“The alternative to law is not grace; it’s lawlessness.”

[fhansen]

No, we cannot. We are given new hearts.

Yes, we can, because God uses our wills as an integral part of our coming near to Him, with complete or perfect union being realized in the next life. Simultaneous to that would be the complete exclusion of sin as man arrives at the purpose or telos he was created for. Until then we can most certainly stray-as I've witnessed in others and myself. Sin continues to have its attraction-and all sin is an attraction away from God in one manner or another.

 

[Hammster]

Yes, we can, because God uses our wills as an integral part of our coming near to Him, with complete or perfect union being realized in the next life. Simultaneous to that would be the complete exclusion of sin as man arrives at the purpose or telos he was created for. Until then we can most certainly stray-as I've witnessed in others and myself. Sin continues to have its attraction-and all sin is an attraction away from God in one manner or another.

Born again. New creatures. Those things actually mean something.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I thought it would be interesting to discuss this comment by Rousas John Rushdoony. It might not even be controversial. What do you think?

I’d have to know in what context he is referring to “law”. There’s the mosaic law, there’s secular law, then there’s God’s law. Can you quote a reference where he used this statement please?

 

[Hammster]

I’d have to know in what context he is referring to “law”. There’s the mosaic law, there’s secular law, then there’s God’s law. Can you quote a reference where he used this statement please?

“An example of this antinomianism from some unofficial Lutheran circles comes from a Sunday school manual. The Old Testament is
treated, as is the New, as a book to be mined or searched out for "truths" so that studies of various books are prefaced with a few summary statements titled, "Truths You Will Find in the Book of Habakkuk" or, "Truths You Will Find in the Book of Matthew," and so on.
assume the rest of each book is lies? In the "Introduction to the New Testament" we are told, "The New Testament is the presentation of life under grace as it differs from life under law." But the Old Testament also presents life under grace, and both Old and New Testaments present life under grace as life under law, never as lawlessness. The alternative to law is not grace; it is lawlessness. Grace and election move in terms of law and under law; reprobation is anti-law and anti-grace. Is it the purpose
of churchmen to make the churches schools of reprobation?”

The Institutes of Biblical Law, vol 1

 

[Saint Steven]

I guess I don’t see a contradiction because I don’t see where the gospel relieves man from his obligation to be righteous, regardless of whether or not we’ve even heard the law. We either do it the right way, in communion with God, by love…or by ourselves, still unreconciled with Him while trying to obey the law- or by whatever attempt man may make to prove his righteousness. Observing the law by the Spirit does not negate it, but upholds it.

The early church still fulfilled the requirement for sabbath observance as far as they were concerned and as far as history tells but in a new way now, on the Lords Day, the day of His resurrection. Either way, the moral prescriptions of the Ten Commandments were held to be obligatory since day one. We cannot arrive at a point at where Christianity makes it ok to sin.

This is how I see it.

Romans 2:14-16 NIV
(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) 16 This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.

 

[BNR32FAN]

“An example of this antinomianism from some unofficial Lutheran circles comes from a Sunday school manual. The Old Testament is
treated, as is the New, as a book to be mined or searched out for "truths" so that studies of various books are prefaced with a few summary statements titled, "Truths You Will Find in the Book of Habakkuk" or, "Truths You Will Find in the Book of Matthew," and so on.
assume the rest of each book is lies? In the "Introduction to the New Testament" we are told, "The New Testament is the presentation of life under grace as it differs from life under law." But the Old Testament also presents life under grace, and both Old and New Testaments present life under grace as life under law, never as lawlessness. The alternative to law is not grace; it is lawlessness. Grace and election move in terms of law and under law; reprobation is anti-law and anti-grace. Is it the purpose
of churchmen to make the churches schools of reprobation?”

The Institutes of Biblical Law, vol 1

This paragraph seems way too over-generalizing. When dealing with passages in the Bible context is everything so you can’t make blanket statements about how the Old or New testaments deal with law and grace because both law and grace have several different references with different meanings. This just seems like stereotyping the words law and grace as if in every use of these words the message is always referring to the same thing but it’s not. That’s how I see it.

