Law preparation.

[ladodgers6]

Both the LBC and the WCF state very clearly that the moral law is a rule of life for the believer. That is against the Scriptures for we are not under the law as a rule in any sense.

I would like for you to explain this chapter in Colossians 3.

Living as Those Made Alive in Christ

1Since, then, you have been raised with Christ, set your hearts on things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. 2Set your minds on things above, not on earthly things. 3For you died, and your life is now hidden with Christ in God. 4When Christ, who is youra life, appears, then you also will appear with him in glory.

5Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry. 6Because of these, the wrath of God is coming.b 7You used to walk in these ways, in the life you once lived. 8But now you must also rid yourselves of all such things as these: anger, rage, malice, slander, and filthy language from your lips. 9Do not lie to each other, since you have taken off your old self with its practices 10and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator. 11Here there is no Gentile or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all.

12Therefore, as God’s chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience. 13Bear with each other and forgive one another if any of you has a grievance against someone. Forgive as the Lord forgave you. 14And over all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity.

15Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, since as members of one body you were called to peace. And be thankful. 16Let the message of Christ dwell among you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom through psalms, hymns, and songs from the Spirit, singing to God with gratitude in your hearts.17And whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.

Instructions for Christian Households

18Wives, submit yourselves to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.

19Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them.

20Children, obey your parents in everything, for this pleases the Lord.

21Fathers,c do not embitter your children, or they will become discouraged.

22Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord. 23Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for human masters, 24since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serving. 25Anyone who does wrong will be repaid for their wrongs, and there is no favoritism.

 

[ladodgers6]

Let me try again.

With no specific guidelines, what we have is “situation ethics.” In this system there are no rules. One behaves in any situation in the most loving fashion. This approach has generally been rejected, even in liberal churches. Why?

* because we can be misled by our emotions into doing things that aren’t good in the long run
* because it’s good to have a moral environment in which we and others behave in a reasonably predictable way
* because one important moral choice is to make commitments. Once there is a commitment (or a covenant), you can’t just make decisions in the moment in isolation.

For all of these reasons, most of us think that it’s important to look at common issues in advance and come up with specific principles and guidelines. Many of these look like rules, though often they are rules with exceptions.

I contend that “Law” can be used to cover this. Obviously when Paul rejects the Law he’s looking at the whole system of rules that the rabbis developed out of the OT. These had a number of problems, including (for some interpreters at a least) a very literalistic approach, and also the fact that many saw your status as a member of God’s people to be defined by keeping these rules.

Clearly Christians do not want to take Law in that sense. But in the broad sense of moral principles and guidelines, I think we have to have Law if we want to avoid situation ethics. I believe it’s this broader sense of moral principles that Reformed have meant by the moral law. Even in Jewish terminology, Law / Torah could have a broader meaning.

Question,just out of curiosity.What's the main differences between liberal Presbyterian and Reformed Protestant?

 

[hedrick]

Question,just out of curiosity.What's the main differences between liberal Presbyterian and Reformed Protestant?

On this topic, I’m not sure there’s much difference. My understanding of Westminster is that when it says the moral law functions as a rule of life they mean the kind of thing I’m talking about: not the full set of Jewish rules, and not a way we can gain any credit by obeying, but rather a set of principle and guidelines to guide behavior of people who have already been given new hearts by grace.

However there may be differences in the specific exegesis of Paul’s passages talking about the Law. Here is a good exposition of this whole issue from a top conservative Reformed scholar: http://wscal.edu/resource-center/calvin-on-law-and-gospel. I commend it to your attention if you’re interested in the three uses of the Law. I would agree with most of what’s there.

However there are nuances in how we understand Paul that I think probably affect the first use of the Law more than the third. Horton summarizes Calvin’s view that the first use of the Law is to drive people to Christ because they despair of being able to obey the Law.

I agree with Horton that Law can be understood in two senses: as a specific code where disobedience has consequences under the covenant, and in a more general sense of teaching. However I would view the first meaning as being for Paul at least in part a misunderstanding. Paul was responding to people who thought that obedience to the Law, specifically circumcision, defined one as part of God’s people. I don’t think Paul is crystal clear at this point, which is part of why so many arguments occur. But his use of Abraham implies to me that this concept of the Law was a mistake. The Law never defined the boundaries of God’s people. People were always accepted by faith. And violations of the Law could always be dealt with by repentance. It was never expected that people had to obey it perfectly to be part of God's people.

I believe that this idea that Paul often referred to Law misunderstood as defining boundaries comes from a modern sociological view of the situation, and that in some details my exegesis would diverge from Horton’s.

If I’m right, it’s not clear to me who the first use of the Law would apply to. The Law holds all men under its curse only if it’s misunderstood as defining who is accepted by God. Luther believed, based on his own experience, that the normal Christian experience was that one had first to be killed by the Law before one could accept God’s grace. But if it was never a purpose of the Law to define the boundaries of God’s people, then Luther’s initial problem was due to a misunderstanding, and it’s not at all clear why every Christian should have to pass through the same misunderstanding before they can understand the Gospel.