Donations for the month of March


We have received a total of "0" in donations towards our goal of $175.


Don't want to use PayPal? Go HERE


Forum Search
Member Spotlight
John_C
John_C
Mississippi Gulf Coast
Posts: 1,865
Joined: September 2001
Forum Statistics
Forums30
Topics7,780
Posts54,875
Members974
Most Online732
Jan 15th, 2023
Top Posters
Pilgrim 14,447
Tom 4,516
chestnutmare 3,320
J_Edwards 2,615
John_C 1,864
Wes 1,856
RJ_ 1,583
MarieP 1,579
gotribe 1,060
Top Posters(30 Days)
Tom 4
John_C 1
Recent Posts
Is the church in crisis
by John_C - Wed Mar 27, 2024 10:52 AM
Jordan Peterson ordered to take sensitivity training
by Tom - Mon Mar 25, 2024 9:00 PM
Should Creeds be read in Church?
by Pilgrim - Mon Mar 25, 2024 6:30 AM
1 Cor. 6:9-11
by Tom - Mon Mar 25, 2024 12:34 AM
Do Christians have Dual Personalities: Peace & Wretchedness?
by DiscipleEddie - Sat Mar 23, 2024 1:15 PM
The When and How of Justification
by DiscipleEddie - Sat Mar 23, 2024 1:13 PM
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rating: 5
Hop To
Page 7 of 13 1 2 5 6 7 8 9 12 13
#10513 Fri Feb 13, 2004 10:07 PM
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,040
Persnickety Presbyterian
Offline
Persnickety Presbyterian
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,040
I'm sure Brian is settled on the matter, Mark, but he never claimed to be "working through it," as you have. You implied in your response to Brian that he puts himself unduly under the burden of the Mosaic Law given at Sinai, in contradistinction to the easy yoke of the Law of Christ given at Zion. But Mark, has anyone implied that we are to observe the ceremonies and civil laws ALSO given at Sinai? No! These were temporary, and abrogated in Christ. What most here are saying is that the moral precepts of the Law, as summated in the Decalogue, are still binding, in the sense that they delineate righteousness. I am sure Brian does not think his obedience to God's moral Law will earn him salvation. We obey God in our gratitude, knowing that we could not even begin to obey Him in the first place but for His grace!


Kyle

I tell you, this man went down to his house justified.
#10514 Fri Feb 13, 2004 10:15 PM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Dear Ian;

I have already responded to you on this subject privately by email, but for the sake of the wider audience I want to respond briefly here to one of your statements:

Quote
The point is how we fulfil such a righteous walk - by law, or by faith? I answer by faith, yoked to Christ, as led by the Spirit.

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? On what basis, as your question implies, must a walk of faith exclude the Law?


I very much value Philpots writings for their experiential nature, and was drawn to them as a breath of fresh air after years of intellectual dryness and denial of the Spirits essential work, and I still value them for that contribution. For me, there are some parts of his sermons that are simply unsurpassed with respect to insight into experiential religion. However, when I began to see, with the help of others, that there were some other areas that did not line up with scripture, I admitted my error and moved on. May the Lord give you the grace to do the same. Not to ignore or to shun his contribution, but to put it along side others of God's servants who also have been gifted of the Lord.

As I pointed out to you privately, I believe that Dr. Beeke has illucidated nicely the issue of the Reformation and post Reformation teaching on the development of the doctrine of Assurance in his work, "The Quest for Full Assurance", and I would recommend it to you to give some perspective on this issue outside of the Strict Baptist Camp. I also note that Philpots books, as well as Gadsby's, not to mention many others of an experiential nature, including most notably Owens and Calvins and Goodwins are to be found in the Catalogue of Reformation Heritage Books, a ministry of Dr. Beeke's Heritage Netherlands Reformed Church in Grand Rapids, Mi.

No group or denomination, in my view, (including Presbyterians <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />) has a corner on the truth of God's word, and, "In a multitude of counselors there is wisdom".

