What are the consequences of denying the moral law?

Status
Not open for further replies.

frog

Puritan Board Freshman
As I've been reading "From the Finger of God" by Philip S. Ross, he quotes from Hugh Martin on the atonement saying:
'What instrumentality or efficiency towards any thing like this can possibly be ascribed to the Incarnation of God's Son, if there be no strictly moral and authoritative juridicial law?' And he goes on to say that, 'So long as philosophy and theology shall conserve the distinctive peculiarity of Moral Law ... the Westminster doctrine, which is the Catholic doctrine, of Atonement is impregnable.
Then in speaking about the doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement as being under attack Ross says:
Perhaps there is a coherent explanation for penal substation without moral law, but the issue Martin raised is not inconsequential to the integrated body of catholic doctrine.
I don't understand what Ross is saying, about the bearing of the moral law on the atonement.

My question is: what are the theological consequences of denying the moral law? How does that impact one's view of God, creation, redemption etc.? What happens if one pulls on this thread?
 
There are many stripes of this, ‘denying’, you speak of. Most antinomians I have spoken with, would not deny the moral law in an absolute fashion, but that it’s an outdated version of the great commandment.

As well, I have found that the majority of people that hold to this view, are eisegetically and dispensationally applying the NT principles about the Christian not being under the law any longer; not really understanding how the Apostle was using the statement, in light of being justified by faith alone.

To answer your question, the theological consequence may be that the law is a tutor, and to deny this premise is to deny it worth in the walk of a believer.

I don’t believe, based on a dispensational approach by those who lay claim to such ideas, to alter the remaining items u cite. However, if I were to strain the gnat enough, I could come up with logical ramifications supporting the ideas. I can do that with pretty much everything in scripture; it would be irresponsible at best.
 
I have read both of the these books within the past year.

The Atonement by Hugh Martin is an absolute must-read. Phenomenal.

Martin has a full chapter in which he contends that attempting to craft a doctrine of atonement without an understanding of the Moral Law presents an incoherent theology. That's where that quote comes from. It is towards the end of the book and in large part depends on the argumentation presented previously.

Ross is, I think, unwilling to fully accept Martin's thesis, but wants to recognize penal substitutionary atonement and moral law are tightly intertwined.
 
The Atonement by Hugh Martin is an absolute must-read. Phenomenal.

Martin has a full chapter in which he contends that attempting to craft a doctrine of atonement without an understanding of the Moral Law presents an incoherent theology. That's where that quote comes from. It is towards the end of the book and in large part depends on the argumentation presented previously.
Thank you, this has just moved up my reading list!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top