Predestination destroys legalism

[Mr GLee]

And yet this "law of faith" is contrary to the Law [of Moses] (Gal 3:12). Go figure.

I had no idea that one of his attributes is law. You have chapter and verse on that?

And by the way, the psalm you quote talks about "truth" and "thy word", which incidentallly are not synonymous terms for "truth" or "word". These latter two terms embrace far more than just law.

I offered his word is law. he magnifies it as it is written above all his attributes as names

The law of faith the unseen spirit of life works with the letter of the law death.

Christ is the just and justifier of our new born again faith

Romans 3:26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

 

[prism]

I don't agree ... *giggle*

I agree. *wahh*

 

[prism]

I don't agree ... *giggle*

better, define 'agree'. (hehe)

 

[gdl]

His law "be like Me." Which is implied when He created us in His image and likeness. His moral character.
Is this what the Ten Commandments are - the "be like Me" implied law?

Is there more than the Ten Commandments that defines His moral character for us?

Calvin seems to boil the Moral Law down to the 10C. Do you agree that the 10C is the Moral Law?

BTW, the "be like Me" is more than an implied law. It is clearly stated in the NC. In fact, it's clearly commanded.

NO I AM NOT! How many times have I said it does not sanctify us? Pay attention to what you read.

IF YOU ARE NOT, then what do you mean by this, below? Pay attention to what you say. Explain yourself.

The Mosaic covenant Law, those same things that are given in the NT as moral imperatives---does not regenerate a person by the doing of them, but rather but what it does for us---it sanctifies us in righteousness.

How much of the Mosaic Covenant Law is given in the NT as moral imperatives?

You clearly say the Mosaic Covenant Law (or part of it) given in the NT as moral imperatives sanctifies us in righteousness. Can you exegete any part of New Covenant Scripture that proves this?

 

[Arial]

IF YOU ARE NOT, then what do you mean by this, below? Pay attention to what you say. Explain yourself.

You already asked me that and I already answered.

How much of the Mosaic Covenant Law is given in the NT as moral imperatives?

It is not Mosaic covenant Law in the NT it is moral imperatives, not Law, on godly Christian behavior. Those same things are embraced in the Law. How could they not be if through the Law God is teaching what His righteousness is? And all of it is. Everything the NT tells us about how we are to treat each other, those who are not believers, obedience to civil authorities, marriage etc will also be found in the Ten commandments If you keep the first four perfectly you will also be keeping the last six. In the written Law, these things are fleshed out.

BTW, the "be like Me" is more than an implied law. It is clearly stated in the NC. In fact, it's clearly commanded.

Implied in our very creation long before written Law was given.

You clearly say the Mosaic Covenant Law (or part of it) given in the NT as moral imperatives sanctifies us in righteousness. Can you exegete any part of New Covenant Scripture that proves this?

That is not saying that it is the Law that sanctifies. And the imperatives do not in and of themselves sanctify unless we are obedient to them. They are instructions. It is the Holy Spirit who sanctifies and He does this through that word. As Jesus says in John 17.

 

[gdl]

It is not Mosaic covenant Law in the NT it is moral imperatives, not Law, on godly Christian behavior.

At least we're flushing out what you apparently meant by "The Mosaic covenant Law, those same things that are given in the NT as moral imperatives". Maybe you can't see it, but that statement seems to equate the 2 clauses separated by the comma.

So, you're saying moral imperatives is not Law?

What do you mean by "imperatives"? Do you mean things that are essential, or imperatives as in commands, or?

So, you're saying the moral imperatives (however you end up defining "imperatives) "sanctifies us in righteousness"?

What is the Law of Christ? Does "Law" mean the moral imperative of Christ?

Those same things are embraced in the Law. How could they not be if through the Law God is teaching what His righteousness is? And all of it is.

So, the Law and the moral imperatives are basically the same, at least the same in content or principal or?

When you speak of "the Law" are you speaking of what Calvin calls the "Moral Law" meaning the "Ten Commandments"? Or are you speaking of more of the Mosaic Law than just the 10C? I fully understand the view of the tripartite division of the Mosaic Law so I'm not asking you about what many call the ceremonial section, but I am asking you if we're talking about anything beyond the 10C.

Everything the NT tells us about how we are to treat each other, those who are not believers, obedience to civil authorities, marriage etc will also be found in the Ten commandments If you keep the first four perfectly you will also be keeping the last six. In the written Law, these things are fleshed out.

Understand the concept.

Do you think the 4th is fleshed out in the ceremonial such as the Holy Days, etc?

Implied in our very creation long before written Law was given.

