# On grace and difficult decisions.



## dnlcnwy (Apr 26, 2021)

Last night I was having a beer at a local bar and grill. I met a friend of mine there who is a fellow believer who has struggled some with sin in her life. We were already talking about spiritual matters (kind of taboo in a pub, but there was almost no one there except we two and the bartenders) and then the subject of abortion came up. Why not, we were already on very sensitive ground, so we went for that too. She maintained that she had carried to term every child that she had ever conceived (but in a nice, non self puffing way) because she felt that abortion was wrong. She confessed that here own mother was fifteen years old when she carried her and she felt obligated to do the same. I thought for a long while before I answered. I told her I felt the same way about the unborn, but that we had to be careful about our attitudes. If someone elects to abort a child, the church often turns around and tells them they have committed a sin so heinous that it cannot be forgiven, or at least implying that. If that woman comes to believe that and gives up on Christ altogether because she doesn't believe she can be accepted anymore, then we as a church have just committed murder. To her credit, my friend agreed with that assessment and I think everyone within hearing range of us agreed too. This is a difficult subject, but there is so much built up animosity out there over this topic that I felt compelled to address it. I have committed sexual sin in my past so for all I know I might have an aborted pregnancy to account for when it comes time for me to be judged. I was fortunate enough to be accepted back in my church. In all frankness the fact that I was a male probably had a lot to do with it, but that is a topic for another post. Yes we preach against this, yes we protest at abortion clinics (IN A NON JUDGEMENTAL WAY) but we MUST extend both our arms of comfort to young people who have committed this sin. Do we work to have the laws on this issue change? I don't know of a tougher issue confronting the church right now. I would like to see the practice stopped, but I watched with both eyes while the Republican party used this issue to co-opt the white evangelicals and turn what was a movement of compassion and rescue into a mouthpiece for moralizing and covert racism. This is what happens when the church resorts to secular powers in an attempt to enforce behavior that can only really be brought out by a transforming act of the Holy Spirit. The issue of church/state relations is also one I have addressed elsewhere so I won't go any further down that rabbit hole here. Let me just finish what I have to say here by quoting the apostle Paul "Therefore you are inexcusable, O man, whoever you are who judge, for in whatever you judge another you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things.


----------



## Smeagol (Apr 26, 2021)

Firstly, did you guys happen to discuss Lord’s Day Observance or possibly Nehemiah 13?


Secondly, what are you asking to be answered or discussed specifically?

Reactions: Like 8


----------



## ZackF (Apr 26, 2021)

dnlcnwy said:


> Last night I was having a beer at a local bar and grill. I met a friend of mine there who is a fellow believer who has struggled some with sin in her life. We were already talking about spiritual matters (kind of taboo in a pub, but there was almost no one there except we two and the bartenders) and then the subject of abortion came up. Why not, we were already on very sensitive ground, so we went for that too. She maintained that she had carried to term every child that she had ever conceived (but in a nice, non self puffing way) because she felt that abortion was wrong. She confessed that here own mother was fifteen years old when she carried her and she felt obligated to do the same. I thought for a long while before I answered. I told her I felt the same way about the unborn, but that we had to be careful about our attitudes. If someone elects to abort a child, the church often turns around and tells them they have committed a sin so heinous that it cannot be forgiven, or at least implying that. If that woman comes to believe that and gives up on Christ altogether because she doesn't believe she can be accepted anymore, then we as a church have just committed murder. To her credit, my friend agreed with that assessment and I think everyone within hearing range of us agreed too. This is a difficult subject, but there is so much built up animosity out there over this topic that I felt compelled to address it. I have committed sexual sin in my past so for all I know I might have an aborted pregnancy to account for when it comes time for me to be judged. I was fortunate enough to be accepted back in my church. In all frankness the fact that I was a male probably had a lot to do with it, but that is a topic for another post. Yes we preach against this, yes we protest at abortion clinics (IN A NON JUDGEMENTAL WAY) but we MUST extend both our arms of comfort to young people who have committed this sin. Do we work to have the laws on this issue change? I don't know of a tougher issue confronting the church right now. I would like to see the practice stopped, but I watched with both eyes while the Republican party used this issue to co-opt the white evangelicals and turn what was a movement of compassion and rescue into a mouthpiece for moralizing and covert racism. This is what happens when the church resorts to secular powers in an attempt to enforce behavior that can only really be brought out by a transforming act of the Holy Spirit. The issue of church/state relations is also one I have addressed elsewhere so I won't go any further down that rabbit hole here. Let me just finish what I have to say here by quoting the apostle Paul "Therefore you are inexcusable, O man, whoever you are who judge, for in whatever you judge another you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things.


