Skip to content

Skip to search - Accesskey = s

41 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

1. Randy Seiver said, on June 7, 2011 at 1:36 PM

   Christians will understand the difference between justification and sanctification when money and reputation hungry pastors start doing their jobs and feeding the sheep. If they are matured properly, they will not hear the voice of strangers. Show them the money; they will be able to recognize the counterfeit.

   Re Bestiality: I haven’t had a huge problem with that in my personal Christian life and I suspect you haven’t. The truth is, I have been involved in pastoral ministry and I have never met a person I believed was a true believer who confessed such a problem. This might just be one of those common sense things. But that aside, the NT Scriptures do address the issue by using the word translated “fornication” in many of our Bibles. It is an all inclusive term that covers any kind of sexual immorality.

   Long before the Mosaic codification of God’s law at Mt. Sinai, Gen. 2:18-20 informs us that “God said, ‘it is not good that man should be alone, I will make him a helper comparable [help meet A.V.] to him . . . [pardon the dots but you can read the text for yourself] So Adam gave names to all cattle, to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field, BUT FOR ADAM THERE WAS NOT FOUND A HELPER COMPARABLE TO HIM [OR SUITABLE FOR HIM].” At creation it becomes clear that Adam (man) was not to seek a partner from the animal kingdom.

   LikeLike

   Reply
   • pauldohse said, on June 7, 2011 at 1:49 PM

     Question: Please reconcile what you have said with Ephesians 2:12 which makes unregeneration synonymous with being “alienated from the covenants [plural, not singular] of PROMISE, HAVING NO HOPE AND WITHOUT GOD IN THE WORLD.” [EMPHASIS MINE]. Then, Paul, in fact, references a commandment “with a promise” in Eph. 6:1-3

     What are your thoughts on that?

     > —–Original Message—– >

     LikeLike

     Reply
2. Randy Seiver said, on June 7, 2011 at 1:56 PM

   One additional thought on the above question. Since I don’t know you, I don’t know whether you consider yourself a Theonomist or not. Many who have their kickers in a twist because NCT denies the perpetuity of the Mosaic covenant have accepted the non- biblical, distinction between moral, judicial or civil, and ceremonial law. They will declare without reservation that the civil and ceremonial aspects of the law no longer obtain. If that is the case they can’t appeal to the civil law to answer such a question any more than I can.

   The problem with answering such questions from Israel’s law is that if, on that basis, beastiality is wrong, then the couch in our home has to be considered unclean if our wives sit on it while they are having their period [just one of many examples].

   In my view, a person must either accept Theonomy or New Covenant Theology since the law as a covenant must be considered as a whole.

   LikeLike

   Reply
3. Randy Seiver said, on June 7, 2011 at 2:01 PM

   Yes, Gerry, you have read me correctly. In Gal. 4:4, Paul wrote, “But when the fulness of time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of woman, Made Under The Law. . . .” He was made under it that he might fulfill it for his chosen people.

   LikeLike

   Reply
4. Randy Seiver said, on June 7, 2011 at 2:30 PM

   Question: Please reconcile what you have said with Ephesians 2:12 which makes unregeneration synonymous with being “alienated from the covenants [plural, not singular] of PROMISE, HAVING NO HOPE AND WITHOUT GOD IN THE WORLD.” [EMPHASIS MINE]. Then, Paul, in fact, references a commandment “with a promise” in Eph. 6:1-3

   Paul, I am not sure I understand your question, but I will try to answer it anyway [humor]. What I am unsure about is what I have said that needs to be reconciled with Eph 2:12. First, I would say, No, unregeneration is not synomymous with “alienated from the covenants [plural, not singular] of PROMISE, HAVING NO HOPE AND WITHOUT GOD IN THE WORLD.” I am not suggesting that the Gentiles were not unregenerate, but that that was not the point Paul was making. His is a redemptive-historical distinction, not an existential distinction. That is, his concern was not whether they were personally regenerate or not, but whether the promises of God’s covenants had been made to them. At that time, the Gentiles were completely cut off from all those blessings. They could only be partakers of those promises by becoming Jewish proselytes. The promise of Eph 6, was not made to the children of Gentiles. In fact, God made sure they and their children did not stay in the land long. His command was to drive them out of the land or kill them.

