Saturday, May 26, 2007

Fall to grace, part 5

For the whole story, read this, beginning with Part 1.

One of the ironies of my sojourn among the Truly Reformed, as we liked to call ourselves amidst debates over who was and wasn't TR, is that those of us who so loved to tout the doctrines of grace often had so little understanding of real grace. Even more ironic is how little grace we extended towards others. It was that last irony that I found especially painful during my "fall to grace".

During an online discussion in the months after I "discovered" grace, someone wrote:
>The whole grace/law
>thing. To them it's like an annoying little gnat. There is no issue
>here. These people are living in grace. Jesus is the Lord of their
>lives. He is on the throne. It seems like you are trying to remove
>that. It seems like you are trying to condemn them. Am I wrong?
>They refuse to argue because no one listens anyway. It just stirs up
>strife.
My reply:
Sigh. I used to think that. No---what I thought was far worse. The whole
Law/grace "thing" in my mind was far more serious than an annoying little
gnat. It was some bizarre scheme of a bunch of antinomians to excuse the
sin in their lives. It was...well, brazen. It was divisive. Certainly *I*
knew all about grace and knew that what they were talking about was
license, even when they claimed the opposite. I mean, really---why would
someone claim that Christ had set us free from the Law unless they wanted
to be completely lawless?

I was wrong.

The Law/grace thing is not an annoying little gnat. It is such a major
issue that God inspired Paul to deal with this in the entire book of
Galatians as well as elsewhere in Scripture. It's foundational to
Christianity.

I am so thankful for those who didn't listen to me when I accused them of
stirring up strife and worse. I am so thankful they proclaimed the
message of grace in season and out of season. Finally God opened my ears
and my heart. Finally I realized that what I thought was grace was only a
tiny little fraction of what grace really is. I look forward to learning
more and more about God's grace throughout all eternity. I am *so*
thankful that I finally am beginning to comprehend my freedom in
Christ---the freedom that He bought for me with His shed blood.

Finally, finally, finally, I've realized that I'm the child of the
freewoman and not the bondslave. I've gone from Mt. Sinai to Mt.
Zion---all by the grace of God!

An annoying little gnat? No way---it's glorious! It's the message of the
gospel! It's the foundation of my Faith and my walk with Jesus! Let's
*never* stop proclaiming the truth of the gospel! I hope that, to my
dying day, I will continue to make "much ado" over what God has wrought
in Jesus Christ.

But, once again, I'm getting ahead of myself. More to come...

20 comments:

  1. Hmmmm. I am confused. Maybe you'll address it more in future installments, but. . .

    So, would a Christian steal? Is it still sin? Or, if they avoid stealing, does it mean they are caught up under the law or something?

    I am not sure where you are coming from with the "mosaic law being nailed to the cross with Christ," I am thinking for instance of the ten commandments - are they no longer binding?

    I'm just not understanding what you're saying, I'm not trying to be uppity.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Marie, I'm sure Rebecca can address this much better than I can, but I remember how shocked I was when I first found out that the Ten Commandments don't apply to me. Never have, never will.

    That does NOT mean that I am advocating antinomianism. Not in the least. I am under a different Law, the Law of Christ. And that Law does have nine of those ten commandments repeated. I am under those nine commandments and many other commandments as well: those given by Jesus and the apostles. But this Law, the Law of Christ, is a law that brings freedom. The Law of Moses brought death and bondage. I was under that bondage for many years and I didn't even know it.

    In fact, Rebecca, this part of your story reminds me of something that happened very recently. I did all the law lessons and was finally free from the Law, so we went on to the grace lessons. Several lessons into it, the teacher explained that grace was the opposite of the Law. I asked for some verses for proof. He really thought I was nuts and told me that it was all those verses we had studied in the law lessons. I replied that "grace" was the LAST thing I was looking for when I was studying the Law! How apropos. This just happened a few days ago, so you can guess where I'm at!