And clearly commanded in the NC. So, a moral imperative as in a "command"? But not Law?

That is not saying that it is the Law that sanctifies.

OK.

And the imperatives do not in and of themselves sanctify unless we are obedient to them. They are instructions.

So, again, as I asked to be clarified above in this post, the moral imperatives do sanctify us if we are obedient to them?

The moral imperatives are instructions to be obeyed?

What's the difference between a command and an instruction if obedience is required?

Is the Greek imperative mood the mood of instruction?

It is the Holy Spirit who sanctifies and He does this through that word. As Jesus says in John 17.

You seem to say prior to this quote that the imperatives which are instructions sanctify us if we are obedient to them.

In this quote you say the Holy Spirit sanctifies through that word (which I take in your context to be the moral imperatives/instructions that we obey).

I can see how the Holy Spirit sanctifies and uses "that word" to sanctify, but the Holy Spirit is the active sanctifier.

In John17:17 Jesus prays to the Father that He will sanctify Jesus' disciples en/by the Father's truth, which Jesus says is the Father's word, which Jesus in context says is the word Jesus has given to them.

So, are you saying that the word Jesus gave to His disciples, which is the word the Father gave to Jesus, is the moral imperatives, the instructions, which is not Law, which must be obeyed, and that these sanctify the Christian in the sense of the Holy Spirit sanctifies through the moral imperatives that the Christian obeys?

 

[Arial]

At least we're flushing out what you apparently meant by "The Mosaic covenant Law, those same things that are given in the NT as moral imperatives". Maybe you can't see it, but that statement seems to equate the 2 clauses separated by the comma.

What I mean by the Mosaic covenant Law is the Law given in the Mosaic covenant. It is self explanatory and needs no flushing out. I will go through this, but it would really help if you would read my thread, "God's Law and the Christian" in Apologetics and address your questions and comments there

Re: my statement and the commas equating 2 clauses.
I assume this is the statement you mean.

It is not Mosaic covenant Law in the NT it is moral imperatives, not Law, on godly Christian behavior.

To be read like this according to the usage of commas in a sentence. "It is not Mosaic covenant Law in the NT it is moral imperatives,----pause ---not Law, pause---on godly Christian behavior. In other words, the NT and the new covenant do not have Laws, as in a legally binding document, but instructions on godly living that all Christians are to obey. This equates to obedience to God, in being His image bearers and there is no penal code against disobeying. There will be correction and discipline by our Father as a good father provides for his children. But no condemnation or separation from Christ. The Mosaic covenant Law we find in the OT was in effect a legal document with laws given and a penal code given against breaking that law. Just as in the case of national and local laws having written legal documents, defining what is legal and illegal and penalties given for breaking the civil law. The new covenant does not have such a document of laws.

What do you mean by "imperatives"? Do you mean things that are essential, or imperatives as in commands, or?

Here are examples of imperatives in the NT, regarding morality, ethics, duty Heb 12:1-2 Therefore, since we have so great a cloud of witnesses surrounding us, let us also lay aside every encumbrance and the sin which so easily entangle us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, fixing our eyes on Jesus, the pioneer and perfecter of faith.
Eph 4:29-32; Romans 12:10; 1 Peter 3:8-12; 1 Peter 2:17

What's the difference between a command and an instruction if obedience is required?

Imperatives are commands in that all that we are to do and obey in these imperatives are the obligation of the creature to His creator. We are to be like Him. But in the new covenant these are not given in the sense of a written Law containing a penal code, but to instruct us in what righteousness looks like.

So, you're saying the moral imperatives (however you end up defining "imperatives) "sanctifies us in righteousness"?

In obeying them we are sanctified. But you are entering into the question of monergism or synergism which is a whole other theological area that I will only state simplistically and not delve into with the details of exegesis and support, as that would be for another time and place. I am a monergist. What that means is that the work of salvation and sanctification is all a work of God and not us and Him. So the imperatives are sanctifying. Pay attention to sanctifying as opposed to sanctify. We read them, they enter our mind, and in time, also our heart, and one by one they become our way of life in action and thought, as we learn. It is a lifelong process and it is the work of the Holy Spirit in us.

Do you think the 4th is fleshed out in the ceremonial such as the Holy Days, etc?

You would have to tell me what you personally mean when you say Holy Days etc.

So, the Law and the moral imperatives are basically the same, at least the same in content or principal or?

If I understand you correctly, yes. But I would say the Mosaic Law contains them.

When you speak of "the Law" are you speaking of what Calvin calls the "Moral Law" meaning the "Ten Commandments"? Or are you speaking of more of the Mosaic Law than just the 10C? I fully understand the view of the tripartite division of the Mosaic Law so I'm not asking you about what many call the ceremonial section, but I am asking you if we're talking about anything beyond the 10C.

