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.
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 This was interpreted to mean that Moses and his law have now been superseded by Jesus Christ and His grace.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.
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.
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.
Pilgrim, where have I said;" Gods Law could safely be relegated to oblivion" as you imply .Explain please
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
If I agreed with my "elders" I might have been a JW not so long ago btw. There but by the Grace of God go i
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.
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?
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.'! 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. 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?
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?
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.
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
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.
Kyle
I tell you, this man went down to his house justified.
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.
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.
about this than I am .
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/pilgrim/pil_sig2.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/pencil.gif)
There but by the Grace of God go i
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.
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? 
