Predestination destroys legalism

[Carbon]

Predestination destroys legalism. If the whole of salvation, in all its parts, is understood to be by Christ alone, it leaves no room for boasting or trusting in ourselves, even partly. It strips us bare and forces us to abandon all hope in self-effort or rules to attain a right standing before God ... It shatters our self-complacency and causes us to renounce our self-righteousness. It makes us cover our lips and utter God is God and I am not (Rom 9:15, 16).

 

[Soyeong]

Predestination destroys legalism. If the whole of salvation, in all its parts, is understood to be by Christ alone, it leaves no room for boasting or trusting in ourselves, even partly. It strips us bare and forces us to abandon all hope in self-effort or rules to attain a right standing before God ... It shatters our self-complacency and causes us to renounce our self-righteousness. It makes us cover our lips and utter God is God and I am not (Rom 9:15, 16).

God is trustworthy, therefore His instructions are also trustworthy (Psalms 19:7), so the way to trust Christ alone is by obediently trusting alone in God's instructions, it is contradictory to think that we should trust in God while not trusting in His instructions, and it is contradictory to think that we are trusting in ourselves by trusting in God's instructions. Self-effort does not involve relying on anyone else, so it is contradictory to think that relying on God's instructions is self-effort. The way to have right standing before God is not by refusing to trust in His instructions for how to have right standing before Him. Obedience to God's instructions is the way to testify about God's righteousness, not the way to become self-righteous, just as our good works bring glory to God by testifying about His goodness rather than establish our own goodness (Matthew 5:16). Obedience to God's rules is about God giving the gift of salvation to us, not about trying to earn it as a wage.

 

[Rufus]

God is trustworthy, therefore His instructions are also trustworthy (Psalms 19:7), so the way to trust Christ alone is by obediently trusting alone in God's instructions, it is contradictory to think that we should trust in God while not trusting in His instructions, and it is contradictory to think that we are trusting in ourselves by trusting in God's instructions. Self-effort does not involve relying on anyone else, so it is contradictory to think that relying on God's instructions is self-effort. The way to have right standing before God is not by refusing to trust in His instructions for how to have right standing before Him. Obedience to God's instructions is the way to testify about God's righteousness, not the way to become self-righteous, just as our good works bring glory to God by testifying about His goodness rather than establish our own goodness (Matthew 5:16). Obedience to God's rules is about God giving the gift of salvation to us, not about trying to earn it as a wage.

Can you support your premise from the NT?

 

[Soyeong]

Can you support your premise from the NT?

Jesus is God's word made flesh (John 14:6), or in other words, he is the embodiment of God's word, which he expressed through living in sinless obedience to God's law, so the way to trust in Him alone is by embodying God's word through following his example (1 Peter 2:21-22). In John 3:36, it equates believing in Jesus with obeying him, and in Revelation 14:22, those who kept faith in Jesus are the same as those who kept God's commandments. There are many verses like John 3:16 that say that believing in Jesus the way to have eternal life, and Jesus said that the way to inherit eternal life is by obeying God's commandments (Matthew 19:17, Luke 10:25-28), so God's law is His instructions for how to believe in Jesus. In Matthew 23:23, Jesus said that faith is one of the weightier matters of the law. In Romans 1:5, we have received grace in order to bring about the obedience of faith. In Romans 3:31, our faith upholds God's law. In Hebrews 3:18-19, unbelief is equated with disobedience. By doing good works that testify about God's goodness we are expressing the belief that God is good, or in other words, we are believing in Him alone.

 

[prism]

Predestination may destroy legalism, but if handled improperly, leads to introspection and navel gazing via a wrong application of 2Cor 13:5 'examine yourselves as to whether your in the faith...'.

