• **Notifications**: Notifications can be dismissed by clicking on the "x" on the righthand side of the notice.
  • **New Style**: You can now change style options. Click on the paintbrush at the bottom of this page.
  • **Donations**: If the Lord leads you please consider helping with monthly costs and up keep on our Forum. Click on the Donate link In the top menu bar. Thanks
  • **New Blog section**: There is now a blog section. Check it out near the Private Debates forum or click on the Blog link in the top menu bar.
  • Welcome Visitors! Join us and be blessed while fellowshipping and celebrating our Glorious Salvation In Christ Jesus.

Predestination destroys legalism

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.
Small world. For the most part, I started my Christian life in a Reformed Baptist Church. But my wife and I only stayed a couple of years of so. The one I attended held (and still does) to Covenant Theology (CT), and had a strong legalistic bent that included Sunday sabbath-keeping. And the sabbath became an issue with my wife because she was at the time a professional classical musician, which required Sunday work. The pastor made an issue of it even though her work was seasonal -- about four months out of the year. They expected her to leave her profession or to make arrangements for a substitute for every Sunday gig, which of course was totally unreasonable. We soon left the church because neither one of us could see where in the NT sabbath-keeping is commanded. In fact, we saw the opposite.

Don't know if you know this or not but many Reformed churches hold to Calvin's Three Uses of the Law -- all of which are unbiblical. And the most egregious use is that the observance of the law is what sanctifies us.
 
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.
I beg to differ! You're reading "Mosaic Law" into Jer 31:31. But I say to you that the Law that is written on the hearts of God's NC people is the Law of Christ, which is the predicted messianic law (Isa 42:4, 21). Furthermore, why would God write 613 laws upon Christians' hearts when so many of those laws have been abrogated? Plus nothing can be added to or subtracted from the Mosaic Law Covenant (Deut 4:2; 12:32). This means ALL the Mosaic Covenant is still in force or as Hebrews 8 teaches, the Old Covenant has become obsolete and was getting ready to disappear altogether, which it did finally in 70 A.D. The Law of Logic known as the Law of the Excluded Middle applies here. The Law of Moses is an all or nothing proposition.
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.


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.

Of course, it's a contrast. The Mosaic Covenant was a works of law covenant. And human/law works are antithetical to grace. The OC people of God were under the Mosaic Law; the NC people of God are not! Also, as explained the other day, Law and Truth are not synonymous terms. All law is truth; all truth is not law. And in this maxim, I didn't have to explicitly say "but" because it's understood.
 
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.
That is new to me, maybe I am mistaken just what constitutes 'covenant theology', and what is the difference between Reformed and Calvinistic Baptist? Ours pretty much followed the LBC of 1689.
 
That is new to me, maybe I am mistaken just what constitutes 'covenant theology', and what is the difference between Reformed and Calvinistic Baptist? Ours pretty much followed the LBC of 1689.
The confessions are pretty much the same, exactly in some cases. The Westminster Confession has a statement that allows infant baptism, though as a covenant sign, not conversion or salvation. And they (Reformed) have a framework of covenant (therefore covenant theology) as an interpretive method, rather than dispensations.
 
Small world. For the most part, I started my Christian life in a Reformed Baptist Church. But my wife and I only stayed a couple of years of so. The one I attended held (and still does) to Covenant Theology (CT), and had a strong legalistic bent that included Sunday sabbath-keeping. And the sabbath became an issue with my wife because she was at the time a professional classical musician, which required Sunday work. The pastor made an issue of it even though her work was seasonal -- about four months out of the year. They expected her to leave her profession or to make arrangements for a substitute for every Sunday gig, which of course was totally unreasonable. We soon left the church because neither one of us could see where in the NT sabbath-keeping is commanded. In fact, we saw the opposite.
That is a shortcoming in that local church, and improper leadership, and is not a direct outflow of the theology itself It is unfortunate that these things happen. And they do not only happen in Calvinist/Reformed churches.
Don't know if you know this or not but many Reformed churches hold to Calvin's Three Uses of the Law -- all of which are unbiblical. And the most egregious use is that the observance of the law is what sanctifies us.
Calvin's three uses of the Law.
Quotes from Calvin's Institutes

THE FIRST FUNCTION OF THE LAW
First, by exhibiting the righteousness of God---in other words the righteousness which alone is acceptable to God---it admonishes everyone of his own unrighteousness ,certiotates, convicts, and finally condemns him. This is necessary, in order that man, who is blind and intoxicated with self-love, may be brought at once to know and to confess his weakness and impurity. (as per Gal 3:24) If we look merely to the Law, the result must be despondency, confusion, and despair, seeing that by it we are all cursed and condemned while we are kept far away from the blessedness it hold forth to its observer.

