What?

[drjean]

I thought about making a poll, but I'm not sure of all the possible answers on this one... if you could, state your belief first, and then if you want to clarify or explain etc., make it a new paragraph for me? It will be easier for me to read that way, thanks!

I have visited a Presbyterian PCA (reformed) church but the preacher is stating things in ways I'm not sure are what I believe as a Reformed Presbyterian (PCA).

One of the main sticking points (and I haven't had a chance to discuss this with him, I am only visiting the church) is that he fully believes we are under grace, salvation is through Messiah Yeshua alone (yeah, he always uses that name) but to fully please God it's best if we follow the Law. He says the "two edged sword" of Hebrews 4:12 is the Law and ...oh my brain just went... promise or grace or promise OF grace???? doh. Sorry...

Anyway... I believe the Law was the Old Covenant and that those who live under the law put their salvation under the law as well. Paul was quite clear about this in the book of Galatians (as well as Romans). The GOSPEL is the new covenant which Gentiles are under (Gentiles were never under the law!)

How do you believe, fellow Presbyterian???

 

[bricklayer]

The gospel is not plan-B.
The law is not unlike a silhouette; it shows the limits, the extent of God's nature. It reveals what God is and is not.
Jesus fulfilled the law; He put a face on that silhouette.
The law was never intended to be a way of salvation if fulfilled by sinners.
The law was only ever intended to be a way of salvation when fulfilled by the sinless.
God the Father never intended anyone but God the Son to fulfill the law.
The law does not represent a legal covenant; it is a part of the covenant of grace in as much as it was fulfilled by our sinless savior, Jesus Christ.

 

[twin1954]

I thought about making a poll, but I'm not sure of all the possible answers on this one... if you could, state your belief first, and then if you want to clarify or explain etc., make it a new paragraph for me? It will be easier for me to read that way, thanks!

I have visited a Presbyterian PCA (reformed) church but the preacher is stating things in ways I'm not sure are what I believe as a Reformed Presbyterian (PCA).

One of the main sticking points (and I haven't had a chance to discuss this with him, I am only visiting the church) is that he fully believes we are under grace, salvation is through Messiah Yeshua alone (yeah, he always uses that name) but to fully please God it's best if we follow the Law. He says the "two edged sword" of Hebrews 4:12 is the Law and ...oh my brain just went... promise or grace or promise OF grace???? doh. Sorry...

Anyway... I believe the Law was the Old Covenant and that those who live under the law put their salvation under the law as well. Paul was quite clear about this in the book of Galatians (as well as Romans). The GOSPEL is the new covenant which Gentiles are under (Gentiles were never under the law!)

How do you believe, fellow Presbyterian???

I am not a Presbyterian I am a Baptist but I hope you will accept my answer anyway.


Both the Westminster ( Presbyterian) and1689 London Baptist confessions give the Reformed view of the Law. Sadly both make the Law to be a rule of life for the believer. While it doesn't save us we are bound to live by it according to them.

It is subtle legalism and puts the believer once again under a yoke of bondage that no one but Christ has ever been able to bear. What they have done is actually destroy the greatness and glory of the Law. Instead of seeing the Law as far too high for us to reach they have lowered its standard in order for us to keep it. The call that righteousness but it is only unrighteousness.

Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness to all who believe. Rom. 10:4
He is the end of the Law as to its object. He is the object of the Law.
He is the end of the Law as to its purpose. He is the purpose of the Law which not only shows us our need of Him but Him in all its types and shadows.
He is end as in fulfillment of the Law. He fulfilled the Law in all its requirements and all it pictures.
He is the end of the Law as in its termination. It no longer has any hold whatsoevr on a believer because He has put it to an end.


As to the Gentiles never being under the Law that thinking comes from Dispensational theology. It is opposite to Reformed Covenant theology which believes all are under the Law by nature. While the Gentiles never had the sacrifices they did have a law that is natural to all men. Rom. 2:14

So yes it is consistent with Reformed Covenant theology (Presbyterianism) to see the Law as that pastor does.

 

[A New Dawn]

Can you clarify what you mean by "the law"? Many claim the law is the 10 Commandments, but it is my understanding that the law is the 613 mikvah that are recited by each Jewish boy at his Bar Mitzvah. I'd just like to clarify what people are referring to when they say "the law".

