Rom. 10:6-8 vs. Deut. 30:11-14

[cultureshock]

Dear esteemed puritanboard exegetes,

What is the link between Rom. 10:6-8 and Deut. 30:11-14? On my superficial reading, one seems to be in the context of gospel and the other law. Can someone tell me how these relate?

Also, where can I have William Perkins' treatment of these passages? I have heard that it is good.

Brian

 

[Poimen]

Originally posted by cultureshock
Dear esteemed puritanboard exegetes,

What is the link between Rom. 10:6-8 and Deut. 30:11-14? On my superficial reading, one seems to be in the context of gospel and the other law. Can someone tell me how these relate?

Also, where can I have William Perkins' treatment of these passages? I have heard that it is good.

Brian

Part of your answer is found in the simple fact that Deuteronomy is a book with a great deal of tension between law and gospel. Just look at the way Paul interprets the law in Galatians 3:10-13. (citing from Deuteronomy 27:26; Leviticus 18:5; Deuteronomy 21:23).

The other part of your answer is found the context of your chosen passage, Romans 10:4 where Paul says that Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to all who believe. Thus the law (as a strict taskmaster) in its penalty and sanctions as well as its demand for perfect righteousness has been fulfilled in Christ.

On the other hand, the law does reveal to us salvation in a very broad sense of containing the message of righteousness (Romans 3:21). Just as our Lord says, 'the law and the prophets speak of me' (Luke 24:44).

So in conclusion we have to distinguish between the law in its redemptive-historical development (the Torah or first five books of the Bible) as containing the gospel and its use as a tool (in its commandments) to drive us to Christ (cf. Heidelberg Catechism LD 2-3).

[Edited on 9-23-2005 by poimen]

 

[Saiph]

I would like to offer an answer that the law and the gospel are not diametrically opposed to one another.

The giving of the law is one of the most gracious things God did.
And the gospel has always been God's provision to man of the spiritual grace for keeping it.

The law is gracious, and grace demands obedience. I prefer the idea of equillibrium to tension, but that is a trifle.

Herein lies the apparent contradiction between St. Paul and St. James as well.

 

[Brian]

Deuteronomy 30 begins Moses remarks after the covenantal curses have befallen Israel. They are to recall these words when they are in Babylon (Deut 30.1). Moses exhorts the Israelites to true repentance, promising them that the Lord will hear them and give them the circumcision of the heart and fulfill the New Covenant in their midst (Deuteronomy 30.6; Jeremiah 31.31ff). So the Old Testament context is repentance and the New Covenant.

Paul gives a running commentary on Deuteronomy 30:

Comparison:
Romans: "Do not say in your heart, 'Who will ascend into heaven?'"
Deut: 'Who will ascend to heaven for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?'

Paul's commentary - Don't attempt to bring Christ down from heaven

Romans:"'Who will descend into the abyss?'" [Note - abussos is rendered "abyss" here in the ESV. It could be translated "the deep," a Hebraism for "tehhome" which is translated "deep." Paul is not following the MT or LXX here.]
Deut: Who will go over the sea for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?'

Paul's commentary - Don't attempt to bring Christ up.

Romans: "The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart"
Deut: "But the word is very near you. It is in your mouth and in your heart, so that you can do it.

Paul's commentary - This simplicity is the word of faith we preach to you.

He goes on to explain that by believing in your heart that Jesus is Lord and confessing God has raised Him from the dead (mouth and heart) you are saved and justified. Moses says that salvation is not like journeying to heaven or over the seas (a terrifying thought to Hebrews), but that the word was with them.

Similarly, Paul says that we need not ascend into heaven (roughly, become divine) to apprehend Christ, nor die the death that he did (descend into the abyss). Rather, the word which the Apostle preached, that simple word, is the word of salvation.

