses that disagree with' my 'position'?

I don't think so Wes.

As to your comment “We are saved by grace through faith alone and we are saved and indwelt by the Holy Spirit in order that we may keep God's moral law”. That is utterly rejected by scripture.


Ian Potts,

Let me summarize the relationship between the law and the gospel for you. To be "under the law" in one sense (Romans 6:14) excludes a person from the enjoyment of the grace which the gospel imparts; to be "under law" is the opposite of being "under grace" and means that the person is the bondslave of the condemnation and power of sin. In this sense, therefore, it is by the gospel that we are delivered from the law (Romans 7:6) and put to death to the law (Romans 7:4)- "we died to that wherein we were held" (cf. Galations 2:19). The gospel is annulled if the decisiveness of this discharge is not appreciated. In that event we have fallen away from the grace and Christ becomes of no effect. (cf. Galations 5:4).

Ian I think you understand that first paragraph but this is not the whole account of the relation of law and gospel. Paul said also in the heart of his exposition and defence of the gospel of grace, "Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law" (Romans 3:31). As a believer he writes that he consents unto the law that it is good, that he delights in the law of God after the inward man, that with the mind he serves the law of God (Romans 7: 16, 22, 25), and that the aim of Christ's accomplishment was that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in those who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit (Romans 8:4). When we look for an example of the law he had in mind we find it in Romans 7:7. And no doubt can remain that in Romans 13:9 he provides us with concrete examples of the law which love fulfills, showing thereby that there is no incompatibility between love as the controlling motive of the believer's life and conformity to the commandments which the law of God enuniciates. The conclusion is inescapable that the precepts of the Decalogue have relevance to the believer as the criteria of that manner of life which love to God and to our neighbor dictates. The same apostle uses terms which are the same effect as that of being "under law" when he says, "being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ" (I Corinthians 9:21). In respect of obligation he is not divorced from the law of God, he is not lawless in referrence to God. And this is validated and exemplified in his being bound to the law of Christ.

The reason for this sustained appeal to the law of God as the norm by which the conduct of the believer is to be judged and by which his life is to be governed resides in the relation of the law to the character of God. God is holy, just, and good. Likewise "the law is holy, just, and good" (Romans 7:12). The law is, therefore, the reflection of God's own perfection. In a word, it is the transcript of God's holiness as the same comes to expesssion for the regulation of thought and behavior consonant with His glory. We are to be holy in all manner of life because He who has called us is holy (I Peter 1:15,16). To be relieved of the demands which the law prescribes would contradict the relation to God which grace establishes. Salvation is salvation from sin, and "sin is the transgression of the law" (I John 3:4). Salvation is, therefore, to be saved from transgression of the law and thus to conformity to it. Antinomian bias strikes at the nature of the gospel. It says, in effect, let us continue in sin.

A believer is re-created after the image of God. He therefore loves God and his brother also (I John 4:20,21). And because he loves God he loves what mirrors God's perfection. He delights in the law of God after the inward man (Romans 7:22). Obedience is his joy, disobedience the plague of his heart. The saint is destined for conformity to the image of God's Son (Romans 8:29) and he is re-made after the pattern of Him who had no sin and could say, "yea, thy law is within my heart" (Psalm 90:8).


Wes
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Just curious Mark - Wed Feb 18, 2004 9:13 AM

Quote
Pilgrim said:
You consistently fail to rightly distinguish the difference in the writings of the inspired biblical writers in regard to the law as it relates to "justification" and "sanctification". In nearly every case, you perform your surgical procedure of eisogesis upon those passages where the subject is justification and implant your preconceived view of sanctification, aka: "Antinomianism".

Pilgrim,

I am well aware of the passages which deal with justification. But the fact remains that many of these passages ALSO deal with sanctification. Although the Judaisers at Galatia sought to put believers back under law for justification Paul’s response in ‘Galatians’ isn’t simply to say ‘You are justified by faith alone, don’t look to your keeping of the law for justification’. No, he says that we aren’t under the law at all! Not only are we not justified by the law but we aren’t under it as believers. Not only were these Judaisers wrong to add law works to faith for justification, but they were wrong to bind the law upon believers at all. “Are ye so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?” Gal 3:3. We walk by the Spirit – we stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free - we must not be entangled again in the yoke of bondage Gal 5:1.

So you are right to say that Galatians deals with justification, but it does not only deal with justification – it deals with sanctification too. Just read chapters 5 and 6 – they address the believer’s walk, of how he is led of the Spirit and is not under law, of what the fruit of the Spirit is, and so on.

Also, Romans 6, 7 and 8 are addressing the believer’s relationship to law in his walk, not simply for justification. “Sin shall not have dominion over you, for ye are not under the law but under grace” is about the ongoing walk of the believer, not his justification.

Again, that is so clear from what the passages say, and their context, that I really shouldn’t have to be stressing it. But your insistence in trying to dismiss the obvious application of such passages to the ongoing walk of the believer (“sanctification”) forces me to point them out. “Not under law” is the position of the believer as a result of his justification, as a result of his flesh being crucified with Christ at the cross and having risen again in Christ, the other side of death, out of the reach of the law having fully satisfied all the law’s demands in Christ his Saviour.

Quote

You are also wanting to make Luther one of your disciples but we have rejected this novel idea of yours many times. Perhaps Luther's own words will put this idea to flight, although I seriously doubt you will believe Luther's own doctrine over that which you would have him own. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rolleyes2.gif" alt="" />

I read your quote from Luther and saw little to contradict my position in it. If you and I read the same Bible and differ in our understanding, is it any wonder that we would disagree on what Luther says too?

Quote

And lastly, I do share Wes' concern over your persistent application of particular biblical passages which speak of those who would be justified by the works of the law to us, in fact the overwhelming majority of believers throughout history, who hold firmly to Sola Fide, thus implying despite your denial, that we are without grace, and therefore subject to damnation. Let it be perfectly clear in your sectarian mind that we categorically deny that anyone can or will be saved by doing the works of the law. But salvation is only secured by grace through faith in the Lord Christ alone. And in the spirit of the Reformers, we say, we are saved by faith alone, but not by a faith that is alone. I personally do not take kindly to this unwarranted inferences and appellation to those of us here who reject your Antinomianism as "Legalists".


I have quoted passages which deal with sanctification to you Pilgrim. You may claim that the passages only deal with justification but I beg to differ. I was not dealing with the subject of justification. If this is the way you have taken it then I am sorry.

However, despite your rather strong accusation here you provide no quotation from any of my posts as evidence of what I have said, or implied, so really I can offer little in response. Would you please provide a quote or two from my posts, along with your ‘understanding’ of what you think I am implying in those quotes, and then I shall be pleased to clarify what I meant or didn’t mean by them.

Your rather self-righteous indignation, though, is strange considering the number of critical comments directed towards myself which I could take exception to, but which I have generally chosen to let pass. Some of the comments seriously misrepresent my position, especially the statement that my doctrine “says, in effect, let us continue in sin”. I reject that claim which does disservice to the work of the Holy Spirit, for “If ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law” Gal 5:18.

Paul in the epistle to the Romans also emphatically rejects the claim, which is nevertheless always laid against those who truly preach the Gospel, as Paul well knew:

“What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?”

“For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.
What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.”
Romans 6:1-2, 14-15


Just for clarity I shall quote a few of the comments you and others have made against me here. I do so reluctantly, but as you have taken offence at something I have said (which you have yet to quote) your complaint forces me to do so in order to present a true and balanced picture of things and the context within which any comments of mine were made - though I have sought no apology from you.

Quote

(Note, in the quotes below read ‘Antinomian’ as defined by yourselves – the view that the law is not the believer’s rule of life. True Antinomianism is something else…)

PILGRIM:
“It's only important to you to support your erroneous presuppositions. Sorry, but I can't allow you to use what I said and twist it so as to make a case for your fallacious views.”

“Sure sounds like Charismania to me, sir!”

WES:
“As far as your Antinomian views are concerned the Bible condemns it. The apostles condemn it. Jesus Christ condemns it. Antinomianism is a heresy that must be rejected.

“Antinomian bias strikes at the nature of the gospel. It says, in effect, let us continue in sin.

SUSAN:
“I am praying for you Mark, that you will not be deceived by this incorrect handling of God's Word, even denying the Lord's own words.

GERRY:
“I swallowed it too, but then it was taught under the guise of Dispensationalism. It matters not how the Adversary disguises his lies, or how seductively or persuasivly they are presented, they are still lies, and I have seen the results of it worked out in the life of congregations of professors and posessors and I want no part of it ever again.”

“I happen to believe that Gadsby, and Huntington, etc were powerfully used of God and were godly men, but that they were in error in these areas, not damnable error, but fairly serious error. I also believe there is a difference between error honestly held and error stubbornly and pridefully held.”