Thanks!

 

[CalledOutOne]

I agree with your pastor. You should keep the Law, but you don't have to either to maintain salvation nor to gain it.
It is a way to demonstrate your love for Yeshua Ha'Mashiah.
If he starts saying that you cannot be saved unless you call Jesus by His Hebrew name, get out. That is just Gnosticism.
Or if he starts teaching a works based salvation, then get out.

 

[twin1954]

Can you clarify what you mean by "the law"? Many claim the law is the 10 Commandments, but it is my understanding that the law is the 613 mikvah that are recited by each Jewish boy at his Bar Mitzvah. I'd just like to clarify what people are referring to when they say "the law".

Thanks!

Most folks, including the Confessions, use the word to mean just the Ten. They call oit the Moral Law and make it seperate from the rest. But that is never how the Scriptures use the word. The Scriptures use the word to mean all of the commandments. They never separate them into Moral, Civil, Ceremonial and Dietary. Theologians are the ones who do that. When Paul uses the word Law he means all of it not just ten of them.

The Scriptures also use the word law to mean the whole of the Book of God. To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word it is because there is no light in them. Isa. 8:20 Context is where you determine how it is being used.

 

[file13]

Anyway... I believe the Law was the Old Covenant and that those who live under the law put their salvation under the law as well. Paul was quite clear about this in the book of Galatians (as well as Romans). The GOSPEL is the new covenant which Gentiles are under (Gentiles were never under the law!)

How do you believe, fellow Presbyterian???

Well we are saved by grace, but this is not an excuse to sin. As adopted daughters and sons of God, we try to do God's will because it's what good children do. Obey Father.

So yes, we're not saved by keeping the law, rather, if we've been saved by grace (regenerated, justified, and working on being sanctified until we're glorified), we strive to keep His commandments because we love Jesus.

“If you love me, you will keep my commandments. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you.
“I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you. Yet a little while and the world will see me no more, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live. In that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you. Whoever has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me. And he who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him.” Judas (not Iscariot) said to him, “Lord, how is it that you will manifest yourself to us, and not to the world?” Jesus answered him, “If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. Whoever does not love me does not keep my words. And the word that you hear is not mine but the Father's who sent me.
(John 14:15-24 ESV)
​

As a side note, I think folks often get confused if you just think of it in terms of "salvation." Usually when folks refer to "being saved" they mean justified. But justification is just the beginning. As we work with the Holy Spirit in being sanctified, we try to obey God out of love, not fear of losing our justification. We can't lose that because it's not ours to lose. We're just trying (and generally failing spectacularly) to obey Jesus because we love Him.

 

[CalledOutOne]

File13, I think shes saying more than just what you would call the moral law.
You'd be surprised how many people are coming around to Torah observence.

 

[file13]

File13, I think shes saying more than just what you would call the moral law.
You'd be surprised how many people are coming around to Torah observence.

Gotcha. Well yeah, if that's the case and they're telling you to stop eating pork and lighting shabbat candles, then they're clearly off course. The minister does sound like he's into the whole Messianic movement (or at least just fascinated with the Jewish culture) and maybe trying to hold on to Sola Gratia -> Sola Fide or merge them somehow into Reformed theology. But since she didn't say that he specifically is advocating Old Covenant ceremonial practices, I figure we should give him the benefit of the doubt.

But yeah brother, if you're right, I think Scripture is pretty clear here.

I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.
(Galatians 2:21 ESV)
​

So if he is saying that she needs to start doing some OC practices in order to be saved, then yeah, he's outside of Westminster and the church members need to sit down with the elders so that they can meet to discuss possible discipline. If he's not saying that, he still might be going off on some tangent that very well could lead him into violation of the Confession he vowed to uphold. In any case, it sounds like she just visited the church and does not attend there and if so, it's best to let that church's elders do their job.

 

[drjean]

Okay, thanks for the replies.

I come from a basic foundation in Baptist theology, so that may be my conflict and inability to be sure from whence this minister comes.

However, it is that I am in the midst of deep study of Galatians (I don't believe in coincidences) ... and it's quite clear that Gentiles were never under the law (and I look at the law as the 613 rules and regulations given to OT Jews under the guidance of Moses through to Jesus). It is also very clear that grace does not give us license to sin, however to put ourselves under that law means we are not living under grace, and will be judged by that law.