When I speak of the Law (capitalized) I refer to the Mosaic covenant legal document and all that is in it. Lev, Deut. When I speak of law, I mean the command of God to be like Him in moral character. All of that moral character is in the Ten Commandments in summary form. Jesus says that if we keep the first two we have fulfilled all of it, meaning those first two. Loving our neighbor as ourselves is fulfilling loving our God with all our heart and strength. The second six commandments give an outline of a guideline. Within the Law all those guidelines are spelled out in different areas, so we know what they are. The NT imperatives are in complete agreement with the spirit of the Law.

I can see how the Holy Spirit sanctifies and uses "that word" to sanctify, but the Holy Spirit is the active sanctifier.

Correct.

So, are you saying that the word Jesus gave to His disciples, which is the word the Father gave to Jesus, is the moral imperatives, the instructions, which is not Law, which must be obeyed, and that these sanctify the Christian in the sense of the Holy Spirit sanctifies through the moral imperatives that the Christian obeys?

I am having trouble parsing that sentence into its components to arrive at what you are asking. The word that Jesus gave His disciples is much more than the moral code. It is primarily who Jesus is, why He came, what He came to do, and how He did it. It is not obedience that saves us, it is Jesus. And we are saved by grace through faith. Faith in Jesus. Knowing and trusting His person and work. With salvation comes the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and His sealing us in Christ, and shining the light of spiritual understanding on His word. Sanctification is the result of being in Christ, not in order to be in Christ. It is being conformed to His image and therefore the image we were created to bear, that cannot be done without Christ, It is the story of redemption, of a mighty rescue from the kingdom of darkness.

 

[Rufus]

Maybe it is you who uses an eisegetical method. You would need to show them doing that.

Do you know what constitutes a covenant? If you do you will see that the conditions of a covenant are met when God created Adam and Eve, give them instructions and a position, and announced consequences for disobeying Him. We also see it in Gen 3:14-15

No, it's CT advocates who read their assumptions or presuppositions into scripture, such as the Creation account, Gen 3:14-14; Gen 2:1-3, etc.. Nowhere in these passages, does it say that God made a covenant with A&E. Besides, why would God have to make a covenant? Was not everything God created "very good" (Gen 1:31)? Was not man created "upright" (Eccl 7:29)? Therefore, the world was in perfect order. The world was in harmony with God. The only reason Covenants were introduced into this world is because of sin! When sin entered, the world became disordered, confused, chaotic, cursed, corrupted, divided, miserable and filled with death. In order to effect change to these most undesirable conditions, God made his first recorded covenant in time and space with Noah. Then with Abraham. Then with the Israelites. Then with David, etc.

I don't know how covenant theology addresses that but God did pronounce the seventh day holy.

I find that odd. You don't? Many in reformed circles believe the sabbath (albeit Sunday) is still a valid under this NC dispensation.

Threefold function not division. Don't state things because it is in your favor when it is not a fact.

No, threefold division. You will be very hard-pressed to find anyone of the Reformed Faith who holds to CT deny that the so-called "ceremonial law" and "civil law" have been abrogated. So, they're not talking about mere "function" when they say this. They are talking about actual laws in the Mosaic Covenant in the Pentateuch in the OT. They are saying "those kinds" of laws had an expiration date and expired when Christ ratified the NC in his blood on the Cross.

Old and New testament BOOKS, not covenants. Don't misstate things so you can use it to support your accusation when what you state is not in covenant theology and therefore can't be used to refute it.

Don't make yourself look foolish by fighting with such straw men. That is not remotely what covenant theology states.

As I recall, you didn't originally specify "books". You just said OT and NT. And I'm so covenant-oriented that I immediately equate that with OC and NC.

 

[Rufus]

No he didn't. I showed you he didn't. And you still think the straw men can put up a winning fight. There is no excuse for you saying the above because you have been shown that it is not true. Don't be foolish. Learn.

You haven't shown anything. Calvin clearly said:

For it [the Law] is the best instrument for enabling them daily to learn with greater truth and certainty what that will of the Lord is which they aspire to follow, and to confirm them in this knowledge; (emphasis mine).

You do know what "best" means, right? Yet, where in the NT is such a sentiment found? Any proof texts? Or just wishful thinking?

 

[Rufus]

That does not change the fact that we have a conscience. Which is all I said.

