The Law versus the Gospel

In his Epistle to the Romans, contrasting the law and the gospel, he says, 'Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, that a man which doeth those things shall live by them. But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.' Do you perceive how be thus discriminates between the law and the gospel,  that the former attributes righteousness to works, but the latter bestows it freely, without the assistance of works? -John Calvin,  The Institutes, 3.11.17. Pg. 669

Scripture alone is the alone infallible rule of faith

It is a constitutional rule of the great Bible Societies that they are to circulate the Bible 'without note or comment.' This is a noteworthy and significant fact. It indicates that the Bible is a self-contained and a self-explanatory book, a book which does not have and cannot have an authoritative introduction; and untold thousands have found the Saviour and been built up in our most holy faith by simple reading and study of the Word, under the guidance and illumination of the Holy Spirit. It is true of the Bible, as of no other book, that 'the infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself.' - Oswald T. Allis, The Old Testament Its Claims and Its Critics, pg. 1

The teacher does not teach new things to a pupil

A teacher does not teach anything. Of course they might say lies or false things but as it goes they cannot teach anyone anything. There is only one Teacher who has enlightened everyone. So what then what is the point of one person supposedly teaching another? Simply their job is to remind. That is what we are doing when we use propositions. Propositions are either false or true.


Someone responds, "Does a parent teach a child to walk? To talk? Do they 'remind' them to do so? Are we all 'enlightened'? Born with the ability of language and walking, just needing to be reminded?"

The question is what does it mean to walk; in other words, what is the definition of walking? By what way does a child become capable of walking?

The Bible says it is God who trains up a man for battle. I think David says God trains his hands for the bow.

Furthermore, God is said to make men blind, deaf, mute, and lame. So who teaches a man to walk? God alone.

Someone responds, "Does God teach you how to play the banjo? How to tie your shoes? What the capital of North Dakota is? No. Teachers teach those things. I have no idea what you mean. Perhaps you'll have to teach me."

 Well I didn't respond to your question because I think I've answered it. We only have one Father. He alone gives us knowledge. Since God is knowledge, logic, and truth. All knowledge comes from Him. No man knows unless God reveals. Have you read Exodus? I suppose you have not. What does it say about the men who made the tabernacle?
Since men, are created in the image of God, they are created with logic, knowledge, ability to speak in some cases.

We therefore say man is not tabula rasa.

Therefore, human teachers do not teach or discover new ideas. But ideas, propositions are understood prior. Therefore, teachers either speak lies or truth. But their job is to remind.

The diminishing Mind of Empiricism

Ayn "Rand maintained that the child - every child - knows nothing, his mind is 'unexposed,' and yet he has a conscious mind. The contradiction is inherent in the notion of a tabula rasa mind. A mind that is tabula rasa is simply not a mind. A consciousness conscious of nothing is simply not a consciousness. A mind that is empty is not a mind, any more than a geometrical figure that has no sides is a geometrical figure. This egregious contradiction lies at the foundation of Rand's epistemology - not only Rand's, but at the base of all empirical philosophies, including those of John Locke, Thomas Aquinas, and Aristotle." - John W. Robbins, Without A Prayer, Ayn Rand and The Close of Her System, pg. 30-31

There is nothing special in the sacrament itself

"In order that we may obtain this faith, the ministry of teaching the Gospel and administering the sacraments was instituted. For through the Word and the sacraments, as through instruments, the Holy Spirit is given, and the Holy Spirit produces faith, where and when it pleases God, in those who hear the Gospel. That is to say, it is not on account of our own merits but on account of Christ that God justifies those who believe that they are received into favor for Christ's sake. Gal. 3:14, 'That we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.'
Our churches condemn the Anabaptist and others who think that the Holy Spirit comes to men without the external Word, through their own preparations and works." - The Book of Concord, The Augsburg Confession, Pg. 31 Article 5 [The ministry of the Church]

Elijah the prophet during the time when man did what is right in his own eyes

No wonder Elijah thought himself alone. Gilead was part of  the tribe that was in the northern kingdom of Israel. During that time Ahab sinned as if it was a light thing for him to do. In his time Hiel rebuilt Jericho (Joshua in 6:26 curses the man who rebuilds the city). During the time then there would have seemed like there was a famine of the word of God.

No difference between the law of Christ and the decalogue

In sundry other places of their confessions they explain their meaning more fully thus: Many laws were uttered by Christ of which Moses knew nothing; for instance, the law to love our enemies, the law not to seek private revenge, the law not to demand back what has been taken from us, ect. All these matters the papists declare to be 'new laws.' This is wrong; for even Moses has said: ' Thou shalt love the Lord, thy God, with all thine heart and with all thy soul and with ...all thy might,' Deut. 6,5; and: ' Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself,' Lev. 19, 18. Now, Christ did not abrogate this law of Moses, but neither did He publish any new laws. He only opened up the spiritual meaning of the Law. Accordingly, He says in Matt. 5, 17: 'Think not that I am come to destroy the Law or the prophets; I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.' That means that He did not come to issue new laws, but to fulfill the Law for us, so that we may share His fulfillment. - C.F.W. Walther, The Proper Distinction between Law and Gospel, pg. 73-74

"The law is called the Decalogue, and the gospel is the doctrine concerning Christ the mediator, and the free remission of sins through faith." -Zacharias Ursinus, Commentary on the Heidelberg, pg. 2

 .