I’m lost man.

Reactions: Like 2 | Funny 1


----------



## Scottish Presbyterian (Apr 26, 2021)

dnlcnwy said:


> Last night I was having a beer at a local bar and grill. I met a friend of mine there who is a fellow believer who has struggled some with sin in her life. We were already talking about spiritual matters (kind of taboo in a pub, but there was almost no one there except we two and the bartenders) and then the subject of abortion came up. Why not, we were already on very sensitive ground, so we went for that too. She maintained that she had carried to term every child that she had ever conceived (but in a nice, non self puffing way) because she felt that abortion was wrong. She confessed that here own mother was fifteen years old when she carried her and she felt obligated to do the same. I thought for a long while before I answered. I told her I felt the same way about the unborn, but that we had to be careful about our attitudes. If someone elects to abort a child, the church often turns around and tells them they have committed a sin so heinous that it cannot be forgiven, or at least implying that. If that woman comes to believe that and gives up on Christ altogether because she doesn't believe she can be accepted anymore, then we as a church have just committed murder. To her credit, my friend agreed with that assessment and I think everyone within hearing range of us agreed too. This is a difficult subject, but there is so much built up animosity out there over this topic that I felt compelled to address it. I have committed sexual sin in my past so for all I know I might have an aborted pregnancy to account for when it comes time for me to be judged. I was fortunate enough to be accepted back in my church. In all frankness the fact that I was a male probably had a lot to do with it, but that is a topic for another post. Yes we preach against this, yes we protest at abortion clinics (IN A NON JUDGEMENTAL WAY) but we MUST extend both our arms of comfort to young people who have committed this sin. Do we work to have the laws on this issue change? I don't know of a tougher issue confronting the church right now. I would like to see the practice stopped, but I watched with both eyes while the Republican party used this issue to co-opt the white evangelicals and turn what was a movement of compassion and rescue into a mouthpiece for moralizing and covert racism. This is what happens when the church resorts to secular powers in an attempt to enforce behavior that can only really be brought out by a transforming act of the Holy Spirit. The issue of church/state relations is also one I have addressed elsewhere so I won't go any further down that rabbit hole here. Let me just finish what I have to say here by quoting the apostle Paul "Therefore you are inexcusable, O man, whoever you are who judge, for in whatever you judge another you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things.



Please consider the (im)propriety of going to the public house on the Lord's Day in light of the fourth commandment.

With regard to believing that abortion is an unpardonable sin (I take that to be the "attitude" you are condemning in "the church"), do you know of a particular church that believes this? I dont think you'll find anyone here to defend that view.

Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding you, but a lot of your posts come across as being attempts to address what you perceive to be wrong views held by people on this board (or Reformed Christians in general). Is that a fair assessment, or am I barking up the wrong tree? If it's a fair assessment then one suggestion I would have to have more fruitful discussions (and set us all right where we are wrong), is to set out more succinctly where you believe Reformed Christians are going wrong. That will make it easier for people to interact with your points.

Reactions: Like 5 | Amen 2


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Apr 26, 2021)

dnlcnwy said:


> Yes we preach against this, yes we protest at abortion clinics (*IN A NON JUDGEMENTAL WAY*) but we MUST extend both our arms of comfort to young people who have committed this sin.


What does it mean to preach and protest against abortion in a "non-judgemental way"? God will clearly judge the person that murders their child and DOES NOT repent and believe. If that is not part of the protest, I am not sure what is being stated at the clinic during the protest. 

As to your over arching comment about the unforgivable sin, I don't find this in any church I have been to. More often than not, I hear that it is not a sin at all, and that the woman is a victim. You can have compassion and let them know there is forgiveness in Christ, but the truth is both parents murdered their child. The child is the only victim.


dnlcnwy said:


> turn what was a movement of compassion and rescue into a mouthpiece for moralizing and *covert racism.*


What is the "covert racism" you are talking about?

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Taylor (Apr 26, 2021)

It seems like you are making an argument of some sort. If so, could you state it in a few succinct points?


