Tags
The Law of God is the Christian’s Rule of Life
Historic Christianity had taught that the saints persevere to the end through holiness and sanctification. But not only did Fundamentalism undermine this truth by separating justification (the Christian’s standing before God) from regeneration (his inward state as renewed by the Holy Spirit); it also rejected the law of God as a rule by which holiness is to be judged. The moral law, and Christ’s interpretation of its spiritual meaning in His Sermon on the Mount, is not, it was claimed, a rule for Christians. The moral law was thus set against the gospel as though the gospel was not intended to restore the very holiness which the law represents. Instead of the Christian being presented as one who, through grace, can now say, ‘I delight in the law of God’ (Rom. 7:22), men were being taught that the law is irrelevant for Christians. And so, given the inadequate definition of a Christian already introduced by Arminian evangelism, this further error of Antinomianism gave vast support to the toleration of unspiritual living within the church itself. In [Arthur W.] Pink’s words:
One of the most disastrous errors and follies of many preachers and ‘Bible teachers’…the terrible effects of which are now spread before those who have eyes to see, was their idea that during the Old Testament era God’s people were under the stern regime of law unrelieved by Divine grace, and that Christ came here to set aside that harsh regime and bring in a much milder dispensation….Avoid as you would a deadly snake any man who denies the law of God is the Christian’s rule of life.
- Iain H. Murray, The Life of Arthur W. Pink, pp. 179, 180
Related articles
- Sanctification – Two Ways (5ptsalt.com)
To state the obvious, one who is without the law , …… is lawless.
what is the purpose of the law? Point us to Christ, Show us sinners or sanctify us?
I think I would have phrased Mr. Pink’s point about justification and regeneration differently. Fundamentalists did not separate justification and regeneration. They are two seperate and distinct works of God that are not joined in the first place. The only relationship between the two is that justification is through faith and faith is impossible apart from regeneration. Otherwise, they operate in two distinct spheres. One is a judicial declaration God makes about us; the other the implatation of a new governing principle of life that he performs within us. If all he is saying is that some within Fundamentalism taught that a person can be forgiven without being changed, I totally agree.
I have no difficulty with the idea that God’s design in the redemption of his people is to conform us to the righteousness/holiness expressed in his law. The question I have is what is the “moral law of God?” I know the WCF answer is the 10 commandments, but where do the Scriptures so define it? In reality, Galatians 3 makes it very clear there was a time when the law was added and we are told it was to continue “until the Seed [Christ] should come. . .” That expression of the Law could not have been eternal. Nor was it universal since Paul describes the Gentiles as being “without law.” Additionally, those Ten Commandments are identified as the the “covenant” God made with Israel “. . . .And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments” (Exo. 34:28). We are also told that Sabbath keeping was the sign of that covenant (Exo. 31:17) between God and Israel. That covenant was never ratified for anyone else but Israel. Perhaps someone can show me where those commandments are ever referred to as the “universal, eternal, moral, Law of God,” and why we should believe we must obey any commandment that wasn’t given to us.