In Him,

Gerry

#10515 Fri Feb 13, 2004 11:12 PM
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,856
Wes Offline
Needs to get a Life
Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,856
Quote
BookMark said:
Wes , if Christians are BOUND to the "moral law" as YOU say then we are not Free indeed. shocked

I cannot believe you said that Wes sigh

Please Wes , tell me where is the Freedom in Christ if we are still in BONDAGE to the Law.
I thinks you are more dizzy about this than I am .

Mark,

Is a fish free if you take it out of the water? Of course not, for God created it to live in the water. Is a man free it he doesn't have to live according to God's moral law? Certainly not, for God has created him to live with it. Our freedom in Christ doesn't give us a license to sin. Paul writes, "What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Certainly not!" (Romans 6:1)

Paul goes on to say, "What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? Certainly not! Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one's slaves whom you obey, whether of sin leading to death, or obedience leading to righteousness?" (Romans 6:15,16)

My Geneva Study Bible has some excellent theological notes on this topic. I'll include them here and hopefully you'll find they answer not only your questions but also help you to see the purpose for God's law.


The Law of God

Human beings were not created autonomous (that is, free to be a law to themselves) but theonomous-subject to the law of God. This was not a hardship, because God had created man in such a way that grateful obedience would bring him the highest happiness. Duty and delight would have coincided, as they did in Jesus (John 4:34; cf. Ps. 112:1; 119:14, 16, 47, 97-113, 127, 128, 163-167). The fallen human heart hates God's law, both because it is a law and because it comes from God. Those who know Christ, however, find not only that they love the law and want to keep it, both to please God and out of gratitude for grace (Rom. 7:18-22; 12:1,2), but also that the Holy Spirit leads them into a degree of obedience that was never theirs before (Rom. 7:6; 8:4-6; Heb. 10:16).

God's moral law is abundantly set forth in Scripture, in the Decalogue (the Ten Commandments), other statues by Moses, sermons by the prophets, the teaching of Jesus, and the New Testament letters. The law reflects God's holy character and His purposes for created human beings. God commands the behavior that pleases Him and forbids what offends Him. Jesus summarizes the moral law in the two great commandments, to love God and to love your neighbor (Matt. 22:37-40). He says that on these two depend all the Old Testament moral instructions. The moral teaching of Christ and His apostles is the old law deepened and reapplied to the new circumstances - life in the kingdom of God, where the Savior reigns, and in the post-Pentecost era of the Spirit, when God's people are called to live sanctified lives in the midst of a hostile world (John 17:6-19).

Biblical law is of various sorts. Moral laws command the personal and community behavior that is always our duty. The political laws of the Old Testament applied principals of the moral law to Israel's national situation when Israel was a theocracy, God's people on earth. The Old Testament laws about ceremonial purity, diet, and sacrifices were temporary enactments for purposes of instruction. They were canceled by the New Testament because their symbolic meaning had been fulfilled (Matt. 15:20; Mark 7:15-19; Acts 10:9-16; Heb. 10:1-14; 13:9,10).

The mingling of moral, judicial, and ritual law in the Mosaic books carried the message that life under God is to be seen and lived, not compartmentally, but as a many-sided unity, and also that God's authority as legislator gave equal force to the entire code. However, the laws were of different kinds, with different purposes. The political and ceremonial laws were of limited application, while it seems clear both from the immediate context and from the rest of His teaching that Jesus affirmation of the unchanging universal force of God's law relates to the moral law as such (Matt. 5:17-19; cf. Luke 16:16,17).

God requires the total obedience of each person to all the implications of His law. As the Westminster Larger Catechism, Q. 99, says. the law binds "the whole man... unto obedience forever"; it is spiritual, and so reacheth the understanding, will, affections, and all other powers of the soul as well as the words, works, and gestures." In other words, desires as well as actions must be right; Jesus condemns the hypocrisy that tries to hide inner corruption with an outward show (Matt. 15:7, 8, 23:25-28). Furthermore, the corollaries of the law are part of its content; "where a duty is commanded, the contrary sin is forbidden; and, where sin is forbidden, the contrary duty is commanded."


