Which scriptures are part of the Law?

[Till]

Hi all,

Is it correct to say that

Jas 2:20 But will you know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

is part of the Law? I was under the understanding that every warning, command, every challenge to act which is containes in Scriptures is Law? Like the verse above. Is that correct?

[filosofer]

In a word, "Yes".

[RadMan]

OT and NT is full of Law. Only NT is full of grace so we don't have to die under the Law.

[filosofer]

OT and NT is full of Law. Only NT is full of grace so we don't have to die under the Law.


Actually, the OT is full of grace as well...

1 Kings 8:33-34, 39, 50-51, Psalm 32:1-5, Psalm 103, Psalm 130, Jeremiah 31:31-34, etc.

These all point ahead to Christ. But grace was there and demonstrated and the basis forgiveness throughout the OT.

[RadMan]

I thought about that after I posted my reply and was going to edit it but now I don't have to :)

[filosofer]

I figured you knew, but I added for clarity for others. :)

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I figured you knew, but I added for clarity for others. :)



Yes. The Gospel is proclaimed in the OT from Gen. "I will put enmity....."

[Till]

In a word, "Yes".



Thank you Filosofer, this means a lot to me! I was discussing this with Calvinists and they reacted very harshly when I stated that some verses in James 2 are Law. I got confused and worried that I had misunderstood and misrepresented the teaching of Law and Gospel.

They seem to have another definition of Law. Somehow I feel that in their understanding of James 2 they are mingling law and gospel, but maybe I misunderstand that. They say things like "It is gospel, that a child of God will keep Gods commandment and walk in his ways" and refer to Ezekiel 36, 25-27.

25 I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impurities and from all your idols. 26 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh.Well Ezekiel is Gospel of course, but they make James too mean that Christians of necessity show works. Which - I think - makes Gospel Law again. I am confused. I know that James does actually say this but to state that the Bible teaches that all Christians necessarily show good works or otherwise they are not Christians, seems Law again ??!! Am I getting this wrong?

Guess the fact that I also told them that the doctrine of Limited Atonement is putting human logic over what Scriptures actually say did not help! They did not like that at all. It is weird. They cannot think outside of their Calvinism-Arminiasm model. When you tell them that both, Calvinism and Arminianism are essentially the same and deny one part of Scriptures and that Scripture does definitely teach that 1) our salvation is completely God's work and 2) God wills the salvation of all humans, they don't understand that. They just keep on saying: "You are Arminian!" Well they don't acutally say it, but mean it.


BTW: THANK YOU IRELAND!!!

[LilLamb219]

If it is something WE do...it's Law. If GOD is doing it, it's Gospel.

[Edial]

... Guess the fact that I also told them that the doctrine of Limited Atonement is putting human logic over what Scriptures actually say did not help! They did not like that at all. It is weird. They cannot think outside of their Calvinism-Arminiasm model. When you tell them that both, Calvinism and Arminianism are essentially the same and deny one part of Scriptures and that Scripture does definitely teach that 1) our salvation is completely God's work and 2) God wills the salvation of all humans, they don't understand that. They just keep on saying: "You are Arminian!" Well they don't acutally say it, but mean it.
...
I find the doctrine of Calvinism to be driven by theology while supplemented by the Bible.
Just last week I stopped on Wednesday night at a Calvinistic church Bible study. Some friends invited me. I know the Pastor for many years and some people there. These people know me, heard me speak and were amazed why I believe infant baptism and a non-symbolic Communion. Yet since they could not present a Biblical refutation for these they somehow respected me for becoming a Lutheran. We know each other for years.
Pastor became cautious of me, but not the people.
(I was not going to their church prior to my "conversion" to Lutheranism, but to a non-Calvinistic Baptist church).

So, the topic for that evening was love of God.

The gradual presentation of this topic was based on verses, which were skillfully structured to present Calvinistic theology.

The structure itself and presuppositions had obvious flaws, but these were so subtle they became invisible to the inexperienced hearers.

It became like, if this is this way and that is that way than all of this must mean that.

Bible as a whole lost sense and only individual verses were emphasized. The Book somehow started resembling a recipe book with each verse representing a type of an ingredient, which when mixed, conclude in Calvinism.

Balance went out of window.

For example, it was presented that since God loves us first, people are to tell God that they love Him.
A verse was presented where David tells God he loves Him.
So, everyone understood - OK, we all must tell God we love Him.

Yet it was never explained that our love for God is a gradual learning process that is based on obedience. One learns to love God as a reflection of God's love to us.

So, when the singing part came, all the people were singing with a newfound conviction that they love God.

The "flavor" of Calvinism is that it is disjointed.
It teaches verses, not the Bible. It teaches statements, not a process. It teaches justification at a point of time, not salvation as a duration of a lifetime.
It completely ignores one's entire life prior to one's adult confession of faith ... like God wasn't even there.

Calvinism evolved into a crisp, organized set of verses that explain all in a nutshell, instead of a lifetime flow of verses that strenghten one's faith through maturity, Christian fellowship and good works that are fueled by love.

Calvinistic theology somehow became an instantaneous understanding of God, instantaneous capability of loving God with one'e entire mind, soul and heart, with mind taking a priority over the rest, and an instantaneous knowledge of deep things of God.

