Calvinism

John Caldwell · Oct 13, 2019

Anthony D'Arienzo said:
A confession has to be accurate. The corrupt RC church was ruled by unsaved persons so it has a bad confession.

Accurate by what? Your estimation of how it lines up with your interpretation of Scripture?

I believe that confessions are useful, but not so much when it comes to examining doctrine or arguing across confessional/ non-confessional lines. Confessions are by definition subjective (they are, literally, confessions). They are explanations of what a particular people believes.

CharismaticLady · Oct 13, 2019

John Caldwell said:
Yes, I can offer Calvinists who teach all three of those ideas.

John MacArthur teaches this "the question then has been lingering throughout all of history, how can He do it? How can He possibly do this? And the words here in verse 26 frame the issue. How can He be just and the justifier of sinners who have faith in Jesus Christ? How can God be just and the justifier? That is a dilemma." (MacArthur's sermon The Gospel Satisfies God's Demands)

Arthur Pink takes this approach in A.W. Pink’s Studies in the Scriptures 1934-1935 page 66 (also in The Doctrine of Justification page 5).

John Calvin presented this in his commentary on Romans (page 335).

C.H. Spurgeon also presented God’s justice as the “great barrier to the salvation of sinners” (Spurgeon’s sermon “Justice Satisfied” in The Spurgeon Series 1859&1860).

R.C. Sproul presents this same thing in The Righteous Shall Live By Faith, page 140.

John Owen states this in his commentary on Hebrews.

J.I. Packer expresses this view in Knowing God when he explains how God has to meet the demands of justice in order to justify the sinner.

John Piper (on of my favorites) speaks to this as well in The Just and the Justifier.

John Gill presents this as a problem to be solved ("God the Father contrived the scheme and method of justification; it would have been a puzzling question to angels and men, had he not resolved it" in The grace of God, page 47.

Martin Lloyd-Jones confirms all three when he writes that "[a]ccording to Paul, the great problem for God himself was how to forgive man and yet be just." (Martin Lloyd-Jones, A Merciful and Faithful High Priest, chapter 9)

Can you tell me in a sentence what you guys are discussing? I know it has to do with God's justice.

I'm reading one of JW's sermons on perfectionism. John Calvin would have a heart attack!

John Caldwell · Oct 13, 2019

CharismaticLady said:
Can you tell me in a sentence what you guys are discussing? I know it has to do with God's justice.

I'm reading one of JW's sermons on perfectionism. John Calvin would have a heart attack!

Romans 3:21-26 But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

In my experience (not, I take it, @Anthony D'Arienzo 's although he may also disagree with those Calvinists referenced) Calvinists often look to the above passage and take out God being just and the justifier to explain why God had to punish our sin in order to forgive us our sin. If God did not punish our sins then He would be unjust (if divine justice is retributive justice), and could not justify us.

In the context of the verse, the "so that He would be just and the justifier" points back to "His righteousness at the present time".

CharismaticLady · Oct 13, 2019

John Caldwell said:
Romans 3:21-26 But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

In my experience (not, I take it, @Anthony D'Arienzo 's although he may also disagree with those Calvinists referenced) Calvinists often look to the above passage and take out God being just and the justifier to explain why God had to punish our sin in order to forgive us our sin. If God did not punish our sins then He would be unjust (if divine justice is retributive justice), and could not justify us.

In the context of the verse, the "so that He would be just and the justifier" points back to "His righteousness at the present time".

Ok, thanks. Good night. I want to get back to JW

Anthony D'Arienzo · Oct 13, 2019

John Caldwell said:
could you offer any Cal who teaches this?

Yes, I can offer Calvinists who teach all three of those ideas. (I'm surprised you've yet encountered the ideas):

John MacArthur teaches this "the question then has been lingering throughout all of history, how can He do it? How can He possibly do this? And the words here in verse 26 frame the issue. How can He be just and the justifier of sinners who have faith in Jesus Christ? How can God be just and the justifier? That is a dilemma." (MacArthur's sermon The Gospel Satisfies God's Demands)

Arthur Pink takes this approach in A.W. Pink’s Studies in the Scriptures 1934-1935 page 66 (also in The Doctrine of Justification page 5).

John Calvin presented this in his commentary on Romans (page 335).

C.H. Spurgeon also presented God’s justice as the “great barrier to the salvation of sinners” (Spurgeon’s sermon “Justice Satisfied” in The Spurgeon Series 1859&1860).

