The Highway

Law and Grace

Posted By: Tom

Law and Grace - Thu Nov 16, 2017 7:56 PM

There are many very good articles written on this subject on The Highway, by such notable authors like CH Spurgeon and AW Pink. I read a few and found them to be very good at helping the Christian understand this very important subject.
However, I am looking for an article that a new believer can understand, that is not too long, but gets to the heart of the matter.
There may be such an article on The-Highway, that I did not find.
The main reason I am seeking an article of this kind, is I have already given a person an article written by AW Pink and apparently it went right over his head.
Any help in my search would be greatly appreciated. One aspect that the person is looking to find out, is whether or not the 10 Commandments are included. They are of course, but I am hoping that an article would help him.
Thank you
Tom
Posted By: Pilgrim

Re: Law and Grace - Sun Nov 19, 2017 10:19 PM

Law and Grace by John Murray

Grace and Law in the Old Testament by Gordon Wenham

Law: Civic, Ceremonial, and Moral by Richard Alderson

Preaching the Law of God by Walter Chantry
Posted By: Tom

Re: Law and Grace - Mon Nov 20, 2017 6:42 AM

Pilgrim
Thanks
Apparently because I agree with people like AW Pink on this issue, I am accused of siding with Presbyterians.
They are trying to tell me that although Pink was a Credo-Baptist, he agreed more with Presbyterians, than the LBCF on the issue.
That is news to me though, because I have studied through Sanuel Waldron's "A Modern Exposition of the LBC and it seems to be exactly in line with Pink.

Haha, now because I call myself a Reformed Baptist, a Reformed Presbyterian has come along and saiid that the terms Reformed and Baptsts are "Oxymorons" and that I am closer to being Duspensational than Reformed.
The went on to say only Presbyterians who Postmil, Theonomists and CT are Reformed.
Lol, seems like he doesn't believe a lot of the signers of the WCF were Reformed.
Tom
Posted By: Pilgrim

Re: Law and Grace - Mon Nov 20, 2017 11:00 AM

Originally Posted by Tom
Pilgrim
Thanks
Apparently because I agree with people like AW Pink on this issue, I am accused of siding with Presbyterians.
They are trying to tell me that although Pink was a Credo-Baptist, he agreed more with Presbyterians, than the LBCF on the issue.
That is news to me though, because I have studied through Sanuel Waldron's "A Modern Exposition of the LBC and it seems to be exactly in line with Pink

And I have been accused of being a closet Baptist because I strongly reject any notion of presumptive regeneration and that children need to hear the gospel, repent and believe upon Christ unto justification. And I am strongly criticized by all the Dutch Reformed churches because I do not believe the Heidleberg Catechism should be used to teach children because it assumes the reader is a believer. Same Waldron is one of the "good guys" among Baptists, IMO.

Originally Posted by Tom
Haha, now because I call myself a Reformed Baptist, a Reformed Presbyterian has come along and saiid that the terms Reformed and Baptsts are "Oxymorons" and that I am closer to being Duspensational than Reformed.
The went on to say only Presbyterians who Postmil, Theonomists and CT are Reformed.
Lol, seems like he doesn't believe a lot of the signers of the WCF were Reformed.
Tom

Well, that's an old age topic of dispute. It all boils down to one's definition of the word "Reformed". But I'm curious as to this person's church affiliation. "Reformed Presbyterian" is of a more recent designation and several denominations use it. And their respective theological beliefs different, and on a few matters radically so. The fact that this person brought in "Theonomists" speaks much, as most are belligerent, condescending, and sectarian. I'm not sure what "CT" means? shrug
Posted By: Tom

