Open Discussion: The Horton Statement That Nobody Wants To Talk About
Christless Christianity, page 62:
“Where we land on these issues is perhaps the most significant factor in how we approach our own faith and practice and communicate it to the world. If not only the unregenerate but the regenerate are always dependent at every moment on the free grace of God disclosed in the gospel, then nothing can raise those who are spiritually dead or continually give life to Christ’s flock but the Spirit working through the gospel. When this happens (not just once, but every time we encounter the gospel afresh), the Spirit progressively transforms us into Christ’s image. Start with Christ (that is, the gospel) and you get sanctification in the bargain; begin with Christ and move on to something else, and you lose both.”
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
Peter describes the [Mosaic] law as a “yoke which neither we nor our fathers were able to bear Acts 15:10).” Sounds like a yoke of bondage to me.
LikeLike
Galatians 5:1 “Stand fast in the liberty with which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled AGAIN with any yoke of bondage. I think this is the Paul I want to believe.
LikeLike
And there you have it folks for all with eyes to see…… all the venom, all the confused and false statements, all the accusations….truth really hurts doesn’t it Randy?….talk about spewing….
Just one point, not so much for you Randy, for I doubt you will receive it, having already rejected it from those who are much better teachers than I will ever be, but for those who may come upon this and be confused by your words.
The Covenant has “passed away” as a covenant, as Bunyan, who I have read several times by the way, points out, as does Paul the apostle, only for those who have accepted Christ as their savior. Everyone, “born of a woman”, NT and OT, is born “under the Law.” And the only way anyone gets out from “under the Law”, NT or OT, is by realizing He kept the Law for them perfectly, and also paid the penalty for their not keeping it, and repenting of believing they could ever keep it, along with all their other sins, and trusting Him for having done so in their stead.
Anyone, still trying to keep it, the Law, as a means of salvation, as Paul the Apostle was trying to do on the Damascus Road, before the “commandment came” in its spiritual power applied to his soul such that “he died” to his efforts to keep the law for salvation as he had been doing prior to this, they, like Paul before this Damacus road experience, are still under it for salvation.
That Damascus Road experience was in the NT period wasn’t it Randy?, the Damasus Road time period, is a part of the NT time period isn’t it?, or have you figured out how to make that period of time in which Paul teaches us his folly in this whole matter, so that we know how to recognize teachers like you who teach “Lawlessness” was under a period of time when the Covenant has “passed away”? So today, in this dispensation, time, age, day, now, everyone trying to keep the Law for Salvation is under it for salvation.
And thus, anyone, like Randy, who teaches that it has “passed away” in any other sense other than Paul taught it in Galatians, which is that the Law is “passed away” as a covenant of works for those who have accepted Christ for salvation, and are not, therefory relying on their works, works like physical circumsision, for salvation, is teaching “lawlessness”.
As to the verses that distinguish between ceremonial law from Moral Law, which you ask me to point you too….I answer, I already have…..they are right there in Galatians: ceremonial being curcumcision, moral being adultery, lying, taking God’s name in vain, sabboth breaking….etc etc.
“If you take forth the precious from the vile, you will be as my mouth” said the Lord to Jeremiah, when he was under the attack of the false teachers of his day, and bitterly complained to God because of all the difficulty it brought him.
Thanks again Paul, for educating me about the history of the whole thing, but now that I know it, I feel the need to move on to other pressing subjects of scripture. Engaging with those such as Randy who refuse the truth is a snare of the Devil for me, for there are many precious truths of scripture which I need to chew on, meditate on.
This has been helpful in that it has once again sharpened my understanding of the history of this false teaching, and also of the goblety gook, double speak, and other wise, “mixing of the precious with the vile” that such false teachers use.
Offered, as always,
In love,
In Him
LikeLike
Randy:
When you suggested that I read again Bunyan’s “The Doctrine of The Law and Grace Unfolded” because I “would be surprised at what I would find”, you cast dispersions not only on me, but on Bunyan, and thus seek to lead astray those who follow your teachings, or are influenced by them.