 

[Arial]

God is trustworthy, therefore His instructions are also trustworthy (Psalms 19:7), so the way to trust Christ alone is by obediently trusting alone in God's instructions, it is contradictory to think that we should trust in God while not trusting in His instructions, and it is contradictory to think that we are trusting in ourselves by trusting in God's instructions. Self-effort does not involve relying on anyone else, so it is contradictory to think that relying on God's instructions is self-effort. The way to have right standing before God is not by refusing to trust in His instructions for how to have right standing before Him. Obedience to God's instructions is the way to testify about God's righteousness, not the way to become self-righteous, just as our good works bring glory to God by testifying about His goodness rather than establish our own goodness (Matthew 5:16). Obedience to God's rules is about God giving the gift of salvation to us, not about trying to earn it as a wage.

I have started re-reading a book by R.C. Sproul. "The Soul's Quest For God." He has a chapter in it on loving the law of God, where he puts it very well. "Therefore, in a narrow sense, it is appropriate to distinguish between the Law and other portions of the Word of God. However, in the broader sense, the two are to be identified as one. Not only is all the written Law of God also the written Word of God, it is equally true that all the Word of God is also the Law of God." There is much more to that chapter but it is a good summary, lining up with what I think you are saying.

The Law taught the Israelites the righteousness of God, and what obedience to God is, and it also teaches us that. The Law at the same time, condemned them because they could not keep it by the standard of perfection that is God's standard. We cannot keep it either. Jesus kept it for us. So the Law no longer condemns us, and it does not save us and was never meant to save them. It no longer condemns us because Jesus fulfilled it in our place. But it still teaches us what God's righteousness is, and God still requires obedience. (Some portions of the law have been abrogated. The ceremonial laws for Jesus is the final and perfect sacrifice. And the dietary laws.) The spirit of the Law---God's righteousness through sanctification of the believer---is still in effect. It is the Holy Spirit who sanctifies, not we ourselves. Jesus' statement "If you love Me, your will keep My commandments," still stands. They do not save us, but they are our obligation to God.

 

[Soyeong]

I have started re-reading a book by R.C. Sproul. "The Soul's Quest For God." He has a chapter in it on loving the law of God, where he puts it very well. "Therefore, in a narrow sense, it is appropriate to distinguish between the Law and other portions of the Word of God. However, in the broader sense, the two are to be identified as one. Not only is all the written Law of God also the written Word of God, it is equally true that all the Word of God is also the Law of God." There is much more to that chapter but it is a good summary, lining up with what I think you are saying.

I agree.

The Law taught the Israelites the righteousness of God, and what obedience to God is, and it also teaches us that. The Law at the same time, condemned them because they could not keep it by the standard of perfection that is God's standard. We cannot keep it either. Jesus kept it for us. So the Law no longer condemns us, and it does not save us and was never meant to save them. It no longer condemns us because Jesus fulfilled it in our place. But it still teaches us what God's righteousness is, and God still requires obedience. (Some portions of the law have been abrogated. The ceremonial laws for Jesus is the final and perfect sacrifice. And the dietary laws.) The spirit of the Law---God's righteousness through sanctification of the believer---is still in effect. It is the Holy Spirit who sanctifies, not we ourselves. Jesus' statement "If you love Me, your will keep My commandments," still stands. They do not save us, but they are our obligation to God.

The position that we can't keep the law is the position that God gave it with the goal of condemning His children, which is expressing an extremely negative view of God when the reality is that God knows how to give good gifts to His children. Not even early fathers give instructions to their children with the goal of condemning their children, but rather they give instructions to their children for their own good in order to teach them how to rightly live, and this is that much more true of our Heavenly Father (Deuteronomy 6:24, 10:12-13). Furthermore, if God gave us a law that we can't keep, then we could rightfully place the blame for our failure to keep it squarely on God, and it would be unjust for God to condemn us for failing to do something that we are unable to do.

The reality is that Deuteronomy 30:11-20 says that God's law is not too difficult or us to keep and obedience to it brings life and a blessing while disobedience brings death and a curse, so choose life! So it was presented as a possibility and as a choice, not as something that we are unable to keep. Moreover, Romans 10:5-10 references Deuteronomy 30:11-20 as the word of faith that we proclaim, which is the word of faith that you are denying by denying that we can keep God's law. Likewise, in 1 John 5:3, to love God is to keep His commandments, which are not burdensome, so to deny that we can keep God's law is to deny that anyone has ever loved God and to deny that his commandments are not burdensome. In addition, there are many examples of people who did keep God's law, such as those in Joshua 22:1-3, Luke 1:5-6, Revelation 14:12, and Revelation 22:14.

