The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum ...The people miscalled Antinomians ?

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.

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,