• **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

It seems from this passage that the "best instrument" for the job is the Holy Spirit. Yet, Calvin attributes the work of the Spirit to the Law!
God"s word is law and not a philosophical opinion . His law is called the law of faith. The "let there be" and "it was good law" also referred to as His labor of love.

His word as Law. He lifts it up above all his attributes .He himself subject to His own law

Psalm 138:2I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.
 
No, now you're putting words in my mouth. I never said or even hinted at what you say. Yes, the same God made both covenants but those two covenant administrations are VERY DIFFERENT. Do you understand what "different in kind" means?
We weren't talking about the administration of the two covenants though. We were talking about the purpose of the Mosaic covenant law and how and what we can still learn from it as Christians. I will ignore the snotty insult and just remind you not to think more highly of yourself than you ought.
Newsflash: I do not govern my life by the Mosaic Law because no born again believer is under that law -- no believer is under the authority of that law! I govern it by God's grace and my King's Royal Law (Jas 2:8), which is also known as the Law of Christ (1Cor 9:21; Gal 6:2) which fulfills Isiah's prophecy about messianic law (Isa 42:4, 21).
I am wondering where you got the idea that I was saying such a thing? It is a logical fallacy to base your defense against me on something I never said. Perhaps if you read a post with the purpose of actually understanding what is said, instead of high blown emotional egotism, this conversation would not go so far into left field.
There's no difference! The archaic definition for "testament" is covenant! In fact, the bible itself supports this idea basically dividing the two ages by Old and New or First and Second covenants.
Do you think you are supporting your argument, not by addressing what I said and understanding it, but instead informing me of something I already know, that everyone should know very early in their walk with Jesus? The two books are called old and new covenants because the first contains the old covenant, and the second contains the new covenant. That does not mean that when one says OT they are always referring to the Mosaic covenant. In fact your will find Jesus and the apostles referring to our OT as the Law and the Prophets.
We know what God's will is for our lives by the Gospel which embraces Messianic Law, i.e. Law of Christ. As stated earlier, Israel who had the Law became worse off than the pagans who didn't have it (2Ki 21:9; Ezek 5:6).
What was it about the Mosaic covenant law that made them become worse off? Because it was only written on tablets of stone and not written on their heart. (2 Cor:3:3-18; Jer 31:31-34)
divine law puts no restraints on evil hearts.
It is called a conscience. Where do you think we got a conscience from?
(And I'll add right here that the Law of Moses was never intended to curb evil actions or desires!) Apparently, you haven't gleaned very much from Israel's history who became more wicked than the pagan nations who surrounded them!
You don't think that the Law of Moses curbed evil actions? Curbed does not mean stopped entirely. What I glean from Israel's history, among other things, is that the Law of Moses was doing exactly what it was intended to do. Expose man's sinfulness and their inability to rescue themselves from this condition. And I caution you again, curb the desire to think more highly of yourself than you ought. When you word things from that perspective, you are insiteing contention.
I explained this previously. See Jn 1:17. All law is truth; all truth is not law. And this irrefutable fact makes Truth greater than Law! Just like Gospel Truth is greater than law. Or like Grace is greater than Sin!
John 1:17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.

That in no way says that truth is not also law. It says that the Mosaic law given for one purpose and that purpose was leading to grace and truth through Jesus Christ. The first had to come before the second.. Truth is also God's law but it is written on the heart and mind of the believer, not merely on tablets of stone. Truth is within the Mosaic law as Jesus tried to get across to the Pharisees and Sadducees but they too did not believe.
By the way, if you want to know what the real purposes of God's Mosaic Law Covenant is, I'll be happy to beam those up to this thread. I can tell you, however, they are not Calvin's contrived purposes.
Do as you wish. But if I can counter them, I expect you to pay attention to what I say and consider it instead of just denying it. It would have been appropriate to the conversation to have them in the conversation from the beginning.
 
