Predestination destroys legalism

[prism]

Where would you place it? In Central Park, maybe?

Sounds like a real New Yawkah. lol

You had stated "The Mosaic Law Covenant was a law-works covenant; whereas the New Covenant is a covenant of Grace and Truth."

I responded with 'then where would you place the Abrahamic Covenant?'

Now I need to ask, 'What is the difference between the Abrahamic Covenant and what you call 'a covenant of Grace and Truth'?

What I mean is isn't the Abrahamic Covenant a covenant of grace and truth'?

 

[Rufus]

Sounds like a real New Yawkah. lol

You had stated "The Mosaic Law Covenant was a law-works covenant; whereas the New Covenant is a covenant of Grace and Truth."

I responded with 'then where would you place the Abrahamic Covenant?'

Now I need to ask, 'What is the difference between the Abrahamic Covenant and what you call 'a covenant of Grace and Truth'?

What I mean is isn't the Abrahamic Covenant a covenant of grace and truth'?

Absolutely! Bred and born there....until I moved south <g>.

The Abrahamic Covenant is a gracious promise that basically involves two categories of people: The physical lineage of Abraham and the spiritual lineage of the patriarch. The Mosaic Covenant fulfilled the temporal, physical promises with the natural seed, the land, etc. Whereas the New Covenant fulfills the spiritual, eternal aspects of, i.e. whereby God often promised to bless all the nations through Abraham and ultimately through the one messianic seed -- Christ. So, the major difference between the Abrahamic and NC is that the latter fulfills the former.

Another difference between the Abrahamic, OC and NC is that the latter two are redemptive covenants. The OC is a type of spiritual redemption because Israel's redemption was a physical and temporary one, whereas the NC redemption is spiritual and eternal.

 

[Arial]

Rufus said:
Really? So you think all "moral" rule is embodied in the Ten Words, do you? You think God taught all we need to know about his holy, righteous character in the Ten? Where is fornication forbidden? Or bestiality? Or homosexuality? Or pedophilia? Or any of sins of the tongue? Or about a man's duty to help another pull his fallen ox up to his feet?



Maybe you should your own advice. Here's what you wrote in 85:


(emphasis mine)

This, of course, is a patently false statement. There are many "moral" laws stated in the OT and New,for that matter, that are NOT found in the Ten. You have made the false dichotomy between "law" and "Law". With one of these supposedly representing the "moral code" in the Ten.

And so, what about all the OTHER "MORAL" laws that are not in the Ten? Wouldn't that mean that the ancient Jews and even us today have the liberty to lie, for example, providing we're not bearing false witness against our neighbor? What about lying for gain? Or for self-promotion?

Rufus said:
Finally, which covenant do you think best expressed God's righteousness: The Old or the New? Meditate on the following passage and then I'd like to hear your answer:



You have a short memory for you did say:



Therefore, my question was pertinent. Apparently, "the Law" (not sure what you mean by the big L) was not the only means used by God to teach us about his righteousness. So, why don't you take a shot at the question?

Rufus said:
So, Calvin, was writing in the NC era. In CT, EVERYONE was given the "law", even though scripture clearly teaches that the law was given only to the Jews.


[emphasis mine)

Your own words will betray your lack of reading comprehension. "Was" as in the past tense, right? So, how come Calvin wrote in the present tense! If Calvin was discussing the past -- then why didn't he write in the past tense? Here's the quote again. Listen up, please and take very careful note of all the PRESENT TENSE verbs he uses, which I'll put in bold.



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; 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.

But this even gets better. Calvin, after all, was writing to the Church, generally, or more specifically to the French persecuted church of his day. This was his primary audience. So, with this in mind, here he is again:

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.

He clearly was binding the conscience of his audience by telling them basically that they should not exempt themselves from doing what others have done -- calling it a NECESSITY. His audience, too, (and Calvin himself) must use this "best instrument" that would also enable them daily to learn with greater truth and certainty. And why must the church (and Calvin) use this tool? So that like the slave in his analogy, they too may COMPORT in accommodation to their Master's disposition (as revealed through the master's law, of course).



Pot calling the kettle black. Classic!

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. 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. 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; 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.

Calvin is not saying what you are trying to make him say. You act as though the Law lost all its benefit and is no longer something that needs to be pondered, even though it is God's word.

