Q. 99. What rules are to be observed for the right understanding of the Ten Commandments?A. For the right understanding of the Ten Commandments, these rules are to be observed:
1. That the law is perfect, and bindeth every one to full conformity in the whole man unto the righteousness thereof, and unto entire obedience forever; so as to require the utmost perfection of every duty, and to forbid the least degree of every sin.
2. That it is spiritual, and so reacheth the understanding, will, affections, and all other powers of the soul; as well as words, works, and gestures.
3. That one and the same thing, in divers respects, is required or forbidden in several commandments.
4. That as, where a duty is commanded, the contrary sin is forbidden; and, where a sin is forbidden, the contrary duty is commanded: so, where a promise is annexed, the contrary threatening is included; and, where a threatening is annexed, the contrary promise is included.
5. That what God forbids, is at no time to be done; what he commands, is always our duty; and yet every particular duty is not to be done at all times.
6. That under one sin or duty, all of the same kind are forbidden or commanded; together with all the causes, means, occasions, and appearances thereof, and provocations thereunto.
7. That what is forbidden or commanded to ourselves, we are bound, according to our places, to endeavor that it may be avoided or performed by others, according to the duty of their places.
8. That in what is commanded to others, we are bound, according to our places and callings, to be helpful to them; and to take heed of partaking with others in what is forbidden them.
Our conviction is that the Westminster standards stand amongst the greatest confessional documents of all time. As specimens of biblical inquiry and analysis, they stand--as documents of history--alongside the first four ecumenical councils.
Hereon, we shall attempt to assay them in light of the other grand confessions of that great recovery of the Catholic Church from the tyranny and thraldom of Western Romanism during the Reformation. We will suggest that they point anew (really, old) to ways towards freedom from doctrinal unionism (ACNA, ECT), accomodationism and indifferentism in our time, e.g. Dr. James I. Packer and the ECT.
We briely turn to the subject of “law.”
The Westminster Confession decisively says that salvation is through Christ alone, apart from any works-righteousness attempted by a person...or by cooperative efforts with Holy Spirit by way of infusa gratia or prevenient grace. To make such an attempt is to disrespect the Holy Spirit and Christ. Such a view fails to understand Christ's decisive, final and abiding work at the "Altar of the Cross," or the work of the Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world. This is why works-righteousness by Romanism eviscerates and denies Nicaean Christology.
Further, the recent claims of Rome that an honest broker, doing his best, e.g. a honest Muslim, may attain salvation by obedience to the light of nature. This will not fly with the Westminsterians.
Doctrinal relativism—or ecclesiastical convenientism for Rome's agenda—is not an option.
Repentance unto life involves knowledge, sense, and contrition based upon law-standards, apprehending the mercy of God in Christ and fullness of salvation through Christ alone, evinced by a full turning and endeavour after a new obedience. The law of God has a salutary role in convincing the sinner of his need for Christ.
Hence, the widespread ignorance of the law of God in the West, documented in various polls, is telling. The clergy are complicit with this.
The instruction on prayer in the Bible precludes the invocation of saints, as practiced in Orthodoxy, Romanism, and substantial tracts of Anglicanism. We see here an unwillingness to be taught by the thousands of years of biblical writing.
Law, as a subject, governs human sexuality, including marriage. These new-fangled, mangled, Manglicans are "rediscovering" this.
On that subject, at the time of the Reformation, marriages were forbidden to the clergy. The Augsburg Confession clearly—with biblical support—repudiates the notion of non-marriage for the clergy. Regrettably, Erastian England was unable to get this cleared up in the XXXIX Articles. Poor Elizabeth 1 never got outside her prejudices on this and Archbishop Parker felt her whip on the matter. Our salute to the Lutheran brethren on this; the Anglicans get no salute on this; governments declared theology rather than the Bible. By the time the Westminster Standards were written, this was a non-issue in England.
The Westminster Larger Catechism has a deeply thought-out section of the law, questions and answers 91 to 152. They are priceless. It is regrettable that Anglicanism did not embrace these standards; we believe it is time for them to “start thinking,” something they pride themselves on, but something they have done little about since 1647. I am sorry, but Laud, Andrewes, Donne and Cosin did not rise to the level of this conciliar effort of depth.
We get some glimpses of the Law in the XXXIX Articles, but nothing like the glorious Westminster standards. We hear of the abrogated law of Moses with an emphatically clear statement that no Christian man (and, by implication, non-Christian man) is free from the law (Article VII). Antinomianism is off limits. Some Anabaptists, like some Baptists today, are in view.
In Anglicanism, the Ten Commandments are required during the service of Holy Communion in the 1662, but the de-emphasis on sin was seen in the truncated version of the 1928 Book of Common Prayer. It is to be remember that Dix (no friend of the Reformation) in his The Shape of Liturgy observed that the 1662 BCP was the finest piece of liturgical craftmanship enshrining the doctrine of justification by faith alone. To understand this, one must have rock-solid views about the law.
In Article IX, there is no room for Pelagianism or semi-Pelagianism. No natural man “is subject to the law of God.” (Rom.8.7) Non posse non peccare. It is not possible to not sin. The monergist, Calvinistic as well as Lutheran, views of salvation are thoroughly Augustinian at this point in Article IX. Wesleyan Arminianism will not fly by comparison to the writings of the English Reformers. A man or woman is saved by Christ only, not law-obedience (Article XVIII), nor by a meritorious turning in faith and repentance (Arminianism). Article XI points to justification by faith alone. Modern, western Anglicanism does not even come close.
The famous Law/Gospel distinction and necessity for the proclamation of both is evinced in the Lutheran standards. The Augsburg speaks of obedience to the civil authorities. Also, it is lawful for clergy to marry and to break “unbiblical” oaths taken by monks and nuns.
We hope in the future to include thoughts from the Small and Large Catechisms of Luther. We will, God willing, widen this out to include the Heidelberg Catechism also.
For the present, suffice it to say that the Law of God, as a diagnostic tool of man’s depravity was required preaching for the Presbyterians, Lutherans, and Anglicans.
No comments:
Post a Comment