Dangers of Mixing Law and Grace - 6

 

          One of the major problems within the Christian community today is that it causes unnecessary grief and misunderstanding has come from the likes of men to want to help God.  God doesn't really need our help.  This is especially noticeable by those of us who have strong historical understanding of the Church from those early days. 

          Volumes have been written explaining the teachings of both "Covenant/Reformed" theology and "Dispensationalism".  In this post, I want the reader to understand how it came to pass that "Covenant/Reformed" theology places the believer under the Old Testament Mosaic Law.  In order to understand this development of "Covenant/Reformed" theology, it is necessary to take a look at church history.  I know that this is not the most exciting field to read about but nonetheless it impacts everything you believe about the Christian faith, salvation, the Rapture, eternity, etc. 

          Some "Covenant/Reformed" theologians would have us believe that their belief system was that of the founding fathers of the early church.  They try to make a case that "Dispensationalism" is a mere infant when compared to the grand old scheme of "Covenant/Reformed" theology.  However, the truth of the matter is that systematized "Covenant/Reformed" theology is actually of more recent origin.  Cornelius Van Til, a "Covenant/Reformed" theologian, admits, "The idea of covenant theology has only in modern times been broadly conceived".  Louis Berkhof, another "Covenant/Reformed" theologian, wrote, "In the early Church Fathers the covenant idea is not found at all".  Dr. Charles Ryrie points out:

"It [covenant theology] was not the expressed doctrine of the early church. It was never taught by church leaders in the Middle Ages.  It was not even mentioned by the primary leaders of the Reformation.  Indeed, covenant theology as a system is only a little older than Dispensationalism. That does not mean it is not biblical, but it does dispel the notion that covenant theology has been throughout all church history the ancient guardian of the truth that is only recently being sniped at by Dispensationalism."

"Covenant theology does not appear in the writings of Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, or Melancthon.. There were no references to covenant theology in any of the great confessions of faith until the Westminster Confession of 1647, and even then covenant theology was not as fully developed as it was later by Reformed theologians.  The covenant (or federal) theory arose sporadically and apparently independent late in the 16th century."

          Having said all this, much of the erroneous teachings of "Covenant/Reformed" theology can find its roots centuries earlier.

          For the first three centuries the predominant belief of the early church was that Jesus Christ would literally return to the Earth to reign for a thousand years.  A number of historians have documented this belief of the early church Fathers.  The evidence is indisputable and do not be deceived by the ignorant modern day uneducated.  However, around 170 AD certain factors began to undermine this belief of Christ's literal return to establish a physical earthly kingdom.

          The book of Revelation written by the Apostle John ends with the Lord Jesus Christ declaring, "Behold, I come quickly" -(Revelation 20:20).  About a hundred years had passed and this promise had yet to be fulfilled.  Obviously, something was wrong!  Some of the church leaders in Asia Minor decided to reject the book of Revelation from the Canon of Scripture.  They may have reasoned that this supposed declaration by Jesus must somehow be false.  In actuality there were a number of factors that influenced them in their decision to reject Revelation from the Canon of Scripture:

    ++A certain group of Christians had taken their Premillennial beliefs to an unhealthy extreme.  Therefore anyone who believed that Jesus would return to establish a literal kingdom upon earth was viewed with suspicion.

    ++Many early Christians taught that Christ would soon return and crush the Roman power that was ruling the empire.  Some of the leaders of the early church felt that it would be better to sacrifice their Premillennial belief rather than face more intense persecution.

    ++There was also a strong anti-Semitic spirit in the Eastern Church.  The thought of Christ regathering Israel to their land was an abomination to them.

    ++A new method of Biblical interpretation known as Alexandrian school of theology greatly changed the view of Scripture.  Origen (185-254 AD) and other scholars in Alexandria developed a system of Biblical interpretation based on the use of the “allegory”.  Origen and his contemporaries were greatly influenced by pagan Greek philosophy, something that I have mentioned in other posts on Supersessionism or "Replacement" theology and also in "Pre-Tribulation Truth".  They tried to integrate this into their theology. 