Cannot believe that which is unknowable

If the Holy Scriptures were really so obscure a book that the meaning of all those passages which form the basis of articles of the Christian Creed could not be definitely ascertained, and if, as a result of this, we should have to acknowledge that without some other authority it would be impossible to decide which of two or several interpretations of Scripture-passages is the only correct one, - if these conditions, I say, we're true, the Scriptures could not be the Word of God. How could a book that leaves us groping in darkness and uncertainty regarding its essential contents serve as a revelation? - C.F.W. Walther, The Proper Distinction between Law and Gospel, pg. 59

"The Kingdom of God is not a Kingdom of ignorance, but of faith and, consequently, of knowledge; for it is beyond the ability of anyone to believe that which he is ignorant of." - Theodore Beza, Preface of Theodore Beza in The Christian Faith, pg. iv

I would say that the Arminian is a lost heretic who denies the law and gospel distinction

"'In the second place,' Gerhard continues, 'when the doctrine of the Gospel is not separated from the Law by definite boundary-lines, the blessings of Christ are co considerably obscured.' By ascribing to man some share in his own salvation, we rob Christ of all His glory. God has created us without our cooperation, and He wants to save us the same way. We are to thank Him for having created us with a hope of life everlasting. Even so He alone wants to save us. We to him who says that he must contribute something towards his own salvation! He deprives Christ of His entire merit. For Jesus is called the Savior, not a helper towards salvation, such as preachers are. Jesus has achieved our entire salvation. That is why we are so determined in our Predestinarian Controversy. For the basic element in the controversy has been that we insisted on keeping Law and Gospel separate, while our opponents mingle the one with the other. When they hear from us this statement: 'Out of pure mercy, God has elected us to the praise of the glory of His grace; God vindicates for Himself exclusively the glory of saving us,' etc., they say: 'That is a horrible doctrine! If that were true, God would be partial. No, He must have beheld something in men that prompted Him to elect this or that particular man. When He beheld something good in a person, He elected him.' If that were so, man would really be the principal cause of his salvation. In that case man could say, 'Thank God, I have done my share towards being saved.' However, when we shall have arrived in our heavenly fatherland, this is what we shall say: 'If I had had my own way, I should never have found salvation; and even supposing I had found it by myself, I should have lost it again. Thou, O God, didst come and draw me to Thy Word, partly by tribulation, partly by anguish of heart, partly by sickness, ect. All these things Thou hast used as a means to bring me into heaven, while I was always striving for perdition.'" - C.F.W. Walther, The Proper Distinction between Law and Gospel, pg. 40-41

The law does promise to give on condition that we fulfill it's demands

"In the law as a covenant of works there is also a promise, a gracious promise of the continuance of spiritual and temporal life and, in due time, of eternal life. This promise, which flowed solely from infinite benignity and condescension in God, was made, and was to have been fulfilled, to Adam and all his natural posterity, on condition that he as their representative perfectly obeyed the precept." - John Colquhoun, A treatise on the law and gospel, pg. 15 this is on the law in general.

No such thing as good fruit without good seed. Knowing truth matters first before any good works can be done

"... what an awful delusion has taken hold upon so many men's minds who ridicule the pure doctrine and say to us: 'Ah, do cease clamoring, pure doctrine! Pure doctrine! That can only land you in dead orthodoxism. Pay more attention to pure life, and you will raise a growth of genuine Christianity.' That is exactly like saying to a farmer: 'Do not worry forever about good seed; worry about good fruits.' Is not a farmer properly concerned about good fruit when he is solicitous about getting good seed? Just so a concern about pure doctrine is the proper concern about genuine Christianity and a sincere Christian life. False doctrine is noxious seed, sown by the enemy to produce a progeny of wickedness." - C.F.W. Walther, The Proper Distinction between Law and Gospel, pg. 20-21

What of the Christian bearing the sword?

"It is true, he had signified to his disciples, that they would be in such circumstances as wherein they would stand in extreme need of this sort of defence; and had said to them, 'He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy 'one,' Luke 22. 36. Yet, while tehy stood in the greatest need of selling their garments to buy swords, before the Emperor turned Christian, they did not reckon that these words of the Lord were intended to oblige them to take the sword for their defence in their profession: For when the disciples answered Christ, saying, 'Here are two swords,' he said unto them, 'It is enough;' surely not for eleven disciples; but it was enough for his purpose, which was to give occasion, first, for the 'miracle of healing Malchus's 'ear,' wherein he gave a notable evidence of his good-will to his enemies, and that he was able to deliver himself, but condescended to suffer; and a notable pattern to his people, of doing acts of kindness to enemies, and of patience in suffering; and, secondly, for the following prohibition of drawing the sword in his quarrel; for, when he healed the ear, he said to his enemies, 'Suffer ye thus far,' Luke 22. 51; and to Peter, Matth. 26. 52 'Put up again thy sword into his place; for all they that take the sword, shall perish with the sword.' He speaks there of another sort of defence, more agreeable to the nature of his heavenly kingdom, than the sword of his disciples, which he would have used rather, if it had not been unsuitable to his present condition, and against the fulfillment of the Scripture, v 53-54 'Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then shall the Scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?' There is no need of the sword of the disciples to defend the kingdom of heaven; the armies of angels are more suitable to this kingdom than armies of fighting men." - John Glas, The Works of Mr. John Glas: In Four Volumes, Vol. 1, Pg. 90