Wes


When I survey the wondrous cross on which the Prince of Glory died, my richest gain I count but loss and pour contempt on all my pride. - Isaac Watts
#10516 Sat Feb 14, 2004 2:46 AM
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 51
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 51
Quote
Ben Nevis is a hill in Northern England-called "Scotland" by the great unwashed.

Mark,

I see you are geographically as well as spiritually confused. How sad! "There are none so blind as those who do not wish to see." wink

#10517 Sat Feb 14, 2004 10:52 AM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Mark,
I read this on another forum. Note especially the last paragraph. I don't see a disagreement with Lloyd-Jones here.

Quote
The Law & The Gospel
Martin Luther & Others -- A Reformation Sampler



Martin Luther, Sermon On Galatians, 1532
This difference between the Law and the Gospel is the height of knowledge in Christendom. Every person and all persons who assume or glory in the name of Christian should know and be able to state this difference. If this ability is lacking, one cannot tell a Christian from a heathen or a Jew; of such supreme importance is this differentiation. This is why St. Paul so strongly insists on a clean-cut and proper differentiating of these two doctrines.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Martin Luther, (see Luther's Works, Saint Louis edition, 11:81ff)
The law is the Word in which God teaches and tells us what we are to do and not to do, as in the Ten commandments. Now wherever human nature is alone, without the grace of God, the Law cannot be kept, because since Adam's fall in paradise man is corrupt and has nothing but a wicked desire to sin and in his heart cannot be favorably disposed toward the Law, as we know by our own experience. For there is no one who would not rather have no Law at all, and everyone finds and feels within himself that while it is difficult to be pious and do good, it is easy to be wicked and to do evil. And this difficulty or this unwillingness to do what is good prevents us form keeping Godís Law; for what is kept with dislike, difficulty, and unwillingness, rates before God as not having been kept at all. And so the Law of God convinces us by our experience that we are naturally wicked, disobedient, lovers of sin, and enemies of Godís commandments.

Now from all this one of two things must follow: presumption or despair. Presumption follows when a man sets himself to fulfill the Law with works and diligently sees to it that he does what the letter of the Law asks him to do. He serves God, does not swear, honors father and mother, does not kill, does not commit adultery, and the like. Meanwhile, however, he does not observe his heart, does not note the reason why he is leading such a fine, good life, that he is merely covering the old hypocrite in his hear with such a beautiful life. For if he looked at himself aright, at his own hear, he would discover that he is doing all these things with dislike and out of compulsion; that he fears hell or seeks heaven, if not also far more insignificant matters, namely, honor, goods, heath; and that he is motivated by the fear of shame or harm or diseases. In short, he would have to confess that he would rather lead a different life if the consequence of such a life did not deter him; for he would not do it merely for the sake of the Law. But because he does not see this bad reason, he lives on in security, looks only at the works, not into the heart, and so assumes that he is keeping the Law of God well. The face of Moses is, therefore, covered for him, that is, he dose not recognize the meaning of the Law--that it wasnít to be fulfilled with joyful, free, cheerful will. Just so an unchaste person, when asked why he commits the act, can only answer: Because of the pleasure I find in it. For he commits it for the sake of neither reward nor punishment, does not proposes to gain anything by it or to escape any evil through it.