   The fact that Paul refers to God’s promise in those verses is just a statement of fact. Strictly speaking, he doesn’t even transfer that promise to us. If that promise did refer to obedient children of new covenant believers having a long life on this earth, then God is a promise breaker. There have been godly children who obeyed and honored their parents but who died at an early age. The land inheritance promised to Israel was a type of the eternal inheritance promised to believers, thus any promise made to obedient children under the NC would have eternal ramifications.

   If I missed your question, let me know.

   LikeLike

   Reply
   • paulspassingthoughts said, on June 7, 2011 at 3:03 PM

     Randy,

     “His is a redemptive-historical distinction, not an existential distinction.” Right, because existentialism is anything that has “inside” ramifications (subjective) rather than the *GOSPEL (redemptive-historical) OUTSIDE of us*, ie., the objective. You even go on to say: “That is, his concern was not whether they were personally regenerate or not, but whether the promises of God’s covenants had been made to them.” Randy, this is the EXACT same argument that originated with the Australian Forum and Jon Zens (the undisputed father of NCT) that they used to DENY THE NEW BIRTH. Why? Because it supports THE TOTAL DEPRAVITY OF THE SAINTS which is a hallmark of NCT’s two siblings, Gospel Sanctification and Sonship Theology. Michael Horton teaches the exact same thing. Also, they go on to say that the New Birth is true, unless you talk about it–but if you talk about it–it’s no longer true because it eclipses the Gospel (or, the redemptive-historical prism). Therefore: “OF COURSE MICHAEL HORTON BELIEVES IN THE NEW BIRTH–YOU SLANDERER!!!!!!!!”
     OK RANDY–THE GIGS UP. Your more than welcome to dialog with others here, but I’m done, except for the article I am going to write about this.

     LikeLike

     Reply
5. Randy Seiver said, on June 7, 2011 at 2:54 PM

   I need to get something to eat and take a walk. If you feel like bugging me with another question in the next hour or so, go to my website and read instead.

   http://www.new-covenant-theology.org

   Blessings,

   Randy

   LikeLike

   Reply
6. Randy Seiver said, on June 7, 2011 at 3:37 PM

   His is a redemptive-historical distinction, not an existential distinction.” Right, because existentialism is anything that has “inside” ramifications (subjective) rather than the *GOSPEL (redemptive-historical) OUTSIDE of us*, ie., the objective. You even go on to say: “That is, his concern was not whether they were personally regenerate or not, but whether the promises of God’s covenants had been made to them.” Randy, this is the EXACT same argument that originated with the Australian Forum and Jon Zens (the undisputed father of NCT) that they used to DENY THE NEW BIRTH. Why? Because it supports THE TOTAL DEPRAVITY OF THE SAINTS which is a hallmark of NCT’s two siblings, Gospel Sanctification and Sonship Theology. Michael Horton teaches the exact same thing. Also, they go on to say that the New Birth is true, unless you talk about it–but if you talk about it–it’s no longer true because it eclipses the Gospel (or, the redemptive-historical prism). Therefore: “OF COURSE MICHAEL HORTON BELIEVES IN THE NEW BIRTH–YOU SLANDERER!!!!!!!!”
   OK RANDY–THE GIGS UP. Your more than welcome to dialog with others here, but I’m done, except for the article I am going to write about this.

   Certainly, you are not so dense that you can’t understand what I wrote here. I suppose, if you wish,, you can make me out to be someone who doesn’t believe in regeneration, though you and I both know that is not what I wrote. [Remember the 9th commandment]. All you have to do is consider the context of what Paul wrote to understand he was not talking about whether they were regenerate or unregenerate but whether any of the covenants were made with them. I don’t know a single NC thinker who denies the New Birth. I have given you argument after argument that you have declined to answer. I must conclude that you have no interest in truth. All you care about is being able to publish your spew. When I think of you and your ilk, I am reminded of Paul’s words to Timothy, “Now the purpose of the commandment is love from a pure heart, from a good conscience, and from sincere faith, from which some, having strayed, having turned aside to idle talk, desiring to be teacher of the law, understanding neither what they say not the things which they affirm.