Do we all love God with all of our heart, strenght and might?
Yes, of course, of course, YES! That verse in the Bible says that.

So, what must we DO?
Tell God we love Him! ... because another verse says that.

But ... before David said he loved God he went through lifetime of disobedience and rebellion even while being chosen by God. He gradually hearned to love God.

Doesn't matter. That verse said we are to tell God we love Him.

Balance is out of window.
Gradual revelation becomes a mystery. Sanctification process becomes a methodology of stopping drinking, smoking and swearing.

Jesus loves me this I know because ... the elections process of predestination tells me so.

Thanks,
Ed

[doulos_tou_kuriou]

Thank you Filosofer, this means a lot to me! I was discussing this with Calvinists and they reacted very harshly when I stated that some verses in James 2 are Law. I got confused and worried that I had misunderstood and misrepresented the teaching of Law and Gospel.

They seem to have another definition of Law. Somehow I feel that in their understanding of James 2 they are mingling law and gospel, but maybe I misunderstand that. They say things like "It is gospel, that a child of God will keep Gods commandment and walk in his ways" and refer to Ezekiel 36, 25-27.
Well Ezekiel is Gospel of course, but they make James too mean that Christians of necessity show works. Which - I think - makes Gospel Law again. I am confused. I know that James does actually say this but to state that the Bible teaches that all Christians necessarily show good works or otherwise they are not Christians, seems Law again ??!! Am I getting this wrong?

Guess the fact that I also told them that the doctrine of Limited Atonement is putting human logic over what Scriptures actually say did not help! They did not like that at all. It is weird. They cannot think outside of their Calvinism-Arminiasm model. When you tell them that both, Calvinism and Arminianism are essentially the same and deny one part of Scriptures and that Scripture does definitely teach that 1) our salvation is completely God's work and 2) God wills the salvation of all humans, they don't understand that. They just keep on saying: "You are Arminian!" Well they don't acutally say it, but mean it.


BTW: THANK YOU IRELAND!!!

I think you are correct in saying that Calvinists seem to have a different view of Law. Unlike Luther, Calvin did not have as clear of a division between Law and Gospel, this is probably due to the Calvinist emphasis on the "3rd use of the Law", which states that the law serves as a guide to the Christian life and a guide to what consistutes "fruit of the spirit". Lutherans share this view but do not emphasize it at all for the very reason that you stated, it can blur the lines between Law and Gospel. Lutherans emphasize the first two uses of the Law, that is, to reveal to us our sinful nature and need for God, and to reveal the righteousness of Christ as the source to fill our need. Calvin however considered the third use of the Law as the primary and most important use. I think this also is evident in how legalistic some Calvinist churches can become.

For a good read on a clear distinction between Law and Gospel read Werner Elert's "Law and Gospel". It is a really short, clear, and good read on the distinction between the two. It was written in response to an essay by Karl Barth called "Gospel and Law".

Peace be with you
Doulos_tou_Kuriou

[Till]

I think you are correct in saying that Calvinists seem to have a different view of Law. Unlike Luther, Calvin did not have as clear of a division between Law and Gospel, this is probably due to the Calvinist emphasis on the "3rd use of the Law", which states that the law serves as a guide to the Christian life and a guide to what consistutes "fruit of the spirit". Lutherans share this view but do not emphasize it at all for the very reason that you stated, it can blur the lines between Law and Gospel. Lutherans emphasize the first two uses of the Law, that is, to reveal to us our sinful nature and need for God, and to reveal the righteousness of Christ as the source to fill our need. Calvin however considered the third use of the Law as the primary and most important use. I think this also is evident in how legalistic some Calvinist churches can become.

For a good read on a clear distinction between Law and Gospel read Werner Elert's "Law and Gospel". It is a really short, clear, and good read on the distinction between the two. It was written in response to an essay by Karl Barth called "Gospel and Law".

Peace be with you
Doulos_tou_Kuriou

Thank you Doulos_tou_Kuriou, I had not been aware of this scholar. I read some excerpts of his writings on the Internet but even though I can actaully read what he writes in the orginial German I find it difficult to understand. :blush::blush: Guess this stuff is still a bit too difficult for me. Do you know any other good resources on the differences in the conception of Law and Gospel between Lutheranism and Calvinism?

[LilLamb219]

Did you read Walthers book? The Proper Distinction Between Law and Gospel? It's easy reading.

[Edial]

Did you read Walthers book? The Proper Distinction Between Law and Gospel? It's easy reading.
What the title?
I do not have any books an that topic.

Thanks,
Ed

[LilLamb219]

http://www.amazon.com/Proper-Distinction-Between-Law-Gospel/dp/0570032482

The Proper Distinction Between Law and Gospel by C.F.W. Walther Your pastor might have it to loan to you...mine did :)

[Edial]

http://www.amazon.com/Proper-Distinction-Between-Law-Gospel/dp/0570032482

The Proper Distinction Between Law and Gospel by C.F.W. Walther Your pastor might have it to loan to you...mine did :)
My pastor and I are terrible at returning books.
At one time we exchanged book.
He loaned me a book on liturgies and I loaned him a book on Pontius Pilate.

It took us both quiet a while before we got our books back. :)

I just bought this one.

Thanks, :)
Ed