As in a mirror we may discover any strain upon our face, so in the Law we behold first, our impotence; then in consequence of it our iniquity and finally, the curse. as a consequence of both.

THE SECOND FUNCTION OF THE LAW

The second function of the Law is, by means of its fearful denunciations and the consequent dread of punishment, to curb those, who unless forced, have no regard for rectitude and justice. Such persons are curbed, not because their mind is inwardly moved and affected, but because, as if a bridle were laid upon them, they refrain their hands from external acts, and internally check the depravity which would otherwise petulantly burst forth.

THE THIRD FUNCTION OF THE LAW

For it 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 conform them in this knowledge, and to conform them in this knowledge; just as a servant who desire with all his soul to approve himself to his master.


I suggest that your portrayal of this as unbiblical and that it is claiming that it is the law which sanctifies us, is simply the way you are looking at and taking it, rather than what it is actually saying. So rather than just make the statement, what is unbiblical about it and how is it saying the law is our sanctifier? I would expect you to also support your answers.
 
Last edited:
That is a shortcoming in that local church, and improper leadership, and is not a direct outflow of the theology itself It is unfortunate that these things happen. And they do not only happen in Calvinist/Reformed churches.

Calvin's three uses of the Law.
Quotes from Calvin's Institutes

THE FIRST FUNCTION OF THE LAW
First, by exhibiting the righteousness of God---in other words the righteousness which alone is acceptable to God---it admonishes everyone of his own unrighteousness ,certiotates, convicts, and finally condemns him. This is necessary, in order that man, who is blind and intoxicated with self-love, may be brought at once to know and to confess his weakness and impurity. (as per Gal 3:24) If we look merely to the Law, the result must be despondency, confusion, and despair, seeing that by it we are all cursed and condemned while we are kept far away from the blessedness it hold forth to its observer.

As in a mirror we may discover any strain upon our face, so in the Law we behold first, our impotence; then in consequence of it our iniquity and finally, the curse. as a consequence of both.

THE SECOND FUNCTION OF THE LAW

The second function of the Law is, by means of its fearful denunciations and the consequent dread of punishment, to curb those, who unless forced, have no regard for rectitude and justice. Such persons are curbed, not because their mind is inwardly moved and affected, but because, as if a bridle were laid upon them, they refrain their hands from external acts, and internally check the depravity which would otherwise petulantly burst forth.

THE THIRD FUNCTION OF THE LAW

For it 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 conform them in this knowledge, and to conform them in this knowledge; just as a servant who desire with all his soul to approve himself to his master.


I suggest that your portrayal of this is unbiblical and that it is claiming that it is the law which sanctifies us, is simply the way you are looking at and taking it, rather than what it is actually saying. So rather than just make the statement, what is unbiblical about it and how is it saying the law is our sanctifier? I would expect you to also support your answers.
A couple of things: First, can you provide any biblical support for any of the above mentioned three uses? For example, why can't Christians grow in grace and the knowledge of God even more efficiently and effectively in the truth of the Gospel, since it is the Gospel that is the power of God unto salvation?

Or take Calvin's second function of the Law which contradicts scripture. The Law does NOT curb sinful desires or inclinations. In fact, it does exactly the opposite. The Law is the power of sin (1Cor 15:56)! The Law makes sin abound even more (Rom 5:20; 7:8). The Law gives us the knowledge of sin (Rom 7:7). The Law was designed to drive people to faith in the Messiah (Gal 3:24), etc. But the Law was never designed to restrain sin! In fact, the law is powerless to curb sin because it is weakened by our sinful nature (Rom 8:3), etc.

Secondly, I would heartily recommend that you avail yourself of David H.J. Gay's book Christ is All...No Sanctification by the Law, as he goes into much greater detail on Calvin's three uses that the three paragraphs above, but he especially focuses on its third use.
 