   IF YOU EVER WISH TO CARRY ON A MEANINGFUL DIALOGUE, FEEL FREE TO CONTACT ME.

   LikeLike

   Reply
   • pauldohse said, on June 7, 2011 at 4:12 PM

     Randy,

     Right, you believe we are regenerate via Paul Tripp’s favorite jingle: “the ‘living Christ’ in us” while we are still totally dead and “when you are dead, you cannot do anything.” Dude, give it up, as Rush Limbaugh says: “I know these people like I know every inch of my glorious naked body.” And please spare me what’s coming next: “Are you saying that we can be alive apart from Christ???!!!” Gag, so lame. And Randy, it’s a waste of time judging me because I think your a [edited by the righteous indignation meter].

     > —–Original Message—– >

     LikeLike

     Reply
7. paulspassingthoughts said, on June 7, 2011 at 5:13 PM

   Bill,

   You have much here, which I will file with some stuff I am working on, especially because of the Romans references. But you mentioned something that has been on my mind: “Therefore, they could not obey. 1 Corinthians 2:14 says: “The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.” This whole thing that people teach from Galatians that the Law was a schoolmaster that leads us to Christ in regard to justification. In view of 1Cor. 2:14, how could that be? Something doesn’t smell right.

   LikeLike

   Reply
8. Randy Seiver said, on June 7, 2011 at 7:21 PM

   I am not your judge Paul. There is another who will judge you, even Moses in whom you trust. You have borne false witness concerning me in your last post. You are guilty of breaking the very law you claim you ought to obey. If you think I am “a wicked false teacher” [the version you sent me by e mail] here it turned out to be [edited by the righteous indignation meter]. , show me from something I have actually written, not from something you have gratuitously imputed to me. I know well what I believe, and it bears no resemblance to what you have said.

   Frankly, I think you are a raving kook who needs lots of help. I am not trying to be insulting. I really think your pastor should relieve you of your duties and get you some kind of professional help. My only regret is that I wasted so much time answering the questions of one I thought was a sane human being. I won’t be bothering you any more, but I will be posting our discussion on my web page so that those who wish to know the truth will know what I have written as contrasted with the crap you wish to impute to me.

   “To those who lack the will to know the truth, nothing is so mysterious as the obvious.”

   Randy

   LikeLike

   Reply
   • pauldohse said, on June 7, 2011 at 8:31 PM

     Look Randy, I just visited your website and it is dripping with GS theology along with the usual deceptive doublespeak. Like the rest of the GS gang, you’re nothing but a classic Antinomian. I have also become accustomed to the extreme self-confidence that exudes from GS proponents and displayed by you here as well (1Tim 1:7). Yawn, are we done here?

     > —–Original Message—– >

     LikeLike

     Reply
9. Gerry said, on June 7, 2011 at 9:09 PM

   Paul and Bill:

   If I might offer something on the “school master” passage. First, it was taught by the most respected Puritans and Reformers before Gary Demar said anything about it.

   Second, the key to understanding it is in Romans 7. There, Paul, a preeminant teacher of the Law, according to man’s flawed understanding of it, which is a Phariseeical, (spelling?) natural, flawed, understanding of the Law, tells us with respect to himself and his own New Testament experience 1) “the commandment came”, and 2) “sin revived”, and 3) “and I died”.

   Paul is here describing his own experience of the Law coming “as a school master”. How could Paul, a noted preacher of the Law say that “the Law came”? He had been teaching the Law, as he understood and practiced it for years. And in the preceding passage he tells us “I was alive apart from the Law”. Apart from the Law? How could he be “apart from the Law”. Well, it came with power and supernatural understanding for the first time, to give him insight into it’s true meaning and his condition before it. He had been apart from a true spiritual understanding of it applied to his own heart and life before this time. And so, he who thought he had no sin in his life, who thought he kept the law perfectly, realized that, sin was indeed in his own life, and under the spirit’s teaching the reality of his own sins “revived”. And realizing this in it’s full condeming and convicting power (read again the Damascus Road account), Paul, the great intellectual, orator, self righteous teacher, “died” to himself and any idea that he could keep Gods Holy, Perfect, Law for eternal life,