God's law came with instructions for what to do when the people sinned, so it never required us to have perfect obedience. The fact that we can still repent and be saved after we have sinned again demonstrates that we do not need to have perfect obedience. Nowhere does the Bible say that Jesus deprives us of salvation by keeping God's law for us and it would be unjust if he did that. The reason why God's law does not condemn us is not because Jesus kept it for us, but because it only condemns those who refuse to submit to it. In Romans 8:1, there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ, and in 1 John 2:6, those who are in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way he walked, so there is only no condemnation for those who are walking in obedience to God's law. Jesus fulfilled God's law by spending his ministry teaching us how to obey it by word and by example, so that we would follow what he taught, but he did not remove our salvation by fulfilling it in our place.

All of God's righteous laws are eternal (Psalms 119:160), so none of them will ever be abrogated. The only way that eternal laws for how to testify about God's eternal righteousness can be abrogated is if God is no longer eternally righteous. In 1 Peter 1:16, we are told to be holy for God is holy, which is a quote from Leviticus where God was giving instructions for how to do that, which includes refraining from eating unclean animals (Leviticus 11:44-45), and the only way that eternal instructions for how to be holy as God is holy can be abrogated is if God is no longer eternally holy. Those who refuse to follow God's instructions for how to testify about God's holiness bear false witness against Him by living in a way that testifies that He is not holy. If the spirit of the law is still in effect, then so are all of the things that are examples of it, which you falsely claim have been abrogated. By obeying God's laws for how to testify about God's righteousness and holiness we are expressing our love for God's righteousness and holiness, and the same is true for other aspects of His nature, so everything that God chose to command was commanded for the purpose of teaching us how to love different aspects of God's nature, which is why there are many verses in both the OT and the NT that connection our love for God with our obedience to His commandments. For those who falsely claim that God's commands for how to be holy as He is holy have been abrogated, holiness is simply not an aspect of God's eternal nature that they love. God teaching us to be holy as He is holy is the way that He saves us from not being holy.

 

[prism]

( I hope I'm not repeating someone else).
No flesh will be justified by the law.

The Law is a reflection of God's nature.
Upon receiving the new birth, we receive the Holy Spirit, God's nature.
God's nature will not contradict God's law, hence His nature/law is being worked in us over the resistance of the old man. (guess who ultimately wins?)
I'm not sure how any of this touches on 'predestination' and 'legalism'. lol

 

[Arial]

The position that we can't keep the law is the position that God gave it with the goal of condemning His children, which is expressing an extremely negative view of God when the reality is that God knows how to give good gifts to His children. Not even early fathers give instructions to their children with the goal of condemning their children, but rather they give instructions to their children for their own good in order to teach them how to rightly live, and this is that much more true of our Heavenly Father (Deuteronomy 6:24, 10:12-13).

I did not say that God gave the Law with the goal of condemning His children. In truth they were already condemned and didn't know it. I said He gave it to teach them what the righteousness of God is. And we are obligated to obey that whether we are Hebrew in the OT, redeemed, or reprobate. I said the goal of the Law itself was not salvation unto eternal life. The fact that the Law condemns us all, is not because God gave it to condemn us. It condemns us because we break it, and as fallen beings who sin against His righteousness by nature, achieving perfect righteousness is not possible. So what do we learn from that? We need a Savior to save us from all unrighteousness. How were you able to misstate what I said at the beginning of your post and then repeat what I said in your last sentence?

The reality is that Deuteronomy 30:11-20 says that God's law is not too difficult or us to keep and obedience to it brings life and a blessing while disobedience brings death and a curse, so choose life! So it was presented as a possibility and as a choice, not as something that we are unable to keep.

