Defining Terms

J. I. Packer offers one of the best summaries of the different varieties of antinomianism.

Dualistic Antinomianism
Associated with Gnosticism, which treats the body (and its actions) as insignificant.

Spirit-centered Antinomianism
Views the inner promptings of the Spirit as sufficient apart from the external Word.

 Christ-centered antinomianism
 Argues that God sees no sin in believers, because they are in Christ, who kept the
law for them, and therefore what they actually do makes no difference, provided that they keep believing.

Dispensational Antinomianism
Denies that in the “church age,” believers are obligated to the moral law.

Situationist Antinomianism
Teaches that love is the only rule and that duties (not just their application) will therefore vary according to circumstance.


J. I. Packer, Concise Theology

For whom Christ offered himself a Sacrifice

From “A View of the Covenant of Grace” by Thomas Boston.

Thomas Boston (1676-1732) was a pastor of God's flock in Ettrick, Scotland, whose preaching God abundantly blessed in the saving of many souls. The son of a Presbyterian who knew the Lord and was imprisoned for non-conformity, Boston was raised in times of murderous persecution. Nevertheless, he lived to see God’s people flourish and multiply, as “the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved” (Acts 2:47). He is perhaps best known for his part in the reprinting of “The Marrow of Modern Divinity”, a book which distinguishes the Covenant of Works from the Covenant of Grace.

1. It was not for his own sins, for he had none; but for the sins and transgressions of others, Dan. 9:26, “The Messiah shall be cut off, but not for himself.” He could not suffer for any sin of his own; for he was “holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners.” Though he made his soul an offering for sin, yet he had done no iniquity, neither was guile found in his mouth. As the legal lambs were without blemish, so Christ was a Lamb without spot. His extraordinary and miraculous conception in the womb of a virgin was an effectual bar against original sin, and he has no actual sin in the course of his life. He was infinitely holy as God, and habitually holy as man. Every power and faculty of his soul, and every member of his body, was elevated and raised to the highest pitch of holiness. And he fulfilled all righteousness in his life, and gave complete satisfaction to all the demands of the law; so that he needed not, as the Levitical priests, first to offer sacrifice for his own sin, and then for the sins of the people.  

 2. Christ did not offer up this sacrifice for the sins of fallen angels; for there was no sacrifice appointed for them. Whenever they rebelled against their Sovereign Lord and Creator, they were immediately expelled from the divine presence, and are kept in everlasting chains under darkness to the judgment of the great day. Christ took not upon him the nature of angels, but the seed of Abraham. He offered up the sacrifice of himself to make an atonement for the sins of men.  

3. Christ did not die a sacrifice for every man and woman in the world. It is true, there was virtue and efficacy enough in his oblation to satisfy offended justice for the sins of the whole world, yea, and of millions of worlds more; for his blood hath infinite value, because of the infinite dignity and excellency of his person. And in this sense some divines understand those places of scripture where he is called the Saviour of the whole world. Yet the efficacy and saving virtue of his sacrifice extendeth not unto all. For,  

     1st. It is restricted in scripture to a certain number, called sometimes the church of God, as Acts 20:28, “Feed the church of God which he hath purchased with his own blood,” Eph. 5:25, “Christ loved the church, and gave himself for it.” Sometimes they are called his sheep, as John 10:15, “I lay down my life for my sheep.” They are also called those that were given to him by the Father, John 17:2, “Thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.” See also John 10:26-29. In these places of scripture, and others that might be named, you see that Christ’s death is restricted to a certain number of persons, exclusive of all others,  

     2dly, If Christ would not pray for every one in the world, then certainly he did not die for every one in particular. But so it is that he excludes the reprobate world from the benefit of his prayer, John 17:9, “I pray not for the world, but for them whom thou hast given me.” Both the parts of Christ’s priesthood, his offering sacrifice and his intercession, are of the same latitude and extent. We find them joined together in the scripture by an inseparable connexion, Rom. 8:34, “It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intersession for us, 1 John 2:1,2, “If any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: and he is the propitiation for our sins.” So that Christ intercedes for all those for whom he satisfied offended justice: but he intercedes not for the whole world, but only for those whom God hath given him; and therefore he did not satisfy offended justice for all men.

Why Moralism Is Not The Gospel

Albert Mohler's  sermon at the 2011  Gospel Coalition conference, on Christ in the old testament was very eye opening. About the 34 min mark he was discussing what many preachers tend to do with the biblical characters in the Old Testament. The problem he underscores is  not only privy to pastors but also is problematic for all born again parents and believers, including yours truly. 

The problem of only moralising the text. The problem of impressing on the hearer of his Old Testamernt oratory  that the main thrust of the text is to show us a moral example. An example of morality in the negative or positive. A moral example yes, but not a moral example only that is devoid of the Gospel. An example that  is devoid of Christ. That is an injustice to the word of God and  possibly damaging to the hearer.

Here is an article By Dr. Mohler on this very subject.

                                                               Dr. Albert Mohler

             Why moralism is not the gospel- and why so many christians think it is

                                                            

One of the most amazing statements by the Apostle Paul is his indictment of the Galatian Christians for abandoning the Gospel. “I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel,” Paul declared. As he stated so emphatically, the Galatians had failed in the crucial test of discerning the authentic Gospel from its counterfeits.

His words could not be more clear: “But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you have received, he is to be accursed!” [Gal. 1:6-7]

This warning from the Apostle Paul, expressed in the language of the Apostle’s shock and grief, is addressed not only to the church in Galatia, but to every congregation in every age. In our own day — and in our own churches — we desperately need to hear and to heed this warning. In our own time, we face false gospels no less subversive and seductive than those encountered and embraced by the Galatians.

In our own context, one of the most seductive false gospels is moralism. This false gospel can take many forms and can emerge from any number of political and cultural impulses. Nevertheless, the basic structure of moralism comes down to this — the belief that the Gospel can be reduced to improvements in behavior.

Sadly, this false gospel is particularly attractive to those who believe themselves to be evangelicals motivated by a biblical impulse. Far too many believers and their churches succumb to the logic of moralism and reduce the Gospel to a message of moral improvement. In other words, we communicate to lost persons the message that what God desires for them and demands of them is to get their lives straight.

In one sense, we are born to be moralists. Created in God’s image, we have been given the moral capacity of conscience. From our earliest days our conscience cries out to us the knowledge of our guilt, shortcomings, and misbehaviors. In other words, our conscience communicates our sinfulness.

Add to this the fact that the process of parenting and child rearing tends to inculcate moralism from our earliest years. Very quickly we learn that our parents are concerned with our behavior. Well behaved children are rewarded with parental approval, while misbehavior brings parental sanction. This message is reinforced by other authorities in young lives and pervades the culture at large.

Writing about his own childhood in rural Georgia, the novelist Ferrol Sams described the deeply-ingrained tradition of being “raised right.” As he explained, the child who is “raised right” pleases his parents and other adults by adhering to moral conventions and social etiquette. A young person who is “raised right” emerges as an adult who obeys the laws, respects his neighbors, gives at least lip service to religious expectations, and stays away from scandal. The point is clear — this is what parents expect, the culture affirms, and many churches celebrate. But our communities are filled with people who have been “raised right” but are headed for hell.

