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.