It is the Old covenant Law that we find out how HOLY God is for one thing. So Holy if a sinful man touches what is holy, God strike Him dead on the spot. So holy only one man from one tribe from one lineage could enter the Holy of Holies and only once a year, for the sake of the people. He wore bells on the bottom of his garment so those outside would know if God had struck him dead or not. In the law, we see our own transgressions and weaknesses and hopelessness apart from Christ, for we fall short as often as the Israelites did. We are as unfaithful as they were. And we find so much to be grateful for. Don't be the sluggish ass Calvin speaks of.

 

[Rufus]

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. 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. 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; 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.

Calvin is not saying what you are trying to make him say. You act as though the Law lost all its benefit and is no longer something that needs to be pondered, even though it is God's word.

It is the Old covenant Law that we find out how HOLY God is for one thing. So Holy if a sinful man touches what is holy, God strike Him dead on the spot. So holy only one man from one tribe from one lineage could enter the Holy of Holies and only once a year, for the sake of the people. He wore bells on the bottom of his garment so those outside would know if God had struck him dead or not. In the law, we see our own transgressions and weaknesses and hopelessness apart from Christ, for we fall short as often as the Israelites did. We are as unfaithful as they were. And we find so much to be grateful for. Don't be the sluggish ass Calvin speaks of.

Yeah, Calvin was saying exactly what GDL and I have been saying. But the fact is that the law or Law is not the best instrument or ENABLING anything -- unless, of course, we're talking how it enables the sinful passions in us! Grace and Truth that came by Christ are the BEST instruments -- just like the Cross of Christ is an infinitely better indicator of God's righteousness; for Christ's Cross work goes well beyond the imperatives of either of your laws. And here's why: In the law (or Law), whichever one floats your boat, God talked the talk. But when God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, Christ not only kept both sets of your laws, but he had to take on the sins of the elect and pay the penalty for all their sins, clearly demonstrating that grace and mercy had a huge "price tag" on them, and that neither of these could have ever been granted to anyone at the expense of his righteous JUSTICE. So...at the Cross, God in Christ WALKED his LAW talk. He actually lived it and paid its penalty which was death for the disobedience of others, yet! Christ's atoning work, therefore, is an infinitely better demonstration of God's righteousness -- a righteousness that was demonstrated APART from either of your set of laws. It's no wonder at all that the writer of Hebrews expounded on the superiority of the NC over the Old because of the former's better promises.

There is absolutely nothing in the Old Covenant that is superior to all the promises in the New -- and that includes Calvin's three unbiblical uses of the law or was it Law?

 

[gdl]

And not answered.

Thus, my closing statement in the same post.

I'll wait to see where this might go between you three.

 

[gdl]

I would think once was all that was needed

No disagreement. Simply an acknowledgement of the reference.

 

[Mr GLee]

You do know that the term "law" has different meanings, depending on the context in which the term is found? Law can mean the Pentateuch or it can mean the entire OT (Pentateuch, Writings, Prophets). But neither the ancient Jews or even the religious Jews of today , ever thought of the term "law" as being only the Ten Commandments. In fact, that is not even taught in the bible either. That would be a totally foreign concept to the bible and to both classes of Jews.

Different meaning same law as it is writen

It might be totally foreign to a Jew but it is a doctrine of God. 10 represents the whole written on both sides with no room for the oral traditions of dying mankind.

The first tablets hewn out and writen by the finger of God. God had Moses destroy them and had Moses hew out two tablets then again with the finger of God He wrote the same 10 to show the work of a apostles sent with word from the finger of God .

 

[prism]

Absolutely! Bred and born there....until I moved south <g>.

The Abrahamic Covenant is a gracious promise that basically involves two categories of people: The physical lineage of Abraham and the spiritual lineage of the patriarch. The Mosaic Covenant fulfilled the temporal, physical promises with the natural seed, the land, etc. Whereas the New Covenant fulfills the spiritual, eternal aspects of, i.e. whereby God often promised to bless all the nations through Abraham and ultimately through the one messianic seed -- Christ. So, the major difference between the Abrahamic and NC is that the latter fulfills the former.

Another difference between the Abrahamic, OC and NC is that the latter two are redemptive covenants. The OC is a type of spiritual redemption because Israel's redemption was a physical and temporary one, whereas the NC redemption is spiritual and eternal.

I didn't realize one could make a differentiation between the physical and spiritual lineage of Abraham.
It seems a bit forced The Mosaic Covenant was a conditional covenant, while the Abrahamic' was unconditional.

So, the major difference between the Abrahamic and NC is that the latter fulfills the former.

That sounds more like a similarity, than a difference.

 

[Rufus]

Different meaning same law as it is writen

It might be totally foreign to a Jew but it is a doctrine of God. 10 represents the whole written on both sides with no room for the oral traditions of dying mankind.