Gen 1:1 is who God is and it should be the undergirding of every interpretation of everything that follows. I have come to the realization that such a concept is so far from what you do---operating out of proof texts as you do, and being unable to deal with anything more than proof texts given by the person you are arguing with-----that you will not be able to agree that whatever God says and whoever He is. is law for those He creates.
I bet you're not a big fan of the chapter and verse invention that now comprises all versions of the bible, are you? Of course, I use scripture to support my arguments. Don't you know that the Word of God is our only infallible spiritual authority for Faith and Life (2Tim 3:16)? If you disagree with this "proof text" then the onus is on you to make the case that I quoted it out of context. Meanwhile, I make no apologies for having a Berean spirit by careful investigation into the scriptures and by emulating the prophets, apostles and Jesus himself when they very often "proof-texted" the scriptures to make a point or offer commentary by either quoting or alluding to passages.

Now, this brings us back full circle to Gen 1:1 and the reason I cited it. You claimed ALL scripture is God's law. But how can this be since most of scripture does not consist of imperatives? And since Gen 1:1 is in the indicative mood (a/k/a descriptive statement opposed to a prescriptive one), then I have just falsified your rather ulta-simplistic claim. The fact of the matter is that scripture comes in all shapes and sizes (genres and types). Yes, there are many imperatives in scripture in addition to indicatives, didactic, allegorical, analogical, poetical, prophetic, apocalyptic genres and even combinations thereof, etc.

Since you believe all scripture is God's law, then you must also believe that Gen 2:2-3 is a creation mandate that was given to Adam and all his posterity, right?
 
God"s word is law and not a philosophical opinion . His law is called the law of faith. The "let there be" and "it was good law" also referred to as His labor of love.

His word as Law. He lifts it up above all his attributes .He himself subject to His own law

Psalm 138:2I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.
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 bet you're not a big fan of the chapter and verse invention that now comprises all versions of the bible, are you? Of course, I use scripture to support my arguments. Don't you know that the Word of God is our only infallible spiritual authority for Faith and Life (2Tim 3:16)? If you disagree with this "proof text" then the onus is on you to make the case that I quoted it out of context. Meanwhile, I make no apologies for having a Berean spirit by careful investigation into the scriptures and by emulating the prophets, apostles and Jesus himself when they very often "proof-texted" the scriptures to make a point or offer commentary by either quoting or alluding to passages.

Now, this brings us back full circle to Gen 1:1 and the reason I cited it. You claimed ALL scripture is God's law. But how can this be since most of scripture does not consist of imperatives? And since Gen 1:1 is in the indicative mood (a/k/a descriptive statement opposed to a prescriptive one), then I have just falsified your rather ulta-simplistic claim. The fact of the matter is that scripture comes in all shapes and sizes (genres and types). Yes, there are many imperatives in scripture in addition to indicatives, didactic, allegorical, analogical, poetical, prophetic, apocalyptic genres and even combinations thereof, etc.

Since you believe all scripture is God's law, then you must also believe that Gen 2:2-3 is a creation mandate that was given to Adam and all his posterity, right?

God's Law and the Christian A new OP I started in Apologetics. You can find my view and scripture support there.


I am not going over this again with one who posts with self aggrandizement and contempt of others the way you do, and to keep doing that is a good way to start having warnings issued against you.
 
Arial:
We weren't talking about the administration of the two covenants though. We were talking about the purpose of the Mosaic covenant law and how and what we can still learn from it as Christians. I will ignore the snotty insult and just remind you not to think more highly of yourself than you ought.

Oh, well that's simple. ONE of the purposes of the Mosaic covenant was to lead us to Christ (Gal 3:24).


Rufus said:
Newsflash: I do not govern my life by the Mosaic Law because no born again believer is under that law -- no believer is under the authority of that law! I govern it by God's grace and my King's Royal Law (Jas 2:8), which is also known as the Law of Christ (1Cor 9:21; Gal 6:2) which fulfills Isiah's prophecy about messianic law (Isa 42:4, 21).


I am wondering where you got the idea that I was saying such a thing? It is a logical fallacy to base your defense against me on something I never said. Perhaps if you read a post with the purpose of actually understanding what is said, instead of high blown emotional egotism, this conversation would not go so far into left field.