R.C. Sproul presents this same thing in The Righteous Shall Live By Faith, page 140.

Mark Dever presents this (along with Packer) in In My Place Condemned He Stood (page 40).

John Owen states this in his commentary on Hebrews.

J.I. Packer expresses this view in Knowing God when he explains how God has to meet the demands of justice in order to justify the sinner.

John Piper (on of my favorites) speaks to this as well in The Just and the Justifier.

John Gill presents this as a problem to be solved ("God the Father contrived the scheme and method of justification; it would have been a puzzling question to angels and men, had he not resolved it" in The grace of God, page 47.

Martin Lloyd-Jones confirms all three when he writes that "[a]ccording to Paul, the great problem for God himself was how to forgive man and yet be just." (Martin Lloyd-Jones, A Merciful and Faithful High Priest, chapter 9)[/QUOTE]

I will look these up tomorrow. which volume and page in Owens commentary,please.

JohnM is posing the question, and the way he preaches is to ask such questions, and then explain the answer.

CharismaticLady · Oct 14, 2019

Steve Owen said:
Hello everyone!
'Calvinism' as generally understood today does not mean that one is a supporter of Jean Calvin, but that one holds to the position expressed in the acronym 'T.U.L.I.P.'
To be 'Reformed' is much more than to be Calvinistic. It means:
1. To uphold the five 'Solas' of the Reformation:' Grace alone, Christ alone, faith alone, the Scriptures alone, to the Glory of God alone.
2. To believe in Covenant Theology (and therefore not in Dispensationalism).
3. To believe in the Reformed Principle of Worship: that is, that nothing is to be introduced into Church worship and practice for which no probable command can be found in Scripture.
Reformed theology is not exclusively Presbyterian. There are Reformed Episcopalian churches and Reformed Baptist churches.
For me Reformed Baptist churches are true fulfillment of the Reformation since they have disposed of the last element of Romanism, infant 'baptism.'

2. Covenant Theology is not upheld in most Reformed denominations. You have to believe in everything in the New Covenant and most Reformed denominations believe the gifts of the Holy Spirit ceased, which is impossible inside a covenant. Nothing ceases until the covenant itself ceases, and the only one who can cease the covenant is Christ at the second coming.

John Caldwell · Oct 14, 2019

Anthony D'Arienzo said:
Yes, I can offer Calvinists who teach all three of those ideas. (I'm surprised you've yet encountered the ideas):

John MacArthur teaches this "the question then has been lingering throughout all of history, how can He do it? How can He possibly do this? And the words here in verse 26 frame the issue. How can He be just and the justifier of sinners who have faith in Jesus Christ? How can God be just and the justifier? That is a dilemma." (MacArthur's sermon The Gospel Satisfies God's Demands)

Arthur Pink takes this approach in A.W. Pink’s Studies in the Scriptures 1934-1935 page 66 (also in The Doctrine of Justification page 5).

John Calvin presented this in his commentary on Romans (page 335).

C.H. Spurgeon also presented God’s justice as the “great barrier to the salvation of sinners” (Spurgeon’s sermon “Justice Satisfied” in The Spurgeon Series 1859&1860).

R.C. Sproul presents this same thing in The Righteous Shall Live By Faith, page 140.

Mark Dever presents this (along with Packer) in In My Place Condemned He Stood (page 40).

John Owen states this in his commentary on Hebrews.

J.I. Packer expresses this view in Knowing God when he explains how God has to meet the demands of justice in order to justify the sinner.

John Piper (on of my favorites) speaks to this as well in The Just and the Justifier.

John Gill presents this as a problem to be solved ("God the Father contrived the scheme and method of justification; it would have been a puzzling question to angels and men, had he not resolved it" in The grace of God, page 47.

Martin Lloyd-Jones confirms all three when he writes that "[a]ccording to Paul, the great problem for God himself was how to forgive man and yet be just." (Martin Lloyd-Jones, A Merciful and Faithful High Priest, chapter 9)

I will look these up tomorrow. which volume and page in Owens commentary,please.

JohnM is posing the question, and the way he preaches is to ask such questions, and then explain the answer.

You asked if I could provide any Calvinists who taught those things ("just and Justifier as a problem God remedies, divine justice as preventing God from simply forgiving).