I have been to the church for 2 services, a dinner and a Bible study... and I'm so leery of preachers who are not preaching the Gospel... well, I just don't plan on joining anywhere that I may be butting heads with the leaders!! A few things, sure, we can disagree about..but not knowing from whence this guy comes...and he states things differently than I 've ever heard a reformed minister preach (and mind you I sat under Dr D James Kennedy...) sigh.

The 2 edged sword... the verse says the WORD of GOD is like one... but to say the sword stands for the 2 parts of our lives... the law and grace... hmmmm maybe just an analogy but not for me. I was never under the law (unless I have jewish roots)...

So many Christians are so burdened "managing their sin" as Dr Steve Brown says... that they are unable to live free under grace. I believe we no longer have sin, as God says he removed them as far as the east is from the west; that the Holy Spirit indwells us --being a new vessel---and God cannot dwell in a sinful body; that God does not see sin as sin as an analogy is red and the blood of Christ is red and when God looks at us through the blood of Christ, He sees no sin but purity (through the Son.) We are not under the control nor burden of sin, nor should we.

I've in the past done an extensive study on the Hebrew and Greek, Aramaic words used in the Bible for "sin" and found that the word used for the believer is different than for the unbeliever's sin. We make mistakes, we err, but it is not considered as our being sinful because Christ cleansed us from all sin--past, present and future. (How many of your sins were in the future when Christ died for you? ALL of them...including all the mistakes you will continue to make in the future still..)

Ok I've rambled.

I sense, inside, through the Spirit I believe, that this preacher is so adamantly against and fearful of legalism that he is that way because of his own beliefs... I mean, he is on the precipice of living under the law himself and that's why he's fearful and preaching against legalism so strongly. May God use me to help him find the freedom and relief of living without the law and the condemnation of the law, and to find the true love of Yeshua and the mercy and grace He bestows upon us.

More comments are welcomed...

 

[drjean]

Oh another thought God gave me in study: IF God's original plan for us to serve Him best was through the Law, why did he not implement it in the Garden???

No, he began with what He said was ideal: total freedom in the garden.

When that didn't work (due to man's free will) he changed the economy.... expelled from the garden they then had hardships and had to make offerings... when that failed to work for man (Noah) he then instituted more regulations... and again when that didn't work, (Tower of Babel) he gave Abraham guidelines and then later, he instituted an even more rigorous economy...Moses... 613 rules and regulations to show man that he cannot keep the law, he is not righteous in his own way and needs a Savior.... and that stayed until Jesus came and redeemed us, and again the economy of God changed and we no longer have the law but grace and mercy.

To me, there will be 3 more changes... from the age of Grace to the tribulation time, then the millennium, then eternity.

 

[file13]

Okay, thanks for the replies.

Thank you back for the extra info!

I come from a basic foundation in Baptist theology, so that may be my conflict and inability to be sure from whence this minister comes.

Gotcha. But when it comes to salvation by grace through faith alone, there should be no difference between us on the big issues like "do I work because I'm saved or in order to be saved?" Every Protestant should be able to answer clearly and unequivocally the former. But as you no doubt know (just read here in CF), this isn't the case because most folks really don't know what they believe (thank God we're not saved by perfect theology either!). But the point is, when it comes to this issue of Christians keeping the law, we should be on the same page.

I have been to the church for 2 services, a dinner and a Bible study... and I'm so leery of preachers who are not preaching the Gospel... well, I just don't plan on joining anywhere that I may be butting heads with the leaders!! A few things, sure, we can disagree about..but not knowing from whence this guy comes...and he states things differently than I 've ever heard a reformed minister preach (and mind you I sat under Dr D James Kennedy...) sigh.

Gotcha. Well, if this is a PCA church, then the pastor and the elders vow to uphold the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF). If he's not, then he is breaking his vow and he needs to be called on it. The WCF is crystal clear that we do not believe that we are saved by works of the law. So again, if he is saying you should be keeping the law in order to be saved or even that you're obligated to keep old covenant ceremonial laws, he is out of line with the WCF and out of line as a pastor of a PCA church.