   All the false things he had been taught about the Law and what it really meant, and which he had also been teaching (which the Lord himself spoke of in the Sermon on the Mount where he said, repeatedly, “you have heard it said”, “But I Say”. That is, “I, the Son of God, the fulfiller of God’s Holy, Righteous Law, say that this is what the Law really teaches, when understood spiritually, in all its breadth and depth, with the help of the Spirit.) And then The Lord went on to give the correct interpretation of various passages on matters such as adultery, where he taught that it wasn’t just the actual comission the act only that are sin in God’s holy eyes, it was the thoughts and desires of the heart that are entertained which deal with sexual impurity in any form which constitute adultery, and are filthy and repugnant in Gods eyes.

   “When the commandment came” all those things that had been intellectual matters, to be debated and discussed endlessly, were no longer so for Paul. At the point they became spiritual REALITIES for Paul, and His own eternal soul became real and valuable to him in a way it never had before.

   Thus, in Romans 7, Paul, tells us when the Spirit brought to his heart the true nature of covetousness, and PAULS deep involvement in same, THEN and only then, did he REALLY, FINALLY, begine to understand and “know what covetousness was” (Rom 7:7) even though he had been a phariseical teacher of covetousness for years. It was this covetousness that drove him to “persecute Christ”, because what he really desired in his heart was the honor of men, to be followed and promoted by the religious system of the day, and to enjoy the money and power that it brought to all who were false “masters in Israel”.

   This is what Paul is saying, I believe, when he said, “the commandment came, and I died”, and how the “law was” to him “a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ”. Nothing else will do it. Nothing else will teach us what Christ really did, other than a spiritual veiw of: 1) His, Christs, fulfillment of the impossible work keeping the whole Law, for any man except the God/Man, and 2) His paying the penalty due us, which Paul felt in his soul for the first time, when “the commandment came”.

   Again, Paul was saying that for the first time, the commandment dealing with Pauls covetousness, and Pauls sin, and Pauls wickedness was made real, powerful, and humbling to him by the Power of the Spirit of the living God. It was no longer an intellectual concept that applied to everyone else, and which he used to bully others and manipulate others to have his way. No, Paul saw who he was for the first time, and “died” to himself, and saw that he wasn’t keeping the Law as he had vainly imagined, but rather was not only covetous, but a muderer of those who worshipped Christ, and that he did so in order to foster his own covetousness. Has God ever shown us our hearts in this light? Nothing teaches quite like it, nothing impresses and humbles quite like it. And while I don’t have time to go into it here, in other places in this same key, piviotal book of scripture, Paul reveals how the Law continues to teach and to humble all those who have, in fact, believed in Him for eternal life, and have seen that they can’t keep the Law, and thus it keeps them low: “wretched man that I am”, Paul tells us in that regard.

   Thus, the Law, in it’s Moral Purity, became “a schoolmaster to bring him to Christ” WHO is the ONLY ONE who ever did or ever could fulfill the Law. That is the meaning as I understand it as applies to the Moral Law.

   I also believe it applies to the Law in it’s Ceremonial sense also, in that the Ceremonial Law never taught the Jews that keeping the Law would save them. This would be blasphemy. Over and over again in the scriptures we are taught that the Jews corrupted the true meaning of the law, from curcumcision (given before Sinai, by the way as were many other parts of the Moseic Law). The Ceremonial Law is all given to teach of Christ and what He would do when He came and died for them, it was never a means of salvation. Salvation has always been and always will be of grace. Only Satan would have us believe otherwise. There is only one way of salvation, taught from Gen 3 in the first promise of Him coming as “the seed of the woman to bruise the devils heel”, to the blood in Abels offering being better than Cains, to many other teachings on various aspects of the Law in the OT before it was more fully given on Sinai by Moses.

   Listen, I beseech you, to the Word of the Lord in John 5:44 – 47 where the Lord speaks of the root problem, “seeking the honor of men rather than the honor of God only”, in verse 44, and then in verse 45 he tells them they were” trusting in Moses”, not Him. And then in vs 46 The Lord makes the flat out statement that:

   “had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me. For Moses wrote of me.”