Here are your words to me in this matter:
===============================================================================================
R. Seiver said, on June 12, 2011 at 10:46 pm Gerry,
You need to read Bunyan again. I think you will be surprised about what you find
===============================================================================================
Since you have done this, casting doubt on what I have said about the true nature of Law and Grace as revealed in the
Word of God, and more importantly on what Bunyan has correctly taught and proves from scripture, answering all your questions and objections as a wise master teacher, one of God’s choice servants, I have posted a copy of a brief section from his introduction to the Doctrine of Law and Grace Unfolded.
The copy here only covers a few of the points which Bunyan makes in the body of the Doctrine, but there is enough here to get the sense of what he is saying, and to refute what you have said, about these critical doctrines, which, as Bunyan says, if not understood correctly, will likely result in the damnation of those confused in these matters.
This is why, as Paul points out in the Blog, A N Martin and others reacted so strongly to this false teaching. It is a false teaching that will likely lead many to hell.
Listen to Bunyan’s words in the matter, all who care for their eternal soul:
==============================================================================================
What follows is an excerpt from the introduction to Bunyan’s Doctrine of Law and Grace Unfolded. Bunyan called this introduction and “Epistle to the Reader” and placed it in front of the Table of Contents to the what he wrote in the body of the doctrine, and it was all originally published in a pamphlet, and now can be accessed on line, or better yet, in Banner of Truth’s George Offor edition of the Works of John Bunyan. The online edition this was taken from is from “Acacia John Bunyan”, which is sponsored by a charismatic, and for that reason I am always a little cautious as to possible tampering. Sure, enough, when I read through the online version some critical words were dropped, completely changing Bunyan’s intended meaning, which I verified by going back and checking the online version against the Banner of Truth hard copy which I possess. I read through the whole online edition and didn’t find any other errors and omissions, but would encourage any who find this information useful to get a copy of the Offor Edition, and study it prayerfully, as Bunyan recommends.
Bunyan’s words are in quotes below:,
“…If there be the terror, horror, and severity of the law discovered to a people by the servants of Jesus Christ, though they do not speak of it to the end people should trust to it, by relying on it as it is a covenant of works; but rather that they should be driven further from that covenant, even to embrace the tenders and privileges of the second, yet, poor souls, because they are unacquainted with the natures of these two covenants, or either of them, therefore, “they say,” “Here is nothing but preaching of the law, thundering of the law”; when, alas, if these two be not held forth–to wit, the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace, together with the nature of the one and the nature of the other–souls will never be able either to know what they are by nature or what they lie under. Also, neither can they understand what grace is, nor how to come from under the law to meet God in and through that other most glorious covenant, through which and only through which, God can communicate of Himself grace, glory, yea, even all the good things of another world.
I, having considered these things, together with others, have made bold to present yet once more to thy view, my friend, something of the mind of God, to the end, if it shall be but blessed to thee, thou mayest be benefited thereby; for verily these things are not such as are ordinary and of small concernment, but do absolutely concern thee to know, and that experimentally too, if ever thou do partake of the glory of God through Jesus Christ, and so escape the terror and insupportable vengeance that will otherwise come upon thee through His justice, because of thy living and dying in thy transgressions against the Law of God. And therefore, while thou livest here below, it is thy duty, if thou wish thyself happy for the time to come, to give up thyself to the studying of these two covenants treated of in the ensuing discourse; and so to study them until thou, through grace, do not only get the notion of the one and of the other in thy head, but until thou do feel the very power, life, and glory of the one and of the other: for take this for granted, he that is dark as touching the scope, intent, and nature of the law, is also dark as to the scope, nature, and glory of the Gospel; and also he that hath but a notion of the one, will barely have any more than a notion of the other.
