Edward Fisher: The duties required in the seventh commandment

Status
Not open for further replies.

Reformed Covenanter

Cancelled Commissioner
Neo. I pray you, sir, proceed to the affirmative part, and tell us what the Lord requires in this commandment.

Evan. The Lord in this commandment requires purity of heart, (1 Thess. 4:5); and he also requires speeches savouring of sobriety and chastity, (Col. 4:6, Gen. 4:1); and he also requires that we keep our eyes from beholding vanity and lustful objects, (Psa. 119:37, Job 31:1); and he also requires that we be temperate in our diet, in our sleep, and in our recreations, (Luke 21:34); and he also requires that we possess our vessels in holiness and honour, (1 Thess. 4:9); and if we have not the gift of chastity, he requires that we take the benefit of holy marriage, (1 Cor. 7:29); and that the man and wife do in that estate render due benevolence each towards the other, (1 Cor. 7:5). ...

For the reference, see Edward Fisher: The duties required in the seventh commandment.
 

Stephen L Smith

Moderator
Staff member
That is a helpful quote Daniel. I have this book (Christian Focus reprint).

I was recently thinking of this book in relation to John MacArthur's books "The Gospel according to Jesus" and "The Gospel according to the Apostles". These books were a very helpful response to the inherent antinomianism in dispensationalism. But I suggest they had a flaw that is corrected in Fisher's book. Fisher has a full view of the perpetuity of the moral law rooted in a solid covenant theology. MacArthur does not have this. Thus Macarthur's two books, while helpful, are simply a patchwork response to the problem of antinomianism.

Any thoughts?
 

Reformed Covenanter

Cancelled Commissioner
That is a helpful quote Daniel. I have this book (Christian Focus reprint).

I was recently thinking of this book in relation to John MacArthur's books "The Gospel according to Jesus" and "The Gospel according to the Apostles". These books were a very helpful response to the inherent antinomianism in dispensationalism. But I suggest they had a flaw that is corrected in Fisher's book. Fisher has a full view of the perpetuity of the moral law rooted in a solid covenant theology. MacArthur does not have this. Thus Macarthur's two books, while helpful, are simply a patchwork response to the problem of antinomianism.

Any thoughts?

I think that this analysis makes sense. Without a strong doctrine of the covenants, which accurately distinguishes the place of the law in both the legal and evangelical covenants, you are going to have a much harder job dealing with antinomian objections to the abiding validity of the moral law for those in the new covenant. While you can still appeal to individual texts against antinomianism, you will suffer from not making the case against the backdrop of the bigger picture of the covenant of grace. Hence, your calling it "a patchwork response" seems fair.
 

Stephen L Smith

Moderator
Staff member
I was given this quote by a friend a few years ago. It is from CH Spurgeon, and I realised Spurgeon precisely gets to the issue here:

"He who understands the two covenants has found the marrow of all theology, but he who does not know the covenants knows next to nothing of the gospel of Christ”
[Blood of the Covenants, Sermon No. 1186, (Hebrews 13:20-21)]

As you will know, Spurgeon refers the the covenants of works and grace. Get this right and you avoid the twin errors of antinomianism and legalism.
 

Reformed Covenanter

Cancelled Commissioner
I was given this quote by a friend a few years ago. It is from CH Spurgeon, and I realised Spurgeon precisely gets to the issue here:

"He who understands the two covenants has found the marrow of all theology, but he who does not know the covenants knows next to nothing of the gospel of Christ”
[Blood of the Covenants, Sermon No. 1186, (Hebrews 13:20-21)]

As you will know, Spurgeon refers the the covenants of works and grace. Get this right and you avoid the twin errors of antinomianism and legalism.

Which is why mono-covenantalism or anything that denies a prelapsarian covenant of works must be avoided like the plague. We have to get this issue right or else we will lose the gospel.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top