The first tablets hewn out and writen by the finger of God. God had Moses destroy them and had Moses hew out two tablets then again with the finger of God He wrote the same 10 to show the work of a apostles sent with word from the finger of God .

It's not the doctrine of the bible either. The 10 represent a tiny fraction of the 613. Do a study sometime and see how "law" is used in the NT. It is used just as I stated earlier and the religious Jews to this very day use it the same way the bible does! The term "law" can be used to refer to any or all the books of the OT, or to just the Pentateuch.

Now, I have a question for you, if you don't mind: Can you point to the place in the OT wherein the "covenant of the 10" was ratified in blood?

 

[Mr GLee]

It's not the doctrine of the bible either. The 10 represent a tiny fraction of the 613. Do a study sometime and see how "law" is used in the NT. It is used just as I stated earlier and the religious Jews to this very day use it the same way the bible does! The term "law" can be used to refer to any or all the books of the OT, or to just the Pentateuch.

Now, I have a question for you, if you don't mind: Can you point to the place in the OT wherein the "covenant of the 10" was ratified in blood?

ten represent the one whole law represented by 10 . Ten is used as a metaphor in parables like hundred or thousand . 10 to one the whole

Two below refers to unity. He sends them out two by two

Matthew 20:24 And when the ten heard it, they were moved with indignation against the two brethren.

Ten to represent the whole

Matthew 25:1 Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom.

Luke 17:12 And as he entered into a certain village, there met him ten men that were lepers, which stood afar off:

Luke 17:17 And Jesus answering said, Were there not ten cleansed? but where are the nine?

Ten is used that way to represent one or whole in many parables. . . that hide the gospel understanding.form those who refuse to rightly divide the parables.

 

[Arial]

There is absolutely nothing in the Old Covenant that is superior to all the promises in the New -- and that includes Calvin's three unbiblical uses of the law or was it Law?

No one said there was ---and you have not shown them to be unbiblical, only that you don't like them and order to come against them must grossly distort what is being said.

Do you not realize the importance of knowing God, knowing who He is, not only for our lives and duty, but even for correct interpretation of His word? ANd do you know where He revealed HImself most thoroughly and vividly? In the OT BOOK, and most explicitly through the Mosaic Law. The NT BOOK reveals the mysteries of the OT BOOK.

 

[Mr GLee]

No one said there was ---and you have not shown them to be unbiblical, only that you don't like them and order to come against them must grossly distort what is being said.

Do you not realize the importance of knowing God, knowing who He is, not only for our lives and duty, but even for correct interpretation of His word? ANd do you know where He revealed HImself most thoroughly and vividly? In the OT BOOK, and most explicitly through the Mosaic Law. The NT BOOK reveals the mysteries of the OT BOOK.

Yes, the the law the old testament and its prophets new testament .The testimony God spoke "let it be and it was very good" What he said did come to pass. The mark of his word.

 

[Rufus]

No one said there was ---and you have not shown them to be unbiblical, only that you don't like them and order to come against them must grossly distort what is being said.

Do you not realize the importance of knowing God, knowing who He is, not only for our lives and duty, but even for correct interpretation of His word? ANd do you know where He revealed HImself most thoroughly and vividly? In the OT BOOK, and most explicitly through the Mosaic Law. The NT BOOK reveals the mysteries of the OT BOOK.

Actually, God revealed himself "most thoroughly and vividly" (to borrow your phrase) in the person, life and work of his Son.

John 14:8-11
8 Philip said, "Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us."

9 Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father '? 10 Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. 11 Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves.
NIV

I wonder if the apostle John shared your sentiment. Hmm....let me see, I think I have a passage coming to mind. Oh, yes, here it is:

1 John 1:1-3
1:1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched — this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. 2 The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. 3 We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us.
NIV

All of which again proves what the writer of Hebrews wrote when he said the NC was superior to the Old because it is founded on BETTER promises (Heb 8:6).

And to see another great eschatological contrast, feast your eyes on this text:

Heb 1:1-3
1:1 In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. 3 The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word.
NIV

So, tell me again how much better it was back under the OC age when God revealed himself through his prophets. Tell us us how much BETTER that was than to see, talk to, touch and learn from the Living God who came in the flesh and dwelt with the sons of men. I mean why would anyone want to come into visible, direct and physical contact with anyone who is [only] the "radiance of God's gory and the exact representation of his being", right? Or why would anyone think that the Spirit of Christ actually living within us is better existential revelation than God merely speaking through his OT prophets?

