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

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.

First, no one has ever said that the Ten Commandments define God's nature 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?

In His Grace,

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

...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

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

"I am not yet an antinomian"



I'd hate to see it if you DO become one!

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

You're very welcome Mark.

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?

Also, how would you explain this verse in Genesis 8?

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.

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

Do you hate what he has to say

This is the result of another "Lost post" .

Unless this too gets lost............

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.”


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).


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.

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.

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. 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,

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

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

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.