Such pleasure the Law would also find in us, so that when you ask a chaste person why he is chaste, he should say: Not for the sake of heaven or hell, not for the sake of honor or shame, but simply because it appears to me to be very find, and I heartily approve of it even if it were not commanded. See, a heart such as this really loves God's Law and keeps it with pleasure. Such people love God and righteousness, fear and hate nothing but unrighteousness. But no man is thus constituted by nature. The others, however, love the reward and the benefit, fear ant hate the punishment and the pain. Therefore they hate God and righteousness, love themselves and unrighteousness; they are hypocrites, shams, deceivers, liars, and boasters. Without grace all men are of this kind, but especially the self-righteous. Hence Scripture says and concludes: "All men are liars" Ps. 116:11); and again (Ps 39:5; "Every man at his best state is altogether vanity"; and (Ps 14:3) "There is none that does good, no, not one." But despair follows when a man becomes aware of the reason why he is keeping the Law and recognizes that to love Godís law is impossible for him, since he finds nothing good in himself but only hatred of the good and lust for the bad. Then he recognizes that works cannot do justice to the Law. Therefore he despairs of works and disregards them. He ought to have love, but he does not find any and of and by himself can have none. The result must be a poor, miserable, humbled spirit, a man oppressed and frightened through the Law by his conscience, which demands and requires of him what he has not a penny to pay. Yet the Law alone is of benefit to such presumptuous people, for it was given to work this knowledge and humiliation. This is it's (the Law's) proper work...

The other word of God is not Law or commandment, nor does it require anything of us; but after the first Word, that of the Law, has done this work and distressful misery an poverty have been produced in the heart, God comes and offers his lovely, living Word, and promises, pledges, and obligates himself to give grace and help, that we may get out of this misery and that all sins not only be forgiven but also blotted out and that love and delight to fulfill the law may be given besides. See, this divine promise of his grace and of the forgiveness of his is properly called Gospel. And I say again and yet again that you should never understand Gospel to mean anything but the divine promise of his grace and of the forgiveness of sin. For this is why hitherto St. Paul's epistles were not understood and cannot be understood by our adversaries even now; they do not know what Law and Gospel really are. For they consider Christ a Legislator and the Gospel nothing but the teaching of new laws. This is nothing else but locking up the gospel and obscuring everything. For "Gospel" is Greek and means "good news," because in it is proclaimed the saving doctrine of life, of the divine promise, and grace and the forgiveness of sins are offered. Therefore works do not belong to the gospel; for it is not laws but faith alone, because it is nothing whatever but the promise and offer of divine grace. He, then, who believes the Gospel receives grace and the Holy Spirit. Thereby the heart becomes glad and joyful in God and then keeps the Law gladly and freely, without the fear of punishment and without the expectation of reward; for it is sated and satisfied with that grace of God by which the law has been satisfied.

Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,579
Veteran
Offline
Veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,579
Amen Wes!

Just the other day, the words to William Cowper's "No Strength of Nature Can Suffice" (also called "Love Constraining to Obedience) were running through my head (and heart!):

No strength of nature can suffice
To serve the Lord aright;
And what she has, she misapplies,
For want of clearer light.

How long beneath the Law I lay
In bondage and distress!
I toiled the precept to obey,
But toiled without success.

Then to abstain from outward sin
Was more than I could do;
Now, if I feel its power within,
I feel I hate it too.

Then all my servile works were done
A righteousness to raise;
Now, freely chosen in the Son,
I freely choose His ways.

What shall I do was then the word,
That I may worthier grow?
What shall I render to the Lord?
Is my inquiry now.

To see the Law by Christ fulfilled,
And hear His pardoning voice;
Changes a slave into a child,
And duty into choice.

http://www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/n/s/nsncsuff.htm


True godliness is a sincere feeling which loves God as Father as much as it fears and reverences Him as Lord, embraces His righteousness, and dreads offending Him worse than death~ Calvin
#10519 Sat Feb 14, 2004 11:19 AM
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,579
Veteran
Offline
Veteran
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,579


True godliness is a sincere feeling which loves God as Father as much as it fears and reverences Him as Lord, embraces His righteousness, and dreads offending Him worse than death~ Calvin
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Dear Marie:

That hymn by Cowper is beautiful isn't it? No doubt, according to some, he was "under the Law" but didn't know it.

In Him,

Gerry

#10521 Sat Feb 14, 2004 12:00 PM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Dear Susan:

Thanks for that excerpt from Luther as it makes it pretty clear what Luther taught, does it not? Not only that, but he explains, very clearly, the difference between law and gospel.