Thus, Ian, what you are advocating, lawlessness, is nothing other than sin, for the two are made equivalent here by the Apostle John.

PETE:
Yes and a hindrance to those who truly wish to live a Godly Life


And Wes replies to me “Don't go getting a martyr complex on me now. Just because I'm refuting your errors doesn't mean I'm persecuting you.”……


You quoted a number of verses warning me of bearing false witness. In response I would offer the following words of Jesus as he directs us all in Gospel righteousness and the way in which we should respond to others when they wrong us. The difference in attitude between the Pharisees and Christ is quite striking. There is much wisdom here for us all to learn from.

Quote

Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.
41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven
: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.”
Matthew 5:38-45

“They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more
.”
John 8:4-11
Posted By: Pilgrim

Re: Just curious Mark - Wed Feb 18, 2004 12:45 PM

Mr. Potts,

I find little to respond to in your reply above as it is simply your same old rhetoric; e.g., insisting that Paul's warnings about having begun by faith and then falling back into works applies to sanctification as well as justification. But the truth is, that should someone who claims to be justified by faith alone thereafter believe that the keeping of the law has merit, that this keeping of the moral law make him/her more acceptable to God, then this is not sanctification which is in jeopardy, but justification. Again, you are blinded to this truth which the overwhelming majority of believers throughout history have discovered from the Spirit's teaching them this in the Scriptures. But you say you couldn't care less what other believer's have believed and churches have taught, etc.. except for the writings of a few men who beg to differ.

Quote
Mr. Potts quipped:
I read your quote from Luther and saw little to contradict my position in it. If you and I read the same Bible and differ in our understanding, is it any wonder that we would disagree on what Luther says too?

Isn't this just another way of saying, "The only thing that is absolute is relativity."? Are you saying that we as men will find it impossible to discover the truth of what another has said or written? That's a sad commentary on the intellectual ability of the human race, don't you think? However, contrary to your dissimulation, again the vast and overwhelming majority of intelligent, god-fearing men and women, who believe on Christ and call upon the Spirit to guide them into all truth, have read Martin Luther, but more importantly the Bible, and have understood both as holding fast to the same truth which I and nearly everyone else here believes: The moral law of God is perpetually binding upon all men, believers not excepted, as a rule of life and guide to holiness.

We hold to the Reformation and biblical doctrine of SOLA Scriptura not SOLO Scriptura. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Quote
Romans 7:14-25 (ASV) "For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin. For that which I do I know not: for not what I would, that do I practise; but what I hate, that I do. But if what I would not, that I do, I consent unto the law that it is good. So now it is no more I that do it, but sin which dwelleth in me. For I know that in me, that is, in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me, but to do that which is good [is] not. For the good which I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I practise. But if what I would not, that I do, it is no more I that do it, but sin which dwelleth in me. I find then the law, that, to me who would do good, evil is present. For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: but I see a different law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity under the law of sin which is in my members. Wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me out of the body of this death? I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then I of myself with the mind, indeed, serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin."


In His Grace,
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Just curious Mark - Wed Feb 18, 2004 1:17 PM

Quote
Pilgrim said:
I find little to respond to in your reply above as it is simply your same old rhetoric; e.g., insisting that Paul's warnings about having begun by faith and then falling back into works applies to sanctification as well as justification. But the truth is, that should someone who claims to be justified by faith alone thereafter believe that the keeping of the law has merit, that this keeping of the moral law make him/her more acceptable to God, then this is not sanctification which is in jeopardy, but justification.

Then why respond Pilgrim?

However you are referring here to my quotation of the following verses:-

“Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him.
But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul.”
Hebrews 10:38-39

You are essentially inferring that “the just shall live by faith” here only refers to justification. Really? Why then, does chapter 11 immediately following go on to describe what faith is and to enumerate many instances of how saints throughout the Bible lived out their lives by faith? Not merely how they were justified, but how they lived. By faith.

To mix law with faith in sanctification is to draw back from the purity of the Gospel rule of living by faith. It is to mix faith with the works of the law. I don’t say that that affects someone’s understanding or belief of justification, or of their standing before God in terms of justification, but I do say that it affects their walk. To be under law is to encourage sin to have dominion over us. I repeat Paul’s points:-

For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.
What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid
.”
Romans 6:14-15

Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.
Galatians 5:1

Quote

Quote
Mr. Potts quipped:
I read your quote from Luther and saw little to contradict my position in it. If you and I read the same Bible and differ in our understanding, is it any wonder that we would disagree on what Luther says too?

Isn't this just another way of saying, "The only thing that is absolute is relativity."? Are you saying that we as men will find it impossible to discover the truth of what another has said or written? That's a sad commentary on the intellectual ability of the human race, don't you think? However, contrary to your dissimulation, again the vast and overwhelming majority of intelligent, god-fearing men and women, who believe on Christ and call upon the Spirit to guide them into all truth, have read Martin Luther, but more importantly the Bible, and have understood both as holding fast to the same truth which I and nearly everyone else here believes: The moral law of God is perpetually binding upon all men, believers not excepted, as a rule of life and guide to holiness.

I respond Pilgrim that man by wisdom knew not God, that the wisdom of God is foolishness to man, and that the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God. We need the Spirit of God to lead us into truth.

I believe there IS one truth, there IS one true Gospel, and any other is a false gospel. What I have set forth in this thread is the truth. Your Antinomian mixture of law and grace is another gospel. Whatever names and writers you can run to for support in your views won’t help one bit to make them true. Error is error, whoever teaches it.

But my prayer for you and others Pilgrim is that God will open your eyes and lead you forth by the Spirit into the truth, in the wonderful liberty of the child of God under the Gospel, in that heavenly righteousness as revealed only in that Gospel and in and through the Son of God, the Lord Jesus Christ. Grace is a wonderful thing Pilgrim. We are justified by grace, we are sanctified by grace, we are glorified by grace. All is of grace, from start to finish. And all is to be found in Jesus Christ. May Christ be our all in all.

Quote

“For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:
27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:
29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.
30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:
31 That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.

1 Corinthians 1:17-31

“And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God.
2 For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.
3 And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling.
4 And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:
5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.

6 Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought:
7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:
8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? but we have the mind of Christ.

1 Corinthians 2
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Just curious Mark - Wed Feb 18, 2004 2:32 PM

After reading this thread several times and reading elsewhere about this it seems to me that both "sides" believe the other to be "against the law",ie,antinomian.It is crystal clear to me that this is nonsense <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />.
Neither school of thought is against The Law as should be obvious from what has been posted here .

We should all take the time to read more carefully.

And before any start wingeing-that applies to me too <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />
Posted By: Pilgrim

Re: Just curious Mark - Wed Feb 18, 2004 4:20 PM

Quote
I believe there IS one truth, there IS one true Gospel, and any other is a false gospel. What I have set forth in this thread is the truth. Your Antinomian mixture of law and grace is another gospel. Whatever names and writers you can run to for support in your views won’t help one bit to make them true. Error is error, whoever teaches it.

How true it is that no matter how many times you run to Philpot, Huntington or any other Antinomian who has been found wanting and rejected by the vast majority of scholars, theologians, pastors and laymen throughout history, all of which were men of profound faith and who held tenaciously to Sola Scriptura, Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Solus Christus and Soli Deo Gloria, it isn't going to change the truth that believers are saved by grace from beginning to end AND that the moral law of God is forever binding upon them as a rule of life, as it is pleasing to God that they be holy as He is holy.

Quote
To mix law with faith in sanctification is to draw back from the purity of the Gospel rule of living by faith. It is to mix faith with the works of the law.

Wrong again, oh ye who despises the very character of God, which is revealed in His commandments. There is no intermixing of faith and works, but rather we hold that true saving faith is exemplified and exhibited in good works; the keeping of God's immutable holy law. (Jam 1:26) "Thou shalt not steal", for example, is no less binding upon an believer as it is upon an unbeliever. We are not "free" to sin, the transgression of the law. But rather we are free in Christ from the penalty of the law so that we may freely live according to that law, having been redeemed from its curse. We are to be analogs of the Lord Christ, our righteousness, Whose life is paradigmatic of how we are to live before God.

In His Grace,
Posted By: Pilgrim

Re: Just curious Mark - Wed Feb 18, 2004 4:28 PM

Quote
BookMark said:
After reading this thread several times and reading elsewhere about this it seems to me that both "sides" believe the other to be "against the law",ie,antinomian.It is crystal clear to me that this is nonsense <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />.
Neither school of thought is against The Law as should be obvious from what has been posted here .

We should all take the time to read more carefully.