Well, since you apparently give hearty approval to Calvin's three [unbiblical] uses of the Law, I just surmised as much.

Rufus said:
There's no difference! The archaic definition for "testament" is covenant! In fact, the bible itself supports this idea basically dividing the two ages by Old and New or First and Second covenants.


Do you think you are supporting your argument, not by addressing what I said and understanding it, but instead informing me of something I already know, that everyone should know very early in their walk with Jesus? The two books are called old and new covenants because the first contains the old covenant, and the second contains the new covenant. That does not mean that when one says OT they are always referring to the Mosaic covenant. In fact your will find Jesus and the apostles referring to our OT as the Law and the Prophets.

I would suggest a more prudent and careful choice of words then, otherwise you could easily be misunderstood.

\Rufus said:
We know what God's will is for our lives by the Gospel which embraces Messianic Law, i.e. Law of Christ. As stated earlier, Israel who had the Law became worse off than the pagans who didn't have it (2Ki 21:9; Ezek 5:6).


What was it about the Mosaic covenant law that made them become worse off? Because it was only written on tablets of stone and not written on their heart. (2 Cor:3:3-18; Jer 31:31-34)

Which goes to the heart of one of my main biblical points about how the NC is UNLIKE the Old, doesn't it? And what you have stated above is just the tip of that iceberg!

[i\]Rufus said:
divine law puts no restraints on evil hearts.[/i]

It is called a conscience. Where do you think we got a conscience from?

But the problem with sinners' consciences is that they too are as DEPRAVED, as are all their other faculties. (You do believe in the doctrine of Total Depravity, right?) People who live in sin will invariably develop seared, calloused or hardened consciences. We have plenty of proof of this fact from scripture. Do I need to prove this point to you?

Rufus said:
(And I'll add right here that the Law of Moses was never intended to curb evil actions or desires!) Apparently, you haven't gleaned very much from Israel's history who became more wicked than the pagan nations who surrounded them!


You don't think that the Law of Moses curbed evil actions? Curbed does not mean stopped entirely. What I glean from Israel's history, among other things, is that the Law of Moses was doing exactly what it was intended to do. Expose man's sinfulness and their inability to rescue themselves from this condition. And I caution you again, curb the desire to think more highly of yourself than you ought. When you word things from that perspective, you are insiteing contention.

But your chosen term "curb" is synonymous with "restrain". So, no, I don't think the Law of Moses "curbed evil actions"! To the contrary! The Law, generally, AROUSED SINFUL PASSIONS (Rom 7:5; Tit 3:3) because the flesh (sin nature) is much more powerful than the Law (Rom 8:3). Your religious philosophy regarding the purpose of the law contradicts scripture on multiple levels, I might add.

Rufus said:
I explained this previously. See Jn 1:17. All law is truth; all truth is not law. And this irrefutable fact makes Truth greater than Law! Just like Gospel Truth is greater than law. Or like Grace is greater than Sin!


John 1:17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.

That in no way says that truth is not also law. It says that the Mosaic law given for one purpose and that purpose was leading to grace and truth through Jesus Christ. The first had to come before the second.. Truth is also God's law but it is written on the heart and mind of the believer, not merely on tablets of stone. Truth is within the Mosaic law as Jesus tried to get across to the Pharisees and Sadducees but they too did not believe.

Wow! That's reading a lot into Jn 1:17. I don't see any"purposes" stated or implied in the passage. But be that as it may, if you're using Jn 1:17 as the basis for your argument, then neither does the text say that the truth is law. We must draw upon other passages that does teach that.

