I was going to try to answer some of the questions set by Gadsby on the 'antinomian' thread. However, I simply don't have the time (nor, frankly, the inclination), so I thought I might try to interact briefly with some of the texts that Gadsby and his ilk like to use to support their case.
Gal 2:20. 'I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me.'
When a man is on trial, accused of some crime or other, and he dies suddenly, the trial is ended. The law has no more to say to a dead man. So it is to the Christian. He has been crucified with Christ. He is out of the law's jurisdiction because he has died. Moreover, he has risen again with Christ, a new creation and he is now clothed in Divine righteousness (Isaiah 61:10). 'Therefore there is now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus' (Rom 8:1).
'Payment God cannot twice demand, Once at my bleeding surety's hand And then again form me.' (Augustus Toplady)
This is what is meant by being 'dead to the law.'
BUT
'What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it?'(Rom 6:1-2).
The Christian has been born again. He has undergone a two-fold process at the hands of God. He is born of 'water and Spirit.' Look at Ezek 36:25-27. The 'water' cleanses us from filthiness and idolatries, the 'Spirit' causes us, 'To walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgements and do them.' The old Steve Owen is dead. Dead to the law and to its condemnations. But the new Steve Owen is alive to God, and 'his delight is in the law of the LORD, and in His law he meditates day and night (Psalm 1:2).
Righteousness does not come through the law, it comes through Jesus Christ. But if we continue in sin, we have made Christ the Author of sin. 'If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed.' I have shown elsewhere on this forum that all the Ten Commandments are found in the New Testament. If we will not keep them, then we are not abiding in Christ's word and we are not His disciples indeed. Again I say that we do not keep them in order to be justified ('For if righteousness comes through the law then Christ died in vain'-Gal 2-21); we keep them because we are justified and because we love God: 'For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdonsome' (1John 5:3).
Finally, what does Paul mean when he says, 'I live by faith in the Son of God'? He means that he believes that Christ has loved him from eternity, and redeemed him from the consequences of his sins, at measureless cost. Believing this, he lives a life of loving obedience to the commands of Christ, which are found to be no different to those expressed in the Ten Commandments.
One more text comes to mind: Gal 3:24. 'Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith.' Before we were converted, the law sat before us like a school-master, cane in hand, warning us of dire consequences as a result of our failure to keep the law. Now we are converted, has our relationship to the law changed? Absolutely! The law threatens us no more, because we have died to it as something that condemns us.
But do we therefore throw the tutor out and forget everything he ever taught us? Not at all! If we had a good teacher when we were at school, we remember his teaching and apply it to our adult lives. So it is with the law. Our old teacher can no longer give us 100 lines or keep us in after school, but his wise counsel has relevance to the whole of our lives. 'Therefore I love Your commandments more than gold, yes! Than fine gold' (Psalm 119:127).
That was good, Steve. I wanted to add this by Louis Berkhof which answers those same things.
Quote
Necessary Distinctions Respecting the Law and the Gospel
a. As was already said in the preceding, the distinction between the law and the gospel is not the same as that between the Old and the New Testament. Neither is it the same as that which present day Dispensationalists make between the dispensation of the law and the dispensation of the gospel. It is contrary to the plain facts of Scripture to say that there is no gospel in the Old Testament, or at least not in that part of the Old Testament that covers the dispensation of the law. There is gospel in the maternal promise, gospel in the ceremonial law, and gospel in many of the Prophets, as Isa. 53 and 54; 55:1-3, 6-7; Jer. 31:33, 34; Ezek. 36:25-28. In fact, there is a gospel current running through the whole of the Old Testament, which reaches its highest point in the Messianic prophecies. And it is equally contrary to Scripture to say that there is no law in the New Testament, or that the law does not apply in the New Testament dispensation. Jesus taught the permanent validity of the law, Matt. 5:17-19. Paul says that God provided for it that the requirements of the law should be fulfilled in our lives, Rom. 8:4, and holds his readers responsible for keeping the law, Rom. 13:9. James assures his readers that he who transgresses a single commandment of the law (and he mentions some of these), is a transgressor of the law, Jas. 2:8-11. And John defines sin as "lawlessness," and says that this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments, 1 John 3:4; 5:3.