If you're not familiar with it, I'd urge you to read the WCF to see what the PCA confesses, especially the following sections which deal with what you're talking about:

Chapter XVI Of Good Works
Chapter XIX Of the Law Of God
Chapter XX Of Christian Liberty, and Liberty Of Conscience

So all that being said, if it turns out this pastor is indeed out of line or after reading the WCF you find him to be contradicting it, ask him about it. If he is indeed out of line, I urge you talk to the elders and bring up your concern. The pastor is accountable to the elders who are themselves bound by the WCF to uphold it. If it really is an issue and the pastor refuses to correct his teaching, God willing, the elders will discipline him. If not, you're best off finding another church, because this is not a good example of what a confessional Presbyterian Church is all about.

Ok I've rambled.

No worries!

Oh another thought God gave me in study: IF God's original plan for us to serve Him best was through the Law, why did he not implement it in the Garden???

No, he began with what He said was ideal: total freedom in the garden.

When that didn't work (due to man's free will) he changed the economy.... expelled from the garden they then had hardships and had to make offerings... when that failed to work for man (Noah) he then instituted more regulations... and again when that didn't work, (Tower of Babel) he gave Abraham guidelines and then later, he instituted an even more rigorous economy...Moses... 613 rules and regulations to show man that he cannot keep the law, he is not righteous in his own way and needs a Savior.... and that stayed until Jesus came and redeemed us, and again the economy of God changed and we no longer have the law but grace and mercy.

If this is what he's teaching, he's out of line with Reformed thought here. In Reformed thought, there's really only two covenants when it comes to salvation. The Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Faith. The former refers to the covenant made with Adam and Eve. Since the fall though, we've all, everyone one of us, been under the Covenant of Faith. Paul is very clear about this in Romans:

What then shall we say was gained by Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works:
“Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven,
and whose sins are covered;
blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin.”
Is this blessing then only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? For we say that faith was counted to Abraham as righteousness. How then was it counted to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised. He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well, and to make him the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.
(Romans 4:1-12 ESV)
​

So you see, even the Jews under the covenant at Sinai were ultimately saved not by keeping the Law, but by grace through faith...just like we are. This just refers to the issue of "how we are saved." There are of course different expectations given to different groups, but these expectations cannot justify them before God or wash them of their sins. So the Children living under the covenant of Sinai had different expectations than we do now, but they, like us, are not saved because of what they do, but by the grace of God which is actualized through faith alone. Does that make sense?

As I mentioned though, I'd recommend you read the WCF (if you can handle the KJV like language). Also, R.C Sproul's Essentials of the Christian Faith is a good intro to Reformed theology as is Louis Berkhof's A Summary of Christian Doctrine. In fact the latter is available freely as an eBook over here. You don't need to be a hard core theologian or anything, but knowing the essentials is important so you can know when someone is going off the deep end.

In any case, I hope this helps sister and I hope that this pastor is not out of line. It sounds really fishy, but again, let's hope and pray for the best. If not and you can't resolve it, go somewhere where you will find the Word preached and the Sacraments administered. My wife and I have had to leave many churches we liked because of pastors who couldn't even get Sola Gratia -> Sola Fide right, so I feel your pain. But seriously, is that too much to ask? Heck, you can even be a classical Arminian for all I care, but please just get this crucial doctrine right...we can argue about the rest later....

God bless and feel free to keep us posted on how this unfolds.

 

[CalledOutOne]

I don't see anything wrong with what he is teaching. The Westminster is right about a number of things, I would reccomend it too, but if he is not teaching you to earn your salvation, then I see nothing wrong with what he has said.
Let me explain something to you. The Law in the OT (I'm talking about those you refer to as the ceremonial and the civil) should be kept. You should eat Kosher. It is not a sin to make yourself unclean by eating those animals (as we no longer have a temple), but it is a sin simply because God commanded you not to eat those animals. They are not food.

I know you are probably going to throw verse after verse at me, but I am not saying that you are all lost.
Jesus talked about people "nullifying the least of these commandments". The way He spoke about them it seems as though they are still saved.
As He prophesied, "Because lawlessness is increased, most people's love will grow cold" (Matt. 24:12).

Thing is, we must not join the Messianics who teach works based salvation or that you have to maintain your salvation or any other dangerous heresies that stem from it. We need to be careful.