The seduction of moralism is the essence of its power. We are so easily seduced into believing that we actually can gain all the approval we need by our behavior. Of course, in order to participate in this seduction, we must negotiate a moral code that defines acceptable behavior with innumerable loopholes. Most moralists would not claim to be without sin, but merely beyond scandal. That is considered sufficient.

Moralists can be categorized as both liberal and conservative. In each case, a specific set of moral concerns frames the moral expectation. As a generalization, it is often true that liberals focus on a set of moral expectations related to social ethics while conservatives tend to focus on personal ethics. The essence of moralism is apparent in both — the belief that we can achieve righteousness by means of proper behavior.

The theological temptation of moralism is one many Christians and churches find it difficult to resist. The danger is that the church will communicate by both direct and indirect means that what God expects of fallen humanity is moral improvement. In so doing, the church subverts the Gospel and communicates a false gospel to a fallen world.

Just as parents rightly teach their children to obey moral instruction, the church also bears responsibility to teach its own the moral commands of God and to bear witness to the larger society of what God has declared to be right and good for His human creatures.

But these impulses, right and necessary as they are, are not the Gospel. Indeed, one of the most insidious false gospels is a moralism that promises the favor of God and the satisfaction of God’s righteousness to sinners if they will only behave and commit themselves to moral improvement.

The moralist impulse in the church reduces the Bible to a codebook for human behavior and substitutes moral instruction for the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Far too many evangelical pulpits are given over to moralistic messages rather than the preaching of the Gospel.

The corrective to moralism comes directly from the Apostle Paul when he insists that “a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus.” Salvation comes to those who are “justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified.” [Gal. 2:16]

We sin against Christ and we misrepresent the Gospel when we suggest to sinners that what God demands of them is moral improvement in accordance with the Law. Moralism makes sense to sinners, for it is but an expansion of what we have been taught from our earliest days. But moralism is not the Gospel, and it will not save. The only gospel that saves is the Gospel of Christ. As Paul reminded the Galatians, “But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, so that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.” [Gal. 4:4-5]

We are justified by faith alone, saved by grace alone, and redeemed from our sin by Christ alone. Moralism produces sinners who are (potentially) better behaved. The Gospel of Christ transforms sinners into the adopted sons and daughters of God.

The Church must never evade, accommodate, revise, or hide the law of God. Indeed, it is the Law that shows us our sin and makes clear our inadequacy and our total lack of righteousness. The Law cannot impart life but, as Paul insists, it “has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith.” [Gal. 3:24]

The deadly danger of moralism has been a constant temptation to the church and an ever-convenient substitute for the Gospel. Clearly, millions of our neighbors believe that moralism is our message. Nothing less than the boldest preaching of the Gospel will suffice to correct this impression and to lead sinners to salvation in Christ.

Hell will be highly populated with those who were “raised right.” The citizens of heaven will be those who, by the sheer grace and mercy of God, are there solely because of the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ.

Moralism is not the gospel.

The Difference Between Legal & Gospel Mortification

The right and wrong way to deal with sin

by Ralph Erskine

1. Gospel and legal mortification differ in their principles from which they proceed. Gospel mortification is from gospel principles, viz. the Spirit of God [Rom. 8. 13], 'If ye through the Spirit mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live'; Faith in Christ [Acts 15. 9], 'Purifying their hearts by faith'; The love of Christ constraining [2 Cor. 5. 14], 'The love of Christ constraineth us.' But legal mortification is from legal principles such as, from the applause and praise of men, as in the Pharisees; from pride of self-righteousness, as in Paul before his conversion; from the fear of hell; from a natural conscience; from the example of others; from some common motions of the Spirit; and many times from the power of sin itself, while one sin is set up to wrestle with another, as when sensuality and self-righteousness wrestle with one another. The man, perhaps, will not drink and swear. Why? Because he is setting up and establishing a righteousness of his own, whereby to obtain the favour of God; here is but one sin wrestling with another.

2. They differ in their weapons with which they fight against sin. The gospel believer fights with grace's weapons, namely, the blood of Christ, the word of God, the promises of the covenant, and the virtue of Christ's death and cross [Gal. 6. 14]: 'God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of the Lord Jesus Christ, by whom [or, as it may be read, 'whereby,' viz. by the cross of Christ,] the world is crucified to me, and I to the world.' But now the man under the law fights against sin by the promises and threatenings of the law; by its promises, saying, I will obtain life; and win to heaven, I hope, if I do so and so; by its threatenings, saying, I will go to hell and be damned, if I do not so and so. Sometimes he fights with the weapons of his own vows and resolutions, which are his strong tower, to which he runs and thinks himself safe.

3. They differ in the object of their mortification. They both, indeed, seek to mortify sin, but the legalist's quarrel is more especially with the sins of his conversation [i.e., behaviour], whereas the true believer should desire to fight as the Syrians got orders [1 Kings 22:31], that is, neither against great nor small, so much as against the King himself, even against original corruption. A body of sin and death troubles him more than any other sin in the world; 'O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from this body of death?' [Rom. 7. 24]. His great exercise is to have the seed of the woman to bruise this head of the serpent.

4. They differ in the reasons of the contest. The believer, whom grace teaches to deny all ungodliness, he fights against sin because it dishonours God, opposes Christ, grieves the Spirit, and separates between his Lord and him; but the legalist fights against sin, because it breaks his peace, and troubles his conscience, and hurts him, by bringing wrath and judgment on him. As children will not play in the dust, not because it sullies their clothes, but flies into their eyes, and hurts them, so the legalist will not meddle with sin, not because it sullies the perfections of God, and defiles their souls, but only because it hurts them. I deny not, but there is too much of this legal temper even amongst the godly.

5. They differ in their motives and ends. The believer will not serve sin, because he is alive to God, and dead to sin [Rom. 6. 6]. The legalist forsakes sin, not because he is alive, but that he may live. The believer mortifies sin, because God loves him; but the legalist, that God may love him. The believer mortifies, because God is pacified towards him; the legalist mortifies, that he may pacify God by his mortification. He may go a great length, but it is still that he may have whereof to glory, making his own doing all the foundation of his hope and comfort.

6. They differ in the nature of their mortification. The legalist does not oppose sin violently, seeking the utter destruction of it. If he can get sin put down, he does not seek it to be thrust out; but the believer, having a nature and principle contrary to sin, he seeks not only to have it weakened, but extirpated. The quarrel is irreconcileable; no terms of accommodation or agreement; no league with sin is allowed, as it is with hypocrites.

7. They differ in the extent of the warfare, not only objectively, the believer hating every false way; but also subjectively, all the faculties of the believer's soul, the whole regenerate part being against sin. It is not so with the hypocrite or legalist; for as he spares some sin or other, so his opposition to sin is only seated in his conscience; his light and conscience oppose such a thing, while his heart approves of it. There is an extent also as to time; the legalist's opposition to sin is of a short duration, but in the believer it is to the end; grace and corruption still opposing one another.