That is a shortcoming in that local church, and improper leadership, and is not a direct outflow of the theology itself It is unfortunate that these things happen. And they do not only happen in Calvinist/Reformed churches.
I totally disagree! For the most part the serious errors that come out of many Reformed Churches is a result of Covenant Theology, which is fraught with errors! CT can easily give Dispensationalism a run for its money in the departments of confusion, chaos and convolutedness.

THE FIRST FUNCTION OF THE LAW
First, by exhibiting the righteousness of God---in other words the righteousness which alone is acceptable to God---it admonishes everyone of his own unrighteousness ,certiotates, convicts, and finally condemns him. This is necessary, in order that man, who is blind and intoxicated with self-love, may be brought at once to know and to confess his weakness and impurity. (as per Gal 3:24) If we look merely to the Law, the result must be despondency, confusion, and despair, seeing that by it we are all cursed and condemned while we are kept far away from the blessedness it hold forth to its observer.

As in a mirror we may discover any strain upon our face, so in the Law we behold first, our impotence; then in consequence of it our iniquity and finally, the curse. as a consequence of both.

THE SECOND FUNCTION OF THE LAW

The second function of the Law is, by means of its fearful denunciations and the consequent dread of punishment, to curb those, who unless forced, have no regard for rectitude and justice. Such persons are curbed, not because their mind is inwardly moved and affected, but because, as if a bridle were laid upon them, they refrain their hands from external acts, and internally check the depravity which would otherwise petulantly burst forth.

THE THIRD FUNCTION OF THE LAW

For it 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 conform them in this knowledge, and to conform them in this knowledge; just as a servant who desire with all his soul to approve himself to his master.


I suggest that your portrayal of this as unbiblical and that it is claiming that it is the law which sanctifies us, is simply the way you are looking at and taking it, rather than what it is actually saying. So rather than just make the statement, what is unbiblical about it and how is it saying the law is our sanctifier? I would expect you to also support your answers.
 
The confessions are pretty much the same, exactly in some cases. The Westminster Confession has a statement that allows infant baptism, though as a covenant sign, not conversion or salvation. And they (Reformed) have a framework of covenant (therefore covenant theology) as an interpretive method, rather than dispensations.
Except for the First London Baptist Confession of 1646. The Reformed Baptists should have left well enough alone.
 
Except for the First London Baptist Confession of 1646. The Reformed Baptists should have left well enough alone.
I take it you believe the Reformed Baptists did a good thing coming up with the 1646?
 
I totally disagree! For the most part the serious errors that come out of many Reformed Churches is a result of Covenant Theology, which is fraught with errors! CT can easily give Dispensationalism a run for its money in the departments of confusion, chaos and convolutedness.
Rufus that is an opinion that gives nothing as either specific accusation or support for the opinion. What are the serious errors you refer to? How are they related to covenant theology? What are the chaos, confusion, and convolutedness?
 
A couple of things: First, can you provide any biblical support for any of the above mentioned three uses? For example, why can't Christians grow in grace and the knowledge of God even more efficiently and effectively in the truth of the Gospel, since it is the Gospel that is the power of God unto salvation?
Re:
THE FIRST FUNCTION OF THE LAW
First, by exhibiting the righteousness of God---in other words the righteousness which alone is acceptable to God---it admonishes everyone of his own unrighteousness ,certiotates, convicts, and finally condemns him. This is necessary, in order that man, who is blind and intoxicated with self-love, may be brought at once to know and to confess his weakness and impurity. (as per Gal 3:24) If we look merely to the Law, the result must be despondency, confusion, and despair, seeing that by it we are all cursed and condemned while we are kept far away from the blessedness it hold forth to its observer.

As in a mirror we may discover any strain upon our face, so in the Law we behold first, our impotence; then in consequence of it our iniquity and finally, the curse. as a consequence of both.
First of all, here Calvin is specifically discussing the value in the Law as to how it functions. It has the same value now as when it was given through Moses to the Israelites. What he is not discussing is the sum total of how we grow in grace. The Mosaic Law still does the same thing as it always did---it reveals the righteousness of God and shows us what mankind is in relation to God's righteousness.