And the reason is this: because so long as people are ignorant of the nature of the law, and of their being under it–that is, under the curse and condemning power of it, by reason of their sin against it–so long they will be careless, and negligent as to the inquiring after the true knowledge of the Gospel. Before the commandment came–that is, in the spirituality of it–Paul was alive–that is, thought himself safe; which is clear, (Rom 7:9,10 compared with Phil 3:5-11, etc). But when that came, and was indeed discovered unto him by the Spirit of the Lord, then Paul dies (Rom 7) to all his former life (Phil 3) and that man which before could content himself to live, though ignorant of the Gospel, cries out now, “I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord” (verse 8). Therefore, I say, so long they will be ignorant of the nature of the Gospel, and how glorious a thing it is to be found within the bounds of it; for we use to say, that man that knoweth not himself to be sick, that man will not look out for himself a physician; and this Christ knew full well when He saith, “The whole have no need of the physician, but the sick”;[1] that is, none will in truth desire the physician unless they know they be sick. That man also that hath got but a notion of the law–a notion, that is, the knowledge of it in the head, so as to discourse and talk of it–if he hath not felt the power of it, and that effectually too, it is to be feared will at the best be but a notionist in the Gospel; he will not have the experimental knowledge of the same in his heart; nay, he will not seek nor heartily desire after it; and all because, as I said before, he hath not experience of the wounding, cutting, killing nature of the other.
I say, therefore, if thou wouldst know the authority and power of the Gospel, labour first to know the power and authority of the law; for I am verily persuaded that the want of this one thing–namely, the knowledge of the law, is one cause why so many are ignorant of the other. That man that doth not know the law doth not know in deed and in truth that he is a sinner; and that man that doth not know he is a sinner, doth not know savingly that there is a Saviour.
Again; that man that doth not know the nature of the law, that man doth not know the nature of sin; and that man that knoweth not the nature of sin, will not regard to know the nature of a Saviour; this is proved (John 8:31-36). These people were professors, and yet did not know the truth–the Gospel; and the reason was, because they did not know themselves, and so not the law. I would not have thee mistake me, Christian reader; I do not say that the law of itself will lead any soul to Jesus Christ; but the soul being killed by the law, through the operation of its severity seizing on the soul, then the man, if he be enlightened by the Spirit of Christ to see where remedy is to be had, will not, through grace, be contented without the real and saving knowledge through faith of Him.
If thou wouldst, then, wash thy face clean, first take a glass and see where it is dirty; that is, if thou wouldst indeed have thy sins washed away by the blood of Christ, labour first to see them in the glass of the law, and do not be afraid to see thy besmeared condition, but look on every spot thou hast; for he that looks on the foulness of his face by the halves, will wash by the halves; even so, he that looks on his sins by the halves, he will seek for Christ by the halves. Reckon thyself, therefore, I say, the biggest sinner in the world, and be persuaded that there is none worse than thyself; then let the guilt of it seize on thy heart, then also go in that case and condition to Jesus Christ, and plunge thyself into His merits and the virtue of His blood; and after that, thou shalt speak of the things of the law and of the Gospel experimentally, and the very language of the children of God shall feelingly drop from thy lips, and not till then (James 1).
Let this therefore learn thee thus much: he that hath not seen his lost condition hath not seen a safe condition; he that did never see himself in the devil’s snare, did never see himself in Christ’s bosom. “This my Son was dead, and is alive again: he was lost, and is found.” “Among whom we also had our conversation in time past.” [2] “But now are (so many of us as believe) returned unto” Jesus Christ, “the” chief “Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.”
I say, therefore, if thou do find in this treatise, in the first place, something touching the nature, end, and extent of the law, do not thou cry out, therefore, all of a sudden, saying, “Here is nothing but the terror, horror, and thundering sentences of the law.”
Again; if thou do find in the second part of this discourse something of the freeness and fullness of the Gospel, do not thou say neither, “Here is nothing but grace, therefore, surely, an undervaluing of the law.” No; but read it quite through, and so consider of it; and I hope thou shalt find the two covenants– which all men are under, either the one or the other– discovered, and held forth in their natures, ends, bounds, together with the state and condition of them that are under the one, and of them that are under the other.”
Offered in Love,
In Him,
gerry
LikeLike
Gerry,
Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems Bunyan is addressing a concern here that I don’t
address enough, but was really the primary bone of contention with Chantry: NCT’s
devaluing (or outright exclusion) of the Law in presenting the gospel(ie., no call to
repentance). Chantry hit hard on this in “God’s Righteous Kingdom.” My primarily bone of
contention is the devaluing (or outright exclusion) of the Law in sanctification. BUT,
where I often miss the mark is the reality that NC/GS/Sonship/ devalue (or outright
exclude) the Law in BOTH.