----------



## Smeagol (Apr 26, 2021)



Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 2


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Apr 26, 2021)

I get the general point you are making about Christians not coming across as sanctimonious when dealing with these sort of social issues, but, judging by your posts, it appears that you are becoming the very thing that you oppose. You sound like a moralist who is thankful that he is not like those mean old Deplorables.



dnlcnwy said:


> I felt the same way about the unborn, but that we had to be careful about our attitudes. If someone elects to abort a child, the church often turns around and tells them they have committed a sin so heinous that it cannot be forgiven, or at least implying that. If that woman comes to believe that and gives up on Christ altogether because she doesn't believe she can be accepted anymore, then we as a church have just committed murder.



I have literally never come across any evangelical that believes this view. I have come across some Roman Catholics who have complained about women who had abortions getting involved in pro-life activism, but, even among Romanists, I suspect that view is a minority one. 



dnlcnwy said:


> I have committed sexual sin in my past so for all I know I might have an aborted pregnancy to account for when it comes time for me to be judged. I was fortunate enough to be accepted back in my church. In all frankness the fact that I was a male probably had a lot to do with it, but that is a topic for another post.



Fornication is not in the same ball-park as murdering an infant. Not. Even. Close. I say that as one who has never engaged in pre-marital sex but understands all too well how easy it would be to fall into that sin. I do know of one man who did fornicate when he was 18 resulting in a pregnancy, who repented, married the girl in question, and raised their family in the fear of the Lord, but who has been treated like a leper ever since. I do not think that he was singled out simply because he was a man. Rather, his church did not have the biblical understanding of forgiveness and full restoration upon repentance. That said, I do think it is worth remembering that many men are pro-abortion precisely because it gives them an opportunity to fornicate without consequences to themselves. It is a point worth raising with feminists whenever the issue of abortion arises.



dnlcnwy said:


> Do we work to have the laws on this issue change? I don't know of a tougher issue confronting the church right now. I would like to see the practice stopped, but I watched with both eyes while the Republican party used this issue to co-opt the white evangelicals and turn what was a movement of compassion and rescue into a mouthpiece for moralizing and covert racism.



For someone who is always preaching about the church being obsessed with politics, I note, with some irony, that political matters are the only thing about which you ever post. Many Republican voters and politicians have been sincere in their efforts to either reduce or end abortion. Painting with this very broad brush is not helpful. 



dnlcnwy said:


> This is what happens when the church resorts to secular powers in an attempt to enforce behavior that can only really be brought out by a transforming act of the Holy Spirit.



We do not need the entire or even the bulk of a population to be regenerate to criminalise abortion any more than we need the whole population to be regenerate to criminalise any other form of murder. Civil government is primarily an institution of nature, not of grace. A non-Christian magistrate who stops this crime is simply acting in accordance with the law of nature of which all men have some knowledge.

Reactions: Like 10 | Amen 2


----------



## Taylor (Apr 26, 2021)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Many Republican voters and politicians have been sincere in their efforts to either reduce or end abortion.


Absolutely. And even if some conservatives use anti-abortion partly as a way to get votes, so what? I would much rather have someone in office who at least pretends to support the cause of Christ than one who is explicit about his hatred for him. I cannot for the life of me understand why so many Christians think it more virtuous to vote for an outright enemy over a slightly sketchy cobelligerent.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## arapahoepark (Apr 26, 2021)

Oftentimes today, any condemnation of a sin or, at the very least, a lack of affirmation is deemed unloving. I'm not quite sure I buy everyone who says "But there was no forgiveness at this church!" It's possible but, I see the church at large going the opposite direction in this wicked age.

Reactions: Like 3 | Informative 1


----------



## dnlcnwy (Apr 27, 2021)

I write about the church needing to separate herself from politics because the problem is so severe and entrenched. I condemn fusion with the state to further any cause, be it conservative or liberal. I never maintained that fornication was a sin equivalent to murder (not that it matters, all sin merits death), but social ostracizing by the church that results in a destruction of someone's faith is. It is worse. The murdered soul might enter into glory, to soul whose faith is destroyed will not. I am not moralizing to set myself up above my spiritual family. I am as guilty as any one of harboring these attitudes. I came out of a stable christian family that was steeped in christian ethics and I praise God for this blessing. But Christ stated explicitly that he came to save sinners, not the righteous, and I fear that our community has grown so comfortable in it's reformed culture that we have lost the capacity to connect with our mission field on any level except that of presumed moral superiority.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Taylor (Apr 27, 2021)

dnlcnwy said:


> I write about the church needing to separate herself from politics because the problem is so severe and entrenched. I condemn fusion with the state...