So when someone comes along and says that what Calvin says in his statement is unbiblical because because there are more efficient and effective ways of growing in grace, they ignore what is being said and read into it something which it is not even discussing. It also tends to divorce the two testaments from one another.
Or take Calvin's second function of the Law which contradicts scripture. The Law does NOT curb sinful desires or inclinations. In fact, it does exactly the opposite. The Law is the power of sin (1Cor 15:56)! The Law makes sin abound even more (Rom 5:20; 7:8). The Law gives us the knowledge of sin (Rom 7:7). The Law was designed to drive people to faith in the Messiah (Gal 3:24), etc. But the Law was never designed to restrain sin! In fact, the law is powerless to curb sin because it is weakened by our sinful nature (Rom 8:3), etc
Re:
THE SECOND FUNCTION OF THE LAW

The second function of the Law is, by means of its fearful denunciations and the consequent dread of punishment, to curb those, who unless forced, have no regard for rectitude and justice. Such persons are curbed, not because their mind is inwardly moved and affected, but because, as if a bridle were laid upon them, they refrain their hands from external acts, and internally check the depravity which would otherwise petulantly burst forth.

The Law most certainly curbed the actions of those to whom it was given, because without it they would not even know what the righteousness of God is. And if it had not been given, neither would we. That would be the knowledge of sin in Rom 7, the power of sin in 1 Cor 15, and the abounding of sin in Rom 5. If the Law had not first been given, the entire NT would have no meaning to us. If the Law were not given and given as Law, nothing would be able to restrain sin in our actions. Yet the Law in itself does not save us but condemns us because it cannot change our sinful hearts of keep us from breaking the Law of God's righteousness that is in the Law.



Compare it to natural laws of the land for a moment. The legal system of a nation may say if you murder you will be punished and punished severely. Does that stop all people from murder? Of course not. But for most it does, even if they would like to murder someone for some reason. The law restrains them, but it does not remove the sinful heart that would like to murder.

So again, you have not proven the words of Calvin to be unbiblical, but simply divorced the two testaments from each other, and not actually paid attention to what Calvin was discussing or what he was saying. You presumed upon it what was not there based on what someone said about it (the book you mention)without observing their comment with critical thinking to see whether or not their argument was put forth with logical fallacies.
Secondly, I would heartily recommend that you avail yourself of David H.J. Gay's book Christ is All...No Sanctification by the Law, as he goes into much greater detail on Calvin's three uses that the three paragraphs above, but he especially focuses on its third use.
Re:
THE THIRD FUNCTION OF THE LAW

For it 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 conform them in this knowledge, and to conform them in this knowledge; just as a servant who desire with all his soul to approve himself to his master.
I would need you to present in your own words, as I am not going to go read a book in order to discover what it is you are presenting as an argument against Calvin's third function of the Law, in order to agree or disprove whatever is being suggested. But I will say this, going by the title of the book "No Sanctification by the Law" that Calvin's statement above does not say the Law is what sanctifies us or anyone who was under the Law. Notice in his statement the word "them". Who are the "them"? The one's under the Law. And what did the Law do? Informed them of the righteousness of God which they were to follow which is God's will. And to be obedient to them. It says not one word about sanctification, which is something the Holy Spirit does in actuality in those who are in Christ---and that too through His Word, not outside of it.
 
I take it you believe the Reformed Baptists did a good thing coming up with the 1646?
The 1646 confession was more in agreement with scripture than the second version.
 
Re:

First of all, here Calvin is specifically discussing the value in the Law as to how it functions. It has the same value now as when it was given through Moses to the Israelites. What he is not discussing is the sum total of how we grow in grace. The Mosaic Law still does the same thing as it always did---it reveals the righteousness of God and shows us what mankind is in relation to God's righteousness.

So when someone comes along and says that what Calvin says in his statement is unbiblical because because there are more efficient and effective ways of growing in grace, they ignore what is being said and read into it something which it is not even discussing. It also tends to divorce the two testaments from one another.

Re:


The Law most certainly curbed the actions of those to whom it was given, because without it they would not even know what the righteousness of God is. And if it had not been given, neither would we. That would be the knowledge of sin in Rom 7, the power of sin in 1 Cor 15, and the abounding of sin in Rom 5. If the Law had not first been given, the entire NT would have no meaning to us. If the Law were not given and given as Law, nothing would be able to restrain sin in our actions. Yet the Law in itself does not save us but condemns us because it cannot change our sinful hearts of keep us from breaking the Law of God's righteousness that is in the Law.