I am not going to go down the list and argue each one. It is too easy to get caught up in the weeds on some (perhaps MacArthur did not mean that it was a "problem" when he said "delima", but I do not see how given the definition of "delima"). There are too many Calvinists that teach exactly what I presented.

I provided the Pink reference and page number. It's in the last post.

Even without this you have Lloyd-Jones stating exactly what I was speaking of. You have Spurgeon's claim this was the "great barrier to the salvation of sinners". John Gill was clear this was the problem God "resolved" as angles and men could not.

The fact, Anthony, is that most of Calvinism teaches what John Calvin taught in that God had to satisfy the demands of divine justice in order to forgive. Simple forgiveness was not possible as it woukd make God unjust. God had to punish sin. God did this by punishing our sins laid upon Christ. God is just. Our "sin debt" paid we are forgiven. God is Justifier.

This is basic to Calvinism (to mainstream and historic Calvinism). Without this Calvinism falls apart (it is the reason for Christ's death - to pay this "sin debt" in order to satisfy the demands of justice without which salvation is impossible).

If you reject these ideas I am not sure that your belief is what can accurately be called "Calvinism".

John Caldwell · Oct 14, 2019

@Anthony D'Arienzo ,

When I was in the Army I had two friends trying to get a language identifier for Spanish. My hispanic friend who grew up speaking Spanish did not pass the test. My friend from Michigan who took Spanish courses got the identifier.

I was a Calvinist and have studied and taught Calvinism for years. I am familiar with teachings from people like MacArthur, Piper, Packer, and Keller (still appreciate their works, but Piper has probably had the greater impact).

BUT I am not very familiar with Reformed Baptists. I can affirm those listed reject "simple forgiveness" for the reason I posted. I am not sure how Reformed Baptists address the issue.

Do you have a reference for a Calvinist who addresses the issue differently?

Anthony D'Arienzo · Oct 14, 2019

John Caldwell,

BUT I am not very familiar with Reformed Baptists. I can affirm those listed reject "simple forgiveness" for the reason I posted. I am not sure how Reformed Baptists address the issue.

Do you have a reference for a Calvinist who addresses the issue differently?

I have not seen any Calvinist struggle with this issue at all. All believe PST.
Keep it simple JonC. What did Paul say was the need of all men?

16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

We do not see Paul say the love of God is revealed from heaven, but rather Divine wrath.
For Jesus to be the propitiation[The one who turns away the wrath] he is the only Divine solution to the wrath coming on all mankind

Steve Owen · Oct 14, 2019

CharismaticLady said:
2. Covenant Theology is not upheld in most Reformed denominations

There may perhaps be a difference between The UK and USA, but for me, a Reformed Church would be one that held to one of the Reformed confessions and these tend to be covenantal.
The confessions also tend to be cessationist, but I think that a discussion about that would be better conducted on another thread.

Anthony D'Arienzo · Oct 14, 2019

John Caldwell,

You asked if I could provide any Calvinists who taught those things ("just and Justifier as a problem God remedies, divine justice as preventing God from simply forgiving).

Thanks for the list.

I am not going to go down the list and argue each one. It is too easy to get caught up in the weeds on some (perhaps MacArthur did not mean that it was a "problem" when he said "delima", but I do not see how given the definition of "delima"). There are too many Calvinists that teach exactly what I presented.

Click to expand...

I was tired last night and might not have understood your main thought. I think the teaching is straight forward. I am not sure why you are suggesting a "simple forgiveness" rather than a Divine solution to God's wrath??? This is why you are not comfortable with PST??
I provided the Pink reference and page number. It's in the last post.

Even without this you have Lloyd-Jones stating exactly what I was speaking of. You have Spurgeon's claim this was the "great barrier to the salvation of sinners". John Gill was clear this was the problem God "resolved" as angles and men could not.

JonC, this is mainstream Calvinism

The fact, Anthony, is that most of Calvinism teaches what John Calvin taught in that God had to satisfy the demands of divine justice in order to forgive. Simple forgiveness was not possible as it woukd make God unjust. God had to punish sin. God did this by punishing our sins laid upon Christ. God is just. Our "sin debt" paid we are forgiven. God is Justifier.

A Holy God must punish sin.
Hab.1
12 Art thou not from everlasting, O Lord my God, mine Holy One? we shall not die. O Lord, thou hast ordained them for judgment; and, O mighty God, thou hast established them for correction.