b. It is possible to say that in some respects the Christian is free from the law of God. The Bible does not always speak of the law in the same sense. Sometimes it contemplates this as the immutable expression of the nature and will of God, which applies at all times and under all conditions. But it also refers to it as it functions in the covenant of works, in which the gift of eternal life was conditioned on its fulfillment. Man failed to meet the condition, thereby also losing the ability to meet it, and is now by nature under a sentence of condemnation. When Paul draws a contrast between the law and the gospel, he is thinking of this aspect of the law, the broken law of the covenant of works, which can no more justify, but can only condemn the sinner. From the law in this particular sense, both as a means for obtaining eternal life and as a condemning power, believers are set free in Christ, since He became a curse for them and also met the demands of the covenant of works in their behalf. The law in that particular sense and the gospel of free grace are mutually exclusive.
c. There is another sense, however, in which the Christian is not free from the law. The situation is quite different when we think of the law as the expression of man's natural obligations to his God, the law as it is applied to man even apart from the covenant of works. It is impossible to imagine any condition in which man might be able to claim freedom from the law in that sense. It is pure Antinomianism to maintain that Christ kept the law as a rule of life for His people, so that they need not worry about this any more. The law lays claim, and justly so, on the entire life of man in all its aspects, including his relation to the gospel of Jesus Christ. When God offers man the gospel, the law demands that the latter shall accept this. Some would speak of this as the law in the gospel, but this is hardly correct. The gospel itself consists of promises and is no law; yet there is a demand of the law in connection with the gospel. The law not only demands that we accept the gospel and believe in Jesus Christ, but also that we lead a life of gratitude in harmony with its requirements.
The Threefold Use of the Law
It is customary in theology to distinguish a three-fold use of the law.
The Three Defined. We distinguish:
a. A usus politicos or civilis. The law serves the purpose of restraining sin and promoting righteousness. Considered from this point of view, the law presupposes sin and is necessary on account of sin. It serves the purpose of God's common grace in the world at large. This means that from this point of view it cannot be regarded as a means of grace in the technical sense of the word.
b. A usus elenchticus or pedagogicus. In this capacity the law serves the purpose of bringing man under conviction of sin, and of making him conscious of his inability to meet the demands of the law. In that way the law becomes his tutor to lead him unto Christ, and thus becomes subservient to God's gracious purpose of redemption.
c. A usus didacticus or normativus. This is the so-called tertius usus legis, the third use of the law. The law is a rule of life for believers, reminding them of their duties and leading them in the way of life and salvation. This third use of the law is denied by the Antinomians.
Steve , every Christian alive is going to break the Second Commandment on Sunday. Where,pray tell is the joy in this knowledge ? Is there delight in this fact ?
Please at least TRY and answer Gadsby/Potts - for your sake.
Hi Mark, This is very interesting. I post something, you e-mail it to Ian, who looks it up in one of Metcalfe's books and then tells you what to post back. This is the very essence of cultism. You cannot think until you find out what the guru has to say on the matter. I have to say that if this is the best that Ian can do, I'm not very impressed. Tell him to look a bit harder in his Metcalfe files.
It is taken for granted that we cannot keep the commandments perfectly. 'For if righteousness came through the law then Christ died for nothing.' The reasons that we rejoice in Christ's commandments are 1. God's commandments are perfect (Psalm 119:96; Rom 7:22) 2. The Holy Spirit leads us in the way of God's commands (Ezek 36:27) 3. 'There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit' (see Point 2 above). The law no more condemns us, because Christ has kept it perfectly on our behalf (Rom 5:19). We can now, without fear, seek to follow in the steps of our Saviour (John 14:15), knowing that we shall at last be presented faultless before the Father's throne. I see plenty of joy and great delight in this.
Let me now ask you- and answer for yourself; don't go running to Ian Potts or dodge the issue- If we are not under the Ten Commandments, and if no one at all can keep the second commandment anyway, what then? Why does it matter if we flood our churches with icons and crucifixes, attend Mass, bow to the alter and all the other stuff? If no one can keep the commandment, then why bother at all?
With regard to Gadsby, it's a lot easier to post someone else's stuff than it is to do the work necessary to answer it. But if you look at what has already been posted, you'll see that I and others have already answered most of his points. Also, before I put myself out, I'd like to see you answer some of my questions and interact with some of the posts using your own God-given mind instead of someone else's.