          According to Greek philosophy all physical matter was inherently evil.  Therefore the idea of a literal earthly millennium with physical blessings could only be erroneous in their way of thinking.  This allegorical or "spiritualizing" method of interpretation allowed these theologians to read almost any meaning they desired into the Bible.  Thus they were able to do away with a literal return of Christ Jesus to establishing a physical earthly millennial kingdom.  “Amillennialism” (no millennium) gained ground within the Church and eventually dominated the discourse of Bible understanding.

          All of these factors set the stage for the rejection of Premillennialism.  In the early days of his Christian faith Augustine (354-450 AD) was Premillennial.  In my series "Pre-Tribulation Truth" I have noted this fact and how Augustine changed this belief of the entire church for fifteen hundred years.  Augustine came to the point of abandoning the idea of a literal return of the Lord to establish a physical kingdom on Earth.  He used this new allegorical method of interpretation to explain away the literal return of Christ and Amillennialism was birthed.  In his book, 'The City of God', Augustine taught that the Universal Church is the Messianic Kingdom and that the millennium began with Christ's first coming.  This we know was wrong but he was a powerful voice. 

          When the church lost the hope of the imminent return of Christ Jesus it plunged literally headlong into the dark ages.  The seeds of false interpretation bore the fruit giving rise to Roman Catholicism and a "works-based" religion.  Augustine's Amillennial (no millennium) teaching continued to be the standard, unchallenged, view of organized Christendom until the 17th century.  Occasionally throughout nearly 1,500 years, Premillennial groups challenged that doctrine throughout the dark ages, but they were a small voice compared to the powerful Roman Catholic Institution.  Rome snuffed out virtually any voice that surfaced claiming the physical return of Christ Jesus and the idea of a 1,000 year reign. 

          On October 31, 1517 Martin Luther nailed his Ninety-Five Theses on the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg, Germany.  One of the primary factors that caused him to break away from the Roman Catholic Institution was his understanding of "Sole Fide" - the doctrine that man is justified by faith alone without works.  Through Luther and the reformers, God restored the doctrine of Salvation by Grace thru Faith back to His true church.  The reformers understood Grace in regard to salvation, but for Christians living they fell into the Galatian Church error of "Works-Righteousness".  They knew that they couldn't keep the law in order to gain salvation, but the Law became the rule for living the Christian life.  Little did they realize that sanctification is also by Grace.

          When the reformers broke away from the Roman Catholic Institution, they carried a lot of baggage with them, which was never addressed at the time or following during the early decades of the Reformation.  Amillennialism was one such fetter that kept the church in bondage to the Law.  Even today, the institutional denominational church keeps its adherents in confusion over the Law/Grace bifurcation.  It operates as leverage over the individual church members.  The hierarchy fears the laity waking up to the truth on this issue.  It maintains a state of fear among serious church members, never really sure that they are not breaking the Law. 

          You are probably wondering how does a doctrine about the "end times" affect the teaching of Law and Grace, and that would be a fair question, and one that becomes a dilemma for most Catholics and most Protestants as well.  Augustine was over a barrel so to speak.  Augustine became the father of “Replacement” theology.  It had been years since the Lord Jesus Christ had said, "Behold, I come quickly".  By doing away with the literal return of Jesus Christ for His church, Augustine no doubt felt that he was helping God out.  After all, if there was no literal return of Christ Jesus and no literal millennium, then Christ could be reigning over His spiritual kingdom up in heaven.  The literal promises given to Israel in the Old Testament could be "spiritually" applied to the church.  However, applying those promises came at a tremendously high cost.  Attached to the promises given to Israel was also the Old Testament Law.   If the church is "spiritual Israel" then she must also keep the Law - if not for salvation, then at least for Christian living.