These are not the same issues. The Church speaking to politics (which it ought to do) is not the same thing as a fusion of Church and state (which the Church ought never to do). The Church cannot separate herself from politics. Her every confession, "Jesus Christ is Lord," is a political statement of political statements. But regarding "fusion with the state," even the most hardened Theonomist is adamantly against this. You are railing against a problem that virtually does not exist in orthodox Reformed Christianity.



dnlcnwy said:


> The murdered soul might enter into glory, to [_sic_?] soul whose faith is destroyed will not.


Then their faith was not genuine (1 John 2:19).



dnlcnwy said:


> I came out of a stable christian family that was steeped in christian ethics and I praise God for this blessing. But Christ stated explicitly that he came to save sinners, not the righteous...


What does this even mean? Are you arguing that because Christ "came to save sinners, not the righteous," that therefore we ought not worry about being righteous and ethical, and demanding others do likewise? I truly hope this is not your argument. Such is not a Reformed position. It's not even Christian.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## dnlcnwy (Apr 27, 2021)

Do you believe that we are saved by being righteous and ethical? Or that we have an obligation to demand it of others? You order salutus is backwards. We are saved by being brought to a point where we confess our fleshly attempts at ethics are menstrual rags and that we can only be saved by accepting Christ's righteousness on our behalf. If we go around demanding good behavior from our neighbors as a condition for initial acceptance in our community we probably aren't going to win anybody and worse might wind up with a gathering of works righteous pharisees. Christ recruited into his fellowship prostitutes, Roman collaborators (tax collectors) and Terrorist (zealots). Are you calling that non-christian behavior? We convince our neighbors (all our neighbors) of the love of God and his omnipotent transforming power and depthless Grace by spending time with them, inviting them into our homes, and showing them our genuine love for them regardless of their station or behavior. We do this without violating the biblical injunction to "come out from them and be separate". The unconverted unbeliever knows there is something different about the truly elect. Christ didn't wave the law in his disciples face and demand they meet the standard. That's what they were used to. He said come unto ME you who are weary and heavy laden, and I will give you rest.


----------



## dhh712 (Apr 27, 2021)

dnlcnwy said:


> I write about the church needing to separate herself from politics because the problem is so severe and entrenched. I condemn fusion with the state to further any cause, be it conservative or liberal. I never maintained that fornication was a sin equivalent to murder (not that it matters, all sin merits death), but social ostracizing by the church that results in a destruction of someone's faith is. It is worse. The murdered soul might enter into glory, to soul whose faith is destroyed will not. I am not moralizing to set myself up above my spiritual family. I am as guilty as any one of harboring these attitudes. I came out of a stable christian family that was steeped in christian ethics and I praise God for this blessing. But Christ stated explicitly that he came to save sinners, not the righteous, and I fear that our community has grown so comfortable in it's reformed culture that we have lost the capacity to connect with our mission field on any level except that of presumed moral superiority.


I think I know what you mean, Daniel; it seems like you're trying to say that some Reformed Churches may have a "holier than thou" attitude and it turns away people who visit the church and are open to the idea of attending one. I run into these accusations on a different message board I frequent (I actually also have listened to OPC pastors on sermon audio exhort their congregations to make sure they are not exhibiting this type of behavior). In my own personal experience, out of the several churches I have visited across the country, I have not run into this problem . 

In fact, a PCA minister in a small rural church in North Carolina has as its members a single mother (never married). She actually was worried she would be confronted in this way by the other members of the church and spoke of this concern to the pastor (he told me and my would-be husband about their conversation). He assured her very strongly that no one would treat her in this way and if he did catch any of them doing such a thing he would give them a rightful upbraiding for that. So there are those concerns in reality out there, concerns about being treated in this way by people in our church; so I think you do bring up a valid concern (too many concerns in that sentence there, but can't think of any other words at the moment).

But I can also give my own example of being a former transgender and I was actually concerned about this too and had written about it to the question and answer page of the OPC website. Yet I have never been looked down upon and have been welcomed with genuine and warm fellowship in every church I was at, including the ones who knew about my past (some I had just visited while on vacation and didn't think it was necessary to divulge my whole life story; but would have shared if asked).

