Originally posted by joshua
Sounds like Dispensationalism to me...
Not at all Joshua. Not even close. Label it what you will, but it is not Dispensational.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Originally posted by joshua
Sounds like Dispensationalism to me...
Grace/gospel is what gives us the desire and ability to obey the law. The law does not give us this desire or ability. I haven't read anywhere in Josephs posts where he has stated the law has no use or place in the life of a believer.
Originally posted by The Lamb
Originally posted by crhoades
Joseph,
What is your take on Psalm 119? Can a Christian today use it as a confession of his heart?
Of course we use the whole council of God. David is a perfect example of being in Christ. Again, I am not dismissing the Law of Moses as being unholy and of no use. IT is useful and should be taught as part of Gods word. But to use it as if it has power in it is not warranted in the NT.
Originally posted by Larry Hughes
Chris,
To love Christ IS to love His Law. But not without Christ.
l
Originally posted by The Lamb
RAS> You are on target brother.
Joseph
Originally posted by The Lamb
Originally posted by Larry Hughes
Chris,
To love Christ IS to love His Law. But not without Christ.
l
Chris to your question. I hate the Law without Christ. I dispise it. Through our redeemer the Law is Holy.
Originally posted by joshua
Sounds like Dispensationalism to me...
Originally posted by RAS
Originally posted by The Lamb
RAS> You are on target brother.
Joseph
Joseph-
Thank you for answering my questions. I will now show why I asked them:
(I got the questions from some material written by JI Packer who holds the classical protestant reformed view on law/gospel)
1. is Dualistic Antinomianism (the Gnostic view)
2. is Situationist Antinomianism (the situation ethics view)
3. is Dialectical Antinomianism (the Neo-orthodox view; Karl Barth)
4. is Dispensational Antinomianism (the contemporary evangelical- dispensational view)
5. is Christ-Centered Antinomianism (a hyper-Calvinist view)
6. is Spirit-Centered Antinomianism (a hyper-Calvinist and/or Gnostic view)
7. is Legalism
8. is the classical protestant reformed view
Based on your responses to these, we are not on the same target. What you are claiming here in this thread is antinomianism. But then you assert a partly "œyes" to question 7 which is legalism. You are speaking in dialectics, which is what is confusing us all in this thread, and why I agreed with you in a judgment of charity. But now I am lead to conclude that while you rightly criticize those who confuse the gospel and law, you are swinging to the other extreme by separating gospel and law. Antinomianism separates law and gospel, the reformed view distinguishes law and gospel, and legalism confuses law and gospel. You have lumped the reformed view in with the legalist view and then reject both. When you can see the difference in these 3 categories, then I think you will see that those you think are being legalistic really are not. It helps to read authors in context to know whether they are responding to legalism or to antinomianism. Without this context, it will always look like they are stating something false.
So I have 3 last questions for you:
What Puritans and reformers do you think are being legalistic by preaching the law? What are some present day authors/examples who hold the same view that you are stating here? What reformed confessions teach your view?
Originally posted by webmaster
Originally posted by joshua
Sounds like Dispensationalism to me...
Its TOTALLY dispensational, as well as Antinomian tot he MAX. [Toleration level reached.]
Joseph, here is the maxim - this is non-negotiable: (and this applies to everyone)
If you can't hold to an orthodox view of the law as stated in the confessions, then we don't want that view posted on the board. We don't want NCT posted, FV posted, Antinomianism, Judaism, etc. That's the maxim.
That means your view is deviant. (And as much as you deny its Antinomian, it is - its exactly what Tabletalk magazine repudiated some time back, and what one of our brothers here Pastor Barcellos wrote on in "Defending the Decalogue", which I would prompt you to read.)
If you can handle not posting that information, as right as you believe you are on it, you can continue on the board. (Again, this is not anything everyone signed onto the board understanding). If that is a problem, we can part ways now.
I don't want NCT, or dispenstaionlism in this light, on such a large subject of orthodoxy and the Law, on the board.
Is that clear?
[Edited on 5-18-2005 by webmaster]
Originally posted by Rich Barcellos
Here (http://www.rbtr.org/docs/Book Review NCT.htm) is a book review I did which deals with some of the issues Joseph brings up. Also, Greg Welty has and excellent discussion of the "Eschatological Fulfillment" view of Mt. 5 as advocated by D.A. Carson, Fred Zaspel, and NCT at http://www.ccir.ed.ac.uk/~jad/welty/carson.htm.
Originally posted by crhoades
Originally posted by The Lamb
Originally posted by Larry Hughes
Chris,
To love Christ IS to love His Law. But not without Christ.
l
Chris to your question. I hate the Law without Christ. I dispise it. Through our redeemer the Law is Holy.
Would you also say that the Law is Holy outside of our redeemer? yes it is condemning that is why you hate it but it is still just and holy reflecting God's character.
I agree that the law in the Christian's life should be seen alongside Christ in all aspects.
I'm asking questions to try to understand if you in your own Christian life go to the law at all - still keeping Christ in view. Do you meditate on the law and seek to understand its requirements so that you may love Christ all the more? All the while keeping in mind that the Holy Spirit empowers the whole process...etc. etc. etc.?
(Not trying to be combatitive but sincerely trying to figure your thinking out...)