8. They differ in the success. There is no believer, but as he fights against sin, so first or last he prevails, though not always to his discerning; and though he lose many battles, yet he gains the war. But the legalist, for all the work he makes, yet he never truly comes speed [i.e., is never truly successful]; though he cut off some actual sin, yet the corrupt nature is never changed; he never gets a new heart; the iron sinew in his neck, which opposes God, is never broken; and when he gets one sin mortified, sometimes another and more dangerous sin lifts up the head. Hence all the sins and pollutions that ever the Pharisees forsook, and all the good duties that ever they performed, made them but more proud, and strengthened their unbelieving prejudices against Christ, which was the greater and more dangerous sin.

Thus you may see the difference between legal and gospel mortification, and try yourselves thereby.

   

A reversal of the order is fatal

W.G.T. Shedd

There are two invitations given by the Lord Jesus Christ, which cover the whole subject of a sinner's salvation. One is an invitation to come to him, and the other an invitation to come after him. Examples of the first are: "Come unto me all ye that are weary and heavy laden, and I will give you rest." Matt. 11:28. "All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out." John 6:37. Examples of the second are: "Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me, for I am meek and lowly in heart." Matt. 11 : 29. "If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me." Matt. 16:24. The first of these is an invitation to come to the Saviour, by trusting penitently in his atoning blood in order to pardon and reconciliation with God's holiness. The second is an invitation to come after the Saviour, by imitating his character and example. And they must be accepted in the order in which the Saviour has placed them. A reversal of the order is fatal. If the sinner attempts to come after the Saviour before he has come to him, to copy the Redeemer's life and conduct without seeking peace with God by trust in the Redeemer's offering for sin, it will be an utter failure. A pacified conscience and a sense of being forgiven, must go before all true obedience. If, again, the sinner separates these two invitations, the consequence is equally fatal. If he attempts to obey the first without obeying the second, to come to Christ without coming after him, he is St. James's antinomian and his faith is dead faith without works. And if he attempts to obey the second invitation without obeying the first, to come after Christ without coming to him, he is St. Paul's legalist, who has no true sense of sin, rejects Christ's expiation, and expects salvation by moral character and a moral life.

If your children are in your home for 18 years

If your children are in your home for 18 years, you have over 5,600 occasions (figuring a 6-day week) for family worship.If you learn a new psalm or hymn each month, they will be exposed to 216 in those 18 years. If you read a chapter a day, you will complete the Bible 4.5 times in 18 years. Every day they will affirm a creed or recite the law. Every day they will confess their sins and plead for mercy. Every day they will intercede on behalf of others. Think in terms of the long view. What is the cumulative impact of just 15 minutes of this each day, day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year, for 18 years? At the rate of 6 days a week (excluding Sunday), one spends an hour and a half a week in family worship (about the length of a home Bible study), 78 hours a year (about the length of two weekend retreats), and
1,404 hours over the course of 18 years (about the length of eight week-long summer camps). When
you establish your priorities, think in terms of the cumulative effect of this upon your children. Think of the cumulative effect of this upon you, after 40 or 60 or 80 years of daily family worship. All this without having to drive anywhere.

Terry Johnson is senior minister at Independent Presbyterian
Church in Savannah, Georgia. This excerpt is from his Family
Worship Book (Christian Focus, 2003).
by Terry Johnson

A Critique of Tenets 22 and 23 of Vision Forum's “The Tenets Of Biblical Patriarchy”

Perhaps the most controversial plank in Vision Forum's platform is the issue of patriarchy, or what they call
"biblical patriarchy". That will be the focus of this paper. It is important to state at the onset that the issue is not whether scripture describes a family structure that stresses the headship of the husband/father, because there is little argument that this is case. Rather the question is this: Is the pattern VF asserts as being the "biblical" model correct? This purpose of this paper is show that some of the methods and tactics VF utilizes to promote their definition of patriarchy are flawed and may even be harmful.

The Editor's Note in “The Tenets Of Biblical Patriarchy” states:
Central to the crisis of this era is the systematic attack on the timeless truths of biblical patriarchy. This
attack includes the movement to subvert the biblical model of the family, and redefine the very meaning of
fatherhood and motherhood, masculinity, femininity, and the parent and child relationship. We emphasize the
importance of biblical patriarchy, not because it is greater than other doctrines, but because it is being actively attacked by unbelievers and professing Christians alike. Egalitarian feminism is a false ideology that has bred false doctrine in the church and seduced many believers.

Apparently, disagreeing with “The Tenets Of Biblical Patriarchy” automatically makes one an "egalitarian
feminist" who promulgates false doctrine. Such an inflated view of the absolute correctness of their doctrine should be the first warning that there may be danger ahead.


Vision Forum Hermeneutics: Theonomy, Dominionism, Christian Reconstructionism

“The Tenets Of Biblical Patriarchy” can be examined apart from a basic understanding of the underlying
hermeneutical system known as theonomy or Christian Reconstructionism as employed by Doug Phillips and
Vision Forum.  A full critique of theonomy or Reconstructionism is not possible in this brief article. The reader is referred to the Appendix for a list of resources in addition to those cited in the footnotes.


The rest of the critique is found here;

http://dividingtheword.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/vf_22_23_2b.pdf

Our Sabbath Rest

I have been hearing talk of Sabbatarianism lately and how Sunday is to be placed aside as a day of entirely no work.  That this day should be strictly for bodily rest and meditation in order to fulfill the 3^rd commandment (“Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.”)  Let me say from the onset I agree that the commandment is to be obeyed, however I disagree with many Sabbatarians on what/when this day is and what it means for a believer to obey it.  I by NO means am saying that Sunday is not the “Lord’s Day” and I am by NO means saying that dedicating one day a week for public worship is in error.  On the contrary if you do not do this, you place yourself in danger of sin.  We are one church body in Christ; we are not to forsake fellowship (Hebrews 10:25). We need to encourage one another.  We need to worship our Lord together.  So, get any ideas about not going to church because of this exegesis out of your head.  That is not the authorial intent here.  What needs to be seen in this article is that in attempting to obey the Sabbath as it was given in Exodus 20 we miss it’s New Testament fulfillment in Hebrews 4.   Please read the entire chapter 4 of Hebrews: 

4 Therefore, while the promise of entering his rest still stands, let us fear lest any of you should seem to have failed to reach it. ² For good news came to us just as to them, but the message they heard did not benefit them, because they were not united by faith with those who listened.³ For we who have believed enter that rest, as he has said,

“As I swore in my wrath,
‘They shall not enter my rest,’”

although his works were finished from the foundation of the world. ⁴ For he has somewhere spoken of the seventh day in this way: “And God rested on the seventh day from all his works.” ⁵ And again in this passage he said,

“They shall not enter my rest.”

⁶ Since therefore it remains for some to enter it, and those who formerly received the good news failed to enter because of disobedience, ⁷ again he appoints a certain day, “Today,” saying through David so long afterward, in the words already quoted,

“Today, if you hear his voice,
do not harden your hearts.”

⁸ For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken of another day later on. ⁹ So then, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God, ¹⁰ for whoever has entered God's rest has also rested from his works as God did from his.

¹¹ Let us therefore strive to enter that rest, so that no one may fall by the same sort of disobedience. ¹² For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart. ¹³ And no creature is hidden from his sight, but all are naked and exposed to the eyes of him to whom we must give account.

¹⁴ Since then we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. ¹⁵ For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin. ¹⁶ Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.

Let’s break this up into some questions I had after reading it.