So I just went on here briefly to say that I think the concerns out there from non-believers whom God has softened their hear to seek him are real, but my experience is that much of it is merely a concern, and not the way true believers who belong to a church actually act toward sinners for they themselves are sinners as well.

Reactions: Like 1 | Edifying 2


----------



## Smeagol (Apr 27, 2021)

Are you going to address Lord’s Day profanation by engaging in commerce on the Lord’s Day and asking employees to serve you when they have been commanded to rest?

Does that not seem unloving to you?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Charles Johnson (Apr 27, 2021)

If your statements about how we should deal with abortion sound unreasonable when "person who had an abortion" is switched out with "man who killed his wife", that's a problem. Anyways, that's my two cents.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## dnlcnwy (Apr 27, 2021)

dhh712 said:


> I think I know what you mean, Daniel; it seems like you're trying to say that some Reformed Churches may have a "holier than thou" attitude and it turns away people who visit the church and are open to the idea of attending one. I run into these accusations on a different message board I frequent (I actually also have listened to OPC pastors on sermon audio exhort their congregations to make sure they are not exhibiting this type of behavior). In my own personal experience, out of the several churches I have visited across the country, I have not run into this problem .
> 
> In fact, a PCA minister in a small rural church in North Carolina has as its members a single mother (never married). She actually was worried she would be confronted in this way by the other members of the church and spoke of this concern to the pastor (he told me and my would-be husband about their conversation). He assured her very strongly that no one would treat her in this way and if he did catch any of them doing such a thing he would give them a rightful upbraiding for that. So there are those concerns in reality out there, concerns about being treated in this way by people in our church; so I think you do bring up a valid concern (too many concerns in that sentence there, but can't think of any other words at the moment).
> 
> ...


Glory


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 27, 2021)

dnlcnwy said:


> Do you believe that we are saved by being righteous and ethical?



No one believes that on this board.



dnlcnwy said:


> Or that we have an obligation to demand it of others?



Yes. I can quite easily demand someone not murder another person.



dnlcnwy said:


> If we go around demanding good behavior from our neighbors as a condition for initial acceptance in our community we probably aren't going to win anybody and worse might wind up with a gathering of works righteous pharisees.



Should the courts stop demanding people not murder?

Reactions: Like 4 | Amen 1


----------



## Taylor (Apr 27, 2021)

dnlcnwy said:


> Do you believe that we are saved by being righteous and ethical? Or that we have an obligation to demand it of others? You order salutus is backwards. ... If we go around demanding good behavior from our neighbors as a condition for initial acceptance in our community we probably aren't going to win anybody and worse might wind up with a gathering of works righteous pharisees.


Brother, I truly don’t intend to sound hard, but sometimes I read your comments and wonder whether or not you are truly interested in interacting with what _actually_ has been said, rather than responding to something you assume is being said, or something you heard from others and are just superimposing it on comments here. I never once even came close to arguing that we are justified by works. To say that my _ordo salutis_ is thus backwards is an extreme accusation. Please remember that the Apostle Paul had damning words—literally—for people who got their soteriology backwards (Gal. 1:8-9). Unless you are willing to go all the way and label me a heretic, which your accusation would make me, I would suggest toning down your speech.



dnlcnwy said:


> Christ recruited into his fellowship prostitutes, Roman collaborators (tax collectors) and Terrorist (zealots). Are you calling that non-christian behavior?


For one thing, Christ may save whomever he wants. However, since no minister of the gospel has the power to call and regenerate people, much less are they Christ himself, I am struggling to see how what you're saying is relevant here.



dnlcnwy said:


> Christ didn't wave the law in his disciples face and demand they meet the standard.


Not for their justification, no. But to assert that Christ does not demand morality from the his disciples is—well, do I _really_ need to evaluate? In fact, Christ demands not just his disciples but the _entire world_ to obey his commandments—lock, stock, and barrel. His law is not just for his Church. The whole world is under obligation to obey:

*The moral law doth forever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof*; and that not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator who gave it. *Neither doth Christ in the gospel any way dissolve, but much strengthen, this obligation*...​​Although true believers be not under the law as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified or condemned; yet is it of great use to them, *as well as to others*; in that, as a rule of life, informing them of the will of God and their *duty*, it directs and binds them to walk accordingly...​​Neither are the forementioned uses of the law contrary to the grace of the gospel, *but do sweetly comply with it*: the Spirit of Christ subduing and enabling the will of man to do that freely and cheerfully which the will of God, revealed in the law, requireth to be done.​​—Westminster Confession of Faith, 19.5-7​

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Apr 27, 2021)

Another confessional point in opposition to what is being advocated above is to be found in Westminster Confession 16.7. It states, "*Works done by unregenerate men*, although for the matter of them they may be things which God commands, *and of good use both to themselves and others*; yet because they proceed not from a heart purified by faith, nor are done in a right manner, according to the Word, nor to a right end, the glory of God; they are therefore sinful, and cannot please God, or make a man meet to receive grace from God. *And yet their neglect of them is more sinful and displeasing unto God*." (Emphasis added.)