 

[prism]

Whether, Jew or Gentile, I don’t see how the Christian is under the law, even in the realm of sanctification.

Romans 7:4 LSB
So, my brothers, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, so that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God.

Galatians 2:19 LSB
For through the Law I died to the Law, so that I might live to God.


Being 'joined to another' is part and parcel of our new walk in Christ.

 

[Arial]

Actually, God revealed himself "most thoroughly and vividly" (to borrow your phrase) in the person, life and work of his Son.

John 14:8-11
8 Philip said, "Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us."

9 Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father '? 10 Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. 11 Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves.
NIV

I wonder if the apostle John shared your sentiment. Hmm....let me see, I think I have a passage coming to mind. Oh, yes, here it is:

1 John 1:1-3
1:1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched — this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. 2 The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. 3 We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us.
NIV

All of which again proves what the writer of Hebrews wrote when he said the NC was superior to the Old because it is founded on BETTER promises (Heb 8:6).

And to see another great eschatological contrast, feast your eyes on this text:

Heb 1:1-3
1:1 In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. 3 The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word.
NIV

So, tell me again how much better it was back under the OC age when God revealed himself through his prophets. Tell us us how much BETTER that was than to see, talk to, touch and learn from the Living God who came in the flesh and dwelt with the sons of men. I mean why would anyone want to come into visible, direct and physical contact with anyone who is [only] the "radiance of God's gory and the exact representation of his being", right? Or why would anyone think that the Spirit of Christ actually living within us is better existential revelation than God merely speaking through his OT prophets?

Do you not know that Christ is prefigured in the OT BOOK beginning with His words spoken to to the serpent? Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her Seed; He shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise His heel.
Jesus is the fulfillment of all that is said in the OT (the book not the covenant, though it is in there vividly also) and if it had not come before, no one would have any idea what He was talking about. "Who is this Father you speak of?" they might ask. Every bit of the Bible is the story of redemption. But here is one example of the self revealed God we only learn in the OT. Psalm 50.

1The Mighty One, God the Lord,
Has spoken and called the earth
From the rising of the sun to its going down.
2Out of Zion, the perfection of beauty,
God will shine forth.
3Our God shall come, and shall not keep silent;
A fire shall devour before Him,
And it shall be very tempestuous all around Him.
4He shall call to the heavens from above,
And to the earth, that He may judge His people:
5“Gather My saints together to Me,
Those who have [a]made a covenant with Me by sacrifice.”
6Let the heavens declare His righteousness,
For God Himself is Judge. Selah
7“Hear, O My people, and I will speak,
O Israel, and I will testify against you;
I am God, your God!
8I will not rebuke you for your sacrifices
Or your burnt offerings,
Which are continually before Me.
9I will not take a bull from your house,
Nor goats out of your folds.
10For every beast of the forest is Mine,
And the cattle on a thousand hills.
11I know all the birds of the mountains,
And the wild beasts of the field are Mine.
12“If I were hungry, I would not tell you;
For the world is Mine, and all its fullness.
13Will I eat the flesh of bulls,
Or drink the blood of goats?
14Offer to God thanksgiving,
And pay your vows to the Most High.
15Call upon Me in the day of trouble;
I will deliver you, and you shall glorify Me.”
16But to the wicked God says:
“What right have you to declare My statutes,
Or take My covenant in your mouth,
17Seeing you hate instruction
And cast My words behind you?
18When you saw a thief, you consented[c] with him,
And have been a partaker with adulterers.
19You give your mouth to evil,
And your tongue frames deceit.
20You sit and speak against your brother;
You slander your own mother’s son.
21These things you have done, and I kept silent;
You thought that I was altogether like you;
But I will rebuke you,
And set them in order before your eyes.
22“Now consider this, you who forget God,
Lest I tear you in pieces,
And there be none to deliver:
23Whoever offers praise glorifies Me;
And to him who orders his conduct aright
I will show the salvation of God.”

 

[Arial]

So, tell me again how much better it was back under the OC age when God revealed himself through his prophets. Tell us us how much BETTER that was than to see, talk to, touch and learn from the Living God who came in the flesh and dwelt with the sons of men. I mean why would anyone want to come into visible, direct and physical contact with anyone who is [only] the "radiance of God's gory and the exact representation of his being", right? Or why would anyone think that the Spirit of Christ actually living within us is better existential revelation than God merely speaking through his OT prophets?

I guess the only way you have to defend your position is through fallacies. Or else maybe you have no idea what it means to seek God and to know Him even though He commands, "Seek my face." No where did I say the old covenant was better than the new covenant.