1. What is “our rest”?

This is key.  According to verse 3, it is we who believe who have entered “rest”.  It cannot be the belief itself that is “rest”.  There is no hope in hope alone.  Our rest must come from the object of our belief and chapter 3 (as well as the entire Holy Scriptures) tells us that Christ, his completed work, and sovereign rule is who/what we believe in.  Right off the bat our rest has its source in Christ.  

2. But doesn’t Exodus 20:8-11 specifically point out a day? When are we supposed to set aside our time to rest in the Lord?

Hebrews 4 points out a day as well.  Verse 7 says our appointed day to rest in Christ is “Today”.  Here and Now.  At this moment.  We are to always rest in the peace of Christ that surpasses understanding (Colossians 3:15, Philippians 4:7).  Everything we do is to in Christ and should be for God’s glory (1 Corinthians 10:21) 

The Sabbath rest is everyday for those who believe, for we are now fellow heirs with Christ because of the work he has accomplished for us, undeserved and while we were yet sinners.  You see, that’s the point of chapter 4….the work is done.  We have no other choice but to rest in its completion.  If the gospel doesn’t make you wipe your brow and say, “whew!”  if the gospel doesn’t buckle your heavy laden knees, collapsing you before the throne you can now boldly go to, than no amount of Sunday abstention will give you the slightest true joy and ease.  However, if taking extra time on Sunday to focus on Christ and his work is what you choose to do, than glory be to God!  That’s wonderful.  But this should be done everyday and in everything we do.  So, if going over to friends house to help them with their yard (after church) is how you plan to spend your Sunday.  Praise the lord!  But whatever you do it must be for the glory of God always resting in the belief (the fact) that “Jesus paid it all and all to Him I owe, sin had left a crimson stain but He washed it white as snow.”

Christian Liberty by: "good and necessary consequence"

The Word of God is our only rule of faith and practice. This is the doctrine of sola scriptura: we must not contradict Scripture, and we must not add to Scripture. When the church would bind the conscience, the Christian can appeal to the Word of God and find liberty. A church without this guarantee will be at the mercy of ambitious bureaucrats or repressive moralists, and it binds the conscience by the word of man.

"Good and Necessary Consequence"

The principle that Machen was honoring found its clearest expression in the Westminster Confession of Faith: "The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men" (1.6).

The Westminster Confession explains that there are two ways in which God reveals himself in Scripture: explicit truth ("which is expressly set down in Scripture") and implicit truth (which "by good and necessary consequence can be deduced from Scripture"). Together these truths constitute the whole counsel of God, and both are equally obliging on the church. Herman Bavinck explains: "[T]hat which can be deduced from Scripture by legitimate inference is as binding as that which is expressly stated in it." (3)

It is important to underscore that "good and necessary consequence" is not the voice of human wisdom. Because it is reason that submits to the rule of Christ, it is the voice of Scripture itself. As James Bannerman, the nineteenth-century Scottish Presbyterian, explained, good consequences "must be truly contained in the inspired statements from which they profess to be taken."Necessary consequences must be "unavoidably forced upon the mind, upon an honest and intelligent application of it to the Scripture page." (4)

In a helpful essay, C. J. Williams points out that this phrase can be juxtaposed with the wording of the Westminster Larger Catechism (Q/A 105), which warns against "bold and curious searching into [God's] secrets." Where there is not good and necessary consequence, there is exegetical recklessness. This is "presumptuous theological creativity." The deductive reasoning that the confession commends is no license for "an uncharted world of interpretive possibilities," writes Williams. "Good and necessary consequences will propound specific truths, not unveil mysterious layers of meaning in Scripture." (5) The confession goes on (in 1.6) to explain that the Holy Spirit guides the church in identifying these consequences: "the inward illumination of the Spirit of God [is] necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word." Bavinck writes, "This is how the church acts every minute of the day in the ministry of the Word, in the practice of life, in the development of its doctrine. It never stops with the letter but under the guidance of the Holy Spirit deduces from the data of Scripture the inferences and applications that make possible and foster its life and development." (6)

The "good and necessary" principle can be demonstrated by way of illustration. We do not have a positive command or historical example to administer the Lord's Supper to women. But the practice of admitting women to the Table is a clear argument from inference that the church has never questioned. Similarly, there is no explicit statement in the New Testament that the Sabbath day has been changed from the last to the first day of the week. But the New Testament practice of meeting on the first day and John's reference to the Lord's Day (Rev. 1:10) establish the warrant, by good and necessary consequence, of recognizing the Lord's Day as the Christian Sabbath.

On the other hand, there may appear to be, in a very literal reading, an explicit command from Christ for his disciples to practice foot washing (John 13:14). However, this was a common practice in first-century Palestine, and Christ cites it in order to instruct Christians to perform humble service for one another, not to bind the church in a particular liturgical practice. As an ordinance for the church, foot washing fails to meet the burden of good and necessary consequence.

Good and necessary consequence, then, is a principle that safeguards the consistent application of the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura. The church has no right to impose on its members any teaching, commandment, or ordinance that is contrary to or cannot be deduced from Scripture.

The Battle for Christian Liberty

The temptation to impose non-biblical demands derived from "bold and curious" reasoning is not limited to theological liberals. Some conservative churches have constructed a "catalog of sins," highlighting particular "bar-room vices" that comprise a legalistic picture of the Christian life. As soon as Machen and his associates founded the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, a minority within the new church pressed for a declaration against the use of alcohol. The majority in the church, while opposed to intemperance, countered that loyalty to Christ forbade their adopting rules that went beyond the Word of God.

Of course, none of the advocates of abstinence were consciously challenging the authority of the Bible as the church's standard of conduct. But the effect of their crusade was to deny the sufficiency of Scripture and ultimately its authority as well. If it is denied that the Bible provides principles that serve as infallible guides to the Christian in all matters of conduct, then additional authorities must enter the picture. The addition of such man-made rules to the Scripture is as harmful as any subtraction from God's Word.

The principle of Christian liberty is not a popular cause in many circles today. A refusal to condemn alcohol may leave the Christian vulnerable to the impression of being opposed to personal holiness and in favor of sinful license. On a social level, consider the zeal of some churches to take a stand against a social evil by organizing boycotts or political campaigns for particular laws or candidates for office. The church that safeguards liberty of the Christian in this way is not likely to join such social bandwagons. It may be accused of being cowardly in the face of apparent grave threats to the moral fabric of the nation.

Speaking in the early years of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, shortly after some prominent fundamentalists had left the church over this issue, R. B. Kuiper of Westminster Seminary conceded the unpopularity of the church's stand: "The mere mention of Christian liberty causes some of you to worry. You see smoke and smell liquor, and you wonder whether I may not be about to utter some awful indiscretion. Forget it. Christian liberty is something big. It is truly broad."

Kuiper's point is that in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and other Reformed churches, there has been a recognition of the rights and duties of Christians to follow the dictates of their own consciences in matters where the Bible has not pronounced judgment.

Who Binds the Conscience?

The "something big" to which Kuiper referred comes into view as the Westminster Confession goes on to describe in 20.2: "God alone is Lord of the Conscience and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are in anything contrary to His word, or beside it in matters of faith and worship." This is often misunderstood by Christians who assume that because God is Lord of the conscience, the church cannot bind consciences. But the church has real God-given authority, and the elders of the church, in the execution of their rule, inevitably and unavoidably bind the consciences of their members. The question, rather, becomes: On what basis is the conscience bound? Is it by the Word of God or by the word of man?