My experience with the GS crowd is that repentance is excluded from the gospel message
entirely.In fact, I have been told face to face by at least one GS leader that repentance
in the gospel message is works salvation.He rebuked me for quoting the apostle Paul from
Acts 17:30 in a gospel presentation.
paul
LikeLike
Paul:
Precisely.
You have gotten Bunyan’s point, or the beginning of it, for there is more, and Chantry’s point (I couldn’t remember Chantry’s name when I referred to your account of the early days of this lie being spread forth in the church, and that is why I only mentioned A N Martin, but Chantry would have been a better name).
What Bunyan is saying, and remember, all I have given you is one small part of the introduction to the whole doctrine, which depending on which version you get and it’s type size, is about 80 to 100 pages long, but the point is that the attacks on the Law being preached currently by NCT are nothing new. They said the same thing to Bunyan, and many other things, all in an attempt to discredit the correct, right understanding of these two doctrines.
Heres the point, if you don’t understand the Law Correctly, then you don’t understand the Gospel correctly, and if you don’t understand the gospel correctly, then you are not, in all probability, really saved, though you may think you are. As Bunyan points out, this is what the Lord was speaking of when He warned that only those who are sick, seek a physician. Some say that Christ meant that this refers to simply hearing about Christ, and hearing about sin, but many scriptures put the lie to that interpretatin of His Words, as for example the one Bunyan refers in the introduction I have copied, which is Paul’s account of his own experience in this very matter. But there are many other examples in scripture and Bunyan deals with them in the complete doctrine. Paul thought he understood the Law and was saved, but he was wrong. And no, that is not unique to Paul because he was a Jew and a Pharisee, and subject to the false teaching of Gamaliel. How do I know, becuse Paul uses his strongest words in the Bible against Law teachers in the book of Galatians and thus is applying them to gentiles, not Jews. The key to understanding the whole issue is in the words: “the Law is spiritual”, and “by the Law is the knowledge of sin”. It is the Law, in it’s spiritual, supernatural, understanding of it, brought by God’s Spirit to illuminate the understanding of it’s breadth, depth and purity, that teaches one about how sinful we really are, and how sinful sin is, or as the scriptures speak of it: the “sinfulness of sin”. When this begins to be taught to the soul for the first time, then one gets to see more adn more of what Christ really did, both in keeping the Law perfectly for us, and in paying the penalty of the very wrath of God.
Power, feeling power, condemning convicting power are often displayed to the soul in this process, and as Bunyan rightly says when this begins to occur, we are not to run away from this, but to labor to experience more of it, for it is truth, the truth of God’s hatred of sin, and wrath against it, and the more we see of this, the more truely we see of the Love of Christ.
Not only this, but It is simply stunning, an eye opener, to read and understand this Doctrine as it was presented correctly by Bunyan, for all of a sudden the whole Bible opens up, NT and OT and makes complete and total sense, not seeming contradictions, and all the confusion and error falls away for the first time, and you praise God that you understand the Bible in it’s entireity, start to finish, and begin to see it as it was meant to be seen. Yes, it takes time and study and no one knows the “mind of Christ” in this life as it is meant to be known, for we all see darkly, but some see more clearly and deeply than others. It’s that important, which is why Bunyan says it is man’s duty to study these two covenants, and there are only two that deal with life and death, until you understand them thuroughly.
I agree that you have been dealing with symptoms of the basic problem, but I was thankful that God had shown you what He had and that He had put a determination in your soul to expose this error, and I did not want to say that I thought you were only dealing with the symptoms, because they are important symptoms and I was loath to offend you and put you off, for what you have been saying is mostly correct, I think, as far as it goes, and very important, but now, praise God, I believe you have been shown by Him the root and core problem.