And before any start wingeing-that applies to me too <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Mark,

That's just plain hogwash! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rofl.gif" alt="" /> It is YOU and Mr. Potts who have consistently stated that the moral law has been abrogated as to believers. Countless times it has been written by you two that "we are dead to the law", i.e., believers have nothing to do with the moral law of God and the law has nothing to do with the believer. It has been said that we are to "walk by faith", meaning by the inner leading and guiding of the Spirit APART from any relationship to the moral law of God whatsoever.

On the other hand, all the rest of us, less Carol and perhaps some who have been silent and lurking in the background, have stated countless times that the moral law of God is the very expression of God's nature; immutable, perpetual and binding upon all men everywhere for all time until Christ returns. It's application/relation to men, however, differs depending upon whether or not they are in Christ. Now, if you haven't been able to grasp the clear differences between what Antinomians teach and what the historic churches, the Reformed churches in particular, then I suggest YOU do some more careful reading. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

In His GRACE,
Posted By: Stucco

Re: Progressive Sanctification - Wed Feb 18, 2004 4:43 PM

Dear Mr. Potts,

In your reply to Pilgrim, you stated:

Quote
We are justified by grace, we are sanctified by grace, we are glorified by grace. All is of grace, from start to finish. And all is to be found in Jesus Christ. May Christ be our all in all.


I can certainly agree with this statement. The problem seems to be in the manner in which grace becomes evident in sanctification. We can certainly say that we are sanctified by grace in that sanctification is spoken of in the NT as being definitively constituted. Acts 20:32, "So now brethren, I commend you to God and to the word of His grace, which is able to build you up and give you an inheritance among all those who are sanctified." See also Acts 26:18, 1 Cor. 1:2, Eph. 5:26. The Bible clearly says here and elsewhere that there is a decisive point in every Christian life in which the power of sin comes under the control of the provisions of grace. The Christian is justified on the grounds of Christ's imputed obedience which the Christian partakes of through faith. The Christian's definitive sanctification also is based upon his real spiritual union with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection--The Christian is also brought into this spiritual union by faith and at this point not only is he accounted righteous by Christ's perfect obedience to the law but he also is counted holy by God according to Christ's mastering of sin. This is not merely a positional holiness but there is an actual real parting or breach with the reign of sin. This is brought about by the spiritual union with Christ and is decisive and definite. If our view of sanctification stopped here, then you might have sound reason in throwing the law out and declaring it no longer relevant in the Christian's life and walk in Christ.

But, to stop here and base our view on the use and purpose of God's law only on our passive roll in definitive sanctification is a dangerous error. The Bible certainly doesn't cut short it's instruction on sanctification here. From the point of justification and (definitive sanctification) we still have a journey to make before fully partaking in glory. It is a journey traversed by a soul still attached to a fleshly body and until the day that soul reaches glorification; we all know (existentially and Biblically) that a war rages, as the fleshly desires are mortified and replaced with a growing degree of spirituality. (A process which brings a higher and higher sense of one's remaining sin problem). IOW sanctification is progressive as well as definitive. Paul clearly expects the Christian to conform his processive experience with sin to his definitive death to sin. The Christian is not passive in progressive sanctification. Romans 12:1-2 points to the believers active, participative, roll in both dying to sin and growing in holiness. Mr. Potts, your disregard of God's law, which Paul speaks of as being holy, just, spiritual, and good (Rom. 7:12, 14, 16) strikes a damaging blow to the Christians progressive sanctification.

Paul who speaks so often of justification by faith alone, completely apart from the works of the law, always maintains that the Gospel doesn't nullify the law but upholds it!

When Paul say's that the unGodly man cannot subject himself to the law of God (Rom. 8:7)--what are we to infer about the Godly man? Christ has redeemed us, to enable us to obey the moral requirements of the law. That moral law of God which we are to obey, is revealed in the Scriptures, especially (but not exclusively) in the Decalogue.

In Romans 13, Paul speaks on ethics. Then in verses 9-10, he quotes most of the second half of the ten commandments. Doesn't his appeal to the Decalogue as that which the law of love fulfills demonstrate the abiding relevance of the law? Doesn't his appeal to the love obligation also intertwine his standard for Christian ethics with that of Jesus, who gave His summarization of the ten commandments also as "Love your neighbor as yourself." Clearly, according to Scriptures, the Decalogue is to be the ethical norm for the Christian's covenant way of life.

Mr. Potts, the statements you have made throughout this thread indicate that you have a flawed concept of sanctification. The only way that your view can be consistent, is to take Paul's teachings and hold them in direct contradiction to themselves. You have placed the flow and continuity of the Bible as a whole on a dispensationalist chopping block and butchered it to pieces. Love finds its parameters within the law of God. Your view leaves the Christian with nothing more to look to as a guide along his pilgrimage to glory, than vague, undefined "feelings." If one is truly in Christ, then he wil truly appreciate the precepts God has provided for him in His Holy Scriptures, so that he can live out his life to the glory of Christ, his Redeemer and King.

Please sir, prayerfully review and reconsider these things.

Sincerely,
Stucco
Posted By: Saved_n_kept

Re: Just curious Mark - Wed Feb 18, 2004 4:52 PM

Mr. Potts,
In order that those of us who agree with Pilgrim might be clear what you meant when you wrote:
Quote
I believe there IS one truth, there IS one true Gospel, and any other is a false gospel. What I have set forth in this thread is the truth. Your Antinomian mixture of law and grace is another gospel. Whatever names and writers you can run to for support in your views won't help one bit to make them true. Error is error, whoever teaches it.

Does this mean that you would see the following as applying to us?
Gal 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Progressive Sanctification - Wed Feb 18, 2004 9:50 PM

Hello Stucco, I hope you don’t mind me butting here. I just have to say that I have trouble with the term ‘Progressive sanctification.’ If you mean by the term growing in grace, growing in love, faith, knowledge and commitment to Christ, I can agree with that, but if you mean, as you said in your post, growing in holiness, or gradually attaining higher degrees of holiness, I say, how can that be? How can we contribute to our own holiness? And if, as we all agree, sanctification is essential to salvation, then works (our contribution) can have no part in it, can it? It has to be all of grace, doesn’t it? I believe that when God chose us to eternal life before the world began, we were sanctified. We were set apart and made holy for God. I do not think our good works, our devotion, our prayers or meditations and bible reading, anything, makes us MORE holy. I do believe we grow in faith, devotion, submission and even obedience to Christ, but I do not read anywhere in the bible of a believer claiming to grow in holiness or sanctification before God. We are perfectly holy in Christ right now. How can we improve on that? [b]And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled in the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight. Colossians 1:21-22 There is therefore NOW no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the spirit. Romans 8:1[/b] And now, knowing these things, I have a desire, out of love for Christ, to follow his commands. In him, Carol
Posted By: Pilgrim

Re: Progressive Sanctification - Wed Feb 18, 2004 10:35 PM

Quote
I just have to say that I have trouble with the term ‘Progressive sanctification.’ If you mean by the term growing in grace, growing in love, faith, knowledge and commitment to Christ, I can agree with that, but if you mean, as you said in your post, growing in holiness, or gradually attaining higher degrees of holiness, I say, how can that be? How can we contribute to our own holiness? And if, as we all agree, sanctification is essential to salvation, then works (our contribution) can have no part in it, can it? It has to be all of grace, doesn’t it?

Perhaps you need to consider the TWO biblical truths concerning sanctification? There is that "Definitive Sanctification" where God looks upon us as complete in Christ due to His work for us. We are holy in Him by virtue of His vicarious substitutionary atonement. In short, God having predestined the elect "to be holy" (Eph 1:4), "to be conformed to the image of His Son" (Rom 8:29), knows the end before it actually occurs. Yet, He has also ordained the means by which the end is accomplished in us to that end. Notice the verb usage by Paul in the two aforementioned verses. They both employ "to be" which connote purpose, intent, telos. Although by virtue of Christ's righteousness being imputed to us, by which we are forensically holy; declared righteous, we are in fact anything but righteous or holy in and of ourselves.

The purpose of God to save in Christ includes not only a judicial declaration of justification but a sovereign and progressive work of sanctification, wherein the believer is made holy through the transformation of his soul; putting off the old man and putting on the new man, "which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness." (Eph 4:24). We have in principle put off the old man and "have put on the new man, that is being renewed unto knowledge after the image of him that created him:". And what is this putting off of the old man but repentance from sin and the putting on the new man but living in accordance with what God considers righteous and holy, i.e., the moral law of God, which every true believer delights in and serves as a bondservant to Christ. (Rom 6 & 7)

When the author of Hebrews writes, "Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord:" (Heb 12:14), he isn't talking about a forensic sanctification (definitive sanctification), but a holiness which one possesses due to the transformation of the soul by the working of the indwelling Spirit.