In Christ, Christians are free from all the condemnation of the law, but this liberty never descends into license. Christians are enabled to live for that great end for which they were created: the glory of God. We pursue that aim according to God's own will revealed in the Bible. That standard, given by inspiration of God, is absolute and final. It was designed so that "the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work" (2 Tim. 3:16).

In this context, we see that Christian liberty is not an end to itself. Rather, Christian liberty serves the Lordship of Christ, who alone is Lord of the conscience. Christian liberty limits the church to ministering and declaring only the Word of God and not human opinion.

Nowhere do we find greater violations of this principle than with innovations to public worship. There are many Reformed Christians who regard the regulative principle as a narrow-minded rule that robs worshipers of the freedom that God would have them express in worship. This argument completely misses the genius of Christian liberty. Imagine a worship service that entails something without biblical warrant, such as a personal testimony or a dramatic skit. What recourse does a worshiper have who finds that objectionable? By not participating, one sins by violating the divine command to worship with God's assembled people. By joining in, one sins by violating one's conscience. The only way the church can worship God and protect liberty of conscience is by observing the regulative principle of worship. The freedom of the Christian is found in serving one Lord and Master, Jesus Christ.

So what is at stake in the principle of Christian liberty is something far greater than a craving for single malt scotch or the inclination to vote Democrat. It is liberating the believer from arbitrary human rules and the church from a false agenda that distracts it from its calling. Should the minister contend that America is a Christian nation that will receive the blessing from God in return for civic righteousness? Does he promise health and wealth to the believer who follows the Bible's formula for success? We may be quick to dismiss those claims when they come from a crass televangelist, but they come in more subtle forms in churches that follow "brash and curious" principles rather than good and necessary consequence.

Modern Reformation Magazine
Issue: "Sola Scriptura" Nov./Dec. 2010 Vol. 19 No. 6 Page number(s): 14-17

Freemasonry: A Cult That Operates On The Inside Of The Church Part 1

I was blessed to sit through a cult apologetics course taught at Christ Fellowship Baptist Church in Mobile,  Alabama during the winter of 2008. The course was entitled Defending the faith: An examination of four false religions, taught by Tony Barlow. I will share what he shared with us on the teaching of Freemasonry.

Part 1: Intro

It is said that Freemasonry exists to make "good men better through the brotherhood of man, under the fatherhood of God, yet beyond the outer gates of this seemingly harmless philanthropic "craft" lies a false religious system as old as time itself. Masonry posits itself as a peaceful brotherhood of fellow "craftsmen" who only have the interests of humanity, morality, and self development at heart. But beneath it's exterior of light, lies a resident evil that could have only been the progeny of Lucifer himself.

The goal of Freemasonry is to be more than just a philanthropic or self improvement orginization, at its heart lives a mystical religious system that envisions world conversion to its creed and peculiar form of morality. Note the following prayer given in the opening ceremonies of the 31st degree of Scottish Rite:

          "Here us with indulgence, O infinite Deity....Help us to perform all our Masonic duties, to                                                                                               

          ourselves, to other men, and to Thee. Let the great flood of Masonic light flow in a   perpetual current over the whole world and make Masonry the creed of all mankind".

Judging from its influence and popularity Freemasonry has definitely had an impact on our nation, culture, and social order. The following list provides some chilling examples of the impact the "Lodge" has had throughout American and world history:

14 presidents and 18 vice presidents have been Masons.

5 chief justices of the supreme Court were Masons. 

Douglas Macarthur, John Phillips Sousa, John Wayne, Clark Gable, Norman Vincent Peale, Ernest Borgnine, Cecil B. Demille, W.C. Fields, Henry Ford, Barry Goldwater, J Edgar Hoover, Harry Houdini, J. C. Penny, Roy Rogers, Red Skelton, Lewis Carroll, Benjamin Franklin, James Monroe, George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, Oscar Wilde, Mark Twain, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, Francois Voltaire, Franz Joseph Hayden, and Paul Revere. The majority of the 56 singers of the American Decleration of Independence, and most of the American Generals of the revolutionary war just to name a few.

Today millions of peolpe are involved in the various orders of Freemasonry. as of 2001 there were approximately some 3 million in the Scottish Rite. There are over 33,700 Masonic Lodges in 164 countries worldwide, with some 15,300 of these in the United States. This has led one Masonic scholar to observe that,  "...Freemasonry is the second-largest and best equipped spiritual organization in the world ...it has millions of members, thousands of temples and meeting rooms, and an infrastructure of Grand lodges in most countries of the world. It is second in size only to the Roman Catholic church as a worldwide spiritual movement."

Saddest of all are the Southern Baptist, who seemingly turn a blind eye to the invasion of Freemasonry into the nations largest protestant evangelical denomination. In 1993 the North American Mission Board upon request conducted an investigation of the Lodge entitled, A Study of Freemasonry. This study was in part due to the fact that some 500,000 to 1.5 million Southern Baptist are  also Masons. While the study does indicate that there are some teachings of Freemasonry that are incompatible with the Christian faith, it ultimately leaves membership in the lodge to "a matter of personnel conscience." As a result of the denominations failure to stand firm for the truth, Masons around the world saw it as a positive movement toward their fraternity.

Because of your support, the vote of the Southern Baptist Convention

is a historic and positive turning point for Freemasonry. Basically, it is a

revitalization of our fraternity by America's largest Protestant denomination 

after nearly a year of thorough, scholarly study. At the same time, it is a call

to renewed effort on the part of all Freemasonry today to re-energize our 

Fraternity and move forward to fulfilling its mission as the world's foremost

 proponent of Brotherhood of man under the fatherhood of God. 

(www.namb.net/evangelism/iev/mason/asp) Scottish Rite Journal August 1993   

As nothing more than neo-pagan mysticism, and working within the framework of the Christian faith, Freemasonry operates with relative immunity and in a clandestine way among some of evangelical's largest denominations. Blurring the lines between light and darkness, corrupting the distinctions between the doctrines of Christ and the doctrines of Devils, Freemasonry is by far in the opinion of this writer the most damning heretical false religious substitute Satan has ever contrived against the Gospel of Jesus Christ. 

The Hidden Faith Of Our Founding Fathers

Love Forgives

Dr Steve Lawson recently gave a sermon entitled Love Forgives.  (It can be found at this link) Too often we are believers do not dwell enough on what has been The following are scriptures that show we are to forgive.  COMPLETELY forgive….no remembering wrongs, no petty looking at someone in disgust as they walk by.  Read the following slowly, in contemplation of how petty the wrongs against you are compared to the sins you have committed against the holy God and how graciously he forgave you through the blood of Jesus Christ. 

I Corinthians 13:5

⁴ Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant,

⁵ does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered.

Matt 6:14-15

¹⁴  For if you forgive others for their transgressions, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. ¹⁵ But if you do not forgive others, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions.

Ephesians 4:32

³²  Be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving each other, just as God in Christ also has forgiven you.

Colossians 3:15

¹⁵ Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, to which indeed you were called in one body; and be thankful.