   Notice, even though they thought they believed Moses, they didn’t, just as many today believe they believe the scriptures correctly, but don’t.

   In this regard read the Lord’s solemn warings in the parable of the Ten Virgins, where those who are cast out into the lake of fire are “virgins” and have oil in their “lamp”, and “do many things”, but don’t have “oil” in their “vessel”, a picture, I believe of those that have had some light cast on the scriptures, their lamp, by the Spirit Himself, but never the less have never been regenerated, and thus have the oil of the spirit in thier heart, and thus their lives reflect it, because they do love the Law and desire earnestly to keep it, knowing that they never can do so perfectly, but still knowing that the Lord said:

   Jhn 14:21 KJV – “He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me]: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.”

   Has He shown you His love supernaturally, has “the Spirit Himself witnessed with your spirit that you are a child of God”, has He “manifested Himself to you?”. He promises here that He will do so, and not to the deciples only, but “Neither do I pray for these alone, but for them also who shall believe on me through their word”. Jn 17:20

   In the parable of the ten vrigins the warning is for those who know no such manifestations, no such witnesses in their lives. Demas, was such a one, probably, as were many others in the NT record. Heb 6:4 and Heb 10, I think, make reference directly to this distinction of the spirit’s work in many, but still coming short of salvation. The distinction is important because many false teachers today confuse common grace, as the Puritans taught it, with efficacious grace, and were careful to make the distinction, lest people be decieved. But I digress.

   Back to the Lords words in John 6. Notice how he flatly said that “Mose Wrote of Me”. Well, what did Mose write? Certainly he wrote the various aspects of God’s Law, Civil, Ceremonial, and Moral, and I believe each of them speak of different aspects of Christ; of civil government under a theocracy, at that time Isreal, where most were still fallen and not regenerate, and would twist the laws true meaning in spite of God’s giving it to them to teach of Him (no I’m not a theonomist, I believe it is one of the most wicked and evil forms of antinomianism, for it teaches a false, natural, not spiritual, form of the Law). And, under the Ceremonial Law where it was given to teach of various aspects of Christs work and sacrifice for them, and us, and the nature and purity of actually living in a holy manner, and the impossibility thereof as a fallen being. And, finally of the Moral aspects of the Law as a statement of God’s Purity and Glory and Love, and our duty to Love the Lord our God with all our heart and soul and mind and strength and our neighbor as ourselves. Which is impossible, to do rightly as long as we are in the flesh, for “in me, that is, in my flesh, dwelth no good thing”, but which is the true desire of the heart of every regnerate soul. Understanding this gives one an understanding of Christ’s work for us, of something we could never do, but which we never the less owe to God as His creatures.

   Oh How I love thy Law, it is my meditation all the day, for it is Holy and Just and Good, and Jesus did not come to abrogate the Law, but to fulfill it and Paul telss us we “establish” it, in the hearts of His true children for ever and ever. And never forget that the “carnal mind is enmity against God”, why?, because “it is not subject to the Law of God, neither indeed can be.”

   God “writes the Law in the heart” of all who He regenerates, as His Word clearly proclaims, and which He did for me inspite of 14 years of vehement anti law teaching to which I was exposed. I thought I was a believer, I thought I believed on Christ for the forgiveness of my sins, I thought I was saved. I had no doubt what ever that Jesus was the son of God and that he died for the sins of man, but I had no power over sin in my own life, and while, like Paul, I prided myself on my superior knowledge of the scriptures, I was blind to my own depravity, ignorant of their true spiritual meaning, and, yes, I was a sinner and I knew it, but I wasn’t really all that bad, untill “the commandment came”, brought by the hand of the Spirit of God, with crushing, conviction and power to my soul, and showed me my sins in the Light of the Moral Law, and I died to myself and my false beliefs, and He began to teach me. Notably, He used the few commandments, interestingly, that I had been exposed to, albeit briefly and apart from any proper teaching with respect to them. It was then that they glowed in my mind with a hot heat, and I felt Gods just anger at my sins, and my sinfulness, as they never had before in the remotest sense, even though I had felt pangs of conscience and remorse.