          As I stated at the beginning, anytime man decides to help God out, he just makes trouble for himself and others.  A good illustration of this is found in the account of Chronicles.  When King David decided to bring the Ark of the Covenant back to Jerusalem he put it on an ox-drawn cart.  But in the law God specifically told Israel that priests were to carry the ark on poles.  In 1st Chronicles 13:9-10 we read, "And when they came unto the threshing floor of Chidon, Uzza put forth his hand to hold the ark, for the oxen stumbled.  And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Uzza, and he smote him, because he put his hand to the Ark: and there he died before God".  Uzza paid dearly for trying to help God out.  His intentions may have been good, but the results of his efforts were devastating.

          Proverbs gives us some very sobering advice about tampering with the Word of God:  "Add thou not unto his words, let he testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and [from] the things which are written in this book -[Revelation 22:18-19]". 

          In all of these warnings, nothing is said about those who would distort God's Word through allegorical interpretation.  Augustine's intentions may have been noble when he tried to help God out.  He may have felt that Amillennialism could help to explain Jesus' statement in Revelation about His soon return, but the results of Augustine's efforts were devastating to the faith, and has led to over 1,500 years of confusion within the body of the Church, through division and fragmenting beliefs.

          Throughout the Old Testament many so-called religious leaders opposed God's true prophets.  Jeremiah predicted Judah's demise if she kept rebelling against the Lord.  The religious elite of the day claimed that he was a traitor.  They threw him into a cistern and left him there to die.  False prophets opposed Jeremiah's predictions and the result was the Babylonian captivity.  These false prophets didn't learn anything from this captivity.  They continued to tamper with God's Word which ultimately resulted in 400 years of silence - the Old Testament equivalent of the dark ages.

          I am not equating Augustine with the false prophets of Jeremiah's day; however, those false prophets knowingly distorted and opposed God's Word.  Did Augustine intentionally think or try to distort God's Word?  No one can say for certainty.  Chances are his intentions were noble.  But Augustine lived in the dispensation of Grace.  He did not pay for his noble attempts with loss of life.  Nevertheless, the church has paid dearly for Augustine's attempt to steady the solid foundation of Scripture.  Just as Israel received her just rewards - 400 years of silence - so too the church plunged head-long into the dark ages following Augustine's misguided efforts to render Scriptural understanding through errant Amillennialism. 

          Israel's 400 silent years ended with bright hope of the birth of the Messiah and the promised Messianic Kingdom.  But that hope soon dwindled with Israel's rejection of the Messiah.  Jesus even noted such that if they had only recognized the day of their redemption.  The promise of the Messianic Kingdom was put on hold until Israel would be ready to accept her Messiah.

          So too, the dark ages ended with the bright hope of the Reformation, and the rediscovered truth of salvation by Grace through faith.  But the bright hope was tarnished by the snares of legalism that kept that kept the reformers in bondage.  When Martin Luther stepped away from the Roman Catholic Institution he dragged with him the ball and chain of Amillennialism's Law-based teachings.  The Lutheran, Reformed, and Anglican reformers rejected Pre-Millennialism as being merely "Jewish opinions".  They continued to maintain the Amillennial view which the Roman Catholic Institution had adopted from Augustine. 

          Scholar J.B. Stoney notes that:  "In the Reformation there was, through Grace, a great deliverance.  The ground-work of Christianity was reconciled namely, justification by faith.  But though this recovered, it was not maintained that the old man was crucified on the Cross, and hence they only refused the exaction of popery, but considered the flesh as still before God.  Refusing the exaction was right; but the retention of that on which the exaction could be made, the old man, was and is the weakness of the Reformation".

          Dr. William R. Newell pretty-well sums it up when he wrote:  "Almost all the theology of the various 'creeds by Christendom' date back to the Reformation, which went triumphantly to the end of Romans 5, and so far as theological development or presentation of truth was concerned, stopped there."   He was saying the church's growth and understanding of the Biblical message was stunted at the point of Romans 5.

          The Reformation brought back the truth of salvation by Grace, but reverted to the Law for living the Christian life.  This Law-Grace paradox continued to plague the church until John Nelson Darby and his contemporaries came on the scene in the early 1800's.  Darby adopted the literal, historical-grammatical method of Bible interpretation and systematized Dispensationalism.  As Darby studied God's Word in this light, the distinction between Israel and the church seemed to leap off the pages of Scripture before his eyes.  He and his contemporaries took the truth of Dispensationalism and put them into a more systematized form.  God used this to restore to the church not only the imminent, Pre-Millennial return of Christ Jesus, but also the teachings of Grace for living the Christian life.