(Unforgiveness is an invitation to Satan to come in)

II Corinthians 2:5-11

¹⁰ But one whom you forgive anything, I forgive also; for indeed what I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, I did it for your sakes in the presence of Christ, ¹¹ so that no advantage would be taken of us by Satan, for we are not ignorant of his schemes.

Matthew 18:21-35

²¹ Then Peter came and said to Him, “Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him? Up to seven times?” ²² Jesus said to him, “I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven.

²³ “For this reason the kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who wished to settle accounts with his slaves. ²⁴ When he had begun to settle them, one who owed him ten thousand talents was brought to him. ²⁵ But since he did not have the means to repay, his lord commanded him to be sold, along with his wife and children and all that he had, and repayment to be made. ²⁶ So the slave fell to the ground and prostrated himself before him, saying, ‘Have patience with me and I will repay you everything.’ ²⁷ And the lord of that slave felt compassion and released him and forgave him the debt. ²⁸ But that slave went out and found one of his fellow slaves who owed him a hundred denarii; and he seized him and began to choke him, saying, ‘Pay back what you owe.’ ²⁹ So his fellow slave fell to the ground and began to plead with him, saying, ‘Have patience with me and I will repay you.’ ³⁰ But he was unwilling and went and threw him in prison until he should pay back what was owed. ³¹ So when his fellow slaves saw what had happened, they were deeply grieved and came and reported to their lord all that had happened. ³² Then summoning him, his lord *said to him, ‘You wicked slave, I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me. ³³  Should you not also have had mercy on your fellow slave, in the same way that I had mercy on you?’ ³⁴ And his lord, moved with anger, handed him over to the torturers until he should repay all that was owed him. ³⁵  My heavenly Father will also do the same to you, if each of you does not forgive his brother from your heart.”

(We are to pardon whether they ask for forgiveness or not)

Luke 23:34
But Jesus was saying, “ Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing.”

Parochialism Paralyzes the Process of Learning

Here is a good article I read a while back by Bob Dewayy. First it may be helpful define  the term used:

Parochialism means being provincial, being narrow in scope, or considering only small sections of an issue.

 The Need to Search the Scriptures

Parochialism takes the good things we have discussed about systems and systematic thinking, and institutionalizes them into a tight, all encompassing structure that is deemed to be the only true way of knowing and serving God. In my opinion Roman Catholicism is like this. The teaching of Rome has developed beyond the Scriptures to institutionalize not only certain truths, such as the trinity, but many errors. Traditions of the Roman church stand as authoritative to those who are members, even if these traditions are far removed from the Scriptures. The sad result is that for millions of Catholics all around the world, what the Scriptures say about anything in particular is of little interest. The point is that systems can stifle searching the Scriptures if they are wrongly held.

How Parochialism Paralyzes the Process of Learning

Parochialism will always be attractive to many people because of its utter simplicity. Rather than the painful process of making many decisions about all manner of issues of belief and behavior, they merely make one decision: which group to join. The decision is that everything about this group is what they are going to hold to, and they shall just trust that it is right. If someone questions the beliefs of people who approach their faith this way, they merely send them to the church authorities, or consult the creeds. This issue is not about being denominational versus non-denominational. Some of the most extreme examples of parochialism I have seen have been in small, non-denominational groups. One person has created his own system of answers for everything and dictates it all to the flock. Nonconformity on any point is not tolerated.

The process of learning is paralyzed when we have made one decision to join and thereafter refuse to interact seriously with dissenting views. I love studying theology and have learned much by going into a rigorous academic environment where many do not share my views and interacting with scholarly Bible believing teachers who may hold different views on various matters. I remember meeting another man a few years ago in a seminary class on theology and agreeing with him on most doctrines. The class was examining a whole spectrum of theological perspectives - some far afield from ours - interacting with them, critiquing them, and doing serious research on various topics. My friend was disappointed because he wanted a class taught only from our own perspective that only reinforced our systematic theology. I felt just the opposite. I love going toe-to-toe with capable people who see things from a different perspective, point out the flaws in my arguments, and bring Scriptures to bear that I may have not considered. I really do not get that much from only being spoon-fed what I already believe, and that in a parochial setting.

There is, I believe, an anti-scholastic bias in much of American Evangelicalism which contributes to parochialism. The idea is that someone figured out all this "theology stuff" long ago, so why keep rehashing it? This bias is contributing to the therapeutic approach that is so common. One decision is made - which group to join - that settles all matters theological. Now life is about getting one's needs met. Ironically, ecumenism and parochialism have found a way to exist nicely in our post-modern culture, though they are technically polar opposites. The way they coexist is that everyone is given the right to choose a group to join, and that settles the truth issues. We agree that everyone's tradition is correct for them. Once that is settled, theological disputes are moot. Thus, we can privately be as narrow and parochial as we desire, as long as publicly we do not try to correct anyone else. This is the trend not only in theology, but modern politics. What is "true" just is not that interesting to many people.

Listening to Dissenting Views

Another paralyzing aspect of parochialism is that it engenders an attitude that refuses to consider dissenting views. This is a common practice among those of us who are conservative in our approach to the Bible and theology. I think it explains some of the letters I get from readers. The fact that people feel they must break off all further dialogue with me because they disagree with me on one point saddens me. One issue that regularly elicits this response is the issue of God's sovereignty in salvation or man's free will. It is understandable that this causes consternation because how we understand this influences everything we read in the Bible. I have been on both sides of this issue. For sixteen years of my Christian life, I saw free will as the key to understanding the problem of evil, salvation, and redemption history. A belief like this one - that influences all of our other beliefs in some way - is not easily changed. Then, in 1986, I agreed to teach verse by verse through Romans, carefully considering every passage. It took three years. By the end of the process, my commitment to free will, as I previously understood it, had been dashed on the rocks of God's sovereignty. Now I am on the other side of the issue.

I share this not to delve into this particular issue, but to discuss how we interact with dissenting views. To this day, some of my oldest friends still disagree with me on this subject. People I hold in high regard cannot embrace the idea that God chose certain individuals from before the foundation of the world. It was interesting that a couple of years ago I was asked to debate an Arminian at an apologetics meeting. I never back away from the chance for a good, irenic debate, so I agreed. The other man agreed with me on total depravity and the perseverance of the saints, leaving only three points to debate. The rest boils down to whether God chose us out of His own gracious purposes or whether He foresaw that we would choose Him. Either the eternal purposes of God or the choices of men in history determine who the elect are.

The interesting thing about the debate was that most of the people there were on my side, with the exception of a number of people from our own congregation! That did not make me feel bad at all. People whom I consider my best friends do not agree with me on this point. What is important is that we keep searching the Scriptures together, prayerfully, seeking to know the way of the Lord more perfectly. I would get no joy out of demanding that everyone agree with me because I am the pastor. What we agreed upon long ago was that we would teach the whole counsel of God and study the Bible together, verse by verse. This we do. I teach the universal call passages just as passionately as the ones on election. If they are in the Bible, we must take them seriously.