Calvin on Paul's use of language -

Moses mentions heaven and the sea, as places remote and difficult of access to men. But Paul, as though there was some spiritual mystery concealed under these words, applies them to the death and resurrection of Christ. If any one thinks that this interpretation is too strained and too refined, let him understand that it was not the object of the Apostle strictly to explain this passage, but to apply it to the explanation of his present subject. He does not, therefore, repeat verbally what Moses has said, but makes alterations, by which he accommodates more suitably to his own purpose the testimony of Moses. He spoke of inaccessible places; Paul refers to those, which are indeed hid from the sight of us all, and may yet be seen by our faith. If then you take these things as spoken for illustration, or by way of improvement, you cannot say that Paul has violently or inaptly changed the words of Moses; but you will, on the contrary, allow, that without loss of meaning, he has, in a striking manner, alluded to the words heaven and the sea.

http://www.ccel.org/c/calvin/comment3/comm_vol38/htm/xiv.ii.htm

As to whether this is law or gospel, thanks to Rev. D.K. for the good answer. I would second him. Both Moses and Paul offer law and gospel in close proximity. Moses holds out unconditional promises in a book of oaths. Paul contrasts the righteousness of faith on the heels of righteousness by the law (Romans 10.5; Leviticus 18.5).

However, there can be some clear delineations between them. Paul and Moses are in unison: you need not travel or perform the divine; rather, the word is near you, even the word which we proclaim to you. Notice that from Deut 30.6 til v. 15, God is the active subject of the main verbs (a few exceptions, I realize - 6b, 8, 10a, 10c... the main ideas though, are the Lord acting) and He is the one accomplishing the salvation of the people. These are not if clauses - "If you x, I will reward you with y." Rather, "I will supply condition x, and still reward you with y."

Others have said this better than I can here. Basically, though Deuteronomy is in "the Law" (Torah), the real difference between law and gospel is who is asked to fulfill something. If I, a mere mortal, have something demanded of me, I am lost, for I cannot "do this and live." However, if the text promises God will do it for me, or provide a substitute, then the word is near me, for all I must do is believe His promise to sustain me. (Of course, even the faith to believe the promise must be provided, but that is a different theological point.)

As far as Perkins goes, my brief searches turned up nothing. Sorry. Hopefully that Calvin link above whets your appetite and tides you over until you find it.


Thankful for Christ - near us as the Word,
BRIAN

 

[Brian]

Originally posted by Saiph
The giving of the law is one of the most gracious things God did.

Agreed! Thanks for making that clear.

And the gospel has always been God's provision to man of the spiritual grace for keeping it.

Edit: The gospel in the person and work of Jesus Christ is God's provision for keeping it.

The law is gracious...

Boy, you are sure right about that! :bigsmile:

Herein lies the apparent contradiction between St. Paul and St. James as well.

I highly doubt that - both that there is a contradiction, and that THIS is the answer to it.

Saiph -

Thanks for all of your confessionally informed responses. I totally agree with you that the giving of the Law at Sinai was gracious. There seem to be some people out there, however, who want to say, like Dr. Dan Fuller did, that there is no tension between works and gospel. Because, I don't really think this thread is talking about Sinai, rather about the Covenant of Works, and how Sinai fits into that.

So if anyone would like to go against a law/gospel distinction, the place to do it is in Eden, not - primarily - Sinai.

For the Mediator of the New Covenant,
BRIAN

 

[Saiph]

And the gospel has always been God's provision to man of the spiritual grace for keeping it.

Edit: The gospel in the person and work of Jesus Christ is God's provision for keeping it.

"the person and work of Jesus Christ " is implicit actually.

I was using the word "gospel" metonymically as Paul did in Romans 1:16

For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.

Herein lies the apparent contradiction between St. Paul and St. James as well.

I highly doubt that - both that there is a contradiction, and that THIS is the answer to it.

That is why I said "apparent". I do not think there is one either.
I was referring to the ideas of "justified by faith" in Paul and "justified by works" in James. The difference is scope. Paul is speaking from a vertical perspective, God to man. James is speaking in a horizontal reference from man to man.

[Edited on 9-22-2005 by Saiph]

 

[cultureshock]

Originally posted by Saiph
I would like to offer an answer that the law and the gospel are not diametrically opposed to one another.

The giving of the law is one of the most gracious things God did.
And the gospel has always been God's provision to man of the spiritual grace for keeping it.

The law is gracious, and grace demands obedience. I prefer the idea of equillibrium to tension, but that is a trifle.

Herein lies the apparent contradiction between St. Paul and St. James as well.

I think it is dangerous to say that law is gracious, as an unqualified statement. First, what do you mean by "law"? Second, what do you mean by "gracious"?

Law and gospel are diametrically opposed insofar as each stands as a principle of inheritance. To inherit a blessing by law (or works) is antithetical to inheriting a blessing by gospel (or grace). This is made clear in Galatians 3.