13 Thou art of purer eyes than to behold evil, and canst not look on iniquity: wherefore lookest thou upon them that deal treacherously, and holdest thy tongue when the wicked devoureth the man that is more righteous than he?

Here again in psalm 50;
21 These things hast thou done, and I kept silence; thou thoughtest that I was altogether such an one as thyself: but I will reprove thee, and set them in order before thine eyes.

22 Now consider this, ye that forget God, lest I tear you in pieces, and there be none to deliver.

23 Whoso offereth praise glorifieth me: and to him that ordereth his conversation aright will I shew the salvation of God.

This is basic to Calvinism (to mainstream and historic Calvinism). Without this Calvinism falls apart (it is the reason for Christ's death - to pay this "sin debt" in order to satisfy the demands of justice without which salvation is impossible).

If you reject these ideas I am not sure that your belief is what can accurately be called "Calvinism".

I recently came out of the hospital for minor surgery, so I might have been tired last night and did not understand your post. I agree with the men you listed, at least the ones I could track down.

What is it that makes you look for simple forgiveness that makes you shy away from what all these men understood?

Anthony D'Arienzo · Oct 14, 2019

Steve Owen said:
There may perhaps be a difference between The UK and USA, but for me, a Reformed Church would be one that held to one of the Reformed confessions and these tend to be covenantal.
The confessions also tend to be cessationist, but I think that a discussion about that would be better conducted on another thread.

Hello Steve, welcome to CB.I know you will help many and bring clarity.

Anthony D'Arienzo · Oct 14, 2019

CharismaticLady said:
2. Covenant Theology is not upheld in most Reformed denominations. You have to believe in everything in the New Covenant and most Reformed denominations believe the gifts of the Holy Spirit ceased, which is impossible inside a covenant. Nothing ceases until the covenant itself ceases, and the only one who can cease the covenant is Christ at the second coming.

Hello CL,
The whole tongues thing has got you twisted. You are willing to forego solid teaching by internationally accepted pastors [cessationists} because of it. Think about that. You suggest apostolic sign gifts have not ceased, even though the Apostles have??
12 Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds.

Now if you would...what do you mean by Covenant theology?
What does it teach? [whether you believe it or not]...could you give me an idea of what you believe that is?

John Caldwell · Oct 14, 2019

Anthony D'Arienzo said:
John Caldwell,

I have not seen any Calvinist struggle with this issue at all. All believe PST...

I also have not seen any Calvinist struggle with the issue at all. That, brother, is the problem. I agree all Calvinists believe in Penal Substitution Theory, but not all Calvinists believe that all Calvinists believe in Penal Substitution Theory (look at @Steve Owen 's definition of "Calvinism" as an affirmation of TULIP, perhaps you meant "Reformed").

To keep it even more simple - my statement was only that Calvinists believe God is just and Justifier in the context God cannot simply forgive sin as this would make God unjust. God needed to satisfy the demands of divine justice by punishing the sins of those who would be saved. God punished Jesus for our sins by laying our sins on Jesus and punishing Him as if He were a sinner. God punished our sin laid on His Son. In this way our "sin debt" was paid.

Before we move on you need to show how that differs from Calvinism as you understand it. We cannot discuss the topic until we agree it is really a topic.

Anthony D'Arienzo · Oct 14, 2019

Willie T said:
Let's start right at the first sentence of the first Section of Chapter 5, of Book Second.

1. Enough would seem to have been said on the subject of man’s will, were there not some who endeavor to urge him to his ruin by a false opinion of liberty, and at the same time, in order to support their own opinion, assail ours.

How about you explain this "false opinion of liberty" that he says "some" are trying to "urge mankind to his ruin" with.

I see those "some" as offering awareness of an escape from Hell to all men by showing them that Christ has given them the "liberty" to choose to trust in Him... or to not trust in Him. The plain and simple "liberty" of the choice Jesus provided every living human by going to the cross.

As for the rest of the sentence, the "supporting an opinion by assailing the opinions of others".... Well, that is Calvin's basic attack mode all through the book. I think his favorite word to utter when speaking about anyone else's opinion is, "ABSUREDITY !!!" (Go right now and check out how many times he used some form of it just right here in this chapter.)

Hello Willie T, thanks for the reference..
on page 317 he is stating that Adam willingly bound himself over to the devils tyranny, he speaks of the corruption that enchains us., our condemnation.