    ReplyDelete
  3. I am curious. Which nine? Or more shortly, which one is no longer in force?

    ReplyDelete
  4. All nine commandments are stated in the NT as applying to believers in some way except for the Sabbath:

    Romans 14:
    "One man regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Let each man be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord, and he who eats, does so for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who eats not, for the Lord he does not eat, and gives thanks to God."

    Col 3
    "Therefore let no one act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day— things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ."

    ReplyDelete
  5. But Jesus kept it?

    I repeat I'm not trying to be argumentative - writing can't convey my tone of voice.

    This is the first time, believe it or not, that I've heard the notion that Christians (except those who go to really liberal, sort of anything goes churches, you know). So I am genuinely curious.

    To state my "position," and I use the term loosely, I try to keep all ten as a matter of faith. I know it won't get me to heaven. I do it because I see Christianity as more than a state of salvation, I see it as a philosophy of life: a way of living. I follow Jesus, He kept the commandments, I try to imitate Him.

    I'd also say that I believe God's law (the ten) is good, benefits mankind, and is a blessing. I think to not keep the commandments not only is sin, but hurtful to mankind. In other words it is a blessing to us to keep it.

    Would your opinion be that I am living under the law?

    ReplyDelete
  6. But Jesus kept it?

    Yes, Jesus kept the Sabbath. He was a Jew, born under the Law, and He was obligated to keep the Sabbath. He did not keep to the Pharisees' extra-biblical rules about the Sabbath, but He kept it.

    Ephesians chapter 2 says that the Gentiles have been brought near to God because Christ abolished in his flesh the law of commandments which were hostile to the Gentiles. So at Christ's death the Old Covenant was abolished and the New Covenant, spoken of in Jeremiah was inagurated, not before. So while Christ was on earth, before His death ushered in the New Covenant, He lived as a Jew under the Law, which was then still in effect. He also obeyed the food laws and kept the feasts as well, and yet after His death we are not obligated to keep these laws, either.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Hebrews 7: "For when the priesthood is changed, of necessity there takes place a change of law also."

    So the Bible says there was a change in law that took place in order for Jesus to be our priest.

    Read Hebrews 8: 7-12, and then this last statement:

    Hebrews 8: 13 "When He said, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear."

    Hebrews chapter 8 is discussing the New Covenant spoken of in Jeremiah 31: 31-34, and that by Jesus' death the New Covenant replaced the Old Covenant made at Sinai.

    Hence, we are under the New Covenant. Paul, in Romans, says we are not under Law but under Grace. Keep in mind Paul goes on to say that being under grace is no license to sin.

    We are not free to sin, and God gets to define that. So while we are not under the 10 Commandments as a rule of life, if there is any commandment given to believers in the New Testament epistles to not steal, not commit fornication or adultery, not murder, not lie, honor parents, etc., (and there are these commandments seen in the epistles), then we know that this is the conduct commanded of New Testament believers as well.

    And this would include 9 of the 10 commandments. The Sabbath, however, like the food laws and feast laws and many other laws, is not a law we are under any more. Otherwise Paul could not have said this, and I repeat:

    Romans 14:
    "One man regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Let each man be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord, and he who eats, does so for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who eats not, for the Lord he does not eat, and gives thanks to God."

    Col 3:
    "Therefore let no one act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day— things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ."

    ReplyDelete
  8. I've enjoyed reading this series of posts. Thank's for your honesty!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Thanks for all the info. I think I do understand.

    I am thinking, maybe, I have a covenantal approach to interpreting scripture and you have a dispensational approach to interpreting scripture. Do you think that is so?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Marie, hi! There is a third approach to Scripture, and that is New Covenant Theology. What Rebecca is describing about the Law would be taught by Dispensationalism, Progressive Dispensationalism, and New Covenant Theology. However New Covenant Theology does not agree with Dispensational teaching about Israel and the Church (I don't agree with that aspect of Dispensationalism any more, either).