It is surely "all of grace". Sanctification, the putting off of sin and the putting on of holiness, is but evidence of grace possessed (Jam 1:26). It contributes nothing to one's right standing before God. But it does demonstrate to the believer and to the household of God, that God is indeed working in him/her. This also is one of the fundamental evidences which brings assurance to a believer, as well as being most pleasing to God, Who would have all His children conformed to the image of the Lord Christ. Again, sanctification contributes NOTHING to one's reconciliation to God. That, from beginning to end is Christ's doing. But without progressive sanctification, there is no indication nor warrant to believe that they have been reconciled to God.

You might want to read these articles which set forth the biblical teaching of sanctification:

Definitive Sanctification, by John Murray.

Sanctification, by Thomas Watson.

The Necessity of Progress, by John Angell James.

Will the Unholy be Saved?, by Iain Murray.

The Gradual Conquest, by Ralph Erskine.

A Discourse of Mortification, by Stephen Charnock.

Growth in Grace, by Archibald Alexander.

A Call to Separation, by A.W. Pink.

In His Grace,
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Progressive Sanctification - Wed Feb 18, 2004 11:05 PM

Quote
Carol said: If you mean by the term growing in grace, growing in love, faith, knowledge and commitment to Christ, I can agree with that, but if you mean, as you said in your post, growing in holiness, or gradually attaining higher degrees of holiness, I say, how can that be? How can we contribute to our own holiness?


If what you say is true, Paul was giving some very odd instuctions to Timothy:

Quote
1 Timothy 2 v.6 If you put these things before the brothers, [1] you will be a good servant of Christ Jesus, being trained in the words of the faith and of the good doctrine that you have followed. 7 Have nothing to do with irreverent, silly myths. Rather train yourself for godliness; 8 for while bodily training is of some value, godliness is of value in every way, as it holds promise for the present life and also for the life to come. 9 The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance. 10 For to this end wetoil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe.

11 Command and teach these things. 12 Let no one despise you for your youth, but set the believers an example in speech, in conduct, in love, in faith, in purity.13 Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation, to teaching. 14 Do not neglect the gift you have, which was given you by prophecy when the council of elders laid their hands on you. 15 Practice these things, devote yourself to them, so that all may see your progress. 16 Keep a close watch on yourself and on the teaching. Persist in this, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers.


This shows it is possible to grow in godliness since Paul commands Timothy to train himself for godliness like an athlete in training.

Quote
Carol said: I do believe we grow in faith, devotion, submission and even obedience to Christ, but I do not read anywhere in the bible of a believer claiming to grow in holiness or sanctification before God.


I think this passage and others that command us to be holy show clearly that this is not a given with Christians. It requires action on our part.

Quote
John 17 v.14 I have given them your word, and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. 15 I do not ask that you take them out of the world, but that you keep them from the evil one. [1] 16 They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. 17 Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth. 18 As you sent me into the world, so I have sent them into the world. 19 And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth.


This shows that the the Word of God sanctifies us. That means that as we mature in our faith, we make progress in the faith. The Lord does this work in us but we are not passive. Jesus would not waste his prayer asking the Father to do what He had already done for them.

Quote
Carol said: I believe that when God chose us to eternal life before the world began, we were sanctified

Yes were set apart as holy, but there is also the process of sanctification you are missing.

Quote
Galatians 4 v.19 my little children, for whom I am again in the anguish of childbirth until Christ is formed in you!


This shows there is room for becoming more Christlike.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Progressive Sanctification - Wed Feb 18, 2004 11:33 PM

Thanks for the articles Pilgrim.

Here are a couple which set forth the biblical teaching of sanctification which you might want to read:


'The Doctrine of Sanctification' By A.W. Pink

'The Meaning of Sanctification' By Bill Parker

In him,
Carol
Posted By: Wes

Re: Progressive Sanctification - Thu Feb 19, 2004 12:15 AM

Carol,

Do you ever have sinful thoughts? Do you have any sinful habits? Do you ever struggle with sin at all? Well, sanctification falls in the category of "already is" and "not yet" in its reality.

The Westminster Shorter Catechism tells us that sanctification is the work of God's free grace, whereby we are renewed in the whole man after the image of God, and are enabled more and more to die unto sin, and live unto righteousness.

Are you telling us that you are not putting off the old man and putting on the new man daily? Are you saying that we don't have to deny ourselves and pick up our cross daily? Is there no more room for progress in your life where you can say, "I no longer am vulnerable to that particular sin any more." Do people see you as holy?

A person who is justified by the application of the work of Jesus Christ is declared holy judicially, but he is not rendered fully holy in thought, word and deed at the same moment. He continues to struggle against the remains of sin in his soul. But in that struggle, there is a progression in holiness. The believer grows more and more into conformity with the image of Christ. Sin lessens in his life and spiritual life is seen to increase, evidenced by the fruits of the Spirit.

The Process of Sanctification

The believer must be encouraged in this life as he struggles with the remaining influences of sin and his own imperfections. God has provided many lessons in his word to help us in this battle.

By Christ's atonement the condemnation of sin is removed, the bondage to sin as our master is removed and a new principle of spiritual life is infused. However the believer, prior to the resurrection, is not yet set free from the power of sin and the failings of his imperfect soul.

This process of sanctification is detailed by the Apostle Paul in Romans chapters six, seven and eight. There, and in a few other passages in his epistles, he sets forth the struggle and the promises that ensure our ultimate victory in Christ. A thorough exegetical review of these texts is essential to the understanding of the work of sanctification. (Particularly Romans 7:13-25, Galatians 5:16-26 and Ephesians 4:22-24. To that we add the entire First Epistle of John.)

The work of Sanctification

A person who is justified by the application of the work of Jesus Christ is declared holy judicially, but he is not rendered fully holy in thought, word and deed at that same moment. He continues to struggle against the remains of sin in his soul. But in that struggle, there is a progression in holiness. The believer grows more and more into conformity with the image of Christ. Sin lessens in his life and spiritual life is seen to increase, evidenced by the fruits of the Spirit.

The word "to sanctify" means to set something apart in a special way. Either by designating it for special use, or by actually making it purified from moral pollution.

In the sense of mere designation without actual purification, Jesus said he was sanctified by the Father and sent into the world (John 10:36). Certainly Jesus did not have to be made holy or purified. Yet he was set forth to a special holy task by his incarnation. In Matthew 23:17 Jesus speaks of the Temple sanctifying the gold. The gold was not made morally pure, nor did the Temple remove any of its natural impurities.

When we speak of the sanctification of the believer, the word is used in the second sense of actual moral transformation. We are not merely set apart as special by designation, we are also changed to become more and more holy.

Sanctification has its origin in the decree of God. Before all events relating to created things, God knew certain persons as his own. He predestined them to be sanctified, conformed to the image of his Son (Romans 8:29). The judicial foundation making that conformity possible for fallen persons is the work of Jesus Christ in making atonement for his people. The work of Christ is applied when the sinner is justified and new life is infused into the dead soul. This new life shows itself and grows until the person if finally glorified in Christ at the resurrection to glory.

While regeneration is an immediately complete act of imparting life to those justified, sanctification is a process that continues all through the believer's life. Justification changes his legal standing before God. Sanctification is the change that takes place as the enlivened soul takes on more and more the life which is imparted. Some progress in sanctification at a faster rate than others. But all will reach perfection only when their life here is over.

Sanctification is a work of God upon the believer. Aside from his grace to both impart life and to sustain it, we would neither be able to be, nor desire to be, holy. (1 Thessalonians 23-24, Philippians 2:13, Hebrews 13:20-21). The whole Trinity is at work to purify us morally. The Father has decreed it. The Son secured its legal grounds, gave his word and sent the Holy Spirit by which the church is sanctified to himself (Ephesians 5:25-27; Titus 2:14). The application by the indwelling Holy Spirit is the primarily work that realizes that sanctification in the soul (2 Thessalonians 2:13).

1 Thessalonians 5:23-24 Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you entirely; and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved complete, without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. Faithful is He who calls you, and He also will bring it to pass.

Philippians 2:13 for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure.

Hebrews 13:20-21 Now the God of peace, who brought up from the dead the great Shepherd of the sheep through the blood of the eternal covenant, even Jesus our Lord, equip you in every good thing to do His will, working in us that which is pleasing in His sight, through Jesus Christ, to whom be the glory forever and ever. Amen.

Ephesians 5:25-27 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her; that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she should be holy and blameless.

Titus 2:14 who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds.

2 Thessalonians 2:13 But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth.

If you want to read more of this excellent study you'll find it here.

Wes
Posted By: DaveVan3

Re: Progressive Sanctification - Thu Feb 19, 2004 1:16 AM

Carol:
Thanks for the link to Pink’s “The Doctrine of Sanctification”. It seems a little strange to me that you would select to post the link to chapter 12 only. Pink says of this chapter..”