Which isn't saying very much given man's pitiful, pathetic, sinful condition. You want to "boast" about man's conscience as a great restrainer of evil? Ok...let me ask again about Israel: How did their collective conscience work out for them? Or how did the collective conscience of the antediluvians work out for them? Or how did it work out for the not-so-good residents of Sodom and Gomorrah? Or for that matter for the folks at the Tower of Babel? You seem to have forgotten that a bad tree cannot bear good fruit! So, what makes you think that bad trees are going to have sensitive, God-fearing consciences? Since all unregenerate men are enslaved to sin, what in the world would make you think that their consciences are not equally bound by that sin!?

The sin problem is so huge -- so beyond mere mortals -- that only God can remedy it.

Curb:
to control or limit something that is not wanted:
The government should act to curb tax evasion.

Look at the example given above. Do the government laws stop all tax evasion. No but it darn sure reduces it.

Another poor analogy. But does the government look at the hearts of men to see how many "law-abiding" taxpayers hate and despise paying taxes, or hate and despise the government to levying such high taxes, etc.? Or why would government even care, as long as it gets its money? Why do you insist on reducing the Potter to the level of his clay pots with your ill-conceived analogies? Do you think God only looks at the outside of the cup, as the sons of men, and not on the inside?

 

[Arial]

You haven't shown anything. Calvin clearly said:

For it [the Law] is the best instrument for enabling them daily to learn with greater truth and certainty what that will of the Lord is which they aspire to follow, and to confirm them in this knowledge; (emphasis mine).

You do know what "best" means, right? Yet, where in the NT is such a sentiment found? Any proof texts? Or just wishful thinking?

This is what you said:

Pretty much since he supplanted the role of the Holy Spirit with the Law -- with his remarks "the best use of the law....", which I think is how he prefaced the rest of his comments.

1.Do you see any mention of the Holy Spirit in Calvin's quote? 2. Who is "them"? 3. What is his subject? 4. What does he say the Law does? 5. What does the Holy Spirit do?

1. No.
2. The ones who were given the Law.
3.The purposes and accomplishments of the Law.
4. Enabling them---those who were given the Law---to learn daily with truth and certainty what the will of the Lord is, and aspire to follow it.
5. Among other things, illuminate the scriptures in our mind and heart, giving us spiritual understanding of spiritual things. (John 14:15-17; Romans 8:1-4; 1 Cor 2:13;John 15:26; Acts 5:32.

The Israelites did not have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. They had the Law as their tutor.

 

[gdl]

What I mean by the Mosaic covenant Law is the Law given in the Mosaic covenant. It is self explanatory and needs no flushing out. I will go through this, but it would really help if you would read my thread, "God's Law and the Christian" in Apologetics and address your questions and comments there

Thanks. I know what the Mosaic Law and Covenant is and where to read it in Scripture.

Re: my statement and the commas equating 2 clauses.
I assume this is the statement you mean.

The statement I meant was the one I quoted in the quote just above my question. Here it is again: "The Mosaic covenant Law, those same things that are given in the NT as moral imperatives".

In other words, the NT and the new covenant do not have Laws, as in a legally binding document, but instructions on godly living that all Christians are to obey.

Although you've stated this in response to what I asked above, I'll respond to it anyway:

Once again, what is "the Law of Christ"?

• NKJ Galatians 6:1 Brethren, if a man is overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness, considering yourself lest you also be tempted. 2 Bear one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ. (Gal. 6:1-2 NKJ)

• NKJ 1Cor 9:18-21 What is my reward then? That when I preach the gospel, I may present the gospel of Christ without charge, that I may not abuse my authority in the gospel. 19 For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more; 20 and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law; 21 to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ), that I might win those who are without law;

What is this Scripture talking about?

• NKJ Isaiah 42:1-4 "Behold! My Servant whom I uphold, My Elect One in whom My soul delights! I have put My Spirit upon Him; He will bring forth justice to the Gentiles. 2 He will not cry out, nor raise His voice, Nor cause His voice to be heard in the street. 3 A bruised reed He will not break, And smoking flax He will not quench; He will bring forth justice for truth. 4 He will not fail nor be discouraged, Till He has established justice in the earth; And the coastlands shall wait for His law."

Is the Christian without any Law?

This equates to obedience to God, in being His image bearers and there is no penal code against disobeying.

Surely you agree there are consequences for disobedience, correct (noting what you've said below re: our Father's discipline)?

In matters of church discipline and judgment of sinning Christians, do you agree that there are judgments & sanctions to be made against such. Surely there are penalties against sin, and not just Fatherly discipline, correct?

There will be correction and discipline by our Father as a good father provides for his children.

OK. Answers one of my questions above.

But no condemnation or separation from Christ.

Eternal security discussions are for another time.