    What Rebecca is describing would be opposed to some things of Theonomy and Covenant Theology, such as what is in the Westminster Confession about the Sabbath, among other issues.

    But the important thing is to understand what the Bible really teaches about all these issues.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Aha. I am admittedly a Westminster Confession girl. I think I understand, now. I'll have to study "New Covenant Theology" more on my own time. I am prejudiced with my Westminster Confession of Faith, though - I find it so incredibly well reasoned.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Marie, you have raised some excellent questions, and I hope to either address them in later posts or point to some places where there are answers --- at least those questions that others haven't already answered here.

    As for the WCF...yes, it is incredibly well reasoned, and that is one of the things that drew me to the OPC. But as I studies it more, I began to see areas where it went further beyond Scripture than I was comfortable going. The first area that troubled me was its treatment of the Mosaic Law.

    I would encourage you to check out some of the sites that explain New Covenant Theology. Reading about this was very helpful to me after my fall to grace. Here are a few links:

    http://ids.org/ids/index.php
    http://www.biblicalstudies.com/bstudy/hermenutics/nct.htm
    http://www.biblicalstudies.com/bstudy/expostudy/nctlaw.htm
    http://www.searchingtogether.org/articles/covenant.htm

    ReplyDelete
  13. << I am prejudiced with my Westminster Confession of Faith, though - I find it so incredibly well reasoned. >>


    It is so well reasoned because it is circular reasoning. The prremise is assumed to be true without biblical support -- and then scripture is tacked on without regard to its immediate or larger context.

    For example, the WCF says that the ten commamdmets are "commonly called the moral law." But we have toask the question: WHERE are the 10-C EVER called that in scripture?

    They are called that in the WCF, not in scripture. If the Westminster divines had actually cited how the 10-C are referred to in the NT, that would haved refuted their own premise.

    Petitio principii with a vengeance!

    ReplyDelete
  14. Mike, I'm amazed you didn't taunt me for writing "as I studies it more" when I meant to say "STUDIED it more". Either you're being too kind or you've lost your touch.

    I remember how upset I became when Mike dared attack my beloved WCF. In time, though, I began to see the irony of my proclaiming "Sola Scriptura!" so loudly while at the same time constantly quoting from and referring to the WCF. It wasn't until I sat down and started doing the hard work of requiring adequate Biblical evidence for some of the WCF's assertions that I began to see the circular reasoning, etc...and the rest is history.

    Thanks for joining us here, Mike. Maybe you could give a plug for your lessons on the Law.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Mike, I do think you can call anything circular reasoning if you belabor it enough.

    For instance, I love Him because He first loved me. That's hardly linear reasoning!

    WCF says "commonly called the moral law," because Christians who came before them, studied the Bible, and drew conclusions from that study, saw that some laws pertained to temple worship and some to moral behavior. I don't think that's very controversial.

    WCF, like Calvin's commentaries, Mike's comments, or my thoughts, can only be relied on inasmuch as they are scriptural.

    If Mike can give lessons on the law, for instance, and I can enjoy them and quote them and think about them, I don't think I'm doing anything differently than I do with the WCF.

    ReplyDelete
  16. << Mike, I do think you can call anything circular reasoning if you belabor it enough. >>


    That's true, but it wouldn't be reasonable to do so. The fact that one can call anything circular reasoning if he belabors it enough has nothing to do with whether or not the specific thing I DID call circular reasoning IS circular reasoning.

    What would determine the validity of the charge would be the evidence itself, not the fact that one COULD belabor the point concerning any subject. It's THIS subject I am referring to, and it's THIS subject that would have to be examined.


    << For instance, I love Him because He first loved me. That's hardly linear reasoning! >>


    Yes, it is. It's certainly not circular reasoning! This does not say, "I love him because he first loved me, and he first loved me because I love him." He loved me when I did NOT love him. That statement above is about as linear as a statement can get!