Quote
We are not now going to write upon sanctification as a moral quality or attribute, nor of that which is a matter of experience or attainment by us; rather shall we contemplate something entirely outside ourselves, namely, that which is a fundamental part of our standing and state in Christ. That which we are about to consider is one of those "spiritual blessings" which God has blest us with "in the heavenlies in Christ".


Let me give to all who read here the link to the entire book: Sanctification

Let me also post a quote from chapter 17:..

Quote
” There are some who will go with us this far, agreeing that Christ came here to meet the demands of the Law, yet who insist that the Law being satisfied, believers are now entirely freed from its claims. But this is the most inconsistent, illogical, absurd position of all. Shall Christ go to so much pains to magnify the Law in order that it might now be dishonored by us! Did He pour out His love to God on the Cross that we might be relieved from loving Him! It is true that "Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness to every one that believeth" (Rom. 10:4)—for "righteousness" (for our justification), yes; but not for our sanctification. Is it not written that "he that saith he abideth in Him ought himself also to walk even as He walked" (1 John 2 :6), and did not Christ walk according to the rule of the Law? The great object in Christ’s coming here was to conform His people to the Law, and not to make them independent of it. Christ sends the Spirit to write the Law in their hearts (Heb. 8:10) and not to set at nought its holy and high demands.


Again, thanks for the link. This is one of Pink’s books that I do not have.

Dave
Posted By: Wes

Re: Progressive Sanctification - Thu Feb 19, 2004 1:34 AM

Dave,

Thanks for noticing that. Thank you too Carol. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/thanks.gif" alt="" /> This link gives us access to A.W. Pink's archive. What a treasure.


Wes
Posted By: Pilgrim

Re: Progressive Sanctification - Thu Feb 19, 2004 2:06 AM

Carol,

Alrighty... read them both! A.W. Pink, of course, holds firmly to the doctrines which we here hold fast and which you are opposed; i.e., that sanctification is BOTH "definitive" and "progressive". Anyone who is even the slightest familiar with the writings of A.W. Pink, knows that he taught the perpetuity and binding character of God's moral law upon all men, not excluding Christians. Further, Pink strongly held to "progressive sanctification". This can be evidenced by many of his articles and books, e.g., in the book Practical Christianity and the chapter entitled, "The Doctrine of Mortification". So, in regards to Pink... I am wondering why you chose him as something that I should read. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scratch1.gif" alt="" />

On the opposite side stands Bill Parker, which clearly is the antithesis of Pink's views and those held by all the Reformers, Puritans and most Calvinists today. There is no doubt where he stands and errs most miserably in his interpretation of Scripture and to be sure he avoids the myriad passages which speak of the believer's responsibility to "work out his salvation with fear and trembling", to "put off the old man", to "flee from sin", etc., etc., etc... Actually, I must ask you if you are in agreement with his extremist position?

In His Grace,
Posted By: Stucco

Re: Progressive Sanctification - Thu Feb 19, 2004 3:27 AM

Hey Carol<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/hello.gif" alt="" />

I don't mind a little butting in. Thats pretty much what I did myself<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Anyway, I see that some of the others have already replied to what you asked me, and to be honest, they probably said it a heap better than I could. If not, and if you want to ask me something specific, I'll try to come up with an answer--and if I don't have an answer.....well, my wife says that I never let a little thing like "lack of knowledge" prevent me from offering an opinion.<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

Stucco
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Just curious Mark - Thu Feb 19, 2004 9:20 AM

Quote
Saved_n_kept said:
Mr. Potts,
In order that those of us who agree with Pilgrim might be clear what you meant when you wrote:
Quote
I believe there IS one truth, there IS one true Gospel, and any other is a false gospel. What I have set forth in this thread is the truth. Your Antinomian mixture of law and grace is another gospel. Whatever names and writers you can run to for support in your views won't help one bit to make them true. Error is error, whoever teaches it.

Does this mean that you would see the following as applying to us?
Gal 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.


Why do you folk keep seeking to raise the temperature of this discussion? Why do you keep seeking out statements which I make that you can leap on and claim “Aha! That’s what he thinks! Aha!”, as if they are so shocking, so damning?

The fact is that both sides hold to what they believe is the truth very strongly, and both believe the other to hold error. What I have said about your ‘gospel’ is no stronger than what has been said about mine. As Wes and others have said:-

Quote

“As far as your Antinomian views are concerned the Bible condemns it. The apostles condemn it. Jesus Christ condemns it. Antinomianism is a heresy that must be rejected.

“Antinomian bias strikes at the nature of the gospel. It says, in effect, let us continue in sin.

Thus, Ian, what you are advocating, lawlessness, is nothing other than sin, for the two are made equivalent here by the Apostle John.


Now, if what I teach is as you claim ‘Antinomianism’ and is a heresy, then what of my gospel? Is it THE Gospel, but with a heresy in it? Or is it another gospel? Am I a brother, or should I be accursed?

If I advocate ‘lawlessness’ which is ‘nothing other than sin’ am I preaching a false gospel?

You decide.

If I am not, but simply preach the gospel, but with an error, then I can say the same about you. You preach the gospel (justification by faith alone) but with an error on sanctification.

But if you believe that my error is actually heresy and that my gospel is another gospel, a false gospel, then I ask you the same question:

Does this mean that you would see the following as applying to me?

“As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.” Galatians 1:9

Indeed if I preach heresy am I a heretic? Do you apply the following to me?

“A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;
Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.”
Titus 3:10-11

I implore you, by the grace of God, stop acting with self-righteous indignation, as though you and yours have not said equally strong words about my position. If you believe me to be in error then deal with the subject and try to answer the scriptural passages I have given in defence of what I believe, and declare to be the truth, the Gospel of Christ.

Much better to give me answers to what I have said about such passages as Romans 6:14, Romans 7:4, Galatians 5, 2 Corinthians 3, which clearly teach that the GOSPEL is the believer’s rule of life, not the LAW, than to waste time trying to trap me in my words, much as the Pharisees sought to do with Christ. You share the same legal spirit I fear.

Finally I ask you - have I come here cursing you, damning you, rejecting you? I have not. I have come here preaching the Gospel of Christ unto you, amidst much opposition, out of loving concern to shine light upon God's word, that you might know the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free. I have not left you alone in your error, but have sought to bring the truth to you. I may bring strong medicine at times, which is unpleasant to your taste, but I truly believe that should the Spirit of God apply these truths to your hearts then one day you will thank God for bringing this word unto your ears and into your understanding.

In Grace,
Ian Potts
Posted By: Anonymous

The Just Shall Live By Faith - Thu Feb 19, 2004 9:27 AM

Quote
Stucco said:
Paul who speaks so often of justification by faith alone, completely apart from the works of the law, always maintains that the Gospel doesn't nullify the law but upholds it!

When Paul say's that the unGodly man cannot subject himself to the law of God (Rom. 8:7)--what are we to infer about the Godly man? Christ has redeemed us, to enable us to obey the moral requirements of the law. That moral law of God which we are to obey, is revealed in the Scriptures, especially (but not exclusively) in the Decalogue.

In Romans 13, Paul speaks on ethics. Then in verses 9-10, he quotes most of the second half of the ten commandments. Doesn't his appeal to the Decalogue as that which the law of love fulfills demonstrate the abiding relevance of the law? Doesn't his appeal to the love obligation also intertwine his standard for Christian ethics with that of Jesus, who gave His summarization of the ten commandments also as "Love your neighbor as yourself." Clearly, according to Scriptures, the Decalogue is to be the ethical norm for the Christian's covenant way of life.

Mr. Potts, the statements you have made throughout this thread indicate that you have a flawed concept of sanctification. The only way that your view can be consistent, is to take Paul's teachings and hold them in direct contradiction to themselves. You have placed the flow and continuity of the Bible as a whole on a dispensationalist chopping block and butchered it to pieces. Love finds its parameters within the law of God. Your view leaves the Christian with nothing more to look to as a guide along his pilgrimage to glory, than vague, undefined "feelings." If one is truly in Christ, then he wil truly appreciate the precepts God has provided for him in His Holy Scriptures, so that he can live out his life to the glory of Christ, his Redeemer and King.


Stucco,

With respect Sir, you are wrong, being confused in your understanding of scripture. It is not I that takes “Paul's teachings and hold(s) them in direct contradiction to themselves” but yourself.

