The Proper Place Of The Law

I stated that the law is strict in its requirements but the man with all virtue will have no complaint in keeping it. We know this from the words of Jesus whom fulfilled all the law, for He said

Mat 11:28 Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
Mat 11:29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.
Mat 11:30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.

Christ also stated He did not come to do away with the law, but to fulfil it. If we have commandments to show us that there are virtues in God which we do not have the benefit of having: that God may take a statement that it is impossible for us to perfect, and do so in a positive way then we have a place for the law still.

For if His laws are there to limit our imperfections from over-ruling those virtues which are in us, we not only have to keep the commandment from the simplicity of L(G), but we must do so in light of the virtues we have (already) to give us discernment to choose between right and wrong not apart from the law, but in keeping with it.

That may seem like a rather broad statement, but we should assume that there are at least two types of commandment:

A) Those that exist merely for the separation of God's believers from those of any other "potential god".

B) Those that exist to limit our imperfections that would let us take that which may be virtuous only for God in order to extend it in such a way that is become "evil" by us.

We could also introduce a third kind:

C) L(G) implies "because I said so".

Whereas we could place (C) into class (A) or class (B). We will simply limit ourselves to A and B for now.

Class (A) is virtuous because it aligns the believer in his conceiving of God to reciprocate to God's required expectation of His self, (or "being") G~x. Class (B) is not virtuous, but to a man with virtue such a commandment will be natural.

How have we arived at this seeming contradiction? If (B) is such that it restricts a man to keep intact a set of virtues to which we were purposely formed; then if we have the commandment because some virtue is not or cannot be present in us, does the law impart that virtue to the man if he were to keep the letter of the commandment? I would state, no, it does not impart any such virtue.

The law is there in the case that it is broken by the loss of virtue: And then the law points us towards He who is with all virtue, that is, Christ.

The fact that the law assumes there is a lack of virtue does not surprise: For if any virtue were unattainable we would place a commandment against its exercise in category (C) exclusively, rather than in (A) or (B).

Class (B) are those commandments that restrict the set of virtues (every positive property that is perfectable) found in God to some subset containing those virtues which we were created to display: Limited to some subset which can not and does not entail the privation of any virtues found in Christ. Neither can the law condemn Christ for being virtuous: So are the commandments virtuous themselves? I say again "no", since they would restrict virtues in God: So they can not be virtues, having privated positive properties: (But not in the example of Christ as HG(G) fulfilling the law.)

With the statement that the redemption of an individual is equal to his faults becoming inconsistent upon the necessity of salvation by God, we showed that either" f&¬f" or "God is inconsistent". We would argue that salvation is also a virtue - one that solely rests in God. If the faults under the law are become contingent on election, then the place of the law is not outside of grace, but under it.

We could restate (A) as (A1) - all those believers that hold fast to L(G) and also (B) to (B1) - "emulate HG(G)" in very situation.

Then (B1) is become a statement of virtue, and (A1) a statement of faith. The requirements of virtue and law are translated from (A)=>(B1) and (B)=>(A1). In effect the "world has been turned upside down".

The world, now under grace rather than the strictness and severity of the OT commandments has ensured that the election to salvation is no less demanding of obedience, but is more fruitful.

Therefore the law has its proper place - that under grace a man will be "made perfect" with virtue first, and the letter of the law follows after: Whereas before the translation of the terms above was in effect we have that virtue was irrelevent to the commandment, but that a man who does those things in the law (those with virtue) will live by them (without condemnation.)

We are still men then, but God has realised His promise to save His elect. (His people Israel.)

Continue To Next Page

Return To Section Start

Return To Previous Page