Originally posted by The Lamb
Wow. I do have a NCT tendancy. I am going to have to review what i wrote in some parts. I do not believe this is heretical, but I know I do not propose all that Zens, Zaspel and the like propose. Thank you for the Articles Richard.
Joseph
Originally posted by biblelighthouse
Originally posted by The Lamb
Wow. I do have a NCT tendancy. I am going to have to review what i wrote in some parts. I do not believe this is heretical, but I know I do not propose all that Zens, Zaspel and the like propose. Thank you for the Articles Richard.
Joseph
Thank the Lord that we all help each other out on this board!
Richard, thank you for showing Joseph those articles. And Joseph, thank you for being open to seeing your NCT tendencies, as well as being willing to review some of what you wrote. (Joseph, you also might want to read Richard's book, "In Defense of the Decalogue" . . . )
Everybody, please go easy on Joseph for now. I know what he is going through. I myself was enamoured with NCT for quite a while. (And you have to admit it is a LOT better than classic dispensationalism!) I honestly believe that God used NCT as a sort of "halfway point" for me on my road to orthodoxy. I believed in the doctrines of grace long before my mind was cleared of my faulty understanding of Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8.
Just think about how many of us on this board were anti-Covenant-Theology at some point. Covenant Theology is a HUGE issue, and it's not something a person generally comes to understand and adhere to overnight. As long as Joseph is willing to dig a little deeper into considering the biblical arguments for both sides, we should all continue to exercise charity. (I'm not saying that anyone in particular hasn't.)
Joseph, as you look more deeply into the differences between NCT and true Covenant Theology, it will be interesting to see if you follow some of the same paths that others have in similar situations. Let us all know from time to time how your studies are going.
I can't resist asking this question:
Have you read Witsius?
Your brother in Christ,
Joseph
[Edited on 5-18-2005 by biblelighthouse]
Originally posted by Larry Hughes
Grace/gospel is what gives us the desire and ability to obey the law. The law does not give us this desire or ability. I haven't read anywhere in Josephs posts where he has stated the law has no use or place in the life of a believer.
Exactly and this is what one of the confessions states that many claim they follow: WCF XIX:VII. 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, requires to be done.
I agree with Mr. Smith, I don't think Joseph in any since is advocating antinominism which is usually the immediate counter cry of a legalist when a strong Gospel is set forth IN ORDER TO OBEY THE LAW'S REAL COMMANDS FROM THE HEART. AGAIN, AND AGAIN THE GOSPEL IS THE POWER! This does not necessitate the foolish accusation of "shall we now sin that grace may abound". Like Luther it is trying to show where real and true good works and deeds, obedience to the Law come from - not the negation of as some would slander. They arise from the Gospel and faith, not the naked Law. Nobody, as much as I can tell, is advocating a life of licentious living, NOBODY! The Law is loved by grace first and by grace continued, naked law does not give the power it demands. Otherwise one has fallen into the Galatian heresy (saved by grace/sustained by works/law) which brings forth the Apostolic cursing.
And to continue to throw the accusation of being anti-law/licentious living in light of clear refutation and denial of it boarders on slander. The antinomian in essence has made "a law" out of disobeying the law. That is NOT what is being said here. It is a mere DISTINCTION between Law and Gospel and the application of both in preaching.
This distinction is not setting Law against Gospel but properly setting them both forth unconfused. Just as Paul says, Romans 3:31, "Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law." If you REALLY love the Law as you claim then you will cherish first and foremost that which FULFILLED the Law (that is done what the Law really required, if you really love the fulfillment of the Law) and that is the Gospel of Jesus Christ the Law Fulfiller. Then, the gratitude toward the FULFILLER of the Law, Christ, drives one's desire to obey the Law. IF one thinks one loves the Law apart from the fulfillment of the Law, the Gospel, one is plainly deceived and really doesn't love the Law at all but one's vain attempts to fulfill it cheaply and insufficiently. The perfect irony here is that to confuse this distinction or eliminate it IS in reality to pit the Law against the Gospel.
Psalm 119 is very simply answered in that it assumes grace at the outset. Read post of Calvin's commentary regarding Psalm 19, similarly. It is a confession of the Christians heart BECAUSE of the Gospel and that alone. Apart from the Gospel such a confession of "loving the Law of God" is hypocritical for it denies the only fulfiller of the Law Jesus Christ.
Behold the Son of God hanging upon the cross as He drank every bitter dreg of the wrath of God poored out upon Him for our sins that he did not commit. Behold the darkness as we sinners literally were killing our Redeemer the light of life who lived perfectly according to the Law. As Christ's body is laid in the tomb and the tomb closes look and see what the infinite price of all our sin/law breaking (past, present and future - thought, word and deed) cost the Son of God. Behold your/my total depravity as you vainly think you really obey the Law before conversion and even now.
Only through Christ can you love the Law.
Blessings,
Larry H.
Originally posted by The Lamb
The Galatian Heresey is exactly what bothers me about the improper use of the Law by some.
Originally posted by biblelighthouse
Originally posted by The Lamb
The Galatian Heresey is exactly what bothers me about the improper use of the Law by some.
Paul never chided the Galatians for trying to keep the law.
Paul chided them for trying to obtain *salvation* by keeping the law.
That is a big difference!
Nobody is saved by keeping the law. But all Christians are required to keep the law. That distinction is critical.
Paul never chided the Galatians for trying to keep the law.
Paul chided them for trying to obtain *salvation* by keeping the law.