How do you do that? By doing something along the following lines. You read this:-

Quote

“For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.
What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.”
Romans 6:14-15

“Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.
For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.
But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.”
Romans 7:4-6


And then you go on to read this:-

Quote

“Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.
Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.”
Romans 7:12-13

“If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good”
Romans 7:16

“For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?
I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.”
Romans 7:22-25

“Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.”
Romans 8:7

“Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.
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.
Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.”
Romans 13:8-10


And you reach the false conclusion that although Paul says we are not under law, that we are dead to it, and that we are delivered from it, that actually he can’t really mean that in the way it sounds because of what he says about the law later on! So in effect you make those earlier statements of little worth. You “qualify” them in whatever way is necessary in order to ensure, that practically, as a rule of life, the believer is, contrary to what Paul teaches, actually still under the law, still alive to it, still in bondage to it.

But Paul’s later comments IN NO WAY contradict his earlier statements and are in no way an insistence that the believer is under law. He isn’t, he is under grace.

What Paul is showing is HOW the love which is given by grace in the Gospel fulfils the law’s demands. Not that the believer is under the law, bound by the law, or ruled by the law, but that being under grace, living by faith, led by the Spirit, the believer does not “sin that grace may abound” but actually walks in ways of righteousness which fulfil all the law’s demands. Not by law, but by grace. Not under law, but under grace. Not by the letter, but by the Spirit. Not in bondage, but in liberty. Not by the work of the flesh, but by the work of the Spirit of God within us, by the outworking of that fruit of the Spirit as we walk, by faith, looking unto Jesus.

The Gospel produces righteous conduct in the believer, fulfilling the law’s demands, but not by being under the law, or ruled by the law. And that is what you can’t understand isn’t it? “How!?”, you ask, “It’s all too vague, too mystical, all about feelings…”.

You say the following:

“Love finds its parameters within the law of God.”
“Your view leaves the Christian with nothing more to look to as a guide along his pilgrimage to glory, than vague, undefined "feelings." “

No Sir. Allow me to explain.

The Spirit of God guides us using the whole word of God, not just the “moral law”. The just shall live by faith. Faith worketh by love. And love finds its parameters in THE Gospel, not simply the law, as the Gospel reveals the righteousness of God in its fullest extent, in Christ, and the Gospel fulfils all the law’s requirements. Faith is centred upon Christ, love is set upon Him, in loving response to the love which He first showed us, in that while we were yet sinners He died for us. And such love, such fruit of the Spirit flows forth not merely towards God, but towards our brethren also.

The Spirit inspired the whole word of God Stucco. And the Spirit ‘leads’ us by using the whole word of God. Our “rule of life” is not simply the “moral law”. It is to live by faith, walk in the Spirit, as the Spirit instructs us through all of God’s word. You see, we don’t ‘discard’ the law, we recognise the truth of it, the worth of it, the goodness of God in it, the holiness of God in it, the justice of God in it, we love the law of God, we delight in it after the inward man, just as Paul does in Romans 7. But we also recognise that as long as we live in this world with the flesh as well as the Spirit, that to put ourselves under the rule of law will simply flare up the sin within our flesh. To walk in the Spirit and produce conduct in keeping with the law’s demands we need to be lawfully delivered from the law, to cease to be under it. Whenever the flesh is put under the law the result is not righteousness but sin. That is the same for the believer's flesh as well as the unbeliever's.

I think this is where you go wrong in your understanding - you fail to recognise properly that the law isn't made for the new man of grace, the spirit, because that is born of God, and that which is born of God does not commit sin (see 1 John), but it is directed at the flesh to expose the sin therein, it flares up sin in the flesh and it condemns it. That is the purpose of the law, and it is the reason why the believer must be delivered from under it, so that he can walk in the Spirit, not fulfilling the lusts of the flesh. That is what Paul teaches in Romans 6 – 8 and we recognise it and believe it.

And we also recognise the worth of all God’s word, all the words of Christ in the Gospels, all the words of the Apostles in the epistles, all the word of God as inspired by the Holy Spirit. We walk in a way of righteousness, by faith, in the Spirit, conformable to God’s will as revealed in scripture by the Spirit.

But we follow all of God’s instruction, and we do not misuse it Stucco. We rightly divide it. We learn to see the difference between Old Covenant and New. Between the First Adam and the Last Adam. Between Flesh and Spirit. Between Works and Faith. Between Law and Grace.

When God by the Spirit says ““For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God” (Gal 2:19) and tells us to “Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage” (Gal 5:1) we meekly, submissively, willingly do as God instructs us. We do not put ourselves back under law which we are dead to, because then we could not live unto God. We do not entangle ourselves again with the yoke of bondage, because then we would not be free in Christ, in the liberty wherewith He hath made us free. What God has put asunder, we do not seek to join together.

By faith, in the Spirit, we keep God’s commandments. All that Christ commands us through the Gospel we willingly keep, as enabled by grace, as led by the Spirit.

Now, as to this walk Stucco, of course it isn’t easy. Walking in the Spirit isn’t automatic. Of course we are involved and we strive, we push forwards, we seek to overcome sin, we mortify the deeds of the flesh. What causes the trouble is that we still have the flesh, and the flesh warreth against the Spirit. But that is why we walk in the Spirit, not in the flesh. The law was given to show up sin in the flesh – it provides no power to restrain it, it only fuels it. To put yourself under law is not to walk in the Spirit but to seek to perfect the flesh by use of law, which never happens. In fact if under law sin has dominion over you. The only way to fulfil the law, to avoid sin, to walk in the Spirit, is not to be under the law. As it is written:

For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.
What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.”
Romans 6:14-15



In Galatians 5 we read the following:

Quote

“For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

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.

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.
If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.”


Consider this passage carefully. Faith worketh by love and love is the fulfilling of the law. Faith and love however are fruits of the Spirit, not the law, and to have the fruits of the Spirit, we walk in the Spirit. If we are led of the Spirit we are not under the law.

No, we walk in the Spirit, not under the law. He produces fruit in our lives – Faith and love included. Faith worketh by love, and love fulfils all the law’s demands. So although we are not under the law, we don’t break the law, because we are led of the Spirit who gives us faith and love which fulfils the law. The Spirit certainly instructs us through ALL the scriptures, but He never puts us back under law, in bondage to it, or to be ruled by it. No, we walk in liberty in Christ. We are ‘just’ in Christ and…

“The just shall live by faith”.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Just curious Mark - Thu Feb 19, 2004 10:36 AM

Hogwash to you perhaps Pilgrim <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Still crystal clear to me - a day later.

Clearer in fact <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

I would also add that to my poor ,wretched,underdeveloped mind that Mr.Potts is making more sense than any one else on this particular thread. That might change however...<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: The Just Shall Live By Faith - Thu Feb 19, 2004 10:57 AM

Ian, you are new to this board and I thank you for the patience and grace you are showing in your posts. My wife,who does some typing for me here now and again has noticed this too. You are being taken to task by various folk (some dont even understand this thread)from all sorts of angles and you are writing with Christian Love .May God give you the strength to continue in this vein <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/BigThumbUp.gif" alt="" />

Proverbs 15:28 KJV
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: The Just Shall Live By Faith - Thu Feb 19, 2004 2:45 PM

Mark,
I would add that your comments toward us have not been so gracious. You have accused those here of never knowing grace before your enlightened friend has shown us our error. It seems obvious that you have brought Mr Potts here for this debate. I believe he has been treated graciously here, even though he is a teacher of error. I will leave it to God to decide whether he is a brother or not. Our responsibility is to defend the truth. If we let error to go unchallenged, seeing the damage it does to those who embrace it, we are unfaithful soldiers. After visiting other forums, I have been shocked that administrators would allow errors to be taught without a challenge. I know Pilgrim would rather die than to let errors go unchallenged here! Sadly Mark, you cannot see this or appreciate it.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: The Just Shall Live By Faith - Thu Feb 19, 2004 2:53 PM

Susan,

Mark and I never 'met' before I turned up on this forum. Mark's only knowledge of myself was that someone told him about an article I have on my website which Mark then looked at and posted a link to on this forum.

A friend of mine noticed that, mentioned it to me, so seeing as my article was being referenced I thought I should join in the discussion.

But until I turned up here Mark and I had never met, or corresponded. The friend he was discussing these things with must be someone else.

What I have posted on here Susan is not error. It is the Gospel of Christ, and unless you can show clearly from scripture where any error in my teaching lies then any assertions of yours that I teach error are merely that - assertions.

Yours in Grace,
Ian Potts
Posted By: Pilgrim

Re: The Just Shall Live By Faith - Thu Feb 19, 2004 3:43 PM

Quote
What I have posted on here Susan is not error. It is the Gospel of Christ, and unless you can show clearly from scripture where any error in my teaching lies then any assertions of yours that I teach error are merely that - assertions.