But if you're going by my maxim, then again, you're putting words in my mouth. I never said or implied what I just bolded above. In fact, how doesn't the first part of my maxim say exactly what you claim I did not say!? All law is certainly God's truth! And the second part of my maxim, "all truth is not law" is not same as what you said in the bolded part. I clearly said "ALL TRUTH is NOT law". And I made my point with Gen 1:1. In fact, I could prove the point thousands of times over in scripture if I had the time and a mind to do so. Is Jn 1:1 "law"? How 'bout Jn 1:2? Or how 'bout Jn 1:3 or 4 or 5 or 6, etc.? When I say that "all truth is not law", this is just a way of saying that truth consists of more than just imperatives, commands or injunctions that speak to our spiritual/moral obligations to God.

Rufus said:
By the way, if you want to know what the real purposes of God's Mosaic Law Covenant is, I'll be happy to beam those up to this thread. I can tell you, however, they are not Calvin's contrived purposes.


Do as you wish. But if I can counter them, I expect you to pay attention to what I say and consider it instead of just denying it. It would have been appropriate to the conversation to have them in the conversation from the beginning.

I'll find them and beam them up, providing you commit to "countering" them with scripture. Religious ideas or religious philosophies, I'm not interested in. The world is filled with that rubbish. And none of us should be partakers with the devil's world, should we?
 
Are you suggesting that is Calvin's belief in his comments of the function of the Law? Or that it is mine? Or it is that of Reformed theology? Surely not. So what is your point?
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.
 

God's Law and the Christian A new OP I started in Apologetics. You can find my view and scripture support there.


I am not going over this again with one who posts with self aggrandizement and contempt of others the way you do, and to keep doing that is a good way to start having warnings issued against you.
No need to get your nose all bent out of shape. I merely was biblically defending my use of proof-texting my arguments of which, you are quite dismissive. It seems like you are taking this thread in a very personal way. Maybe you should step back for a cooling off period. Just sayin... :coffee:
 
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?
Well for beginners, CT is loaded with assumptions and/or quite a bit of interpretation using the eisegetical method. I mean...where is this supposed Adamic Covenant in scripture? Or where is the creation mandate for the sabbath that was given to Adam? Or where is this three-fold division of the Law? Or where is all this supposed continuity between the Old and New Covenants that pretty much implies that the latter covenant is mere a "newer" version of the former -- that the new is but an an addendum to the old? These are important questions and how we answer them could lead us into some pretty serious error -- like legalism, for example.
 
Can you provide any NT references that give us a command to obey Mosaic Law as a moral imperative today? Just 1 or 2 will suffice.
No, because I never made such a claim.

Can you also provide any NT Scripture that says the Mosaic Covenant Law sanctifies us in righteousness?
No, because I never made such a claim.
Then what did you mean by the following? Care to elaborate?
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.

God says in the new covenant He will write His laws on our heart. Do you think that means the Mosaic covenant law if it is a new covenant?
No. What "Law" (singular) do you think God is writing on our hearts?

You seem to say above that Mosaic Covenant Law sanctifies us in righteousness, correct?
I have tried to help you to see that when the word law is used it is not confined to the Mosaic covenant law. That in the covenant that Law was a teaching tool. (Gal 3:13-25) You do not seem to understand what the Mosaic Law is teaching about God and about our obligation to Him, or to understand that it is not just a set of arbitrary rules set by an angry God. But rather within it is the very character of God and the very character of God is what we are to be obedient to as His creatures and image bearers. And it is also as though you see man and God as equals in a cooperative relationship.
You must be thinking of someone else you've dealt with. Or this is the standard jargon to follow upon your previous insinuation of antinomianism.

You posted among other things an excerpt of Calvin's Third Use of the Law. Do you agree with him that the Mosaic Law, or part of the Mosaic Law is for the progressive sanctification of Christians - "The Law acts like a whip to the flesh, urging it on as men do a lazy sluggish ass."
I am not responding to the first part of your post, as it seems designed only for button pushing and put downs, except to say, that you complain about me giving great blocks of scripture or saying something would take a thesis on the whole Bible, to answer your questions. As though you do not even understand this. And are another that supports what they say with "proof texts" isolated from their surrounding context as well as the full counsel of God (all the teaching within the Bible on the same subject, keeping the truth given consistent and never contradictory)and with no exegesis of the text, and expect others to do the same. The quick fix in other words, with no concern or interest in doing the work necessary to arrive at actual truth, and no interest in reading or listening to anyone else do such work, or with where that work arrives.
Actually, I noted that you opted out of answering simple questions, simply, by referring me to multiple chapters of Scripture and then suggesting you'd have to write a thesis to answer one question.