Was anyone able to keep it? Did anyone? Not even those who were saved by faith were able to keep it perfectly, even though they loved His Law and His testimonies. (Ps 119.)

The only way that eternal laws for how to testify about God's eternal righteousness can be abrogated is if God is no longer eternally righteous. In 1 Peter 1:16, we are told to be holy for God is holy, which is a quote from Leviticus where God was giving instructions for how to do that, which includes refraining from eating unclean animals (Leviticus 11:44-45), and the only way that eternal instructions for how to be holy as God is holy can be abrogated is if God is no longer eternally holy.

Did God cease to be holy when the ceremonial and sacrificial aspects of the Law were abrogated? Do the dietary laws have anything to do with God's righteousness?

For those who falsely claim that God's commands for how to be holy as He is holy have been abrogated, holiness is simply not an aspect of God's eternal nature that they love. God teaching us to be holy as He is holy is the way that He saves us from not being holy.

What about the dietary laws have to do with His holiness or righteousness? Why were the holiest portions of the Law abrogated without destroying His eternal holiness. The holy of holies, the priesthood, the animal sacrifices for sin, the singular meeting place with God for worship, the intercession of earthly priests, the temple? Jerusalem as His dwelling place? Hmmmm?

 

[Rufus]

Jesus is God's word made flesh (John 14:6), or in other words, he is the embodiment of God's word, which he expressed through living in sinless obedience to God's law, so the way to trust in Him alone is by embodying God's word through following his example (1 Peter 2:21-22). In John 3:36, it equates believing in Jesus with obeying him, and in Revelation 14:22, those who kept faith in Jesus are the same as those who kept God's commandments. There are many verses like John 3:16 that say that believing in Jesus the way to have eternal life, and Jesus said that the way to inherit eternal life is by obeying God's commandments (Matthew 19:17, Luke 10:25-28), so God's law is His instructions for how to believe in Jesus. In Matthew 23:23, Jesus said that faith is one of the weightier matters of the law. In Romans 1:5, we have received grace in order to bring about the obedience of faith. In Romans 3:31, our faith upholds God's law. In Hebrews 3:18-19, unbelief is equated with disobedience. By doing good works that testify about God's goodness we are expressing the belief that God is good, or in other words, we are believing in Him alone.

Hmm...interesting. So...the New Covenant is really no different from the Old? The Old was a conditional covenant that required man's obedience, i.e. "Do this and you will live" (Ezek 20:11, 13, 21, etc.) Now Jesus is telling the lawyer in Luke 10 to keep he law and he'll live? Yet, Jer 31 tells us that the New Covenant is unlike the Old. But if the New Covenant is conditioned on man's obedience, how can we be saved by Grace?

Also, have you sold all your possessions and given them to the poor, following Jesus (Mat 19:21)?

 

[Rufus]

I have started re-reading a book by R.C. Sproul. "The Soul's Quest For God." He has a chapter in it on loving the law of God, where he puts it very well. "Therefore, in a narrow sense, it is appropriate to distinguish between the Law and other portions of the Word of God. However, in the broader sense, the two are to be identified as one. Not only is all the written Law of God also the written Word of God, it is equally true that all the Word of God is also the Law of God." There is much more to that chapter but it is a good summary, lining up with what I think you are saying.

The Law taught the Israelites the righteousness of God, and what obedience to God is, and it also teaches us that. The Law at the same time, condemned them because they could not keep it by the standard of perfection that is God's standard. We cannot keep it either. Jesus kept it for us. So the Law no longer condemns us, and it does not save us and was never meant to save them. It no longer condemns us because Jesus fulfilled it in our place. But it still teaches us what God's righteousness is, and God still requires obedience. (Some portions of the law have been abrogated. The ceremonial laws for Jesus is the final and perfect sacrifice. And the dietary laws.) The spirit of the Law---God's righteousness through sanctification of the believer---is still in effect. It is the Holy Spirit who sanctifies, not we ourselves. Jesus' statement "If you love Me, your will keep My commandments," still stands. They do not save us, but they are our obligation to God.