Your heresy has been dealt a death blow myriad times here and in various ways. We have given sound exegesis of Scripture and you have returned nothing more than eisogesis. We have given you sound logic and reason of the Scriptures and you have given back nothing but illogical reasoning and blind bias against the holy law of God. We have given you the statements of several historic Confessions of the Reformed Churches which have withstood both time and assault and you have given us nothing more than the heretical musings of but two men, J.C. Philpot and Huntington.

It is YOU who claims to be preaching the "Gospel of Christ" to us poor, ignorant, and deceived souls, thus implying and even stating that we preach a "false gospel". It would appear that we also differ as to the definition of what the Gospel actually is. But if we were to accept your definition, just out of interest, then it would be YOU who is preaching "another gospel", for we simply believe that which has been always believed by the saints. Not only do we have our own sound exegesis to stand on, but we also have the testimony of the entire Church. This, my good man Mr. Potts is how Sola Scriptura works. After studying the infallible Word, which is the sole and final authority in all matters of faith and practice (not you sir), the true child of God then consults with those who have gone before and those who are contemporary with him/her to compare their own conclusion with those of others. For we are all subject to error. The Scripture is infallible and inerrant; we are not. Secondly, the Spirit Who guides us into all truth was FIRST given to the Church and Who thus gave gifts to certain men and appointed them to serve as Apostles, Prophets, Pastor-Teachers, etc. for the upbuilding of the saints. Thus we acknowledge that there are those who are far more gifted and learned than ourselves to whom we may consult as a safe-guard against our own errors. Therefore, having studied the Scriptures prayerfully and then comparing it with those others who have gone before me and having found that my conclusion agrees with the overwhelming majority of the most gifted and godly men who also have rejected your view as fallacious, I am more than confident that the truth is mine and not yours.

Thus, the Church has produces Creeds and Confessions with a two-fold purpose, 1) To preserve the faith once delivered unto the saints, 2) To expose and guard against heresy, which is always wanting to gain a foothold. You would be hard pressed, Mr. Potts, to find one Confession written by any of the Reformation denominations which gives credence to your Antinomianism. The Spirit was in those who penned those many and various documents. And it is the same Spirit Who indwells my soul and Who has led me to the truth of the Gospel and Who has testified to my spirit that you are teaching false doctrine. That's sufficient enough for me.

In His Grace,
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: The Just Shall Live By Faith - Thu Feb 19, 2004 4:38 PM

Mark,
Here are some of your inflammatory statements you have made on this thread.
Quote
Hello Brian.

I thought you were living in the shadow of Ben Nevis.

Alas poor man, you do appear to be living in the shadow of Mt Sinai. Seek Zion.

Quote
Ian, I believe I understand your points and feelings here quite well.

What is concerning me is that some here talk about Gods Law and a moral law.

1 Timothy 1:7 sums this up very well and is often ignored.

Some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling,DESIRING TO BE TEACHERS OF THE LAW;UNDERSTANDING NEITHER WHAT THEY SAY,NOR WHEREOF THEY AFFIRM.

Thank you Ian for your input on this thread.Many here are learning about Grace for the first time I would imagine.


It's odd how you would refuse to go to a church that doesn't hold to the Westminster standards and now can easily discard these same standards regarding the law of God. What has happened to change that? Do you think those 'divines' didn't understand grace either? You are a very mixed up man, Mark! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/dizzy.gif" alt="" />
Posted By: Wes

Re: Progressive Sanctification - Thu Feb 19, 2004 7:38 PM

Quote
Stucco writes,

I'll try to come up with an answer--and if I don't have an answer.....well, my wife says that I never let a little thing like "lack of knowledge" prevent me from offering an opinion.

That's a great line... I'll have to remember that one. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />


Wes <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bravo.gif" alt="" />
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: The Just Shall Live By Faith - Fri Feb 20, 2004 12:28 AM

Susan said:
Quote
After visiting other forums, I have been shocked that administrators would allow errors to be taught without a challenge. I know Pilgrim would rather die than to let errors go unchallenged here!


I have noticed the same thing on other forums and I too was disappointed, not only that it goes unchallenged, but that it goes on indefinately.

One of the things I noticed early on here on the Highway was that the Staff let a discussion of heresy continue for as long as a useful purpose was served in doing so, ie; the purveyor of the error could be shown same and perhaps benefit, the reader could see how error was sown, and how it was corrected thus being made more wise unto salvation if having ears to hear, participants could learn by digging in their Bibles and Commentaries and benefiting all around from the truth being presented and defended.

I can say, without equivocation, that I have learned more on this site about various doctrines, heresies, and simply differing opinions about legitimate differences in understanding, in a little more than one year, than I think I could have learned anywhere else. It has been a blessing to me in many ways.

In Him,

Gerry
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: ...The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Fri Feb 20, 2004 7:30 AM

Thankyou ladies and gentlemen for your input on this thread.

There is much here for us to pray about and study through.

I believe this thread has gone "full circle" and is "burnt out" .

Locking this thread would be a good idea IMHO, before folk get too personal and trade insults.

Thanks again to those here who offered constructive ideas and thoughts <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/thanks.gif" alt="" />
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: The Just Shall Live By Faith - Fri Feb 20, 2004 9:08 AM

Quote
Pilgrim said:
Quote
What I have posted on here Susan is not error. It is the Gospel of Christ, and unless you can show clearly from scripture where any error in my teaching lies then any assertions of yours that I teach error are merely that - assertions.

Your heresy has been dealt a death blow myriad times here and in various ways. We have given sound exegesis of Scripture and you have returned nothing more than eisogesis. We have given you sound logic and reason of the Scriptures and you have given back nothing but illogical reasoning and blind bias against the holy law of God. We have given you the statements of several historic Confessions of the Reformed Churches which have withstood both time and assault and you have given us nothing more than the heretical musings of but two men, J.C. Philpot and Huntington.


Pilgrim,

Mark is right - this thread has probably run its course. However as a final response to your comments above, I say you have not given sound exegesis to many of the passages I have brought up. For example:-

Quote

“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;
9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
11 According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.”
1 Timothy 1:5-11


You had a go at this, but I responded showing how your exegesis was lacking and really didn’t address who the ‘righteous man’ referred to was, or how the law was ‘not made’ for him.

Quote

For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.
What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.”
Romans 6:14-15

“Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.
For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.
But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.”
Romans 7:4-6

“For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.”
Galatians 2:19

“Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.
22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.”
Galatians 3:21-29

Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?
22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.
23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.
24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.
27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.
28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.
29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.
30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.
31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.

Galatians 4:21-31

Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.
Galatians 5:1

“This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.
17 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.
18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
24 And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.
25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.

Galatians 5:16-25

“For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.”
Matthew 11:30

Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
7 But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:
8 How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious?
9 For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory.
10 For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth.
11 For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious
.”
2 Corinthians 3:6-11


In response to my teaching regarding all the above passages all you have done is to assert that I confuse justification and sanctification, yet you have provided no sound exegesis of any of these passages to demonstrate that they refer only to justification, and cannot be applied to the believer’s walk as they most surely relate to. My exposition of these and other passages gives clear demonstration that they do indeed regard the believer’s walk, as not being under law, but under grace.

On the other hand I have dealt with many passages including all of the following and have shown clearly how they don’t in any way contradict the truth that the Gospel, not the law, is the believer’s rule of life, and I have given much of the sense and the meaning of them:-

Quote

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”
Matthew 5:17

Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.
Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.”
Romans 7:12-13

“If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good”
Romans 7:16

For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?
I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.”
Romans 7:22-25

“Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.”
Romans 8:7

“Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.
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.
Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.”
Romans 13:8-10

"If ye love me, keep my commandments. . . .
He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

John 14:15,21

“As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love.
If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.”
John 15:9-10

“For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.”
1 John 5:3

“A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.
By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.”

John 13:34-35


I would refer readers back to previous posts in this thread to see what I have said about these various passages, and what you have said in reply. To see if indeed it is you who performs eisogesis when you read “The Moral Law” into such verses as John 14, “If ye love me keep my commandments”, and yet provide no scriptural backing to show that in that case “commandments” does not also refer to the Ceremonial or Judicial aspects of the same law which you seek to ‘read into’ the verse.

As to your claim that I “have given” you “nothing more than the heretical musings of but two men, J.C. Philpot and Huntington”, I should like to know what passages from either of these men I have quoted in my posts? Have I not, in fact, quoted scripture and expounded on that?

However the thread started with the words of Gadsby, a man sent of God, and greatly used of God, as enlightened by the Holy Spirit in the scriptures, whose arguments and points regarding the believer’s rule of life – the Gospel – have not been refuted in the course of this thread. As we started with him, I feel it only fair to end with him and pose some of his, as yet unanswered, questions again…

Quote

1st. If the Law is the believers rule of life, I shall thank ye to tell me what is intended by the letter written by the apostles and elders, and sent to the believing Gentiles, as recorded in Acts XV and shall expect you to explain the chapter.