If you'd care to get into any exegesis of Scripture to make a point you're attempting to make, please do.

If you think I've referenced a Scripture out of context, please provide an example and explain why you think this.
I don't proof text to support what I say.
Why, then, should anyone accept what you say?
And I don't do someone else's work for them once I have figured out they just want to argue, not learn or investigate or converse, and will give no consideration to what I present.
You're quick to judge. The fact that I responded to you almost line by line shows I considered what you said. The fact that I questioned some or much of what you said is just wanting to argue? I think you'll find if you have the ability and desire to continue discussion that you'll have no need to do any work for me and that I have many years of learning and investigation behind me.
I began the conversation throwing light on what Calvin had said about the Law as that was what was being asked in your case, and what was being misunderstood by another. And I do not know if the obtuseness concerning what I have said is genuine or simply the way you and some others, argue---with the logical fallacy of misstating or misrepresenting what I say and arguing as though that is what I really said.
Actually, I began discussion with you asking one question which you answered. The problem seems to be that you say things and then don't like to or cannot back them up with Scripture.

Again, you're quick to judge. Disagreement and "obtuseness" are not the same thing.

Please provide one example of logical fallacy or misrepresentation of what you've said.


I'm still waiting for an answer to the below. Do you actually think the Law saves or would you like to retract this?
But the Law written on tablets cannot save. It must be written in our hearts
So, the Law saves when written on hearts?
 
Well for beginners, CT is loaded with assumptions and/or quite a bit of interpretation using the eisegetical method.
Maybe it is you who uses an eisegetical method. You would need to show them doing that.
I mean...where is this supposed Adamic Covenant in scripture?
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
Or where is the creation mandate for the sabbath that was given to Adam?
I don't know how covenant theology addresses that but God did pronounce the seventh day holy.
Or where is this three-fold division of the Law?
Threefold function not division. Don't state things because it is in your favor when it is not a fact.
Or where is all this supposed continuity between the Old and New Covenants
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.
Or where is all this supposed continuity between the Old and New Covenants that pretty much implies that the latter covenant is mere a "newer" version of the former -- that the new is but an an addendum to the old? These are important questions and how we answer them could lead us into some pretty serious error -- like legalism, for example.
Don't make yourself look foolish by fighting with such straw men. That is not remotely what covenant theology states.
 
No need to get your nose all bent out of shape. I merely was biblically defending my use of proof-texting my arguments of which, you are quite dismissive. It seems like you are taking this thread in a very personal way. Maybe you should step back for a cooling off period. Just sayin... :coffee:
I told you what proof texting is. Why do you ignore that? Do you think that for example I can take 1 Tim 2:4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. Which people do ALL THE TIME btw, and make an entire doctrine out of it--even though it is the middle of a sentence, isolated from its surrounding text, and removed from the whole counsel of God? That is proof texting.

Another thing that is common is when all the straw men are knocked down, and a person runs out of straw men and never had any valid arguments, they accuse the opponent of taking things in a personal way, telling them maybe they should step back and cool off. The last straw man they have in the ranks.
 
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.
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.
 
Rufus said:
Newsflash: I do not govern my life by the Mosaic Law because no born again believer is under that law -- no believer is under the authority of that law! I govern it by God's grace and my King's Royal Law (Jas 2:8), which is also known as the Law of Christ (1Cor 9:21; Gal 6:2) which fulfills Isiah's prophecy about messianic law (Isa 42:4, 21).



Well, since you apparently give hearty approval to Calvin's three [unbiblical] uses of the Law, I just surmised as much.