Yet, God's dispensing of law is not diametrically opposed to his dispensing of gospel. Indeed, both were given for the advancement of redemption in history, and both play their respective roles in our salvation (under both Old and New Covenants).

Thus, I think you should be careful when making statements about the law being gracious.

Brian

 

[Texas Aggie]

The law is gracious.... it is of God and it defines sin. The law is the will of the Lawgiver for His creation. All things are of God and all things are gracious (even our little hurricanes in the gulf).

Obedience to the law is what He is after. The demand for absolute obedience has not been nullified because God is absolute. The demand of the law which requires your death for disobedience has been paid (this is one's justification).

God provides that which satisfies Himself.... nothing that His creation does can accomplish this. Christ satisfied the demand of the law requiring your eternal death.... He did not satisfy the requirement for your obedience after regeneration. You have a responsibility to the King of the Kingdom (and it is simply obedience to His law).

Prior to regeneration your righteousness is as filthy rags. After regeneration, your righteousness is an expectation of the Kingdom. Under the New Covenant, God has provided the believer with the means and the way to obey the law. You now sin because you willfully choose to sin (despite the provisions of the law and the Spirit given to the believer by God).

Christ is the end of the law for righteousness. Under the Old Covenant, what made one righteous?... it was the animal sacrifices (particularly on the Day of Atonement). There is no more sacrifice for sins (this is part of the change of the law as indicated in Hebrews). Once regenerated, obedience to the law of God is merely an exercise of your will.

Fortunately when you choose to do something contrary to the Spirit and the law, God has also made provision for your cleansing. Christ Himself provides a continual sprinkling at the throne.... but you have a role to own up to your infraction. The fact that you have a will shows that you have a role and responsibility in the New Covenant. Law and Grace go hand in hand.

 

[Saiph]

I think it is dangerous to say that law is gracious, as an unqualified statement. First, what do you mean by "law"? Second, what do you mean by "gracious"?

Law and gospel are diametrically opposed insofar as each stands as a principle of inheritance. To inherit a blessing by law (or works) is antithetical to inheriting a blessing by gospel (or grace). This is made clear in Galatians 3.

Yet, God's dispensing of law is not diametrically opposed to his dispensing of gospel. Indeed, both were given for the advancement of redemption in history, and both play their respective roles in our salvation (under both Old and New Covenants).

Thus, I think you should be careful when making statements about the law being gracious.

Are you serious? ?

I can open almost any page and show you that the law is gracious. For without it we would never be driven to Christ, and know how God chose to remedy the problem of sin.

Let me simple post Psalm 1 to refute your statement that blessings do not come from keeping the law. God blesses even pagans who keep external principles of the law. We are heirs of the promise by a grace that sets us free from the law of sin and death, not the Law Of God.

1 Blessed is the man
who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked
or stand in the way of sinners
or sit in the seat of mockers.
2 But his delight is in the law of the LORD,
and on his law he meditates day and night.

3 He is like a tree planted by streams of water,
which yields its fruit in season
and whose leaf does not wither.
Whatever he does prospers.

4 Not so the wicked!
They are like chaff
that the wind blows away.

5 Therefore the wicked will not stand in the judgment,
nor sinners in the assembly of the righteous.

6 For the LORD watches over the way of the righteous,
but the way of the wicked will perish.



This is a beatitude. A beatitude pronounces blessing upon a certain group of people. It is not, however, an unconditional pronouncement, nor a pronouncement of bliss or a life without problems. It is conditional and this is strongly stressed. Note, "œhow blessed is the man who "¦" The article specifies a certain kind of man, "œthe man who obeys the actions of this passage."

[Edited on 9-22-2005 by Saiph]

 

[BobVigneault]

Brian, you do well to ask for a definition of 'law' and 'graciousness' for it's oblvious that you are defining your terms in a manner that is much more narrow than Mark's definition. If we define graciousness as an unmerited gift then the law is certainly gracious. God gave the law only to his elected, chosen, covenant people. He didn't give it to any other people but those whom he chose according to His purpose in election. Election is the first act of grace.

The Law is simply God speaking the words that lead us from bondage. We all deserve death and hell for eternity and therefore any pronouncement that leads us out of bondage is grace. It doesn't matter that by sin we have the inability to follow the law. Christ our head has fulfilled the law and the Holy Spirit empowers us to follow the teachings of the law. The law is a gift of love and grace, most definitely.