Steve , every Christian alive is going to break the Second Commandment on Sunday. Where,pray tell is the joy in this knowledge ? Is there delight in this fact ?
There is joy in knowing that our Savior kept the sabbath perfectly and there is joy in knowing that as we strive to obey God, even though our efforts are imperfect and need to be cleansed by Christ's blood, our heart's desire is still pleasing to God.
Steve, your first paragraph of your last post is the paranoid rantings of some one who knows nothing about what he speaks . As for the rest of your post - I did not bother to read it . 1 Timothy 1:7
BookMark said: Steve, your first paragraph of your last post is the paranoid rantings of some one who knows nothing about what he speaks . As for the rest of your post - I did not bother to read it . 1 Timothy 1:7
Mark
Love worketh no ill to his neighbor;therefore love is the fulfilling of the law
ROMANS 13:10
Mark,
Your sarcastic unloving reply betrays the Scripture verse you quote on the bottom of your messages. Where is this love which fulfills the law in your comments? If you can't answer the direct questions that have been asked then just say so. Don't throw stones at those who have expressed a sincere concern for your spiritual wellbeing.
I want you to know you're walking on thin ice. Be careful.
Wes
When I survey the wondrous cross on which the Prince of Glory died, my richest gain I count but loss and pour contempt on all my pride. - Isaac Watts
1Timothy 1:7ff. '....Desiring to be teachers of the law, understanding neither what they say nor the things which they affirm. But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully, knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate......etc.'
The charge against me, and I suppose against most of the rest of this forum, is that we don't understand the law, and that we make unlawful use of it.
The basis for the charge is found in what I will call the 'Gadsbyite' view of verse 9. 'The law is not made for a righteous person.' Gadby's assumption is that 'righteous' means 'Christian.' However, the Lord Jesus declared (Mark 2:17), 'I did not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance.' Here our Lord clearly means, those who think they are righteous. I believe that Paul has the same meaning in 1Tim 1:9. I suggest that the 'teachers of the law' whom Paul was opposing had some sort of 'holiness' theology, whereby through observance of the ceremonial law, one could become perfectly righteous. However, what the text CANNOT mean is what Gadsby claims it does, as I hope to show.
1Cor 5:1. 'It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and such sexual immorality as is not even named among the Gentiles- that a man has his father's wife.' Here we have a member of the Corinthian congregation who, following the death of his father, has married, or is cohabiting with, his step-mother. Now if the believer is not under law in any way, where's the problem? But Lev 18:6-8 says, 'None of you shall approach anyone who is near of kin to him, to uncover his nakedness: I am the LORD.....The nakedness of your father's wife you shall not uncover; it is your father's nakedness' and so Paul declares, 'Put away from yourselves the evil person!' Now note that this is a moral law. Dietry laws (Rom 14:14) and ceremonial laws (Gal 5:2), the Apostle declares to be fulfilled. But here and elsewhere (eg. Eph 4:17-32), he shows that the moral law of God is to be the standard of the church.
Perhaps it might be suggested that this Corinthian was not really a Christian, and it is for that reason that he was under the law. Well, there are two possibilities; either he was a backslidden Christian, or he was not one at all. If he was a lost sheep, then the good shepherd was bound to find him and bring him back (Matt 18:12-14). And this is exactly what happened; the man was expelled from the Corinthian church, repented and was restored (2Cor 2:5-11).
So here we have a case study of a Christian who was convicted by the law and brought to repentance by it. The law is indeed, 'not made for a righteous man', but it is for Christians, because, 'If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us' (1John 1:8).
The law does not condemn Christians (Rom 8:1), though it does chastise them (Psalm 119:75). The Christian who has gone astray needs, like David, a faithful Nathan to point him to God's holy law and say, 'You are the man!' (2Sam 12:7).
This is inexcusably rude and Steve deserves an apology! What characteristics of a Christian do you suppose you are demonstrating with this kind of post? We are waiting! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/mad3.gif" alt="" />
Ruth, Wes, I was responding to the delusions of Grace2U in his first paragraph to me. He has since "perhaps" admitted this. Those who have concern over my spiritual welfare do not try and put me back under the Law btw .
![[Linked Image]](https://www.the-highway.com/forumuserpics/kami_sig1.gif)