The Mosaic covenant Law we find in the OT was in effect a legal document with laws given and a penal code given against breaking that law. Just as in the case of national and local laws having written legal documents, defining what is legal and illegal and penalties given for breaking the civil law. The new covenant does not have such a document of laws.

Some note a similar Suzerain-Vassal structure to the NC as to the OC. Yes, we're dealing with a universal Covenant without national borders, but the Ekklesia has rules and sanctions similar to civil ones, does it not? Paul, for one seems to take the Church Judiciary very seriously.

Here are examples of imperatives in the NT, regarding morality, ethics, duty Heb 12:1-2 Therefore, since we have so great a cloud of witnesses surrounding us, let us also lay aside every encumbrance and the sin which so easily entangle us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, fixing our eyes on Jesus, the pioneer and perfecter of faith.
Eph 4:29-32; Romans 12:10; 1 Peter 3:8-12; 1 Peter 2:17

Thanks. Once again, years ago I assembled every imperative and every other form of command in the NC. As I recall we're dealing with 1,000+/- of them. I maintain the file and periodically work on it.

My question was in response to your seeming to say that moral imperatives are not Law. Again, I refer you to above where I ask about the Law of Christ. Why are we to conclude that the Commandments of Jesus Christ are not part of the Law of Christ?

• Is there a penalty we incur if we do not lay aside every encumbrance and the sin that so easily entangles us?
• With the commands not to sin (e.g. Rom6; 1Cor15) and commands to put to death things like fornication (Col3:5) and with sanctions like not inheriting the Kingdom of God, why are we to conclude that Christians can only face Fatherly discipline and not something at some point more akin to legal sanction?

Imperatives are commands in that all that we are to do and obey in these imperatives are the obligation of the creature to His creator. We are to be like Him. But in the new covenant these are not given in the sense of a written Law containing a penal code, but to instruct us in what righteousness looks like.

But this is not all we are to do with imperative commands. In the NC, as you've already stated, we have a Father to son relationship with a Father who has commanded us and is raising, training and disciplining us as His children. And we have a Lord to servant relationship with our Lord God King, Great High Priest, and first-born Brother who has issued nearly 1,000 commands to us.

Assuming you see the Eucharist as being commanded, is this what God's righteousness looks like? Or is it as Jesus called it, a commanded memorial of His death until He comes?

In obeying them we are sanctified. But you are entering into the question of monergism or synergism which is a whole other theological area that I will only state simplistically and not delve into with the details of exegesis and support, as that would be for another time and place. I am a monergist. What that means is that the work of salvation and sanctification is all a work of God and not us and Him.

I'm not entering into discussion of monergism vs. synergism. I might say that you may have, but I set it aside.

So the imperatives are sanctifying. Pay attention to sanctifying as opposed to sanctify.

The reason we are discussing this concept is because you first seemed to say that the imperatives do sanctify us. See below:

And the imperatives do not in and of themselves sanctify unless we are obedient to them.

This can easily be interpreted as: The imperatives do sanctify us if we are obedient to them.

We read them, they enter our mind, and in time, also our heart, and one by one they become our way of life in action and thought, as we learn. It is a lifelong process and it is the work of the Holy Spirit in us.

I've no problem with this for the most part. What I have a problem with is some in the charismatic realm who think studying the Word of God is mostly even entirely unnecessary in this process, and with those who swing the pendulum so far away from charismatics that they pay only lip service to the reality of the necessity of the walk in Spirit and abiding obedience in Christ.

You would have to tell me what you personally mean when you say Holy Days etc.

Jewish Feasts and Sabbaths per the Mosaic Law. You seem to understand that the 613 laws align under and elaborate the 10C. My question was in essence whether the 4th (Sabbath) is moral or ceremonial with the caveat that I'm not thereby accepting the tripartite division of the Mosaic Law.

If I understand you correctly, yes. But I would say the Mosaic Law contains them.

So, the only difference between the 10C in the OC and the NC is in the OC they are part of OC Law Covenant, and in the NC they are now moral imperatives and not Law?

 

[gdl]

When I speak of the Law (capitalized) I refer to the Mosaic covenant legal document and all that is in it. Lev, Deut. When I speak of law, I mean the command of God to be like Him in moral character. All of that moral character is in the Ten Commandments in summary form. Jesus says that if we keep the first two we have fulfilled all of it, meaning those first two. Loving our neighbor as ourselves is fulfilling loving our God with all our heart and strength. The second six commandments give an outline of a guideline. Within the Law all those guidelines are spelled out in different areas, so we know what they are. The NT imperatives are in complete agreement with the spirit of the Law.