Rufus said:
There's no difference! The archaic definition for "testament" is covenant! In fact, the bible itself supports this idea basically dividing the two ages by Old and New or First and Second covenants.
You don't listen to a single thing that is said to you do you?
I would suggest a more prudent and careful choice of words then, otherwise you could easily be misunderstood.
What would you have me call them your honor since they are titled the Old Testament and the New Testament? :rolleyes:
Which goes to the heart of one of my main biblical points about how the NC is UNLIKE the Old, doesn't it? And what you have stated above is just the tip of that iceberg!
I never said they were alike. Your straw me are begging for a break. Even they are embarrassed.
But the problem with sinners' consciences is that they too are as DEPRAVED, as are all their other faculties. (You do believe in the doctrine of Total Depravity, right?) People who live in sin will invariably develop seared, calloused or hardened consciences. We have plenty of proof of this fact from scripture. Do I need to prove this point to you?
That does not change the fact that we have a conscience. Which is all I said.
But your chosen term "curb" is synonymous with "restrain". So, no, I don't think the Law of Moses "curbed evil actions"! To the contrary! The Law, generally, AROUSED SINFUL PASSIONS (Rom 7:5; Tit 3:3) because the flesh (sin nature) is much more powerful than the Law (Rom 8:3). Your religious philosophy regarding the purpose of the law contradicts scripture on multiple levels, I might add.
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.
But if you're going by my maxim, then again, you're putting words in my mouth. I never said or implied what I just bolded above. In fact, how doesn't the first part of my maxim say exactly what you claim I did not say!? All law is certainly God's truth! And the second part of my maxim, "all truth is not law" is not same as what you said in the bolded part. I clearly said "ALL TRUTH is NOT law". And I made my point with Gen 1:1. In fact, I could prove the point thousands of times over in scripture if I had the time and a mind to do so. Is Jn 1:1 "law"? How 'bout Jn 1:2? Or how 'bout Jn 1:3 or 4 or 5 or 6, etc.? When I say that "all truth is not law", this is just a way of saying that truth consists of more than just imperatives, commands or injunctions that speak to our spiritual/moral obligations to God.
Because you claim truth surpasses law. If all you mean is what you say above then "it would be prudent" to find a better way of expressing it.
 
You don't listen to a single thing that is said to you do you?

What would you have me call them your honor since they are titled the Old Testament and the New Testament? :rolleyes:

I never said they were alike. Your straw me are begging for a break. Even they are embarrassed.

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

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.

Because you claim truth surpasses law. If all you mean is what you say above then "it would be prudent" to find a better way of expressing it.
Well...the Old and New Testaments are synonymous phrases for Old and New Covenants, which was kinda my point.

And, yes, since Truth is not synonymous with Law, then the former is qualitatively different from and better than the latter for the simple reason that it embraces much more than just law. All the indicatives in scripture alone can tell us appreciably more about God and ourselves than just imperatives can. Jn 3:16, as an example, is an indicative passage that tells us things about God's nature that his law alone could not.

P.S. If you avail yourself of a good dictionary (mine is M-W Collegiate) and look up the term "law" you'll find several synonyms listed for this term; however you will not find "truth" listed among them. Just some food for thought.
 
Last edited:
On these forums, we are pretty good at agreeing and/or disagreeing with just about anything, we'll find a way lol.
I don't agree ... *giggle*
 
I told you what proof texting is. Why do you ignore that? Do you think that for example I can take 1 Tim 2:4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. Which people do ALL THE TIME btw, and make an entire doctrine out of it--even though it is the middle of a sentence, isolated from its surrounding text, and removed from the whole counsel of God? That is proof texting.