Yes, I agree with you that Calvin was in attack mode. The reason is, he sees men as condemned rebels against a Holy God.

Total Depravity is a spiritual battleground Willie. Adam died, he was not just wounded. He died spiritually and was totally alienated from God.
I cannot speak for Calvin, however at a young age he studied and wrote prolifically and has helped many.
We did not live in the time he did. I do not have a good sense of the religious atmosphere of the day....so when reading his work I would set aside personal emotions and try to focus , or extract each different issue.
Forget who wrote it, and look as if someone asked you the question, for you to answer.

Steve Owen · Oct 14, 2019

John Caldwell said:
The difference is neauenced [sic]. Luther based the atonement on merit rather than retributive punishment.

No he didn't. What Luther is speaking of the the extract you quoted is the Active Obedience of Christ. That His perfect righteousness and obedience to His father's will is credited to believers (Romans 5:19(. In his commentary on Galatians 3:13 he is speaking of our Lord's Passive Obedience. There he writes:
'We must not imagine Christ to be innocent, and as a private person who is holy and righteous for himself alone as do the schoolmen and as nearly all of the fathers have done.True it is that Christ is a person most pure and unspotted; but thou must not stay there: for thou hast not yet Christ, although thou know Him to be both God and man; but thou hast Him indeed, when thou believest that this most pure and innocent person is freely given to thee by the Father, to be thy High Priest and thy Saviour, yea, thy servant, that He, putting off His innocency and holiness, and taking thy sinful person upon Him might bear thy sin, thy death and thy curse, and might be made a sacrifice and a curse for thee, that by these means He might deliver thee from the curse of the law.

This is Luther's 'Great Exchange.' That on the cross, all our sins were laid upon Christ's sinless shoulders, and His perfect righteousness credited to us who believe.

Anthony D'Arienzo · Oct 14, 2019

Willie T said:
I think we should all be able to agree that there is a Scripture, somewhere, that can be used to "back-up" and "prove" almost anything you can come up with. The Westboro Mob does it all the time. LOL

Scripture can be taken out of context, and if I understand Peter correctly it will be;
The word "wrest" means to twist, or torture...
14 Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.

15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.

18 But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.
So I do not think"anything" can be proved. There is truth and there is error.
I think Peter is speaking of the doctrines of grace that Paul wrote about in romans,and ephesians ,when he says some things hard to be understood.

John Caldwell · Oct 14, 2019

Steve Owen said:
No he didn't. What Luther is speaking of the the extract you quoted is the Active Obedience of Christ. That His perfect righteousness and obedience to His father's will is credited to believers (Romans 5:19(. In his commentary on Galatians 3:13 he is speaking of our Lord's Passive Obedience. There he writes:
'We must not imagine Christ to be innocent, and as a private person who is holy and righteous for himself alone as do the schoolmen and as nearly all of the fathers have done.True it is that Christ is a person most pure and unspotted; but thou must not stay there: for thou hast not yet Christ, although thou know Him to be both God and man; but thou hast Him indeed, when thou believest that this most pure and innocent person is freely given to thee by the Father, to be thy High Priest and thy Saviour, yea, thy servant, that He, putting off His innocency and holiness, and taking thy sinful person upon Him might bear thy sin, thy death and thy curse, and might be made a sacrifice and a curse for thee, that by these means He might deliver thee from the curse of the law.

This is Luther's 'Great Exchange.' That on the cross, all our sins were laid upon Christ's sinless shoulders, and His perfect righteousness credited to us who believe.

The issue is that Martin Luther never expressed or defined a full doctrine of the Atonement. We need to be very careful not to read into his words what is not there.

My post is actually a quote. Yes, Luther presented Christ as taking on our sins (Luther did not reject the existing ideas of Atonement in favor of Calvin's Penal Substitution Theory but rather remained very focused on the justification of the believer in Christ by faith alone).

Historically the reason Luther is never presented as affirming the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement is there is no evidence in Luther's theology that he considered our "sin debt" paid by the act of the Father punishing our sins in Christ. Luther, instead, taught that Christ bore our sins and by His merit, His holiness, His divinity, His perfect obedience, " he entirely engulfed and swallowed it up, and his merit is so great that God is now satisfied and says, “If he wills thereby to save, then there will be a salvation."