 

[Rufus]

Do you not know that Christ is prefigured in the OT BOOK beginning with His words spoken to to the serpent? Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her Seed; He shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise His heel.
Jesus is the fulfillment of all that is said in the OT (the book not the covenant, though it is in there vividly also) and if it had not come before, no one would have any idea what He was talking about. "Who is this Father you speak of?" they might ask. Every bit of the Bible is the story of redemption. But here is one example of the self revealed God we only learn in the OT. Psalm 50.

1The Mighty One, God the Lord,
Has spoken and called the earth
From the rising of the sun to its going down.
2Out of Zion, the perfection of beauty,
God will shine forth.
3Our God shall come, and shall not keep silent;
A fire shall devour before Him,
And it shall be very tempestuous all around Him.
4He shall call to the heavens from above,
And to the earth, that He may judge His people:
5“Gather My saints together to Me,
Those who have [a]made a covenant with Me by sacrifice.”
6Let the heavens declare His righteousness,
For God Himself is Judge. Selah
7“Hear, O My people, and I will speak,
O Israel, and I will testify against you;
I am God, your God!
8I will not https://biblehub.com/nkjv/psalms/50.htm#footnotesrebuke you for your sacrifices
Or your burnt offerings,
Which are continually before Me.
9I will not take a bull from your house,
Nor goats out of your folds.
10For every beast of the forest is Mine,
And the cattle on a thousand hills.
11I know all the birds of the mountains,
And the wild beasts of the field are Mine.
12“If I were hungry, I would not tell you;
For the world is Mine, and all its fullness.
13Will I eat the flesh of bulls,
Or drink the blood of goats?
14Offer to God thanksgiving,
And pay your vows to the Most High.
15Call upon Me in the day of trouble;
I will deliver you, and you shall glorify Me.”
16But to the wicked God says:
“What right have you to declare My statutes,
Or take My covenant in your mouth,
17Seeing you hate instruction
And cast My words behind you?
18When you saw a thief, you consented[c] with him,
And have been a partaker with adulterers.
19You give your mouth to evil,
And your tongue frames deceit.
20You sit and speak against your brother;
You slander your own mother’s son.
21These things you have done, and I kept silent;
You thought that I was altogether like you;
But I will rebuke you,
And set them in order before your eyes.
22“Now consider this, you who forget God,
Lest I tear you in pieces,
And there be none to deliver:
23Whoever offers praise glorifies Me;
And to him who orders his conduct aright
I will show the salvation of God.”

So the prefigurement is superior to the fulfillment? Is the prophet, too, who wrote of this prefigurement, greater than the substance, i.e. the Son of God?

I bet you still think that the righteousness of God that was revealed in his law is superior to the righteousness of God that was revealed at the Cross of his Beloved, right?

 

[Rufus]

Whether, Jew or Gentile, I don’t see how the Christian is under the law, even in the realm of sanctification.

Romans 7:4 LSB
So, my brothers, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, so that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God.

Galatians 2:19 LSB
For through the Law I died to the Law, so that I might live to God.


Being 'joined to another' is part and parcel of our new walk in Christ.

Amen, brother! "Being 'joined to another' is the essence of biblical Christianity. Christianity is NOT about all the "dos" and "don'ts" in scripture. Rather it's all about our relationship with our Creator-Redeemer.

 

[Arial]

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.

This does not belong here. Look at the title of the OP. This entire conversation is out of place and I am tempted to have everything pertaining to the topic of Calvin's function of the Law removed. This will be removed by the end of the day. MOve it into a thread you start and put it under a forum pertaining to Calvinism.

 

[Arial]

So the prefigurement is superior to the fulfillment? Is the prophet, too, who wrote of this prefigurement, greater than the substance, i.e. the Son of God?

Where did you get that stupid fallacy from? Stop presenting yourself as a troll.

I bet you still think that the righteousness of God that was revealed in his law is superior to the righteousness of God that was revealed at the Cross of his Beloved, right?

The righteousness of God is immutable. It is the very same righteousness.

Christ did not reveal God's righteousness on the cross, and God did not reveal it there. The cross was the perfect righteousness of Christ substituting Himself and His righteousness for the sinner, paying their debt to God by taking the penalty for our sins. It is His, Christ's, righteousness that is counted as ours because of this two way substitution. Sin could not condemn Him because He had no sin of His own. Therefore death, the penalty for sin, could not hold Him. That is how He conquered sin and death for His people who are joined to Him by grace and through faith.

That is Christianity 101. Elementary and necessary stuff.