On the the other hand, we have the clearly implied contrast between Moses's ministry of Law and Jesus' ministry of Grace and Truth (Jn 1:17). There clearly is a difference, therefore, between Law and Truth. While all Law is [God's] truth, all Truth is not [God's] law. In fact. there is both a quantitative and qualitative difference between Law and Truth (or as you put it "the Word of God" in the broadest sense).

 

[Arial]

On the the other hand, we have the clearly implied contrast between Moses's ministry of Law and Jesus' ministry of Grace and Truth (Jn 1:17). There clearly is a difference, therefore, between Law and Truth. While all Law is [God's] truth, all Truth is not [God's] law. In fact. there is both a quantitative and qualitative difference between Law and Truth (or as you put it "the Word of God" in the broadest sense).

What part of God's truth is not God's law? And all of the Bible is God's word.

Moses was minister of the written Law Jesus fulfilled---kept perfectly---the written law and the spiritual law behind/within it. Romans 7:7-14



7What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.” 8But sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. For apart from the law, sin lies dead. 9I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died. 10The very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me. 11For sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me. 12So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.

13Did that which is good, then, bring death to me? By no means! It was sin, producing death in me through what is good, in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure. 14For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold under sin.

 

[Rufus]

What PART of God's truth is not God's law? And all of the Bible is God's word. (emphasis mine)

Moses was minister of the written Law Jesus fulfilled---kept perfectly---the written law and the spiritual law behind/within it. Romans 7:7-14



7What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.” 8But sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. For apart from the law, sin lies dead. 9I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died. 10The very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me. 11For sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me. 12So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.

13Did that which is good, then, bring death to me? By no means! It was sin, producing death in me through what is good, in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure. 14For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold under sin.

All the parts that are not imperatives.

 

[Arial]

God's law came with instructions for what to do when the people sinned, so it never required us to have perfect obedience.

God demands perfect obedience. Think about who He is. Holy. Think about who we are. Unholy. The requirement of the law for temporary covering for disobedience (sin) shows He requires perfect obedience; it was temporary while we waited for the coming of the final sacrifice that is not a temporary covering but a remission of sin.

The fact that we can still repent and be saved after we have sinned again demonstrates that we do not need to have perfect obedience.

We can do that because Jesus removed the curse of the law from us and His perfect righteousness is imputed to those who put their trust in Him. It is His righteousness that saves us, not our own.

Nowhere does the Bible say that Jesus deprives us of salvation by keeping God's law for us and it would be unjust if he did that.

I can't make any sense of that sentence. Jesus purchased our salvation for us with His blood, with His life substituting for ours. He takes our punishment, but because He had no sin of His own, death could not hold Him and He rose from the dead. In doing this He conquered the power of sin and death for those He substituted Himself for. What do you think He did on the cross? Our sins met their justice in Him.

The reason why God's law does not condemn us is not because Jesus kept it for us, but because it only condemns those who refuse to submit to it.

Col 2:11-15 In Him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised with Him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised Him from the dead. And you, who were dead in our tespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, and made alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our tespeasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with it legal demands. This He set aside,, nailing it to the cross, He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in Him.
Gal 3:10-14 For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, "Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them" Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for "The righteous shall live by faith," But the law is not of faith, rather "The one who does them shall live by them" Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us---for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree"----so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith.

1 John 2:6, those who are in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way he walked, so there is only no condemnation for those who are walking in obedience to God's law.

Of course we are obligated to obey God. That is what I said at the beginning of my first post. But it is not the obedience that saves us, and when we sin, and we do, we are not condemned because we are in Christ through faith. We are being progressively sanctified by the Holy Spirit as we spend time in His word and learn of Him. This is how we can obey. We recognize our sins when we sin and we grieve over them and turn our face to God. We love our Father and we love His law and His testimonies and we long to please Him.

Jesus fulfilled God's law by spending his ministry teaching us how to obey it by word and by example, so that we would follow what he taught, but he did not remove our salvation by fulfilling it in our place.