Compare it to natural laws of the land for a moment. The legal system of a nation may say if you murder you will be punished and punished severely. Does that stop all people from murder? Of course not. But for most it does, even if they would like to murder someone for some reason. The law restrains them, but it does not remove the sinful heart that would like to murder.

So again, you have not proven the words of Calvin to be unbiblical, but simply divorced the two testaments from each other, and not actually paid attention to what Calvin was discussing or what he was saying. You presumed upon it what was not there based on what someone said about it (the book you mention)without observing their comment with critical thinking to see whether or not their argument was put forth with logical fallacies.

Re:

I would need you to present in your own words, as I am not going to go read a book in order to discover what it is you are presenting as an argument against Calvin's third function of the Law, in order to agree or disprove whatever is being suggested. But I will say this, going by the title of the book "No Sanctification by the Law" that Calvin's statement above does not say the Law is what sanctifies us or anyone who was under the Law. Notice in his statement the word "them". Who are the "them"? The one's under the Law. And what did the Law do? Informed them of the righteousness of God which they were to follow which is God's will. And to be obedient to them. It says not one word about sanctification, which is something the Holy Spirit does in actuality in those who are in Christ---and that too through His Word, not outside of it.
 
Why do you quote my post #31 and not respond to it? @Rufus
 
The 1646 confession was more in agreement with scripture than the second version.
Opinion with NO corroborating evidence or any idea given as to what was more in agreement and why. In order for there to be a conversation you would have to present the first version, present the second version, and give your evidence of why the first was more in agreement with scripture and the second was not. How is anyone to dispute or agree with nothing but a flat statement?
 
How is anyone to dispute or agree with nothing but a flat statement?
On these forums, we are pretty good at agreeing and/or disagreeing with just about anything, we'll find a way lol.
 
On these forums, we are pretty good at agreeing and/or disagreeing with just about anything, we'll find a way lol.
:)

That is why so much of it is nothing more that two or more people arguing over nothing more than flat statements, with neither side presenting an actual point, just disagreeing with one another's opinions. Limited edifying, limited learning. limited dealving into and expounding on the word. But it's fun I guess.;)
 
First of all, here Calvin is specifically discussing the value in the Law as to how it functions. It has the same value now as when it was given through Moses to the Israelites. What he is not discussing is the sum total of how we grow in grace. The Mosaic Law still does the same thing as it always did---it reveals the righteousness of God and shows us what mankind is in relation to God's righteousness.


So when someone comes along and says that what Calvin says in his statement is unbiblical because because there are more efficient and effective ways of growing in grace, they ignore what is being said and read into it something which it is not even discussing. It also tends to divorce the two testaments from one another.



Well the first bolded statement is a huge problem that apparently you don't perceive at all. How did the Mosiac Law Covenant work out for Israel!? How many times did Israel come into severe judgment because they broke God's law covenant? In fact, do you know that God told Israel that they were more wicked than the surrounding nations -- pagan nations that did not have the Mosaic written code!?


But the second bolded statement is now getting very close to the crux of the problem with Covenant Theology! The "two testaments" are all but divorced! There is far more discontinuity between the Old and New Covenants than there is continuity. In fact, I came up with about 68 contrasts between the Old and New Covenants several years ago. And I challenge anyone to come up with that kind of number in terms of favorable comparisons! You should take Jer 31:31-32 to heart along with what Jesus taught about the two covenants (Mat 9:17; Mk 2:22; Lk 5:37). The Old and New Covenants are very different! So different that they differ in kind! It's no wonder at all that this warning from Jesus appears in all the Synoptic Gospels. Pouring new wine into old wineskins can only produce disastrous results.


I'll tell ya what: If you believe there is far more continuity between the OC and NC than there is discontinuity, why don't make a list of all those positive comparisons for us and post it here? Then afterwards, I'll post my long list of contrasts.



The Law most certainly curbed the actions of those to whom it was given, because without it they would not even know what the righteousness of God is. And if it had not been given, neither would we. That would be the knowledge of sin in Rom 7, the power of sin in 1 Cor 15, and the abounding of sin in Rom 5. If the Law had not first been given, the entire NT would have no meaning to us. If the Law were not given and given as Law, nothing would be able to restrain sin in our actions. Yet the Law in itself does not save us but condemns us because it cannot change our sinful hearts of keep us from breaking the Law of God's righteousness that is in the Law.