The decision of an unregenerate woman not to have an abortion is "of good use" both to herself and the unborn child. Conversely, her decision to end the child's life "is more sinful and displeasing unto God" than it would have been had she preserved the child's life - even if she did not do so from "a heart purified by faith ... nor to a right end, the glory of God." Exhorting our unbelieving neighbours to oppose abortion does not necessarily indicate that we are self-righteous moralists. Instead, we should view it as an act of love to our unborn neighbours, whether they be unborn children or the mothers of such infants.

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 1


----------



## Pergamum (Apr 28, 2021)

This thread illustrates why you should drink alone.


----------



## Andrew35 (Apr 28, 2021)

Yeah, the narrative about the judgmental, moralistic church folks is often true. But I suspect it's far less true on the ground than many commonly believe.

The IFB church I grew up in always attracted its share of con artists and oddballs -- some of whom were clearly sexually deviant. But they were always treated well. I recall an older woman in our church even buying a down-filled winter coat for a promiscuous lady who had obviously only come to see what she could fleece. I'm still ashamed when I measure myself against the generosity and kindness of some of those old fundies in that church.

There was even a transgender fellow once who stood up and gave a testimony about his former breast implants. People winced, but everyone encouraged him.

Until he came dressed as a rabbit and tried to preach. That was a step too far for most folks.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## dhh712 (Apr 28, 2021)

Andrew35 said:


> Yeah, the narrative about the judgmental, moralistic church folks is often true. But I suspect it's far less true on the ground than many commonly believe....


Yes and it could be that many see our intolerance of comfortability in remaining in sin as being judgmental and moralistic (like there's a current thread going on about a non-member who attends but wants to remain in gross sin with his live-in girlfriend); if they come seeking to join the church and repentant of former sins then we are welcomed (as I was treated), but if they want to remain in sin and still join the church, then that is a no go. We can still treat them well and encourage them to walk with the Lord, but we can't offer full fellowship and entrance into the church without the fruits of repentance. 

That could be why some view those in the church as judgmental and moralistic, but they do not understand that we strive to not tolerate acceptance of sin in our lives. There must be a genuine struggle to walk with the Lord and turn from our former paths of darkness whereas many out there see God as accepting of whatever lives we want to live as long as it "doesn't hurt any one" (like the standard of God changes to fit whatever is the moral standard of the society of that day).

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## dnlcnwy (Apr 29, 2021)

I am going to write in closing that I do not think that the law is an evil thing. The law is a holy thing. Paul said as much himself. But the law is something we ingest and approach in our behavior asymptoticly (for those of you with a mathematical bent) only after contemplating it's requirements have driven us to dispair of ever meeting it's demands and accepting Christ's perfect obedience to the law or our behalf. The law cannot save. The law cannot transform the unregenerate, either individually or corporately. If the confession says otherwise then I am not in conformance with with the confession on that point. I hate to say that about such a glorious and God honoring document as the Westminster confessions but the authors of that document themselves disavowed inerrancy. Paul wrote that all the law does to the unregenerate is stoke a desire to offend even more. "For when we were in the flesh, the sinful passions which were aroused by the law were at work in our members to bear fruit to death. " Romans 7:5. If you preach the law to someone (or pass laws derived from the law) in hopes of changing their behavior you may as well be asking a corpse to dance the ballet. I did not say the law should not be preached! It reaches and transforms the regenerate and as I stated serves to drive the unregenerate to their knees IF it is presented as an antecedent to the message of Grace. The book of Romans is structured that way. In the main, the entire Bible is structured that way. I guess the premise behind much of what I post here is that the general population is already aware of the law in some form or the other. Paul wrote of mankind trying to improve themselves or their society as being evidence of a law unto themselves. Let's not hit an open wound too hard in our presentation of our message (unless you are sure you are dealing with a pharisee. Then you should open fire with heavy artillery for their own good). Cut to the chase, preach Christ's grace.