 

[Hammster]

This paragraph seems way too over-generalizing. When dealing with passages in the Bible context is everything so you can’t make blanket statements about how the Old or New testaments deal with law and grace because both law and grace have several different references with different meanings. This just seems like stereotyping the words law and grace as if in every use of these words the message is always referring to the same thing but it’s not. That’s how I see it.

That’s just the paragraph. I didn’t feel like quoting the whole chapter.

 

[fhansen]

This is how I see it.

Romans 2:14-16 NIV
(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) 16 This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.

Alright...and, I agree! With Scripture there as elsewhere. The law is right and good and already writtten in our hearts from the beginning. But it's been dimmed and obscured and often overwritten by our own personal "laws". Augustine would say this:
"God wrote on tablets of stone that whcih man failed to read in his heart."

 

[fhansen]

I’d have to know in what context he is referring to “law”. There’s the mosaic law, there’s secular law, then there’s God’s law. Can you quote a reference where he used this statement please?

I don't know his writings but I'm assuming that he's speaking of the moral law, as it's opposed to sin, aka "lawlessness".

 

[fhansen]

Are you familiar with Acts chapter fifteen?
This question was settled at the Jerusalem Council. Where Peter said this:

Acts 15:10 NIV
Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear?

But this is what they were contesting:
"Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the believers:
“Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.” Acts 15:1

And we find Paul supporting the moral law over and over while disputing the idea that the removal of a little peice of flesh will ever make one holy and therefore "salvageable". Legalism always prevails in the latter case while it may or my not prevail in the former; mere external obedience of the moral law can be hypocritical or not a real indicator of the true state of one's heart in any case. Or, it may show that we're living by the Spirit, under grace, in communion now wth God who changes us from the inside out. Obedience, righteousness, are still required but now made possible by God. So Paul can rightly say,
"To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, He will give eternal life." Rom 2:7

"For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous." Rom 2:13"

"Therefore, brothers and sisters, we have an obligation—but it is not to the flesh, to live according to it. For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live." Rom 8:12-13

And Jeremiah over 500 years before him in Jer 3:33-34,
“I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people."

 

[Saint Steven]

Alright...and, I agree! With Scripture there as elsewhere. The law is right and good and already writtten in our hearts from the beginning. But it's been dimmed and obscured and often overwritten by our own personal "laws". Augustine woud say this:
"God wrote on tablets of stone that whcih man failed to read in his heart."

Yes. God gave everyone a conscience. But I guess the Israelites needed it spelled out for them.

 

[Saint Steven]

“Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.”

Good post. I mostly agree.

But don't forget, circumcision began with Abraham, not Moses. Thanks.

Genesis 17:9-11 NIV
Then God said to Abraham, “As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come. 10 This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you.

 

[fhansen]

Yes. God gave everyone a conscience. But I guess the Israelites needed it spelled out for them.

Yes, but I don't think that any of us are so perfect, "perfected in love" to put it most correctly IMO, as to not be able to benefit from time to time from hearing the law, i.e. the ten commandments. That awareness cannot hurt and is the reason that the ancient churches through the mainline churches of today still hold them up has right standards for man to follow. If and when we fail to love we show that the schoolmaster still has its role to play.

 

[Saint Steven]

And Jeremiah over 500 years before him in Jer 3:33-34,
“I will put my law in their 10 This is the covenant I will establish with the people of Israel
after that time, declares the Lord.
I will put my laws in their minds
and write them on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people."

This scripture is referred to in Hebrews chapter eight. But is book-ended like this:

Hebrews 8:7, 10, 13
7 For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. ...
10 ... I will put my laws in their minds
and write them on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people. ...
13 By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.

 

[fhansen]

This scripture is referred to in Hebrews chapter eight. But is book-ended like this:

Hebrews 8:7, 10, 13
7 For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. ...
10 ... I will put my laws in their minds
and write them on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people. ...
13 By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.

Again, the old isn't made obsolete because obedience of the the law was wrong. The old was made obsolete because it could not efffect the change, the righteous requirement that it, the law, attests to. Man needs something more than himself and his own efforts to do that; he needs God. So the NC isnt about a reprieve from the obligation to be righteous; rather it's the very means to that righteousness. The basic difference between the old and new is, "simply", union with God. That's why Jesus came: to reconcile fallen man with Him. So:
"I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
No longer will they teach their neighbor,
or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest,”
declares the Lord." Jer 31:33-34

"...not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ—the righteousness that comes from God on the basis of faith." Phil 3:9

Man doesnt need to obey the law first of all-that's impossiple apart from grace, apart from God, anyway. Man needs to turn to God, first of all, in faith, and then from within that union or fellowship He does the fulfilling, the justifying.