I'm having a really tough time following your logic in the above paragraph. What in the world does having the knowledge of God's righteousness have to do with curbing the actions of the recipients of his law? Your premise contradicts everything Paul taught about the Law! Yes...the Law is good, holy and righteous because indeed it does reflect God's character. But you know what? The law is powerless to change our character! Can the law change the spots on a leopard? Or change the color of the skin on an Ethiopian? Then neither can the letter of the law (that can only KILL) change our rebellious, God-hating hearts. And this is one of the huge differences between the two covenants: The New carries the unilateral promise of sovereign, effectual, supernatural action (a/k/a grace) that can change hearts, whereas the conditional, bitlateral Old offered no such remedy.



Compare it to natural laws of the land for a moment. The legal system of a nation may say if you murder you will be punished and punished severely. Does that stop all people from murder? Of course not. But for most it does, even if they would like to murder someone for some reason. The law restrains them, but it does not remove the sinful heart that would like to murder.

And this is precisely where your analogy breaks down, doesn't it? Yes, man's civil laws has restraining effects because men only look on the outside plus punishment is a lot swifter and surer. Yet, God looks primarily at our hearts. And when he does he sees far, far more "murderers" than civil authorities do! And if you still doubt me, read Paul universal indictment of all mankind in Rom 3:10-17. And if you do, take note of how many sins in that passage don't break man's civil laws! Yet, those laws are part of the universal indictiment against lawbreakers who break a much Higher Law numerous times a day -- lawbreakers whose consciences are so seared and hardened their conscience in many cases don't even accuse them.



So again, you have not proven the words of Calvin to be unbiblical, but simply divorced the two testaments from each other, and not actually paid attention to what Calvin was discussing or what he was saying. You presumed upon it what was not there based on what someone said about it (the book you mention)without observing their comment with critical thinking to see whether or not their argument was put forth with logical fallacies.


I would need you to present in your own words, as I am not going to go read a book in order to discover what it is you are presenting as an argument against Calvin's third function of the Law, in order to agree or disprove whatever is being suggested. But I will say this, going by the title of the book "No Sanctification by the Law" that Calvin's statement above does not say the Law is what sanctifies us or anyone who was under the Law. Notice in his statement the word "them". Who are the "them"? The one's under the Law. And what did the Law do? Informed them of the righteousness of God which they were to follow which is God's will. And to be obedient to them. It says not one word about sanctification, which is something the Holy Spirit does in actuality in those who are in Christ---and that too through His Word, not outside of it.[/quote from Arial]

I merely recommended the book because it goes into far more depth to the three uses than your three little paragraphs do.

Yes, sanctification is by the Spirit and the Word (a/k/a TRUTH). It is TRUTH (not to be confused with Law) that sets us FREE (Jn 8:32) -- something the Law of Moses could never do. In fact, the Law can only enslave us to sin! So, here's one contrast in Jn 1:17: Truth v. Law. Just as Christ is greater than Moses, so, too, is Truth greater than God's Law. Just as there is a qualitiative difference between the Two Greatest Commandments and all God's other commandments put together, so too there is a qualitative difference between Truth and Law.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Arial quoted:

HE THIRD FUNCTION OF THE LAW

For it 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 conform them in this knowledge, and to conform them in this knowledge; just as a servant who desire with all his soul to approve himself to his master.


I would think the power of the Gospel would be "the best instrumenet for enabling" us to learn and ascertain what the will of the Lord is, and the Gospel TRUTH would CONFORM us in this knowledge.
 
@Arial, The Lord brought to mind another passage has considerable bearing on Calvin's three uses, or more specifically how so many Reformed seem to use the Law generally.

Here's the passage with some context:

Rom 2:17-24
17 Now you, if you call yourself a Jew; if you rely on the law and brag about your relationship to God; 18 if you know his will and approve of what is superior because you are instructed by the law; 19 if you are convinced that you are a guide for the blind, a light for those who are in the dark, 20 an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of infants, because you have in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth21 you, then, who teach others, do you not teach yourself? You who preach against stealing, do you steal? 22 You who say that people should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? 23 You who brag about the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law? 24 As it is written: "God's name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you."
NIV

The Jews, too, thought that the Law was the end all and be all of divine revelation. But again, I have to ask: How did that belief work out for them? According to my count, they struck out three times! First Assyria, then Babylon, then Rome.
 
Back
Top