Hopefully you will understand why I and maybe others not familiar with you need to ask you many questions. This is one of the issues with forums. I, and I'm comfortable that I am not alone, have no desire to run through other threads and read your 1800+ posts to gain an understanding of your thinking and spelling. Nothing personal.

Some housecleaning: Love Neighbor is not in the 10C nor is the Shema. So, the 2 greatest commandments are not in the 10C but do summarize the entire Law and Prophets according to our Lord. Why are we going back to the 10C for our sanctification? Why not just go to Deut6:5 and Lev19:8 which are not the in the 10C? And why not go to Jesus' new command to love one another as He loved us? If we're to be like our Creator, why not our Creator God who is love? Why all the focus on the 10C and not a focus on Christ and His commandments in the New Covenant, which is new in era and in kind? (I think Rufus has been bringing some of this into discussion).

One of the questions your above statements raises for me relates to the extent of the continuity you see between the New Covenant imperatives (accommodating your language for now) and the OC Law.

What this is boiling down to for me is what our focus actually and truly is. Is it truly Christ and all He's done for us, is doing for us, will do for us? Is it for example His command to love one another as He loved us, and His commands to walk in Spirit (which BTW I would not see as instructing us what the moral character of God is), and such new things in the NC era that are above and beyond things, "better" things of now and since we died to the Law and the OC vanished?

When I use words like "actually" and "truly" I'm old and experienced enough to know that no matter how much we read, hear, talk about, teach, preach something, if we never actually and truly do it, then we only think we understand it. I can tell you that I thought I knew what Paul means by being content (Phil4:11) and then I experienced it and realized I had not known it.

I am having trouble parsing that sentence into its components to arrive at what you are asking.

No disrespect meant by this, but good. I'm glad you're having trouble parsing it. It wasn't meant to be easy to parse, but it is based in how I read things you've said. Which in part is why I've asked you so many questions.

The word that Jesus gave His disciples is much more than the moral code. It is primarily who Jesus is, why He came, what He came to do, and how He did it.

OK.

It is not obedience that saves us, it is Jesus.

This statement would at minimum require me to ask you to define or explain the entire scope of salvation and to discuss the relationship between faith and obedience. It thus also brings to mind what we have been discussing re: the relationship between obedience and progressive sanctification. So, I'll pass for now.

And we are saved by grace through faith. Faith in Jesus.

Mostly agree but more nuances to discuss, but now.

Knowing and trusting His person and work.

I like the inclusion of "His person". And again, much more to discuss at another time, maybe.

With salvation comes the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and His sealing us in Christ, and shining the light of spiritual understanding on His word. Sanctification is the result of being in Christ, not in order to be in Christ. It is being conformed to His image and therefore the image we were created to bear, that cannot be done without Christ, It is the story of redemption, of a mighty rescue from the kingdom of darkness.

All good stuff.

I have a few issues with the way "salvation" and "sanctification" are generally used because the scope of salvation is much broader than initial justification, and sanctification is also used in the past tense in the NC pertaining to Christians. But I'll flow with the customary way of referring to them for now.

 

[gdl]

Now that we've both had some long-winded discussion, if we continue, how about shorter and more hopefully fruitful, on point ones?

 

[Arial]

No, threefold division. You will be very hard-pressed to find anyone of the Reformed Faith who holds to CT deny that the so-called "ceremonial law" and "civil law" have been abrogated. So, they're not talking about mere "function" when they say this. They are talking about actual laws in the Mosaic Covenant in the Pentateuch in the OT. They are saying "those kinds" of laws had an expiration date and expired when Christ ratified the NC in his blood on the Cross.

Calvin in what we were once upon a time addressing was discussing the function of the Law not the divisions.

As I recall, you didn't originally specify "books". You just said OT and NT.

No one writes it OT book and NT book and no one needs to.

And I'm so covenant-oriented that I immediately equate that with OC and NC.

Should we all change our ways then because of your orientation?

 

[Arial]

Hopefully you will understand why I and maybe others not familiar with you need to ask you many questions. This is one of the issues with forums. I, and I'm comfortable that I am not alone, have no desire to run through other threads and read your 1800+ posts to gain an understanding of your thinking and spelling. Nothing personal.

Who ask you to do any of that. I was just answering a question that you asked me.

Some housecleaning: Love Neighbor is not in the 10C nor is the Shema. So, the 2 greatest commandments are not in the 10C but do summarize the entire Law and Prophets according to our Lord. Why are we going back to the 10C for our sanctification? Why not just go to Deut6:5 and Lev19:8 which are not the in the 10C? And why not go to Jesus' new command to love one another as He loved us? If we're to be like our Creator, why not our Creator God who is love? Why all the focus on the 10C and not a focus on Christ and His commandments in the New Covenant, which is new in era and in kind? (I think Rufus has been bringing some of this into discussion).