CONCLUSION

This brings us back to the Thessalonians and the Bereans. One group refused to even listen to evidence, they just wanted those who disagreed to be banished from their city. The other searched the Scriptures. The comfort that was gained by Thessalonian Jews in silencing the message came at a high price, the price of coming to the knowledge of the truth. The Bereans had a more difficult task, they had to study daily. Not only that, what they were studying upset their whole system of belief concerning the person and work of Messiah. But they gained the knowledge of the truth and eternal life in Christ.

Being Bereans does not mean that we never have a solid, systematic understanding of God's truth as revealed in His Word. It means that we take on the role of life-long students. The following is the essence of what I believe to be a God honoring approach that will help us be like the Bereans while still holding onto a systematic understanding of the truths of God's Word.

• Hold firmly to, and contend for, the faith once for delivered to the saints (Jude 1:3);
• Always search the Scriptures on every matter;
• Do not assume you are right on every point without allowing serious challenges;
• Read the best works of those who disagree and take their arguments seriously;
• Study the Bible, verse by verse, Old and New Testaments throughout your lifetime;
• Realize that we all have a systematic theology, but never let a system stifle learning and study;

With this approach we shall avoid the extremes of ecumenism and parochialism. We will become life long disciples, growing in the grace and knowledge of the Lord.

Answers to the question, “Of what use is the moral Law…,”

Here is a snippet of an article posted by Nicholas  Batzig at feedingonchrist.com. The article is about the the third use of the law and the finished work of Christ.

The Third Use in the Reformed Confessions and Catechisms

Q. 95-97 of the Larger Catechism is likely the best place to start with regard to the question to the Law and its uses as described in the Westminster Standards. As they begin to provide answers to the question, “Of what use is the moral Law…,” the Divines unfold their understanding of the uses in relation to various groups. Accordingly, the Law is useful to all men. This is some sense, a summary statement of the following two catechism questions. There is a general use of the Law that affects all men, whether unregenerate or regenerate. WLC 95 puts it in the following way:

“The moral law is of use to all men, to:

1) inform them of the holy nature and will of God,

2) and of their duty, binding them to walk accordingly;

3) to convince them of their disability to keep it, and of the sinful pollution of their nature, hearts, and lives; to humble them in the sense of their sin and misery,

4) and thereby help them to a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ, and of the perfection of his obedience.

The Law is fundamentally pedagogical. It teaches men that God is holy, that they are not, and that they need Christ.

In question 96, the Divines ask, “What particular use is there of the moral law to unregenerate men?” The answer they give sounds very much like the second part of the previous question. They wrote, “the moral law is of use to unregenerate men, to awaken their consciences to flee from wrath to come, and to drive them to Christ; or, upon their continuance in the estate and way of sin, to leave them inexcusable, and under the curse thereof.” The only addition to the first use–which was for “all men”–is that there is a condemnatory use of the Law for unrepentant unbelievers. If men will not turn to Christ out of a sense of their sin and need for salvation in Him, then the Law will serve the purpose of being the condemning standard on Judgment Day.

Finally (and most important to this study) in question 97 the Divines ask the question, “What special use is there of the moral law to the regenerate?” Here, I think, is the place where so much confusion occurs. Many modern Reformed theologians, might answer this question (if worded a bit differently), by saying, “The moral law is of special use to the regenerate to be a rule of life to them.” This is certainly true in one very qualified sense, but it is not the qualified and nuanced answer that the Divines give. They first preface it and then give a three layered answer to the question:

(1) Although they that are regenerate, and believe in Christ, be delivered from the moral law as a covenant of works, so as thereby they are neither justified nor condemned; yet, besides the general uses thereof common to them with all men, it is of special use, to show them:

(2) How much they are bound to Christ for his fulfilling it, and enduring the curse thereof in their stead, and for their good; and

(3) thereby to provoke them to more thankfulness, and to express the same in their greater care to conform themselves thereunto as the rule of their obedience.

Note that the Puritans were insistant that our justification by faith alone in Christ alone is the fundamental first step in understanding the role of the moral Law in the life of the believer. They do not lay aside the implications of that justification. Rather, they root the third use of the Law firmly in the justification we have in Christ. To fail to make this first, fundamental step is to walk into the dangerous landmine-field of legal sanctification. If we forget that we are justified in Christ–and that we are neither justified nor condemned by the Law–then we will fail to live in the freedom and gratitude that we have in Christ. It is that freedom and gratitude that will enable us to run the course of God’s commandments.

Secondly the Puritans noted that the moral Law is useful in the life of the regenerate to remind them of the ongoing need they have for the finished work of Christ. It is not only the unbeliever than needs to know that Christ has fulfilled the Law for us and has taken the curse of it “in our place and for our good.” Believers continue to need this to be pressed into their minds and hearts. The reason is simple. The believer needs the Gospel too because the believer will continue to sin. We never grow in godliness so much that we do not constantly need that supporting grace of Christ. The writers of the Heidelberg and the Westminster Standards will certainly move the believer on to see their need for growth in godliness, but not without reminding them of this absolutely fundamental foundation. In fact, in WCF 19.6 the Divines explained that the moral law was useful to the regenerate in that “it directs and binds them to walk accordingly; discovering also the sinful pollutions of their nature, hearts and lives; so as, examining themselves thereby, they may come to further conviction of, humiliation for, and hatred against sin, together with a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ, and the perfection of His obedience.” This, it seems to me is the one emphasis that is often left out by those who are zealous to teach the third use of the Law. It is, however, only part of the third use.

The final layer of the Divine’s answer concerning the third use of the Law (WLC Q. 97) is what moves us on from our need for Christ to the necessary response to the grace of Christ in our lives. The Divines explain that the moral law is useful to believers in that it “ provoke[s] them to more thankfulness, and to express the same in their greater care to conform themselves thereunto as the rule of their obedience.” Here an exceedingly important nuance must be observed. The first thing introduced in the moral obligations of the Law in the life of the believer is not the sheer obligatory character, rather it is the heart motivation for obedience. The language of “thankfulness” is employed. It is not out of “servile fear” that the believer presses on in obedience. Elsewhere in the Confession, the Divines make it clear that “The liberty which Christ has purchased for believers under the Gospel consists in their freedom from the guilt of sin, and condemning wrath of God, the curse of the moral law; and, in their being delivered from this present evil world, bondage to Satan, and dominion of sin; from the evil of afflictions, the sting of death, the victory of the grave, and everlasting damnation;as also, in their free access to God, and their yielding obedience unto Him, not out of slavish fear, but a child-like love and willing mind (WCF 20.1).” It is the “thankfulness,” and “child-like love” that are the proper motivations for the believer to obey God.