Reactions: Wow 1


----------



## Smeagol (Apr 29, 2021)

@dnlcnwy 


Round 3: Are you going to address your Lord’s Day practice, described in your OP, with Nehemiah 13 and the Westminster position on keeping the Lord’s Day?

Do you see any contradiction with your demanding mercy be shown to others when you ask others to unnecessarily serve for you while you rest on the Lord’s Day?


----------



## dnlcnwy (Apr 29, 2021)

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone. 

*24* Blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!


----------



## Smeagol (Apr 29, 2021)

dnlcnwy said:


> Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone.
> 
> *24* Blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!


 Brother that does not seem very charitable at all. The 4th Commandment is No gnat. Within the 4th commandment are sweet flowing rivers of love, mercy, and rest for the weary no matter if rich or poor. I have been and am trying to understand your reasoning.


----------



## Charles Johnson (Apr 29, 2021)

dnlcnwy said:


> Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone.
> 
> *24* Blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!


Straining a gnat and swallowing a camel like ignoring your own sin of sabbath breaking but reacting against someone even pointing it out?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## dnlcnwy (Apr 29, 2021)

Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day.

*17* These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ. Colossians 2:16


----------



## Smeagol (Apr 29, 2021)

dnlcnwy said:


> Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day.
> 
> *17* These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ. Colossians 2:16


What do you believe this verse is teaching? Are you saying the 4th Commandment has been abrogated and no longer binding?

Reminder that this is a confessional board. This is one of the reasons that I have pressed you to answer on this subject because I suspect, though you are being uncharitable and vague in your responses, that you take exception to Westminster on the 4th commandment.

Is this true? Please answer. I am just asking for you to explain in your own words.


----------



## dnlcnwy (Apr 29, 2021)

You are ignoring the plain meaning of the text. All the law is fulfilled in Christ. Do you still observe the dietary laws of the old testament? I have already stated that I place the Bible above the confession, something that the authors of the confession told us to do if we could prove that they were in error from the text. Let me turn the question around. What do you believe Colossians 2:16 is teaching?

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Smeagol (Apr 29, 2021)

dnlcnwy said:


> You are ignoring the plain meaning of the text. All the law is fulfilled in Christ. Do you still observe the dietary laws of the old testament? I have already stated that I place the Bible above the confession, something that the authors of the confession told us to do if we could prove that they were in error from the text. Let me turn the question around. What do you believe Colossians 2:16 is teaching?


Okay so you still did not answer. I believe this passage is highlighting the abrogation of ceremonial laws. There were ceremonial sabbaths and the moral sabbath(singular). However, I do not believe the moral sabbath (in the NT called the Lord’s Day) has passed nor is it ceremonial in essence. The apostles and Christ never abrogated the moral sabbath which began at creation, predating the ceremonial law. I believe the Westminster confession to be faithful to scripture on this passage. The context of what Paul is saying is with regard to the ceremonial law. I also understand my interpretation to be the general consistent commentary among the reformed both dead and living.

Examples:

1. Matthew Henry:


> I. Here is a caution to take heed of judaizing teachers, or those who would impose upon Christians the yoke of the ceremonial law: _Let no man therefore judge you in meat nor drink,_ etc., v. 16. Much of the ceremonies of the law of Moses consisted in the distinction of meats and days. It appears by Rom. 14 that there were those who were for keeping up those distinctions: but here the apostle shows that since Christ has come, and has cancelled the ceremonial law, we ought not to keep it up. "Let no man impose those things upon you, for God has not imposed them: if God has made you free, be not you again _entangled in that yoke of bondage."_ And this the rather because these things _were shadows of things to come_ (v. 17), intimating that they had no intrinsic worth in them and that they are now done away. _But the body is of Christ:_the body, of which they were shadows, has come; and to continue the ceremonial observances, which were only types and shadows of Christ and the gospel, carries an intimation that Christ has not yet come and the gospel state has not yet commenced. Observe the advantages we have under the gospel, above what they had under the law: they had the shadows, we have the substance.



2. Jamieson-Fausset-Brown:


> 16. therefore—because ye are complete in Christ, and God in Him has dispensed with all subordinate means as essential to acceptance with Him.
> meat … drink—Greek, "eating … drinking" (Ro 14:1-17). Pay no regard to any one who sits in judgment on you as to legal observances in respect to foods.
> 
> holyday—a feast yearly. Compare the three, 1Ch 23:31.
> ...