 

[Brian]

Is the Law gracious?

Brian (cultureshock) asked for definition of terms, to which none have given any. As max noted, this was quite correct of him.

Max - excellent definition of grace. Why, then, do you give no definition of law?

As several have contended, the Law given at Sinai was gracious.

Romans 7:12 So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.

But it is not enough to say this to remain faithful to the Bible! What do we mean by "Law," and secondly, is this what Paul is talking about in our text (Romans 10:5-8)?

While the Law distributed at Sinai was a gracious gift, there are all sorts of elements that are fundamentally antithetical to our definition of grace: "unmerited gift" (thanks maxdetail). They can all be summed up in Leviticus 18:5 -
You shall therefore keep my statutes and my rules; if a person does them, he shall live by them: I am the LORD.

Here, God is echoing the language of Eden with prelapsarian Adam: if you, Adam, render this obedience (doing all the statutes and rules above), then I will give you this blessing (in Leviticus, life). It is a simple conditional, if - then contract.

This is not the righteousness to be desired! This is a righteousness that is from law-keeping, from human pride and merit, and from a fundamentally distrustful relationship with YHWH. This is Phariseeism. This is the false gospel Paul anathemized at Galatia (cf. Romans 10:5; Galatians 3:12). It is absolutely untrue and unbiblical to say that, of anyone other than Christ, "blessings... come from keeping the law. God blesses even pagans who keep external principles of the law." Saiph, if the Psalmist speaks of anyone, it is only Christ. There is
NO ONE who seeks God
NO ONE who understands
NO ONE who is righteous
NO ONE who fears the Lord. But rather,

EVERYONE seeks their own way
EVERYONE is like a lost sheep. Blessings from keeping the law? There is no such man, but rather

Romans 3:20 For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.
Galatians 3:10 For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, "Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them."

Paul's logic is this:
Cursed is everyone who does not perform the whole law
No one performs the whole law
____________________
::All who rely on works of the law are under a curse

So yes, the Law is good and holy, and the Law is a gracious gift to those who trust in Christ alone by grace alone through faith alone for the righteousness to appear in the court of the Torah. However, what is NOT being dealt with, and what is being passed over on this thread, AND WHAT Paul IS DEALING WITH IN ROMANS 10, is not the nuda lex but the Covenant of Works (foedus operum).

Miscellenies
The Law has never led any man from bondage. Christ was not under bondage, He fulfilled it.
It really does matter that by sin we have an inability to uphold the Law, because the Law (not us) was weakend by sin. There was something the Law could not perform (cf. Romans 8:3) - namely, it could not destroy sin.

I don't care if Psalm 1 is the beatitude prototype. Matthew 5 is all law in the sense that NO ONE lives up to the Beatitudes or the Sermon on the Mount. As Christians, yes, we may humbly and by faith seek to live our lives based on them. However, our continual failings, imperfections, and other shortcomings will always lead us flying back to Christ. The law will never be final good news to us in this flesh.

Prior to regeneration your righteousness is as filthy rags. After regeneration, your righteousness is still filthy rags covered over by beautiful robes that are blessed by the Holy Spirit. You didn't find, buy, or produce the splendid robes, and your slow sanctification doesn't add to their luster either.

Christ is the only object in existence, from eternity past to the end of the age, that has ever made anything at anytime, righteous. Any OC sacrifice or ritual were appropriate sacraments that conveyed grace. However, Christ ALONE conveys righteousness, as He is the sole mediator of the Covenant of Grace, of which the Old and New Covenant are part.

Once I am regenerated, obedience to God's law is NOT merely an exercise of my will, but a continual outpouring of grace through the visible means.

/Miscellenies

This is fundamental and absolutely not novel. The quotes to this extent from the Reformed, Presbyterian, Lutheran, and Church Fathers to this extent are voluminous. Ask, I will provide. However, even a cursory reading of Scripture should confirm the above.

Let us not forsake so great a salvation,
BRIAN

 

[Saiph]

I think we are arguing different points. I am not talking about justification. If I did not have a monergistic view, I would not even be posting on this board.