 

[Saint Steven]

Yes, but I don't think that any of us are so perfect, "perfected in love" to put it most correctly IMO, as to not be able to benefit from time to time from hearing the law, i.e. the ten commandments. That awareness cannot hurt and is the reason that the ancient churches through the mainline churches of today still hold them up has right standards for man to follow. If and when we fail to love we show that the schoolmaster still has its role to play.

Yes. This was even recognized in Acts fifteen at the Jerusalem Council.

Acts 15:21 NIV
For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”

 

[Saint Steven]

Again, the old isn't made obsolete because obedience of the the law was wrong. The old was made obsolete because it could not efffect the change, the righteous requirement that it, the law, attests to. Man needs something more than himself and his own efforts to do that; he needs God. So the NC isnt about a reprieve from the obligation to be righteous; rather it's the very means to that righteousness. The basic difference between the old and new is, "simply", union with God. That's why Jesus came: to reconcile fallen man with Him. So:
"I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
No longer will they teach their neighbor,
or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest,”
declares the Lord." Jer 31:33-34

"...not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ—the righteousness that comes from God on the basis of faith." Phil 3:9

Man doesnt need to obey the law first of all-that's impossiple apart from grace, apart from God, anyway. Man needs to turn to God, first of all, in faith, and then from within that union or fellowship He does the fulfilling, the justifying.

We seem to be at an impasse. - LOL

Good discussion, thanks.

 

[fhansen]

Born again. New creatures. Those things actually mean something.

Yes, but if they don't mean sinlessness then the old man is still hanging around. I apprciate and agree with this teaching from our catechism:

409 This dramatic situation of "the whole world [which] is in the power of the evil one"makes man's life a battle:
The whole of man's history has been the story of dour combat with the powers of evil, stretching, so our Lord tells us, from the very dawn of history until the last day. Finding himself in the midst of the battlefield man has to struggle to do what is right, and it is at great cost to himself, and aided by God's grace, that he succeeds in achieving his own inner integrity.

 

[fhansen]

So while I think we've pretty well stayed on topic it appears that there is at least some controversy here, centered around law vs grace.

I believe that grace is the only way to fulfill the law while others may see grace as a reprieve from the need to fulfill it, or strictly as the means to a vicarious fulfillment of it by Christ. While I don't disagree with the latter, I'd nonetheless submit that part of His atonement included both showing us the way-that humans were made to obey and can do so- along with obtaining for us the way, the grace, to fulfill it: now reconciled with and in union with God, a union based on faith, hope, and love.

Anyway, as to the topic:
“The alternative to law is not grace; it’s lawlessness.”

If we take the liberty to define "lawlessness" in Mr Rushdoony's statement as "sin", and "grace" as "divine favor", then I agree with his statement if, by it, he means to say that divine favor alone, as in mercy, forgiveness, etc, is not the antidote to the sin that separates us from God; man must overcome sin by the power of God the Holy Spirit.

If, OTOH, he means to say that divine favor: mercy forgiveness, etc is enough, that lawlessness/sin need not be overcome in us as such grace alone suffices, then I would disagree. Again, IMO grace includes both divine favor and the life of God in us empowering us to overcome the sin that otherwise separates us from Him.

 

[Saint Steven]

... If we take the liberty to define "lawlessness"...

Well, the word "lawlessness" is a bit of a biblical anomaly.

Not even found in the KJV, and appears three times in the NIV. Two of them in Second Thessalonians chapter two in reference to the antichrist, "the man of lawlessness", and "the secret power of lawlessness". (the spirit of antichrist - 1 John 4:3)

Therefore, this topic is attempting to build a case based on one odd verse.

And theologically seems to follow a Sabbatarian reverence to the law. Think SDA.
Yet Catholics, to my knowledge, do not observe the seventh day Sabbath as commanded. (Exodus 20:10-11)