That is in direct opposition to the gospel. Christ and Him crucified. Teaching does not change a heart. Christ changes a heart. And when you say He does not remove our salvation by fulfilling it in our place it is a nonsensical statement and indicates some other idea of salvation. No one says He removes our salvation by fulfilling it in our place. That makes no sense. He fulfilled perfect obedience to the written law and the spiritual law that we cannot do. This qualified Him to substitute His perfectly righteousness self on the cross for us. He is the only one who could survive death because He had no sin. And He conquered death for us in doing this. ANd He conquered the power of sin over us because the penalty for sin is death.

 

[Arial]

All the parts that are not imperatives.

Like what? Give me an example.

 

[makesends]

Soyeong said:
God is trustworthy, therefore His instructions are also trustworthy (Psalms 19:7), so the way to trust Christ alone is by obediently trusting alone in God's instructions, it is contradictory to think that we should trust in God while not trusting in His instructions, and it is contradictory to think that we are trusting in ourselves by trusting in God's instructions. Self-effort does not involve relying on anyone else, so it is contradictory to think that relying on God's instructions is self-effort. The way to have right standing before God is not by refusing to trust in His instructions for how to have right standing before Him. Obedience to God's instructions is the way to testify about God's righteousness, not the way to become self-righteous, just as our good works bring glory to God by testifying about His goodness rather than establish our own goodness (Matthew 5:16). Obedience to God's rules is about God giving the gift of salvation to us, not about trying to earn it as a wage.

Can you support your premise from the NT?

That, and the logical sequence is missing some steps, in "God is trustworthy, therefore His instructions are also trustworthy (Psalms 19:7), so the way to trust Christ alone is by obediently trusting alone in God's instructions,"

Predestination may destroy legalism, but if handled improperly, leads to introspection and navel gazing via a wrong application of 2Cor 13:5 'examine yourselves as to whether your in the faith...'.

Did you come to this by theorizing or by experience or what? I don't know of any Calvinist applying 2 Cor 13:5 wrongly to produce navel-gazing, though I agree it is possible, but if so, it is an incomplete Calvinist. To me, the navel-gazing was the result (in my case, and before I came to see the truth) of thinking that in the end my salvation depended on the integrity of my choice for Christ.

 

[Soyeong]

Hmm...interesting. So...the New Covenant is really no different from the Old? The Old was a conditional covenant that required man's obedience, i.e. "Do this and you will live" (Ezek 20:11, 13, 21, etc.) Now Jesus is telling the lawyer in Luke 10 to keep he law and he'll live? Yet, Jer 31 tells us that the New Covenant is unlike the Old. But if the New Covenant is conditioned on man's obedience, how can we be saved by Grace?

Also, have you sold all your possessions and given them to the poor, following Jesus (Mat 19:21)?

While Jeremiah 31:31 says that the New Covenant is not like the Mosaic Covenant, Jeremiah 31:33 says that the New Covenant involves God putting the Mosaic Law in our minds and writing it on our hearts, so obedience to the Mosaic Law is not one of the ways that it is not like the Mosaic Covenant. The Mosaic Covenant is eternal (Exodus 31:14-17, Leviticus 24:8), so the only way that the New Covenant can replace it is if the New Covenant does everything that it does plus more, which is what it means to make something obsolete (Hebrews 8:13), so the New Covenant still involves obeying the Mosaic Law (Hebrews 8:10), plus the way that it is not like the Mosaic Covenant is that it is based on better promises and has a superior mediator (Hebrews 8:6). In Galatians 3:16-19, a new covenant does not nullify the promises of a covenant that has already been ratified, so the New Covenant does not nullify our need to obey the Mosaic Law in connection with the promise.

In Psalms 119:29-30, he wanted to put false ways far from him, for God to be gracious to him by teaching him to obey the Mosaic Law and he chose the way of faith by setting it before him, so this has always been the one and only way of salvation by grace through faith.

On the the other hand, we have the clearly implied contrast between Moses's ministry of Law and Jesus' ministry of Grace and Truth (Jn 1:17). There clearly is a difference, therefore, between Law and Truth. While all Law is [God's] truth, all Truth is not [God's] law. In fact. there is both a quantitative and qualitative difference between Law and Truth (or as you put it "the Word of God" in the broadest sense).