I am talking about civil obedience and the blessings that follow. If a man remains faithful to his wife, and children obey their parents, there are blessings that follow. Now, of course we know that the hearts of all men are plagued with lust, and that children are by nature rebellious to their parents, but that does not take away the practical aspect of obeying the law externally in a civil sense does it ? ?

Otherwise the line of reasoning would be, "well, I lust after other women in my heart anyway, so why not commit physical adultery, since I am already guilty."

This is not the righteousness to be desired! This is a righteousness that is from law-keeping, from human pride and merit, and from a fundamentally distrustful relationship with YHWH. This is Phariseeism. This is the false gospel Paul anathemized at Galatia (cf. Romans 10:5; Galatians 3:12). It is absolutely untrue and unbiblical to say that, of anyone other than Christ, "blessings... come from keeping the law. God blesses even pagans who keep external principles of the law." Saiph, if the Psalmist speaks of anyone, it is only Christ.

There is more than one way to interpret any given passage. Historically, eschatologically, morally, analogy, etc. . . .

I think you jumped to the conclusion that I was referring to soteriological righteousness. But, why would I blatantly propose something so Pelagian on this board ? ?

You either misread or completely overlooked my statement:

God blesses even pagans who keep external principles of the law. We are heirs of the promise by a grace that sets us free from the law of sin and death, not the Law Of God.

 

[Brian]

Saiph -

If I have misunderstood you, I sincerely apologize.

Why don't you help me understand my error by:
1. defining how you understand and are using law
2. defining how you are using grace
3. What do you mean by "civil obedience?"
4. Are the people you are talking about in your last post regenerate?
5. If there is more than one way to interpret a text, how do we decide which way to interpret it?
6. How are you interpreting Psalm 1 (or the Sermon on the Mount) in your view?
7. Finally, if you aren't referring to "justification...soteriological righteousness, etc." would you kindly explain how your posts relate to your previous post:

I would like to offer an answer that the law and the gospel are not diametrically opposed to one another.

The giving of the law is one of the most gracious things God did.
And the gospel has always been God's provision to man of the spiritual grace for keeping it.

The law is gracious, and grace demands obedience. I prefer the idea of equillibrium to tension, but that is a trifle.

Herein lies the apparent contradiction between St. Paul and St. James as well.

Are Paul and James talking about "justification... soteriological righteousness?" Also, how does "the law [being] gracioius, and grace demand[ing] obedience" factor into this.

Thanks.

Sorry if I misunderstood you,
BRIAN

 

[Saiph]

1. defining how you understand and are using law

The body of rules and principles governing the affairs of men enforced by God and/or political authority.

2. defining how you are using grace

Anything God gives to man that he does not deserve.

3. What do you mean by "civil obedience?"

External obedience to law codes.
(ie. Not lying to your boss in actuality. Even though your heart is full od deception, or not committing actual adultery, even though you have lustful thoughts.)

4. Are the people you are talking about in your last post regenerate?

Not necessarily. The heathen obey laws of men and God in a limited external sense.

5. If there is more than one way to interpret a text, how do we decide which way to interpret it?


Medieval interpretations of text incorporated exegesis in a fourfold mode that emphasized the distinction between the letter and the spirit of the text, This handy scheme of various ways of interpreting the text was handed down from Patristic programs of Late Antiquity. The literal sense (sensus historicus) of Scripture denotes what the text states or reports directly. The allegorical sense (sensus allegoricus) explains the text with regard to the doctrinal content of church dogma, as a manifestation in which each literal element has a symbolic meaning. The moral application of the text to the individual reader or hearer is the third sense, the sensus tropologicus or sensus moralis, while a fourth level of meaning, the sensus anagogicus draws out of the text the implicit allusions it contains concerning metaphysical and eschatological secret understanding, or gnosis.


6. How are you interpreting Psalm 1 (or the Sermon on the Mount) in your view?

All four ways.

7. Finally, if you aren't referring to "justification...soteriological righteousness, etc." would you kindly explain how your posts relate to your previous post:

The law given at Sinai is gracious to Israel and the heathens. Anyone associated with God's people share in the blessings and common good brought about by mere aquaintances. And, even english common law was built on Biblical principles, which the heathen do practice and find life more enjoyable when they do.