Seriously. I give up. You just keep going over and over the same ground. You and @Rufus both.

 

[gdl]

You haven't shown anything. Calvin clearly said:

For it [the Law] is the best instrument for enabling them daily to learn with greater truth and certainty what that will of the Lord is which they aspire to follow, and to confirm them in this knowledge; (emphasis mine).

You do know what "best" means, right? Yet, where in the NT is such a sentiment found? Any proof texts? Or just wishful thinking?

Referring you back to my post #80 and trying to ask this in the order of that post:

• Do you see as I see in his Chapter 8, that Calvin equates the Ten Commandments ("10C") to the "Moral Law" part of the [theory] of the tripartite division of the Mosaic Law that he identifies in the explanation of the chapter divisions in Chapter 7?
• So, when Calvin is speaking of "the Law" in Chapter 7, section 12 where he discusses the "third use of the Law", he is actually discussing the third use of the 10C as I see him doing?
• And after reading his 1st sentence in Chapter 7, section 12, do you see as I see that Calvin says the principal use and proper end (purpose, goal) of the 10C is the progressive sanctification of Christians?

Do you agree with Calvin that the principal use of the 10C is the progressive sanctification of Christians?

From there, if you care to comment on my second observation under Calvin Section 12, do you agree that he seems to be equating (1) the writing of the 10C on the hearts of Christians "by the finger of God" with (2) the ministry of God the Holy Spirit influencing and actuating the Christian's desire to obey God (and this too being in context for the progressive sanctification of Christians)?

Thanks!

 

[gdl]

Who ask you to do any of that. I was just answering a question that you asked me.

Who said I think anyone asked me to do this? It was simply a comment to attempt to get you to understand that the way you write takes some effort to make sense of.

Seriously. I give up. You just keep going over and over the same ground. You and @Rufus both.

Maybe as I commented pursuant to the just above you should understand that those unfamiliar with you should not be expected to be familiar with you and you should learn that a public forum opens you up to having to explain yourself anew in every thread.

Maybe you should consider the moral imperative of patience and come to grips with the fact that outside of your circle, you're very likely to run into many on an open forum that will not accept you as a teacher and will test your knowledge and beliefs no matter your point of view of their actually being right or wrong.

Just some thoughts for consideration from one brother to another.

Please do not let any of the above stop you from giving up. I fully understand how these forums can be very trying.

 

[Rufus]

Now that I'm more or less caught up on responses, I wanted to share something that God literally put in my path this morning. (I love it when the Lord does that.) I had a couple of appointments this A.M. but as I'm prone to do and even though I was running a little late, I perused my email headers and came across one whereby some site that I subscribe to offered an exposition on Tit 2:11. And so I quickly looked at the passage and nearly fell on the floor.

I would now like to offer my own brief commentary but first before I quote the above verse in its larger context, I want to contrast it to Calvin's words on his third use of the Law (and the operative word here is "his" opposed to the bible's use). So, here's the Calvin quote again, and all bracketed words are mine:

For it [the Law] is the best instrument for enabling them daily to learn with greater truth and certainty what that will of the Lord is which they aspire to follow, and to confirm them in this knowledge; just as a servant who desires with all his soul to approve himself to his master, must still observe, and be careful to ascertain his master’s dispositions, that he may comport himself in accommodation to them. Let none of us deem ourselves exempt from this necessity, for none have as yet attained to such a degree of wisdom, as that they may not, by the daily instruction of the Law, advance to a purer knowledge of the Divine will.
And if anyone here thinks that Sanctification was not Calvin's mind, you are very sadly mistaken. Consider the phrase "comport himself". What does "comport" mean if not "behave"!? It is to conduct oneself "in a manner conformable to what is right, proper or expected" (M-W Collegiate). Calvin clearly had in mind one's WALK, conduct, behavior. And when we talk about our walk or behavior, we are speaking to Sanctification.

More proof is in the phrase "for none of us have yet attained to such a degree of wisdom". In other words, none of us have reached the goal. We haven't reached the end of our walk. We haven't come into possession of a thing. And the only way we come to the end is by means of a progression or course of movement over time (M-W again). So again, Calvin certainly had Sanctification in mind. After all, Sanctification is the second step in our salvation that leads to Glorification.

Now, here's the passage that totally militates against Calvin's religious opinion or philosophy:

Titus 2:1-14
2:1 You must teach what is in accord with sound doctrine. 2 Teach the older men to be temperate, worthy of respect, self-controlled, and sound in faith, in love and in endurance.

