Credo-Baptism Answers The ceremonial vs moral law as applicable today

[cw_theology]

I am looking specifically for a 1689 federalist answer, hence why this question is in the credobaptist forum rather then the law forum.

How should we understand the ceremonial and moral lawin relationship to each other In Galatians 3:23-4:10. Paul clearly expressed full abrogation of the law, however we recognize that there is moral law which still applys. So in Galatians 3 what does Paul mean by law. And how do his statements about it being abrogated allow for the moral law to still be binding, and what is the relationship between this moral law and the mosaic laws?

 

[paranymph]

It is pretty clear in Gal 3 & 4 that "law" = the old covenant made at Sinai. The Mosaic law is abolished in Christ (Heb 8, and the whole book of Hebrews). The moral law still abides because we see it so in Scripture as present in creation.

 

[cw_theology]

It is pretty clear in Gal 3 & 4 that "law" = the old covenant made at Sinai. The Mosaic law is abolished in Christ (Heb 8, and the whole book of Hebrews). The moral law still abides because we see it so in Scripture as present in creation.

Does this "law" in Galatians 3 and 4 include or exclude the 10 commandments?

 

[arapahoepark]

Does this "law" in Galatians 3 and 4 include or exclude the 10 commandments?

Yes and no....yes in so far as the ten commandments are apart of the Old Covenant. (Could be wrong. Fellow 1689ers help me out if so). This certainly doesn't mean they are abrogated as a way of life however. The ten commandments are evidenced to have been known in some capacity pre Sinai. I have little doubt it was known at Adam and since. Otherwise, why are things written particularly in Genesis shown to be wrong?

It is pretty clear in Gal 3 & 4 that "law" = the old covenant made at Sinai. The Mosaic law is abolished in Christ (Heb 8, and the whole book of Hebrews). The moral law still abides because we see it so in Scripture as present in creation.

I love how T. David Gordon has it in his commentary on Galatians and it makes total sense that Promise is a synecdoche for Abraham and his covenant, law to Mosaic and Faith is the new.
I actually have used that in my classes when studying the emergence of Christianity.

 

[paranymph]

Yes and no....yes in so far as the ten commandments are apart of the Old Covenant. (Could be wrong. Fellow 1689ers help me out if so). This certainly doesn't mean they are abrogated as a way of life however. The ten commandments are evidenced to have been known in some capacity pre Sinai. I have little doubt it was known at Adam and since. Otherwise, why are things written particularly in Genesis shown to be wrong?

Correct. We can say that the Decalogue is abolished in terms of its function in the old covenant. However, the moral law is not abolished. Since the Decalogue is a summary of the moral law, the Decalogue still teaches us in the new covenant. In fact, the Decalogue is the law written on the heart in the new covenant.

Owen on Hebrews 9:3-5

Although this law as a covenant was broken and disannulled by the entrance of sin, and became insufficient as unto its first ends, of the justification and salvation of the church thereby, Rom. viii. 3; yet as a law and rule of obedience it was never disannulled, nor would God suffer it to be. Yea, one principal design of God in Christ was, that it might be fulfilled and established, Matt. v. 17, 18; Rom. iii. 31. For to reject this law, or to abrogate it, had been for God to have laid aside that glory of his holiness and righteousness which in his infinite wisdom he designed therein. Hence, after it was again broken by the people as a covenant, he wrote it a second time himself in tables of stone, and caused it to be safely kept in the ark, as his perpetual testimony. That, therefore, which he taught the church by and in all this, in the first place, was, that this law was to be fulfilled and accomplished, or they could have no advantage of or benefit by the covenant.16

 

[brandonadams]

"the law" in Gal 3-4 refers to the Mosaic Covenant
See here https://www.1689federalism.com/1689-federalism-on-galatians-review-of-gordons-promise-law-faith/

See also

1689 Federalism Response to Wellum’s “Progressive Covenantalism and the Doing of Ethics”

A 20 page paper by Stephen J. Wellum titled “Progressive Covenantalism and the Doing of Ethics” was posted in the New Covenant Theology Facebook group recently [Note: it has since been …

contrast2.wordpress.com

And

JOHN OWEN AND NEW COVENANT THEOLOGY | 1689 Federalism

www.1689federalism.com

as well as

Barcellos’ Short Writings on the Law | 1689 Federalism

www.1689federalism.com

Owen:

I have proved before that “the commandment” in this verse [Heb. 7:18] is of equal extent and signification with “the law” in the next. And “the law” there doth evidently intend the whole law, in both the parts of it, moral and ceremonial, as it was given by Moses unto the church of Israel [emphasis added].

It was the whole “law of commandments contained in ordinances,” or the whole law of Moses, so far as it was the rule of worship and obedience unto the church [emphasis added]; for that law it is that followeth the fates of the priesthood.37

Wherefore the whole law of Moses, as given unto the Jews [emphasis added], whether as used or abused by them, was repugnant unto and inconsistent with the gospel, and the mediation of Christ, especially his priestly office, therein declared; neither did God either design, appoint, or direct that they should be co-existent.

from https://www.1689federalism.com/john-owen-and-new-covenant-theology/

The meaning is that the moral law was given to Israel as a typological covenant of works for temporal life and blessing (or cursing) in the land of Canaan. In that sense it was abrogated with the end of the Old Covenant.