    << WCF says "commonly called the moral law," because Christians who came before them, studied the Bible, and drew conclusions from that study, saw that some laws pertained to temple worship and some to moral behavior. I don't think that's very controversial. >>


    It's not controversial to notice a difference between "break a pot if an insect gets in it" and "thou shalt not murder." What's controversial is to take the first ten commandments in the law and impute to them a title that sets them apart from and above the rest of the law, as if those ten have some sort of special quality about them that the other laws do not have.

    THAT is what is extra-biblical about the designation of the 10-C as "the moral law." There are scores of moral laws throughout the rest of the law of Moses -- AND -- not all of the ten are "moral laws," biblically -- so the evidence does not fit the claim.

    These scholars called the 10-C the "moral law" because others did so. What others? Others who took the same position they did. When the WCF set out to propose biblical support for its position, it needed to give biblical support for its claims -- not just reference to terminology used among the men who wrote it. That's what makes it circular.

    And it's not just the fact that the 10-C are called the "moral law" that is the problem -- but what the WCF DOES with that label from that point on. It imposes that label at various biblical points where the evidence does not support it, and it has clearly led generations of Christians who follow the WCF to see the 10-C in a way that flat-out contradicts the New Testament revelation concerning the 10-C.

    The rest of your comments had nothing to do with whether or not the designation "moral law" was a circular argument in the WCF. However, I did agree with this:

    << WCR, like Calvin's commentaries, Mike's comments, or my thoughts, can only be relied on inasmuch as they are scriptural. >>


    I fully support that argument, since it perfectly aligns with my point about the WCF not supporting its statements with clear scripture in context. There is no BIBLICAL support for calling the 10-C "the moral law."

    And I will reiterate that if the WCF had quoted what the NT actually DOES say about the 10-C, its entire point about "the moral law" would have been refuted.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Been thinking about the "moral law," for a while - and the 10 c's -

    So Moses came down from Mt. Sinai, with the tablet, written with the finger of God, and its purpose was?

    I see it as moral in nature - no idolatry, keeping the Sabbath, no murder, no coveting. Do you see it as something else, or a mixture?

    When the Rich Young Ruler asks Jesus what he should do to inherit eternal life, does Jesus not list for him some of those ten commandments? I know, after being assured that he kept them, Jesus pressed him further towards charity, but my point is, was not the table of the law mentioned as a positive and proper thing to uphold?

    Are not the 10 commandments a summary of the other behavior oriented laws of the Old and New Testaments? For instance laws against sexual sins could be summed up as "no adultery," laws against hatred, assault, negligent and deliberate homicide as "no murder," laws against the various types of thefts (moving boundaries, unjust weights and measures, outright theft) under "no stealing?"

    Why would God write those ten commandments on the tablets of stone? As opposed to the six hundred or so he inspired the prophets, especially Moses, to deliver orally? And why would He change his moral standards during New Testament times?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Marie, another question is, why aren't the two greatest commandments in that list?

    My understanding of what is in the Mosaic law is there were always signs of the covenants, and the sign of the keeping of the Mosaic covenant was Sabbath keeping. We are not under the Mosaic Law any more.

    Therefore, when Paul says one mans thinks of a day as special, another man sees all days alike, and each man is acceptable to the Lord, I know that Saturday Sabbath keeping is not a law I am under any more.

    To claim that the day Jesus rose from the dead is now the Sabbath is something read back into the Bible, not something the Bible teaches, and the words of Paul go against it. Paul gave each man freedom to regard a day, or to see all days alike. Hence, to say we are "under" the Sabbath, when freedom is given to view days differently, is eisegesis.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Rebecca --

    Notice that it's always the same questions.

    ReplyDelete
  20. "Marie, another question is, why aren't the two greatest commandments in that list?"

    I'd posit that they are. I think it's accurate to say those two sum up the ten.

    ReplyDelete