It is wrong to place words into the mouths (or writings) of men long dead, Steve. Please review the sermon in question (to include your quote above, which is less than Penal Substitution Theory). What you are missing is that no Christian rejects the truth that Christ bore our sins, that Christ is pure and unspotted, that Christ became "as sinful flesh", that Christ suffered under the law and became a curse for us that He might deliver us from the curse of the law. This is a different topic.

Do you understand the Penal Substitution Theory and its distinction from other theories (its distinction from the Classic view, what the ECF's taught, Luther, Anabaptist theology, etc)?

Willie T · Oct 14, 2019

Anthony D'Arienzo said:
Hello Willie T, thanks for the reference..
on page 317 he is stating that Adam willingly bound himself over to the devils tyranny, he speaks of the corruption that enchains us., our condemnation.

Yes, I agree with you that Calvin was in attack mode. The reason is, he sees men as condemned rebels against a Holy God.

Total Depravity is a spiritual battleground Willie. Adam died, he was not just wounded. He died spiritually and was totally alienated from God.
I cannot speak for Calvin, however at a young age he studied and wrote prolifically and has helped many.
We did not live in the time he did. I do not have a good sense of the religious atmosphere of the day....so when reading his work I would set aside personal emotions and try to focus , or extract each different issue.
Forget who wrote it, and look as if someone asked you the question, for you to answer.

I'm not sure what Page 317 you mean. This is 317 in the copy I have:

"....gaining his favour. This irreligious affectation of religion being innate in the human mind, has betrayed itself in every age, and is still doing so, men always longing to devise some method of procuring righteousness without any sanction from the Word of God.51Hence in those observances which are generally regarded as good works, the precepts of the Law occupy a narrow space, almost the whole being usurped by this endless host of human inventions. But was not this the very license which Moses meant to curb, when, after the promulgation of the Law, he thus addressed the people: “Observe and hear all these words which I command thee, that it may go well with thee, and with thy children after thee for ever, when thou does that which is good and right in the sight of the Lord thy God.” “What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it,” (Deut 12:28–32). Previously, after asking “what nation is there so great, that has statutes and judgments so righteous as all this law, which I set before you this day?” he had added, “Only take heed to thyself, and keep thy soul diligently, lest thou forget the things which thine eyes have seen, and lest they depart from thy heart all the days of thy life,” (Deut. 4:8, 9). God foreseeing that the Israelites would not rest, but after receiving the Law, would, unless sternly prohibited give birth to new kinds of righteousness, declares that the Law comprehended a perfect righteousness. This ought to have been a most powerful restraint, and yet they desisted not from the presumptuous course so strongly prohibited. How do we act? We are certainly under the same obligation as they were; for there cannot be a doubt that the claim of absolute perfection which God made for his Law is perpetually in force. Not contented with it, however, we labour prodigiously in feigning and coining an endless variety of good works, one after another. The best cure for this vice would be a constant and deep-seated conviction that the Law was given from heaven to teach us a perfect righteousness; that the only righteousness so taught is that which the divine will expressly enjoins; and that it is, therefore, vain to attempt, by new forms of worship, to gain the favour of God, whose true worship consists in obedience alone; or rather, that to go a wandering after good works which are not prescribed by the Law of God, is an intolerable violation of true and divine righteousness. Most truly does Augustine say in one place, that the obedience which is rendered to God is the parent and guardian; in another, that it is the source of all the virtues.52

Chapter 6. After we shall have expounded the Divine Law, what has been previously said of its office and use will be understood more easily, and with greater benefit. But before we proceed to the consideration of each separate commandment, it will be proper to take a general survey of the whole. At the outset, it was proved that in the Law human life is instructed...….

51 See Calvin, De Vera Ecclesiæ Reformandæ Ratione.
52 See Augustin. De Civitate Dei, Lib. 4 c. 12, and Lib. 12 c. 20, and Lib. 14 c. 12. See also Lib. De Bono Conjugali, and Lib. Contra Adversarios Legis et Prophetarum, Lib. 1 c. 14.

Page 317

Maybe we have books printed by different companies. Perhaps it would be better to always refer to THE BOOK #, then Chapter # in that book, and the Section # of that Chapter.

John Caldwell · Oct 14, 2019

Anthony D'Arienzo said:
JonC.

Anthony, Please use my name (John, or John C, or the like) rather than my username on another forum here. I will afford you the same respect.

Thanks,

John

Calvinism

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Heaven Sent

Well-Known Member

Similar threads