Another thing that is common is when all the straw men are knocked down, and a person runs out of straw men and never had any valid arguments, they accuse the opponent of taking things in a personal way, telling them maybe they should step back and cool off. The last straw man they have in the ranks.
No, you can't. Which is why when someone erroneously uses a text like 1Tim 2:4, then that person should be called out on it. After all, all scripture can only be rightly understood in its three-fold context: Immediate (the surrounding verses to any given passage), the Intermediate (the larger context of the particular book in which a passage is found) and finally the Remote (the largest context of any book outside the book of the passage under consideration. But that doesn't mean that proof-texting still isn't a valid way of supporting doctrine, arguments, etc. It just means that the one doing the proof-texting should be honest and well-informed enough to use that method, and it also means that anyone with an opposing position is free to refute how the passage is used. As stated previously, the usage of proof-texting throughout scripture by the prophets, the apostles and Jesus supports my use of it. For example, I can go to the other "extreme" and quote Jn 1:1 to prove the incarnation of Christ because the text pretty much stands alone. The only real way to wiggle out of what it's teaching is do what the JWs do with it.
 
No. What "Law" (singular) do you think God is writing on our hearts?
His law "be like Me." Which is implied when He created us in His image and likeness. His moral character.
You seem to say above that Mosaic Covenant Law sanctifies us in righteousness, correct?
NO I AM NOT! How many times have I said it does not sanctify us? Pay attention to what you read.
You must be thinking of someone else you've dealt with. Or this is the standard jargon to follow upon your previous insinuation of antinomianism.
I believe you are responding to a post I made to @Rufus. And watch your personal insults. I did not insinuate your were antinomianist. I asked if you were.
You posted among other things an excerpt of Calvin's Third Use of the Law. Do you agree with him that the Mosaic Law, or part of the Mosaic Law is for the progressive sanctification of Christians - "The Law acts like a whip to the flesh, urging it on as men do a lazy sluggish ass."
I already addressed that?
Actually, I noted that you opted out of answering simple questions, simply, by referring me to multiple chapters of Scripture and then suggesting you'd have to write a thesis to answer one question.
And I think you are confusing yourself with Rufus which would mean sock puppets. This is how he responded to that post. If I find out, and I can, that is what is going on both your personalities will be gone.
Why, then, should anyone accept what you say?
You and @Rufus have the exact same misconception of what a "proof text" is. I support what I say with scripture, I don't proof text it with one liners taken out of context. And no one has to accept what I say but decency would at least have them listen and address.
You're quick to judge. The fact that I responded to you almost line by line shows I considered what you said. The fact that I questioned some or much of what you said is just wanting to argue? I think you'll find if you have the ability and desire to continue discussion that you'll have no need to do any work for me and that I have many years of learning and investigation behind me.
Responding line by line does not mean you considered what I said. In fact most of showed you did not even understand it as it was stated back to me with a completely different meaning. And if someone ask questions that cannot be answered with a "proof text", as you do, but would take exegesis of several parts of the Bible and multiple sets of scriptures---does not even know what the work is, let alone do it.
Actually, I began discussion with you asking one question which you answered. The problem seems to be that you say things and then don't like to or cannot back them up with Scripture.
Give me an example of where I did that. And please, if you do so put it in a post of its own with the reason you giving it, and don't tack it onto a post that is already as long as this one is. I never say something I can't back up with scripture. It would be the height of foolishness to do so.
Again, you're quick to judge. Disagreement and "obtuseness" are not the same thing.
I know they aren't. That is why I said obtuseness instead of disagreement.
Please provide one example of logical fallacy or misrepresentation of what you've said.
There is one in this very post. It will be the one that begins NO I AM NOT!
I'm still waiting for an answer to the below. Do you actually think the Law saves or would you like to retract this?
And there is another example of a logical fallacy. You are waiting for me to answer a question about something I did not say, and have said on a number of occasions that the Law cannot save us. You even quoted me saying it after you asked this question.
 
A work in progress. Comments and observations welcome. My comments in italics. The highlights in Calvin's text are mine:

From Calvin Institutes: John Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion - Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org)

CHAPTER 8.

EXPOSITION OF THE MORAL LAW.​

This chapter consists of four parts. I. Some general observations necessary for the understanding of the subject are made by way of preface, sec. 1–5. II. Three things always to be attended to in ascertaining and expounding the meaning of the Moral Law, sec. 6–12. III. Exposition of the Moral Law, or the Ten Commandments, sec. 13–15. IV. The end for which the whole Law is intended—viz. to teach not only elementary principles, but perfection, sec. 51, to the end of the chapter.