Re: Law and Grace - Mon Nov 20, 2017 6:16 PM

I knew that some (probably a minority) of the signers of the WCF believed in presumptive regeneration, but I was not are that the Heidleberg taught that. In all my years on The-Highway, probably the most lively debate I have seen is on the subject of 'presumptive regeneration'. I am sure you remember it. Lol
I am well aware that the term Reformed Baptist is a debated issue, even among Baptists. Many Baptists prefer to call themselves "Particular Baptists".
However, many who call themselves Particular Baptists tend to make the issue of baptism an essential issue. Where I think of it as a secondary issue. I respect and learn a lot from my Reformed Paedo Baptist brothers and sisters.
I agree with you about the Theonomist issue. We almost had a big Church split over that issue (along with the home school issue) when several large families who were into 'Vision Forum', were eventually told by the elders that it was best they leave the Church.
Many (not all) Theonomists, are quite divisive over that issue and because of that, I rarely discuss the issue with them.
The person in particular who said that Theonomy was one of the essential issues of being Reformed, I told that I would rather not discuss it, other than on my knees.
CT is 'Covenant Theology'.
Thought I would add that some "Reformed Presbyterians" only recognize Confessions such as the WCF that were made by Presbyterians as Reformed. All other confessions, are rejected as not being truly Reformed.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Law and Grace - Mon Nov 20, 2017 7:34 PM

Theonomy and the WCF
Just thought of something that I would like answered.
As I mentioned in another post of mine one Presbyterian said among other things that "Theonomy' is an essential element of true Reformed theology.
My question however, is I am not aware of any of the Reformed confessions that actually deal with Theonomy at least in the manner it is being used today.
Am I correct about this?
Also, there is a sense that all Christians are Theonomists in the fact we are under God's law.
Yet, politically speaking, if I understand the issue properly, the way Theonomists believe in Theonomy only in a theocracy would it be attaiinable. With that in mind, would it be correct to say that only the proclamation of the Gospel that reaches the elect will make anyone willing to be subject to God's laws?
Am I understanding the issues properly?

Tom
Posted By: Pilgrim

Re: Law and Grace - Mon Nov 20, 2017 7:44 PM

yep
Posted By: Tom

Re: Law and Grace - Wed Nov 22, 2017 3:45 AM

Wow!
The guy I told you about who is a Theonomist, Presbyterian, Postmill. he seems to dislike all Baptists (perhaps a Baptist hurt him?). It sounds like he does not believe we are even saved because we withhold "the covenant from our children.."
He is trying to goad me into a debate; which would be a waste of time, because of how disrespectful he is. He has even had the nerve to say that Presbyterian theology has been so diluted by " baptist theology" today that the only thing that remains is the shell of church government.
I am no expert on the WCF, but I doubt the original Presbyterians held to many of the things he does. Something tells me he would rebuke you Pilgrim for not agreeing with him concerning Theonomist and Post-Mill...
I told him I was not going to say anything to him from this point on, other than on my knees.
Pilgrim, I am telling you this because I know you are a Paedo-Baptist. However, I have never felt that you disrespected Credo-Baptists. In fact, you often speak highly of many Baptists.

That is the first thread I have been involved in where I was accused of agreeing with the WCF more than the LBCF by Baptists and then getting rebuked by a Presbyterian. I probably should just laugh about this.

Thank you.

Tom
Posted By: Pilgrim

Re: Law and Grace - Wed Nov 22, 2017 11:08 AM

Typical 'hardshell' who walks on the fringes and if he is typical of many, lacks the fruit of the Spirit of which they ignore and neglect but in self-examination should be of great concern personally. I would also guess he is taking WCF XXVIII:v out of context which reads:

Quote
V. Although it is a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance,[13] yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it:[14] or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.

This article is addressing baptism in general and not infant baptism in particular. If you read the entire chapter, you will see that confessional Presbyterians do not believe that sign and seal of baptism does not automatically belong to everyone who is baptized, including infants. Article VI that follows makes that very clear, where it states in regard to the efficacy of baptism, "to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongs unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in His appointed time." In other words, the sign and seal [efficacy] are infallibly bestowed upon the elect and not necessarily at the moment of baptism. Children are NOT an exception to this but included,

I have been 'rebuked' by men far better than him, so that if he should have the occasion to do so, I would undoubtedly smile. grin

This conversation, if one could call it that, which you are having with this person is one of those which you are enjoined by Scripture to shake the dust off your Nikes and move on. wink
Posted By: Tom

Re: Law and Grace - Wed Nov 22, 2017 6:21 PM

Good advice, better than what part of me wants to do with my Nike's. If you get my meaning. It certainly would be a fruitless endeaver to debate with him.

Tom
© 2017 The Highway