RE: [Covenanted Reformation] Re: law
I went ahead and read the post. The style is more verbose than I am used
to reading so I had a bit of difficulty following it. I *think* that he
is saying that the Christian is brought to liberty from the "marriage"
to the torah, but passes "hand to hand" into obedience to Christ. If I
understand him correctly, then I whole heartedly agree.
Sorry for any confusion I caused by stretching the term "antinomian" in
One part I do take exception to is his understanding of why Paul said
that the believer died, rather than the torah. He wrote:
" But that he might not offend the Jews by the asperity of his
expressions, had he said that the law was dead, he adopted a digression,
and said, that we are dead to the law."
There is a deeper significance in the figure that he seems to miss. That
is, the torah has *not* been destroyed. It will never be rescinded.
Rather, the believer is dead to it. The believer is no longer bound to
That is, unless they re-accept the covenant by circumcision. That is why
Galatians 5:3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised,
that he is a debtor to do the whole law.
He sternly warns against this:
1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us
free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.
2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall
profit you nothing.
So the torah did not die, while the believer did. That is the only way
to get out of such a covenant.
Many thanks to those who have helped me be understood, not as against
obligation to God, only as identifying the hard won liberty to which the
believer is called.
No Risk Software Inc
- At 09:52 PM 12/1/02 +0000, you wrote:
> > Perhaps I'm not a very good expositor.Jason,
>Here, try someone who is:
>" Though he had, in a brief manner, sufficiently explained the
>question respecting the abrogation of the law; yet as it was a
>difficult one, and might have given rise to many other questions, he
>now shows more at large how the law, with regard to us, is become
>abrogated; and then he sets forth what good is thereby done to us:
>for while it holds us separated from Christ and bound to itself, it
>can do nothing but condemn us. And lest any one should on this
>account blame the law itself, he takes up and confutes the
>objections of the flesh, and handles, in a striking manner, the great
>question respecting the use of the law.
Who wrote these words and what is the source? Thanks!
Libertas inestimabilis res est,
Greg Loren Durand
Crown Rights Book Company
Lisa Regina (wife of 9 years)
Brianna Marie (8)
Virginia Ruth (6)
Georgia Esther (5)
Robert Lee (3)
Carolina Rachel (1)