2ndly Hope you will tell me what the apostle means in the first six verses of Romans VII, where he says that the believer is dead to the Law, and free from the Law; and let me know how that Law can be his rule, when he is dead to it, and free from it, as a woman is from her husband when she has buried him. Should you be disposed to say that the believer is dead to it as a COVENANT, but not as a RULE of life; you will, no doubt, point to those scriptures which make a distinction between the Law as a Covenant and as a rule of life; for, unless you do this, you will not move me.

3rdly You will have the goodness to inform me what is intended by the first four verses in Romans VIII; and let me know how it comes to pass that the Law of the Spirit of life in Christ has made me free from the Law of Death, and yet that Law of Death [called in another place the killing letter] is my rule of life; and how it is that it is my rule of life after it has killed me, and I am made free from it.

4thly You will read 2 Corinthians III, and let me know how it is that the administration of death, written and engraven on stones, is the living mans rule of life, and how this can be consistent with what the apostle observes in verse 11 where he says it is done away, and in verse 13 where he says it is abolished. Now my dear Sir, you are to tell me how that Law which is done away and abolished still remains the believer’s perfect rule of life.

5thly You will also show me how it is that the Law was our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ, that when faith is come we are no longer under a schoolmaster, and yet that this schoolmaster is our rule of life after faith has come [Gal III:24-25]

6thly You would inform me how it is that if we be led by the Spirit we are not under the Law, and yet that the Law is a perfect rule of life to that man who is led by the Spirit [Gal V:18] There are many things in the epistle to the Galatians which you will find worthy of your attention in this business. I hope you will read the whole.

7thly Shall expect you to tell me how it is that the handwriting which against us, and contrary to us, is taken out of the way, and nailed to the cross, [As Col 2:14] and yet remains a perfect rule of life. Should you be disposed to say that the Ceremonial Law is here intended, you will tell me how that Law, which was the gospel in its day, came to be against the believer, and what there was in it contrary to him.

8thly You will be sure to inform me how it is that that Law which is not made for a righteous man is the righteous mans rule of life [1 Tim 1:9]

9thly As Christ was made under the Law, to redeem them that were under the Law [As Gal 4:4,5], you will say how it comes to pass that they still remain under it in any sense that Christ was made under it, seeing He was made under it to redeem them from under it.

10thly But as whatsoever the Law says, it says to them that are under the Law, [As Romans 3:19] and as the believer is not under the Law, [As Romans 6:14,Gal 5:18] you will inform me what the Law says to them who are not under it.

11thly If the Law contains the whole will of God, as to matter of obedience, as Fuller and others have said, you will let me know upon what ground you prove that unbelievers have no right to be baptized, and partake of the Lords supper, seeing that what the Law says it says to them that are under it; and if it contains the whole of obedience it must require unbelievers to be baptized. You will be sure to reconcile this if you can.

12thly You will inform me how it is that while men contend for the Law being a perfect rule of life to the believers and call those ill names who do not, they can and do, openly, knowingly, and designedly, break the 4th commandment every week. You will inform me whether doing EVERY sort of work on the 7th day is walking according to that rule which says "Thou shalt not do ANY work, no, not so much as kindle a fire" [Exod 35:3]

13thly, and lastly. You will inform me how it is that Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone that believeth [Rom 10:4] and yet that the believer, who is got to the end of the Law at once, namely, by faith in Christ, must come back again, and begin at the beginning by taking it for a perfect rule of life.


May the Lord be pleased to lead all His blood-bought children into the truth of the Gospel of Christ, as led by the Spirit of God, unto His glory and the praise of His Holy Name.

In God’s Matchless Grace,
Ian Potts
Posted By: Tom

Is there a name they call this particular view? - Sun Feb 29, 2004 2:09 AM

What name does this particular view go under?
By the sounds of it Mr.Potts and Mark have bought into it.
Is it NCT?

Tom
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Is there a name they call this particular view? - Sun Feb 29, 2004 2:15 AM

Tom:

You asked:
Quote
What name does this particular view go under?
By the sounds of it Mr.Potts and Mark have bought into it.


The name of the view, and a clouded one at that, is antinomianism, and yes, it would be fair to say the Potts and Mark have not only bought into it, but are attempting to get others to invest into it too.

In Him,

Gerry
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Is there a name they call this particular view? - Sun Feb 29, 2004 10:29 PM

Well Tom I'm sure that you could with a little searching find this for yourself but I'm in a generous mood tonight. These are Gadsbyites or if you would like a more descriptive term Hyper-Calvinists. You see Tom Gospel Standard Churches were started by Strict and Particular Baptists who rejected the free offer of the Gospel to all men. And their Hyper-Calvinist view also lead to antinomianism. If you wish to read their confession go to this website:

Gospel Standard Articles of Faith.


Pete
Posted By: Tom

Re: Is there a name they call this particular view? - Mon Mar 01, 2004 6:24 PM

Thanks Pete <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Based on that information, this matter is even more surious than I suspected.

Mark
I would suggest that you take note of these things.

Tom
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Is there a name they call this particular view? - Tue Mar 02, 2004 8:31 AM

Thanks for your concern Tom - It doesn't go unnoticed as some might imagine <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

For the record,I am not a Gospel Standard Baptist- I am not a Baptist peroid. I attended a Gospel Standard place over a period of about 4 years but I never joined because they said I was not baptised.No baptism - no Lords Supper. I was ,however baptised aged 11 months back in 1961.

Thankyou Tom <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/thanks.gif" alt="" />
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Thu Mar 04, 2004 11:31 AM

Wes ,I have been re-reading this thread and regarding the hymn "Rock of ages" I would like to add that it was written originally by Augustus Toplady(1740-1778). He was a champion of Calvinism and labelled an Antinomian too. His stance against Wesleys Arminianism is legendary .
Posted By: Wes

Re: The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Thu Mar 04, 2004 12:03 PM

Mark,

When I pointed out the song Rock of Ages in response to the Antinomian view being promoted I was pointing out the "double" cure in verse one. This two-fold work is both justification and sanctification.

Please re-read the rest of my comments in the thread and you will have little doubt what I believe Scripture teaches.


Wes
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Thu Mar 04, 2004 12:10 PM

No problem Wes <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> I was just pointing out that the hymn was originally written by Toplady .
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Fri May 21, 2004 6:57 AM

Anyone ready to answer Gadsbys points yet ? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />
Posted By: grace2U

Re: The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Fri May 21, 2004 8:25 AM

Mark,
If you're really interested in having Gadsby' points answered, why don't you post them up one at a time? If you do, I'll have a crack at them. They're too big a block to try to tackle all together.

Blessings,
Steve
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Fri May 21, 2004 6:07 PM

Cant be done Steve..............<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />
Posted By: Pilgrim

Re: The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Fri May 21, 2004 6:29 PM

Quote
BookMark said:
Cant be done Steve..............<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

Steve asked you if you would start a new thread and include one of Gadby's assertions. Now, what is it that can't be done? 1) You can't start a new thread? or 2) You are unable to include a single assertion? [Linked Image]
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Mon May 24, 2004 1:48 AM

Hi Pilgrim. Gadsbys "assertions" havnt been answered since he penned them in 1806 . No one here (on this thread) has managed thus far.........
Posted By: Tom

Re: The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Mon May 24, 2004 1:57 AM

BookMark

It looks like you don't even want to give anyone the chance, since you refused a reasonable request.

Tom
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Wed Aug 18, 2004 5:36 AM

Hi Tom ,folk have had months to try and answer Gadsby - no one has done so here......here is question one for those who believe they can answer it.

"If the law is the believers rule of life,I shall thank you to tell me what is intended by the letter written by the apostles and elders,and sent to the believing gentiles,as recorded in Acts 15, and shall expect you to explain the chapter"

No one has answered this or the other 12 questions thus far in this thread,so those that attempted to answer them previously should perhaps re-read the entire thread lest they repeat themselves.
Posted By: MarieP

Re: The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Wed Aug 18, 2004 3:21 PM

Calvin's Commentary:

Acts 15:1-5
Acts 15:6-11
Acts 15:12-18
Acts 15:19-21
Acts 15:22-29

This chapter deals with the ceremonial law, as Calvin points out.
Posted By: Henry

Re: The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Fri Aug 20, 2004 4:41 AM

Oh, good heavens, don't tell me we're resurrecting this one again. On the other hand, we haven't had a good debate in a while...:)
Posted By: MarieP

Re: The people miscalled Antinomians ? - Fri Aug 20, 2004 11:41 AM

Yeah, I was surprised to see it resurrected again too!

Although I don't think Mark will respond because I just saw that he was taken off the user list.
© 2017 The Highway