In John 1:16-17, it says grace upon grace, so it is speaking about one example of grace being added upon another, not making a contrast. In Psalms 119:142, the Mosaic Law is truth, so grace and truth came through Jesus because he spent his ministry teaching his followers to obey the Mosaic Law by word and by example.

 

[prism]

Did you come to this by theorizing or by experience or what? I don't know of any Calvinist applying 2 Cor 13:5 wrongly to produce navel-gazing, though I agree it is possible, but if so, it is an incomplete Calvinist. To me, the navel-gazing was the result (in my case, and before I came to see the truth) of thinking that in the end my salvation depended on the integrity of my choice for Christ.

By experience, I had bonded with a Reformed Baptist Church which held strongly to the 5 points. (Perhaps, Reformed Baptists are incomplete?, not holding to Covenant theology). In any case, because they held to 'Unconditional Election', in order to 'make their election sure', they would lay undue emphasis on examining themselves (instead of trusting in Jesus and His redemptive work (including our sanctification).

 

[Arial]

By experience, I had bonded with a Reformed Baptist Church which held strongly to the 5 points. (Perhaps, Reformed Baptists are incomplete?, not holding to Covenant theology). In any case, because they held to 'Unconditional Election', in order to 'make their election sure', they would lay undue emphasis on examining themselves (instead of trusting in Jesus and His redemptive work (including our sanctification).

Reformed Baptists do hold to covenant theology, Calvinist Baptists do not. That of course is a generalization by definition and not inclusive of the all of either group.

I think there was a time in history---about the time when Finnism began making inroads into the church, which also coincides with the so called age of enlightenment, when traditional doctrine with its confessions were being set aside and many churches became more cultural based, and still are, when legalism became more evident. It was an unfortunate result of a good thing, that of fundamentalism which was an attempt to restore sound doctrine.

There were churches and some of them Calvinist and Reformed, that people being what people are, took a nose dive off the deep end, and became legalistic. I am sure it still exists in places but it is not the norm for those theologies. They should do exactly what the OP says if properly understood, and properly taught. What happened was the focus became placed on behavior in some individual churches, to a degree that the gospel was all but lost, or took a back seat. Whether one sinned or not became the evidence of salvation. Restricking behaviors became what was deemed necessary. They even added sins that were not named as sins by God in the Bible, just like the Pharisees did with the Law. There may have been some navel gazing, but mostly it was pointing fingers and passing judgment on others. Focusing on the sins of others, and not seeing their own.

 

[Arial]

While Jeremiah 31:31 says that the New Covenant is not like the Mosaic Covenant, Jeremiah 31:33 says that the New Covenant involves God putting the Mosaic Law in our minds and writing it on our hearts, so obedience to the Mosaic Law is not one of the ways that it is not like the Mosaic Covenant.

You are reducing God's law to being only the Mosaic covenant Law.

The Mosaic Covenant is eternal (Exodus 31:14-17, Leviticus 24:8), so the only way that the New Covenant can replace it is if the New Covenant does everything that it does plus more, which is what it means to make something obsolete (Hebrews 8:13), so the New Covenant still involves obeying the Mosaic Law (Hebrews 8:10), plus the way that it is not like the Mosaic Covenant is that it is based on better promises and has a superior mediator (Hebrews 8:6). In Galatians 3:16-19, a new covenant does not nullify the promises of a covenant that has already been ratified, so the New Covenant does not nullify our need to obey the Mosaic Law in connection with the promise.

Ex 31:14-17 Mosaic covenant, with Israel. Concerning the Sabbath. Old covenant. Same in Lev. To say that the only way the New Covenant can replace the old is if the new does everything that it does plus more is a false dichotomy. And it is not what obsolete means. Obsolete means it no longer functions according to the purpose it had and is being replaced with what is new. Or as the writer of Hebrews says in chapter 8 in verse 13 "In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away."