Do not let satan tell you that because so few are speaking of this matter today in it’s full magnitude, that Bunyan is over stating the case….he isn’t. Remember, it’s this anomia that is the antichrists name in the original greek, the “man of anomia”. The greek, interestingly, really means “a” without “nomia” the law, and so while the term antinomian is used and in one sense is acurrate, for all anomia will be “anti” against, the law, still the anti term is a bit misleading in that many who speak much of the Law, as did the pharisees, and appear to be for the Law, making the anti term seem out of place, they are in reality “anomia” or “without the Law” in the sense of a true understanding of why it was given, and what it’s true purpose was, and still, is.
This is what Paul was taking about on the Damascus Road, and this is what Satan wants to now, and has attacked with great cunning, for he knows that this is the key to understanding the Gospel and the salvation of eternal souls.
This is why these modern men, regardless of their name and reputation, if they reject this repeatedly, and go on in their sinful “damnable heresy” after being told the truth repeatly and lovingly, of the matter, are, in my opinion, false teachers, and “wolves in sheeps clothing” and “servants of Satan” disguised as “angels of light”. I know those are strong words, and I use them advisedly.
Nor was Bunyan the only one to see this. No, for all of the great lights of the Reformation, a true work of God which I have studied in detail, as well as the Puritans and their sucessors, all of them taught this truth of Law and Grace. But I must tell you, that even if they had not, I would still lean toward Bunyan’s version, first, because it is born out in God’s Holy Word, and second, because if you study his life, and how God taught and trained him, and how he lived his life as God’s true servant, it puts all of us to shame.
This is why I don’t waste time reading these modern men any more, there simply isn’t the depth and wisdom available which there is in the best of the best of the older authors. Don’t misunderstand me, there is a place for modern teaching, of course, but it must be informed by wisdom, and it is very rare now in these final years before the great apostocia. Also, many of the Reformers and Puritans were wrong about many things also, and some of them were terrible, so when I refer to the older authors I am referring to the best of the best, and there really isn’t time to waste on others.
Bless you, brother, for asking this question, and bless God for leading you to do so. I believe He has begun to show you something that few understand, but which is of central, key, vital, importance.
In Him,
gerry
LikeLike
Gerry,
Certainly you understand that Bunyan is not talking about a covenant of works made with Adam, but about the law of Moses as a covenant of works. This is a rather large departure from classic Covenant Theology. The Law was not simply a different administration of an overarching covenant of grace.
The question I asked you about Moral, civil and ceremonial law was not about what you thought was included in each category. The question was Where any biblical writer made the distinction you have made? I know you can find it in the Westminster Confession and can then read it into the biblical texts, but can you by careful exegesis bring it out of any passage of Scripture?
Does it bother you at all that the Sabbath is referred to as the sign of the covenant? That would mean that it was ceremonial in nature. Additionally, those commandments that are the eternal, universal righteous [I prefer righteous to moral since morals change with different times and societies, righteousness doesn’t] law of God are taken not from the tables of stone but from what you would call civil law which I think even you would agree has been done away with.
Why do you insist we do not teach the continuance of our obligation to keep God’s righteous law when we continue to insist that we do? “How do you understand, “not without law to God, but under the law to Christ.” Paul was clearly talking about not being under the Mosaic law in that passage.” Do you think he was incapable of expressing that he was not talking about the “moral law of God,” but was only talking about the civil and ceremonial aspects of the law, had that been the point he was making?
Finally, the OT Scriptures clearly identify the 10 commandments as the “words of the covenant,” namely, the old covenant. The NT Scriptures do not merely state that believers are not under that covenant, but that the covenant, itself, has been done away.
That is not just my teaching but is clearly stated in a number of NT passages. Now, if the covenant has passed away, and the 10 commandments are “the words of the covenant,” does that not mean that the 10 commandments as the covenant made with Israel have passed away? What does Paul mean when he writes, “the law was added UNTIL THE SEED SHOULD COME?” Does that not mean that the law, as a covenant made with Israel, would end when the seed came?
I would really like to hear some relatively intelligent answers to these questions. I have asked them many times here and am still waiting for an attempted answer. You might even take a shot at some of the questions I asked Paul. It is fairly clear he isn’t going to try to answer them. I would appreciate it if you would send your response to me at rseiver1@hotmail.com. It takes too much effort to wade through all this stuff to find your answer.