In Him,

Gerry

#10522 Sat Feb 14, 2004 12:45 PM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Quote
BookMark said:
Gerry Said

When Mr Potts gets around to exegeting the verses, or even one of them, that Pilgrim has requested, it will be interesting, and revealing, to see how his exegesis of those commandments EXCLUDES God's moral Law, for that is the gist of what Mr. Potts is teaching.

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 ? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/shrug.gif" alt="" /> Have you a copy of Gadsbys hymns ? I will send you one should you wish to re-evaluate his position.

You know Mark I didn't want to get involved in this because there were better people than I answering your questions. However with regards to Gadsby perhaps you don't know him as well as you think. Here is a quote from Gadsby's Catechism:

Quote
Question L. What is meant by the law of works?
Answer. The law of God, commonly called the moral law, chiefly contained in the ten commandments.

Ex. 20.1-17; Deut. 5.6-21.

You may find this here Gadsby's Catechism

Now it seems to me your in a bit of dilemma here Mark Gadsby recognized that the "moral Law was the law of God chiefly contained in the ten commandments" but you are using him to argue to the contrary. So now either it is or it isn't and if it is then perhaps you need to readjust your view. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/Ponder.gif" alt="" />

Pete

#10523 Sat Feb 14, 2004 12:53 PM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Quote
BookMark said:
Susan, when you had a disdain for Gods law,were you saved at the time or was the law working its work upon you ?

As you rightly say, Christians delight in the law of God when saved but they cannot beforehand - or can they ?

Are you saying (as Gerry is also),that so-called antinomianism stems from dispensational heresy ?

Antinomianism doesn't always stem from Dispensationalism (although I have mostly seen it displayed by extremist dispensationalists) it can also stem from Hyper-Calvinism too Mark. I give you this article: A primer on Hyper-Calvinism

Pete

#10524 Sat Feb 14, 2004 8:08 PM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Quote
Antinomianism doesn't always stem from Dispensationalism (although I have mostly seen it displayed by extremist dispensationalists) it can also stem from Hyper-Calvinism too Mark.

Thanks, Pete, for pointing out the error in what Mark attributed to me.

I never said that Antinomianism stemmed from dispensational error. What I said was that I was taught it under the guise of dispensationalism, and I agree with you that this particular error has been responsible for much of the teaching of the error of antinominaism. But there are many ways in which the enemy can come with the error. And the post by Susan wherein she quotes Luther clearly attributes the error to more fundamental causes, and in a time when dispensationalism didn't even exist, it having been introduced by Darby in the late 1800's if memory serves. At any rate, dispensationalism came along several hundred years after Luther.

As I pointed out in a post yesterday to Mark, the fundamental reason for the error lies in faulty exegesis, or at least that is true from a mechanistic or functional perspective. The real reason is the perversity of the heart, and part of the problem there is pride of course, but as Pilgrim has pointed out, plain old laziness is part of it too, because one must think about how these many scriptures, that bear on the same subject, can be reconciled.

In essence we are trying to understand a little bit of the Mind of God, and how He sees things, and that is difficult, but not impossible, for our puny minds to grasp.

In Him,

Gerry

Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
There sure is a lot for you to read at that site Marie.You are going to have to set alot of time aside to read it all <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

#10526 Sun Feb 15, 2004 5:10 AM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Thanks Pete, but we've been there before a couple of times already <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

#10527 Sun Feb 15, 2004 1:16 PM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Quote
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 ?
It seems to me they are saying the same thing.
What differences did you notice between Martyn Lloyd-Jones' view and the quote from Luther ?

<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

Page 7 of 13 1 2 5 6 7 8 9 12 13

Link Copied to Clipboard
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 77 guests, and 11 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
PaulWatkins, His Unworthy Son, Nahum, TheSojourner, Larry
974 Registered Users
ShoutChat
Comment Guidelines: Do post respectful and insightful comments. Don't flame, hate, spam.
March
S M T W T F S
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31
Today's Birthdays
There are no members with birthdays on this day.
Popular Topics(Views)
1,506,390 Gospel truth