 

[file13]

You should eat Kosher. It is not a sin to make yourself unclean by eating those animals (as we no longer have a temple), but it is a sin simply because God commanded you not to eat those animals. They are not food.

What do you think Christ meant here and why do you think Mark made the comment I bolded?

And he called the people to him again and said to them, “Hear me, all of you, and understand: There is nothing outside a person that by going into him can defile him, but the things that come out of a person are what defile him.” And when he had entered the house and left the people, his disciples asked him about the parable. And he said to them, “Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him, since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?” (Thus he declared all foods clean.) And he said, “What comes out of a person is what defiles him. For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.”
(Mark 7:14-23 ESV)
​

 

[CalledOutOne]

First off, the word food is important here. Pig is not food according to Leviticus 11 which says, "This is the law regarding the animal and the bird, and every living thing that moves in the waters and everything that swarms on the earth, to make a distinction between the unclean and the clean, and between the EDIBLE creature and the creature which is NOT TO BE EATEN."


According to God, these things aren't food. So food was never unclean. The context of this was that the Pharisees were teaching that if you don't wash your hands your food is unclean. Two things, first it is not a sin to be unclean and it never was. Second, food wasn't nor would would if ever be unclean. They were teaching things God never commanded.

All foods are clean, not all things are food.

 

[file13]

All foods are clean, not all things are food.

Ok, so we've established that pork is no longer unclean. But how do you reconcile this strange distinction you're making with Paul:

Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared, who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer.
(1 Timothy 4:1-5 ESV)
​

 

[Thaeoles]

I eat my bacon to the glory of God.

 

[bricklayer]

Oh another thought God gave me in study: IF God's original plan for us to serve Him best was through the Law, why did he not implement it in the Garden???

No, he began with what He said was ideal: total freedom in the garden.

When that didn't work (due to man's free will) he changed the economy.... expelled from the garden they then had hardships and had to make offerings... when that failed to work for man (Noah) he then instituted more regulations... and again when that didn't work, (Tower of Babel) he gave Abraham guidelines and then later, he instituted an even more rigorous economy...Moses... 613 rules and regulations to show man that he cannot keep the law, he is not righteous in his own way and needs a Savior.... and that stayed until Jesus came and redeemed us, and again the economy of God changed and we no longer have the law but grace and mercy.

To me, there will be 3 more changes... from the age of Grace to the tribulation time, then the millennium, then eternity.

I've enjoyed your last two posts. The above phrase, "God's original plan", seems to be if conflict with my impression of what you think of God (as if God comes to think, feel or will in response to human choice).
Do you believe that this is exactly the creation God chose to create, knowing it exhaustively apart from its being? Do you believe that this is exactly the combination of free will choices God chose to create, knowing them exhaustively apart from their being? Do you believe that God is "writing the story of creation" as we go along in time, playing off human choices He comes to know? or Do you believe that this creation is prescribed by God alone?

 

[Radagast]

I have visited a Presbyterian PCA (reformed) church but the preacher is stating things in ways I'm not sure are what I believe as a Reformed Presbyterian (PCA).

If he's advocating following OT dietary laws and so forth, then he's certainly outside of the Presbyterian mainstream.

 

[hedrick]

Reformed theology tends to give the law a bit more of a role than Lutherans. I believe what the pastor is saying is in keeping with Reformed thought. He did not say that we are justified by keeping the law, but that to fully please God we should keep it.

In my view, salvation includes a complete rebuilding of our lives. Calvin's ordo salutis used salvation to include both justification and sanctification. This makes sense, because it is God's purpose not just to keep us out of hell, but to make us whole. That's what saving us means. So good works surely please him.

I would use the term law as Jesus seems to have. Matthew 5 starts out by saying that he came to fulfill the Law. It then gives his explanation of how we should behave. I read the next few paragraphs as his comments on most of the 10 commandments. He reinterprets them from legalism to mandate certain goals in dealing with other people, such as treating the opposite sex honorably and preserving life. This approach is supported by the Westminster catechism, which organizes all of ethics under the 10 commandments. And of course in another place he says that the Law is summarized by love. So I tend to use "law" in the broader definition of "torah", as all of God's teaching.