I do not understand why this is confusing. I am sorry if I am not being clear.
The only person justified by the works of the law was Christ. But that does not mean that just because all men are totally depraved and have broken every law of God, that they do not obey in outward ways and live a better life when they do submit in any small measure. Even when the heathen obey the law out of sinful human motives, the external blessings that attend the law will follow.
ie. Not committing murder keeps you out of jail and in favour of those around you. Not committing adultery makes for a more satisfying and lasting marriage. Not lying is condusive to more people trusting you and better relationships.

 

[cultureshock]

Originally posted by Texas Aggie
The law is gracious.... it is of God and it defines sin. The law is the will of the Lawgiver for His creation. All things are of God and all things are gracious (even our little hurricanes in the gulf).

Whoa, there. Not everything that comes from God is gracious. There was no grace exercised in creation. God exercised goodness and condescension towards his creation, but not grace. In my understanding, the concept of grace only functions in the context where sin has taken place. Grace presupposes transgression. Thus, there would have been no grace to exercise before Adam sinned.

Originally posted by Texas Aggie
Obedience to the law is what He is after. The demand for absolute obedience has not been nullified because God is absolute. The demand of the law which requires your death for disobedience has been paid (this is one's justification).

God provides that which satisfies Himself.... nothing that His creation does can accomplish this. Christ satisfied the demand of the law requiring your eternal death.... He did not satisfy the requirement for your obedience after regeneration. You have a responsibility to the King of the Kingdom (and it is simply obedience to His law).

Don't forget that Christ also obeyed the law for us, imputing not only his death, but also his righteous life to us. He did satisfy the need for my obedience, as far as justification is concerned. Yet, I still should obey.

Originally posted by Texas Aggie
Prior to regeneration your righteousness is as filthy rags. After regeneration, your righteousness is an expectation of the Kingdom. Under the New Covenant, God has provided the believer with the means and the way to obey the law. You now sin because you willfully choose to sin (despite the provisions of the law and the Spirit given to the believer by God).

I'm afraid that since regeneration took place, my works still haven't ever measured up. See Paul's post-conversion struggle with sin in Romans 7. Yes, we must obey God's law, but at the same time, it is never the strict basis for God's blessing on us. I assume you would agree with this?

Originally posted by Texas Aggie
Christ is the end of the law for righteousness. Under the Old Covenant, what made one righteous?... it was the animal sacrifices (particularly on the Day of Atonement). There is no more sacrifice for sins (this is part of the change of the law as indicated in Hebrews). Once regenerated, obedience to the law of God is merely an exercise of your will.

Fortunately when you choose to do something contrary to the Spirit and the law, God has also made provision for your cleansing. Christ Himself provides a continual sprinkling at the throne.... but you have a role to own up to your infraction. The fact that you have a will shows that you have a role and responsibility in the New Covenant. Law and Grace go hand in hand.

Indeed, they law and grace go hand in hand in the life of God's people. Grace justifies and sanctifies me. Law shows me how I should live towards God in response to his grace (this is not the only thing law does).

Brian

 

[cultureshock]

Originally posted by Saiph
Are you serious? ?

I can open almost any page and show you that the law is gracious. For without it we would never be driven to Christ, and know how God chose to remedy the problem of sin.

Let me simple post Psalm 1 to refute your statement that blessings do not come from keeping the law. God blesses even pagans who keep external principles of the law. We are heirs of the promise by a grace that sets us free from the law of sin and death, not the Law Of God.

I did not say that "blessings do not come from keeping the law." What I said is that potentially, there are two ways to inherit a promise from God. You can either do the work yourself (works), or receive the work done by another (by grace). If my blessing from God depends in the slightest bit on my work, then I'm damned, and should have been sent to hell before I was ever born.

Originally posted by Texas Aggie
This is a beatitude. A beatitude pronounces blessing upon a certain group of people. It is not, however, an unconditional pronouncement, nor a pronouncement of bliss or a life without problems. It is conditional and this is strongly stressed. Note, "œhow blessed is the man who "¦" The article specifies a certain kind of man, "œthe man who obeys the actions of this passage."

Ok, so the man who delights in the law is blessed. Agreed. Yet, not on the basis of his law-keeping, for who has kept the law? The answer is Christ. I am blessed on the basis of Christ's law-keeping.