   It was then that I “feared God” , really, for the first time. It was then that for me there was the “beginning of wisdom” as the Proverb so cleary teaches. God, became REAL, for Me, and I didn’t care what any teacher had told me, I wanted to know, and do, what God told me to do. And I cried out for the first time from the depths of my soul, “what must I do to be saved”. I had walked an aisle many years before, and been told that I needed to accept Christ and be baptized, and just as Jonathan Edwards tells us in his own spiritual autobiography, there was some some work of the Spirit in those initial convictions and belief, and I and others could see and feel it, but “there was nothing of regeneration in it” as Edwards so clearly put it in his own words. Regeneration? that came later, for Edwards, and Goodwin, and Bunyan, and countless others of our godly fathers of the past who have wrtten extensively of these things for our profit and warning, lest we too should be led astray.

   Jhn 5:44 KJV – How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that [cometh] from God only?
   Jhn 5:45 KJV – Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is [one] that accuseth you, [even] Moses, in whom ye trust.
   Jhn 5:46 KJV – For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.
   Jhn 5:47 KJV – But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

   And so finally, I ask the same question that the Lord asked in vs 47; “If you believe not his writings”, including the the OT Law, in the mannner in which it was intended to be believed, as a “writing about Me”, “how shall you believe” Christs words correctly, which are recorded for us in the NT? The answer is you can’t, for they are “spiritually discerned” and the “natural man” doesn’t understand them, and counts them “foolishness” just as Randy so plainly displayed for all of us on this blog. Such things are “spiritually discerned” as that same precious verse from Corinthians teaches so clearly.

   Lastly, Randy responded to my question just as I had thought he would and his reply is below:

   Yes, Gerry, you have read me correctly. In Gal. 4:4, Paul wrote, “But when the fulness of time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of woman, Made Under The Law. . . .” He was made under it that he might fulfill it for his chosen people.

   Notice how Randy correctly tells us that Christ was made under the law so He could fulfill it for his chosen people, but he leaves out the rest of the false teaching which he espouses and which I referred to in my question. My question is restated below:

   Randy:

   You said, “Of course, Jesus quoted from it. He was under it.”

   Your inference is, I think, that Jesus was under the the Law, because He was born under the OT dispensation, or Old Covenant, but since then, since He came and brought in the New Covenant we are now under NC law, not old covenant. Do I understand you correctly?

   Thanks,

   Gerry

   Unfortunately, Randy doesn’t want us to see that the verse he has used out of context tells us, not as he says, that the everyone is made under the Law, just like Christ, OT and NT, and that the only way to get out from under the Law, is to believe in Christ, not the Law, not works, for salvation. He thus drives a wedge between OT teaching and NT teaching that the scriptures don’t support, and teaches falsely as to the purpose of the Law, and it’s applicability to all men for all time, one of the most grevious of errors possible.
   What his blinded, natural eyes, don’t see, and never will until he asks “the Lord, the spirit” to open them, is that in the next verse, which is the context for his pretext, gives the lie to his teaching:

   Gal 4:4 KJV – But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
   Gal 4:5 KJV – To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.
   Gal 4:6 KJV – And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.

   Paul tells us that Christ was “made of a woman”, just like us, “made under the law”, just like every person ever “made of a woman”, and then he tells us that the purpose of Christ being “sent forth” as “His son” was “to redeem them that were under the Law”. If that means just, or only, the OT believers, who accept christ, and we, being in the New Covenant and thus, as he teaches, not “under the Law” before “believing on Him”, then who will redeem us? The verse says that is who Christ same to redeem those under the Law as plainly as it can be said. And that is who He came to redeem, those under the Law, in the NT and in the Old, all are saved out from under the Law by believing in Christ, from Adam, Able, to Enoch, to Abraham, to Moses, to Joshua, to John the Baptist, to John the Apostle to Paul his contemporary and to all who have “believed on their word”. It is just as clear in verse 6 that he is speaking to NT believers, for he is speaking to the Galatians when he says, “And because ye are sons”, present tense.