  • We can see above that Calvin identifies the Ten Commandments from Mosaic Law as what he refers to as the "Moral Law".
  • For clarity, since Calvin identifies the Ten Commandments as the “Moral Law”, rather than use “Moral Law”, I’m going to use “the Ten Commandments” or the abbreviation, “10C”’

CHAPTER 7.

THE LAW GIVEN, NOT TO RETAIN A PEOPLE FOR ITSELF, BUT TO KEEP ALIVE THE HOPE OF SALVATION IN CHRIST UNTIL HIS ADVENT.​

The divisions of this chapter are, I. The Moral and Ceremonial Law a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ, sec. 1, 2. II. This true of the Moral Law, especially its conditional promises. These given for the best reasons. In what respect the observance of the Moral Law is said to be impossible, sec. 3–5. III. Of the threefold office and use of the Moral Law, sec. 6–12. Antinomians refuted, sec. 13. IV. What the abrogation of the Law, Moral and Ceremonial, sec. 14–17.
  • Since we’re discussing Calvin’s third use of the Law presented in Book 2, Chapter 7, Section 12, we can see just above that this Section 12 concerns the Moral Law, so the 10C. Therefore, when Calvin says "Law", I'm going to interpret this as the 10C.
Calvin Section 12:

12. The third use of the Law (being also the principal use, and more closely connected with its proper end) has respect to believers in whose hearts the Spirit of God already flourishes and reigns.
  • My observations:
    • Calvin is saying the principal use of the 10C and the proper end (or purpose, goal) of the 10C pertains to Christians, Justifed persons in whose hearts the Spirit of God already flourishes and reigns.
    • So, it seems according to Calvin the principal use of the 10C is for the progressive sanctification of Christians.
For although the Law is written and engraven on their hearts by the finger of God, that is, although they are so influenced and actuated by the Spirit, that they desire to obey God, there are two ways in which they still profit in the Law.
  • My observations:
    • God writes the 10C on the hearts of Christians = the Spirit influences and actuates the Christian > the Christian desires to obey God > there are two more ways the Christian profits in the 10C
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 confirm them in this knowledge;
  • My observations:
    • The first of the two more ways Christians with the 10C written on their hearts = the Spirit has influenced and actuated the Christian to desire to obey God, profit from the 10C is:
      • The 10C is the best instrument for enabling the Christian daily to learn with greater truth and certainty what the will of the Lord is which they aspire to follow, and to confirm the Christian in this knowledge.
Remaining Section 12:
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.

Then, because we need not doctrine merely, but exhortation also, the servant of God will derive this further advantage from the Law: by frequently meditating upon it, he will be excited to obedience, and confirmed in it, and so drawn away from the slippery paths of sin. In this way must the saints press onward, since, however great the alacrity with which, under the Spirit, they hasten toward righteousness, they are retarded by the sluggishness of the flesh, and make less progress than they ought. The Law acts like a whip to the flesh, urging it on as men do a lazy sluggish ass. Even in the case of a spiritual man, inasmuch as he is still burdened with the weight of the flesh, the Law is a constant stimulus, pricking him forward when he would indulge in sloth. David had this use in view when he pronounced this high eulogium on the Law, “The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple. The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes,” (Ps. 19:7, 8). Again, “Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path,” (Ps. 119:105). The whole psalm abounds in passages to the same effect. Such passages are not inconsistent with those of Paul, which show not the utility of the law to the regenerate, but what it is able of itself to bestow. The object of the Psalmist is to celebrate the advantages which the Lord, by means of his law, bestows on those whom he inwardly inspires with a love of obedience. And he adverts not to the mere precepts, but also to the promise annexed to them, which alone makes that sweet which in itself is bitter. For what is less attractive than the law, when, by its demands and threatening, it overawes the soul, and 310fills it with terror? David specially shows that in the law he saw the Mediator, without whom it gives no pleasure or delight.
 
Back
Top