Brian

 

[cultureshock]

Originally posted by maxdetail
Brian, you do well to ask for a definition of 'law' and 'graciousness' for it's oblvious that you are defining your terms in a manner that is much more narrow than Mark's definition. If we define graciousness as an unmerited gift then the law is certainly gracious. God gave the law only to his elected, chosen, covenant people. He didn't give it to any other people but those whom he chose according to His purpose in election. Election is the first act of grace.

Agreed. The historical revelation of the law to God's people was a gracious act.

Originally posted by maxdetail
The Law is simply God speaking the words that lead us from bondage. We all deserve death and hell for eternity and therefore any pronouncement that leads us out of bondage is grace. It doesn't matter that by sin we have the inability to follow the law. Christ our head has fulfilled the law and the Holy Spirit empowers us to follow the teachings of the law. The law is a gift of love and grace, most definitely.

The giving of the law was a gracious act. I agree with that. Galatians 3 makes it clear that the principle of inheritance by law-keeping inevitably leads sinful people to fail. Thus, I am morally unable (even as a believer) to earn blessing by law-keeping.

Brian

 

[cultureshock]

Saiph, this post explains much to me. I will comment on one part that I disagree with.

Originally posted by Saiph
2. defining how you are using grace

Anything God gives to man that he does not deserve.

In my understanding, grace is not the same as anything that man does not deserve. Man did not even deserve for God to enter into the covenant of works with him, yet God did. This was not grace, for grace is given in the context of broken law. If no law had been broken, then it was not grace, but "voluntary condescension" (to use the words of the WCF). God voluntarily condescended to man. This was an act of goodness towards man, but not grace (as John Murray has mistakenly argued).

Brian

 

[Saiph]

Whoa, there. Not everything that comes from God is gracious. There was no grace exercised in creation. God exercised goodness and condescension towards his creation, but not grace. In my understanding, the concept of grace only functions in the context where sin has taken place. Grace presupposes transgression. Thus, there would have been no grace to exercise before Adam sinned.

Interesting. I guess my definition of grace is broader, and I never realized it. Maybe I am wrong.

To me, everything this side of hell is grace.

Creation was gracious because it was God speaking into the chaos that was formless and void.

 

[BobVigneault]

"Max - excellent definition of grace. Why, then, do you give no definition of law?"

I said, "The Law is simply God speaking the words that lead us from bondage."
Granted it's not a technical definition of the law but it was the definition I was using to show the gracious attributes of the law.

My definition of grace is broader and probably quite similar to brother Marks. Whereas God was under no obligation to create and under no obligation to benefit man, then all his benefits, including those stemming from creation are gracious.

If we put these definitions under our high powered microscopes we are bound to see more and more diferences in our understanding of grace for I do not see grace and law as being diametrically opposed.

Bob Howe recommended the book "The Ten Commandments" by Thomas Watson. I read it and what a blessing. That was the book that changed the way I viewed the law. Watson demonstrates the divine love instrinsic to the giving of the law.

This is a great subject Brian. Thanks for bringing it up.

 

[Texas Aggie]

Brian,

You have a righteousness now that exceeds that of the scribes and the Pharisees. They had an external, visible righteousness yet they were spiritually unclean. This is where the righteousness of Christ comes in to play.

Christ's perfect obedience to the law made Him a worthy sacrifice to God. Imputation of this righteousness is your justification. You do have a role in your sanctification while here on earth simply because you have a will. God has given you the provisions to delight and obey His law; however, you can make the same choice as Adam did.

On a side note, I see grace as unmerited favor..... but I think there is much more to this. I also see Grace as a person. Grace is the Holy Spirit Himself.

After regeneration, your obedience is just an expectation. You now have no excuse not to obey the law of God. Your nature has been conformed to the will of God (new heart). The law has been written in your heart and mind (you can not escape the law). His Spirit has been placed within you (the means and equipment to obey).

I believe we will be fully sanctified prior to standing before God; however, I see sanctification as an ongoing process. God is bringing you to perfection via His Son, His Spirit and His law.... but your will is involved. Blessings and cursings are part of the covenant. Chastening is not something I wish to endure because of wilful disobedience to the law.

Obedience to the law has nothing to do with one's justification..... but it is an integral part of your sanctification (and your will is involved). As I see it, your were sanctified before the foundation of the world, you are currently being sanctified (via the law, the Spirit and your will), and you are yet to be fully sanctified (probably occurring at your death). I think I read this from Pink some time ago.