   NCT is a complex blend of dispensational error, seeking to drive a wedge between NT and OT believers, and to propagate the same central “anomia” heresy that Satan has sought to teach from the beginning of time, when he asked that frist question of Eve: “Hast God said?”, thereby casting doubt on God’s Law.

   Please forgive any typos and the attempt to condense many things into a small space. I recommend further study in Bunyan’s “Doctrine of Law and Grace Unfolded” as one of the clearest, most complete discussions of this mater, where, in his preface to the body of the work he makes the following statement: “There are but two Covenants”. Now, Bunyan was one of the most deeply taught and blessed of all God’s servants since time began, though today, these modern men snuff at “the tinker”, only to prove Gods words about using the simple things to confound the wise. Now Bunyan knew there were many covenants spoken of in the word, since he had not only memorized the whole bible in his 12 years in prison for preaching the Word, but he knew their spiritual meaning in a way that few ever have in this life. So when I read this in the preface, it got my attention, just as it was meant to do. Bunyan’s meaning is that there are only two covenants that deal with eternal life, all the others are subsets of the covenant of works, which was first pubished to Adam in the Garden before the fall, and the Covenant of Grace which was announced to him after the fall. And everyone ever “made of a woman”, and before coming under the covenant of Grace, is under one or the Law, or covenant of works, and any who do not understand these things clearly and precisely is in danger of eternal error, eternal damnation. And that is why it is is so central, so important, so much the matter of the confounding work of Satan’s false teaching.

   Forgive any errors and admissions, I ask, and pray that the Lord’s blessings be upon the hearts of any and all to whom He should direct to these words, and to help them to see “the beauty of His Holiness” that “light of the knowledge of the Glory of God, might shine into there hearts” and that He, alone, might be glorified, thereby.

   LikeLike

   Reply
10. Bill said, on June 8, 2011 at 12:00 AM

    Paul and Gerry,

    The Law: “Schoolmaster to Christ?”

    I appreciate Gerry’s comments. He’s got some good commentary there for us.

    Gerry, I see the “Schoolmaster to Christ” much the same as you.
    I’ve always taken that as the means God uses to convict his chosen people of the sin, shame, and misery problem. God is the answer. In this world we Christians still really don’t even know ourselves. Remember Peter, “I’ll never deny;” he did, and wept. We do too at times, and realize we need Help real bad!

    Good question Paul, “Schoolmaster to Christ” but unbelievers don’t understand the law. Actually, I think it just makes them utterly guilty, even though already guilty. The law is like a black and white warning sign. Jesus said this: “There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; that very word which I spoke will condemn him at the last day.” Someone is probably going to say at the Last Judgment, “did you not see the warning sign!” It seems like Christ, in the gospels, is saying about miraculous signs, that seeing this and rejecting is even greater guilt! “Woe to you Bethsiada!”

    Gerry, you said you believed that the Bible never taught that keeping the Law would save them. What does the Law say? “The man who does these things will live by them (Lev. 18:5).” Was “the man,” Christ? Ha! Yeah, mortal men did not live, it was a “Schoolmaster.” “Now if the ministry that brought DEATH, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with glory…will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious? If the ministry that condemns men is glorious, how much more glorious is the ministry that brings righteousness! (2 Cor. 3:7-9).”

    I was taught that the Abrahamic Covenant was a ministry of the Spirit in a sense. Christ is the promised seed extending, fulfilling, expanding, and surpassing it. The gift of Faith is not natural, it’s a supernatural gift only God can give. Not everybody has Faith, but Abraham was the “man of Faith.” “We like Issac have been born by the power of the Spirit.” The apostle Paul describes Faith being poured (infused) into our hearts by the Holy Spirit. Obedience comes from a source called Faith (Romans 2:5; 12:6). It’s God’s instument to help us overcome. Praise God!

    Arkansas Bill

    LikeLike

    Reply
    • pauldohse said, on June 8, 2011 at 1:40 AM

      Thanks for your thoughts here guys, I am going to be doing a study in Galations. paul

      > —–Original Message—– >

      LikeLike

      Reply

Home Page

Contact Us:

Email Subscription

TANC You Tube Channel

https://www.youtube.com/@pauldohse2450/featured