3 Likewise, teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanderers or addicted to much wine, but to teach what is good. 4 Then they can train the younger women to love their husbands and children, 5 to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God.

6 Similarly, encourage the young men to be self-controlled. 7 In everything set them an example by doing what is good. In your teaching show integrity, seriousness 8 and soundness of speech that cannot be condemned, so that those who oppose you may be ashamed because they have nothing bad to say about us.

9 Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them, 10 and not to steal from them, but to show that they can be fully trusted, so that in every way they will make the teaching about God our Savior attractive.

11 For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men. 12 It teaches us to say "No" to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age, 13 while we wait for the blessed hope — the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, 14 who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good.
NIV

So, in the first 10 verses, Paul exhorts believers of all ages, sexes and stations in life how to live. Paul is giving instructions for what the sanctified life looks like. And then we get to the "punch line", as it were. The term "for" in v. 11 means "by this reason" or "for this reason". But did Paul say that "For the Law of God (ten commandments) that brings salvation has appeared to all men...and that it "TEACHES or INSTRUCTS us to say 'No' to ungodliness and worldly passion...". At least in this passage, Paul didn't think the Law was the "best instrument" for enabling men to learn what the will of the Lord is.

So what is this "grace" of salvation that has appeared to all men? It cannot be anything other than the Incarnate Christ in all his majesty and glory, which would include his Gospel ministry, his exemplary life, his impeccable character, his substitutionary death on behalf of all his Father's elect, His victory over death, his ascension into Heaven, etc. And it's this GRACE -- this embodiment of Grace -- that teaches us to live godly lives in this age. NOT the LAW! After all, Jesus Christ is the very embodiment of Grace and Truth (not to be conflated or confused with the Law), cp Jn 1:14, 17!

And this amazing passage brings to mind The Bread of Life Discourse! Whoever FEASTS on this Embodiment of Grace -- "whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me" (Jn 6:56-57).

God does NOT beat his sons and daughters with the whip of the Law because he considers us to be lazy, slothful asses. God is Love. How he keeps his sons and daughters in line is with his magnificent grace and all the means thereof. Love is kind, gentle, patient. And so is God with his children. He loves all his children so much that he would not think of brow-beating them with his Law! Yes, as a loving Father, he teaches us, instructs us, guides us in the way of Royalty. His goal is to conform us to the image of his King. Of course, this doesn't mean that he won't discipline an unruly child -- but even so....he does so out of his immense love for us and disciplines us for our good and for only a season. Because Christ always remains in us, we will be sanctified by his grace. Jesus himself promised that he will lose none of his Father's elect (Jn 6:39). And that, brethren, is GRACE working in us! His grace makes us WILLING in the day of his power! Because we are his New Creation, we will have New Desires to please our loving Father. But the Law is not the instrument God uses! No child of God is a jackass or oxen or a horse or a mule that constantly needs to be brought under the whip! This is not how our loving, heavenly Father works!

There's an old adage that goes: You catch more flies with honey than vinegar. And so it is with Grace! Grace is greater than our sin! Why would a loving God ever bring any of us back under His law when the Law if the very power of sin and can only condemn us!?

Anyhow...gotta end this. The post is already long, and yet so much more could be said on vv.-11-14.

 

[gdl]

11 For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men. 12 It teaches us to say "No" to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age, 13 while we wait for the blessed hope — the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, 14 who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good.

Thanks for this. It clearly teaches of the progressive sanctification of the Christian based in His life (the Grace of God has appeared), then death, resurrection, ascension, and seating since Paul says they wait for His glorious appearing. while He is purifying a people for Himself. This is all Christ. The focus is all Christ and His redeeming (Christ is our Justification) and purifying (Christ is our Progressive Sanctification) a people that are His very own, while they await Him (Christ is our Glorification).

This goes well with what I said earlier:

What this is boiling down to for me is what our focus actually and truly is. Is it truly Christ and all He's done for us, is doing for us, will do for us? Is it for example His command to love one another as He loved us, and His commands to walk in Spirit (which BTW I would not see as instructing us what the moral character of God is), and such new things in the NC era that are above and beyond things, "better" things of now and since we died to the Law and the OC vanished?

When I use words like "actually" and "truly" I'm old and experienced enough to know that no matter how much we read, hear, talk about, teach, preach something, if we never actually and truly do it, then we only think we understand it. I can tell you that I thought I knew what Paul means by being content (Phil4:11) and then I experienced it and realized I had not known it.

Again, thanks, for paying attention and then posting.