*Now again, do you take exception to the Westminster Standards regarding the Lord’s Day?*

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## VictorBravo (Apr 29, 2021)

dnlcnwy said:


> The law cannot save. The law cannot transform the unregenerate, either individually or corporately. If the confession says otherwise then I am not in conformance with with the confession on that point. I hate to say that about such a glorious and God honoring document as the Westminster confessions but the authors of that document themselves disavowed inerrancy.


I have no idea what you are talking about here. Not one person has argued that the law saves.

Maybe you mean XV para II?:

"By it, a sinner, out of the sight and sense not only of the danger, but also of the filthiness and odiousness of his sins, as contrary to the holy nature and righteous law of God; and upon the apprehension of his mercy in Christ to such as are penitent, so grieves for, and hates his sins, as to turn from them all unto God,(c) purposing and endeavouring to walk with Him in all the ways of His commandments."

The law convicts and exposes the sinner. That is a very important use of it.



dnlcnwy said:


> Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone.
> 
> *24* Blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!



This is too much. Calling others hypocrites and Pharisees for calling you out on an unconfessional view of the Sabbath is itself hypocritical.

To be clear, our rule on this is set out below:

"c. *AntiSabbatarianism and Normative Principle of Worship.* A rejection of the doctrine of the Lord’s Day or Christian Sabbath and / or what is known as the Regulative Principle of Worship, are serious exceptions to the Reformed faith, and applicants who are decided and firm in rejecting these doctrines, are not eligible for membership. Applicants with open questions or still studying may apply, but need to state these in the application, and if at some future point determine they reject these doctrines to a degree it undermines them significantly, by applying, agree to surrender their membership in that eventuality."

https://www.puritanboard.com/help/terms/

If that is not your view, please let a moderator or admin know.

Reactions: Like 1 | Love 1


----------



## Taylor (Apr 29, 2021)

dnlcnwy said:


> ...the authors of that document [i.e., the Westminster Confession of Faith] them selves disavowed inerrancy.


What are you talking about? WCF 1.5 speaks of Scripture's "entire perfection," "infallible truth," and "divine authority," and 1.9 speaks of it as being an "infallible rule." Of course, they didn't use the word "inerrancy" because that word's first known use is ca. 1834. But the concept is patently there.



dnlcnwy said:


> You are ignoring the plain meaning of the text.


The plain meaning is that Paul says "sabbath*s*." He is not referring to *the* Sabbath. Those are two different things.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## 83r17h (Apr 29, 2021)

dnlcnwy said:


> The law cannot save. The law cannot transform the unregenerate, either individually or corporately. If the confession says otherwise then I am not in conformance with with the confession on that point.



Westminster doesn't claim that the law can save, and reading through, I'm fairly certain that no one here has claimed that either. In fact, I'm pretty sure that the concept that law saves or regenerates has been explicitly denied. Just scrolling up a bit, #18, 19, and 20 specifically reject any concept that the law saves, so to argue against that is engaging something that no one is saying here, and that no one believes here.

As far as the law, maybe there's a more fundamental question that needs to be addressed. What do you think that the purpose(s) of the law are? And to be even more specific, can you answer that question for both the moral law and the civil law (I mean civil law as a general category - not specifically the Mosaic civil law)?

Given the ongoing discussion, it would be interesting to hear you apply your answer (at least on the purposes of the moral law) to the 4th commandment. 

@Taylor I think that he intended to say that the Westminster divines did not claim inerrancy for themselves (as in: the WCF is not inerrant). Of course, no one here believes that Westminster is inerrant. But I think it's less of a challenge, and more of a justification for disagreement with it. The problem being that Westminster itself is derived from Scripture, and didn't create itself.


----------



## VictorBravo (Apr 29, 2021)

Closing the thread until the admins get more information regarding post 33.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## VictorBravo (Apr 30, 2021)

*Reopening the thread. *

Refocus the discussion to the main original point and take Sabbath-keeping off the table on this thread. 

The Sabbath-keeping issue has been discussed between admins and the original poster. It came up in the context of the original post, but was not the point of the original post, so leave it aside.

To be clear, though, our policy on the Sabbath remains the same as always.

Reactions: Like 1


----------