This is, incidentally, the same thing being spoken of in the Belgic Confession when they contrast the motives of obedience produced by justification with the improper motives to obedience in unbelievers. Article 23 notes that the justification we have through the finished work of Christ “is enough to cover all our sins and to make us confident, freeing the conscience from the fear, dread, and terror of God’s approach…” Article 24 declares that “far from making people cold toward living in a pious and holy way, this justifying faith, quite to the contrary, so works within them that apart from it they will never do a thing out of love for God but only out of love for themselves and fear of being condemned.” The writers of the Heidelberg sweetly comply with this in Q. 86 when they answer the question, “Since then we are delivered from our misery, merely of grace, through Christ, without any merit of ours, why must we still do good works?” with the answer, “Because Christ, having redeemed and delivered us by his blood, also renews us by his Holy Spirit, after his own image; that so we may testify, by the whole of our conduct, our gratitude to God for his blessings, and that he may be praised by us; also, that every one may be assured in himself of his faith, by the fruits thereof; and that, by our godly conversation others may be gained to Christ.” Someone may at this point object and say, “But doesn’t the Bible everywhere teach us that we are fear God and keep His commandments?” To this I would direct the reader to John Bunyan’s fine work, A Treatise on the Fear of God. It will suffice to say that godly fear is not a fear of God’s terror and wrath that causes a man or woman to seek to obey Him out of fear of going to Hell. Otherwise, the benefits of justification are made void. As John notes in his first epistle, “Love has been perfected among us in this: that we may have boldness in the day of judgment; because as He is, so are we in this world. There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves torment. But he who fears has not been made perfect in love. We love Him because He first loved us (1 John 4:17-19).”

The final part of WLC 97 most certainly teaches that believers may not lay aside the moral obligations of the Law of God; rather, out of gratitude for what Christ has accomplished for them they are to “express the same [i.e. their thankfulness for redemption] in their greater care to conform themselves thereunto as the rule of their obedience.” The 10 commandments form the sphere of our sanctification. They are the railroad tracts upon which the Spirit of God moves the believer along. They are the guiding pathway of the righteous. They are, in the words of the promise of the New Covenant spoken by Jeremiah the prophet (Jer. 31:33; Heb. 10:16), “written on the heart” of believers. Far from Christ’s finished work giving permission to lay aside the commandments, Jesus renews His people so that they grow in obedience to them throughout their Christian life.

The authors of the Heidelberg Catechism give similar answers about the Law and its use in the life of the believer as that of WLC 97. For the sake of this study we will only consider Heidelberg Q. 114-115. In Heidelberg 114 the question is asked, “But can those who are converted to God perfectly keep these commandments?” It is clear that the writers are seeking to guard against a unbiblical teaching of perfectionism. Having just taught that the Law demands absolute perfect obedience, someone might ask then if it is possible for the redeemed to attain to that perfection. The answer they give is extremely straightforward. They say, “No: but even the holiest men, while in this life, have only a small beginning of this obedience; yet so, that with a sincere resolution they begin to live, not only according to some, but all the commandments of God.” It is a two part answer that first guards against the abuse of some who might suggest that the practical holiness that believers attain to in this life is in perfect or nearly perfect. However, the writers are also eager not to say that it then doesn’t matter whether we pursue practical godliness in our lives. The first part of the answer is a reflection on what Paul teaches in Romans 7 and the second what he teaches in Romans 8.

The writers of the Heidelberg Catechism put it so nicely when they answer the question, “Why will God then have the ten commandments so strictly preached, since no man in this life can keep them?” (Q. 115), with these words: “that all our lifetime we may learn more and more to know our sinful nature, and thus become the more earnest in seeking the remission of sin, and righteousness in Christ.” The authors of the Heidelberg Catechism, in the same way as the writers of the WLC, are making the observation that we as believers need to recognize our sinfulness and trust in Christ and His finished work “all our lifetime.”

The Third Use of the Law and the Foundation of Christ’s Saving Work

The Divines begin to explain what Calvin had denominated the third use of the Law by emphasizing that “believers be not under the moral Law as a Covenant of Works so that they are neither justified nor condemned by it.” The Divines consider this to be the necessary first step in treating the usefulness of the Law in the life of the believer. Because even the best Christian discovers “sin that so easily besets them,” and often feels the weight of that sin and the accusatory voice of the evil one, they need to be reminded that the relationship which we sustain with God is not one built upon our performance to the Law of God. We are “neither justified, nor condemned by it.”

 While it is helpful to know the historical roots of these distinctions, it is important to note how seldom modern proponents of the “third use of the Law” will approach their defining of the third use in the manner in which the authors of Reformed Confessions and Catechism expositions of them (This is somewhat ironic, since those who are most zealous to defend the role of the Law of God in the life of the believer also often see themselves as gatekeepers of the Reformed Confessions). The Divines so carefully define the relationship of the moral Law to believer in light of the finished work of Christ in their defense of the third use. There is an undeniable redemptive foundation laid in the Reformed Confessions and Catechisms so often overlooked or ignored; and yet, it is precisely this foundation that is necessary for sustaining the obligatory aspects ofthe third use of the Law.

The moral Law demands perfect and continual obedience. Even after the fall, God demands perfect obedience. As was the case prior to the fall, so after the fall, the demand for perfect and continual obedience is coupled with the promise of “life upon the fulfilling, and threatening [of] death upon the breach of it” (WCF 19.1). The authors of the Westminster Confession of Faith expressly state this when they wrote: “ This law, after his fall, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness…” Wherever the Law is found (whether it be in the Covenant of Works with Adam in the Garden or the promulgation of it to the Covenant people at Sinai) it demands absolute obedience. The Divines expressly teach this as a principle fundamental to the nature of the Law of God–and the relationship between the moral Law and the all mankind. Of course, no fallen man can keep even one precept of the Law, let alone keep the whole of the Law of God perfectly and perpetually. But that does not change the fact that God “directs and binds everyone to personal, perfect, and perpetual conformity and obedience thereunto, in the frame and disposition of the whole man, soul and body, and in performance of all those duties of holiness and righteousness which he owes to God and man: promising life upon the fulfilling, and threatening death upon the breach of it.”

Jesus Christ, the second Adam and true Israel, fulfills the Law perfectly for His people, takes their curse in His death on the cross, and receives the blessing of life for them by His own merit. This is why the Scriptures say that He was “born under the Law.” That is why the Redeemer was an Israelite. This is why He became our “flesh and blood” brother. He took on a human nature, and put Himself in our precise relationship, to redeem us from the curse of the law. This is one eternally important reason why Israel received the Law in the Mosaic Covenant, with the associated typological promise of blessing and cursing. Christ, the antitype of Israel, takes the antitypical curse for the Covenant people and fulfills the righteous requirement of the Law to give them the antitypical (eternal) blessings by faith in Him.

The Divines, make it clear that no man or woman–as physically descending from Adam by ordinary generation–can fulfill the Law of God for their justification. Even when they enter in on the discussion of the role of the moral Law in the life of the believer, the Divines note that “though the regenerate be delivered from the moral Law as a Covenant of Works,” and that it continues to show believers “how much they are bound to Christ for his fulfilling it, and enduring the curse thereof in their stead, and for their good.” When the Law is divested of the fulfillment it finds in the finished work of Christ it becomes an unbearable burden. This is not only the case for the unbeliever who labors under the weight of unforgiven sins. In the believers’ life the law can function in a condemnatory manner if it is striped out of its redemptive-historical setting. If we left it there, however, we would surely be falling into the realm of an accidental antinomianism. We must always press on in obedience to the commandments of the Christ who redeemed and justified us. We can never rest in a lifestyle of sin and rebellion. We, out of gratitude and child-like love, pursue holiness in the fear of God. Our Lord Jesus did not redeem us to leave us in disobedience. We were purchased with His blood that we might be “zealous for good works.” May we always keep these two parts of God grace before us. Christ frees us from sins guilt and power. We receive both in the Gospel, both by faith, and both by grace