En amor, como siempre.
Randy
LikeLike
Randy:
With respect to your first statment in your last post:
===========================================================================================
R. Seiver said, on June 14, 2011 at 11:34 pm Gerry,
Certainly you understand that Bunyan is not talking about a covenant of works made with Adam, but about the law of Moses as a covenant of works.
===========================================================================================
Certainly I understand no such thing, for Bunyan spends the about two pages in the first part of his exposition, under the heading ” When It Was Given” proving from scripture that the Law was given first to Adam in the Garden, right after he has finished defining it under the heading “What It Is”. Bunyan, unlike you, defines his terms very clearly, and precisely, and does so from scripture..
Randy, I believe, based on your statements here, on this blog, and specifically in this latest display of your dissembling character that you are either grossely missinformed, or a bald faced liar, for you claim to speak authoritatively about what Bunyan said, and yet clearly are lying, for he said the exact opposite of what you claim.
Now, anyone who wants to know the truth of what Bunyan said can simply go and read it for themselves, for you have already demontrated your lying ways.
Finally, as to “discussing” this with you any further, I learned a long time ago, from wise servant of God, such as Bunyan, that to “discuss” things with Satan, or those he sends “disguised” (even though poorly as yourself) “as angels of light” is simply one of the “wiles of the devil”. I have better things to do.
May the Lord deliver you from his clutches,
In Him,
gerry
LikeLike
Gerry,
Aren’t we a bit judgmental today? You must be having your period. BTW, I noticed you didn’t sign that one “Offered in Love” I guess your love must have run out.
I was not talking about anything else Bunyan wrote but about what he wrote in your citation. It seems to me he clearly states that the Law was a covenant of works, ““Here is nothing but preaching of the law, thundering of the law”; when, alas, if these two be not held forth–to wit, the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace, together with the nature of the one and the nature of the other–souls will never be able either to know what they are by nature or what they lie under. Also, neither can they understand what grace is, nor how to come from under the law to meet God in and through that other most glorious covenant, through which and only through which, God can communicate of Himself grace, glory, yea, even all the good things of another world.” What do you think he refers to when he talks about “the covenant of works?”
I am not suggesting that Bunyan agrees with my views. Frankly, though I have appreciated much of what Bunyan has written, he is not my master. I will continue to seek to be guided by the Scriptures. All I am saying is that he appears to refer to the Law as a covenant of works. Accuse me of lying if you wish, but you posted the quote. I am just trying to understand what he is saying. Why don’t you try to play nice and tell me what you think he is saying in that quote?
If there is a term I have used you think needs further definition, let me know and I will try to do better. Actually, on my website I have posted a list of terms you might find interesting. You can probably even use some of them against me, since that seems to be what delights you so.
Incidently, I don’t think you have a clue about what I believe and teach.You might want to do a bit of investigation before you continue to make rash statements that can be easily disproved by comparing them to what I have written.
Finally, I don’t think you and Paul understand the nature of discussion. The idea is that I tell you what I believe a passage is teaching and you try to interact with my statement intelligently and exegetically. I have raised a huge number of questions here based on the biblical texts and I don’t think you have responded to any of them.
I know you can find it in Bunyan and in the Puritans, but can you please tell me where in the New Testament Scriptures we are told that 1. As Gentiles we are born under the Mosaic Law, I am not talking about God’s eternal righteous standard but Mosaic law. 2. Where are we told specifically in the NTS that gospel preaching must be preceded by the proclamation of the 10 Commandments? Could we not call on sinners to repent based on Christ’s law unfolded in the so called Sermon on the Mount or based on other commandments of the NTS, such as “Husbands love your wives as Christ loved the church?” 3. Where are we ever told in the NTS that we are to look to the look to the 10 commandments as our standard of sanctification? I am talking about real statements, not mere mentions of laws found in the 10 commandments.
Waiting for you answers.
Offered in love,
Randy
LikeLike
It is written:
Why do ye not understand my speech? [even] because ye cannot hear my word.
Ye are of [your] father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him.
When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
And because I tell [you] the truth, ye believe me not. Jn 8:43-45
LikeLike