          During the time period between Luther and Darby, "Covenant/Reformed" theology came into being.  Unfortunately, it reflected the "Law-based" doctrine of what we call Amillennialism.  "Covenant/Reformed" theology was introduced to America primarily through the Puritans.  Dispensational theology came to America primarily through Brethren teachers such as Darby and his contemporaries. 

          Folks who denigrate Darby and try to pin the Rapture doctrine on him and Margaret MacDonald are totally ignorant of church history.  They have never read the writings of the struggle the church was going through.  By that, they simply parrot statements by their mind-controlled Law-observant leaders.  They have not studied church history, nor do they understand the dynamics of how people came to their own understanding, for good or bad, of Scripture. 

          They have been deceived, misled, and are simply misguided people who propagate a theological position that is neither Biblical nor is it consistent with their own premises.  They continually deny there is one verse of Scripture that supports the Pre-Tribulation Rapture, when in fact they ignore the hundreds of bits of evidence that the Rapture cannot take place at any other way than Pre-Tribulational.  They cannot honestly face the writings of the Apostle Paul who was first given the doctrine teaching on the Pre-Tribulational Rapture. They persist in the anti-Semitic view that God replaced Israel with the church because they believe that God was through with Israel in His master plan of human redemption. 

          That fact is a stated fact in Paul's epistle to the Romans, specifically through chapters 9, 10, and 11 of Romans.  The facts are all inter-connected as part of God's larger plan.  One would have to be a moron (an IQ of 50-69) or a fool or both to reject the message of Romans 9, 10, and 11.  Unfortunately, pride becomes a stumbling block to the arrogant and stubborn, failing to acknowledge they really do know so little about what they pontificate on.  Some of them read my posts, and yet they continue to defy the evidence and rely on the Hitlerian approach to sell their lies and deceptions, yell their lies over and over, like the Energizer Bunny drum beat. 

          Dr. Renald Showers defines Covenant Theology "as a system... which attempts to develop the Bible's philosophy of history on the basis of two or three covenants.  It represents the whole of Scripture and history as being covered by two or three covenants".  This is an over simplification of the facts, and a dishonest approach to understanding the Bible.  Dr. Ryrie says, "Formal definitions of Covenant theology are not easy to find even in the writings of covenant theologians.  Most of the statements that pass for definitions are in fact descriptions or characterizations of the system.  The article in 'Baker's Dictionary of Theology' comes close to a definition when it says that covenant theology is distinguished by "the place it gives to the covenants" because it "represents the whole of Scripture as being covered by covenants:  (1) the covenant of works, and (2) the covenant of grace".  This is an accurate description of the "Covenant/Reformed" Theology system. 

          "Covenant/Reformed" theology is a system of theology based on the two covenants of works and grace as governing categories for the understanding of the entire Bible.  But as I have stated before, it is an inaccurate rendering of the Biblical Covenants, which number at least eight or nine in number.  Last week I did a post covering the proper delineation of the Biblical Covenants which properly align the Bible.

          In my theological studies of years of academic education, it was this very inconsistent distinction that began to cause my thinking to be challenged.  Having been a student of three "Covenant/Reformed" schools of higher learning, I began to ask how it was possible for the Church to so misrepresent the Bible as a two-covenant system, when in fact we find at least eight or nine covenants defined in the Word of God. 

          You see, in "Covenant/Reformed" theology the covenant of works is said to be an agreement between God and Adam promising life to Adam for perfect obedience and including death as the penalty for failure.  But Adam sinned and thus mankind failed to meet the requirements of the covenant of works. Therefore, a second covenant, the covenant of grace, was brought into operation.  Louis Berkhof defines it as "that gracious agreement between the offended God and the offending but promising a life of faith and obedience".  This is an over-simplification of the Bible's structural division into Old and New Testaments.

          Some Reformed theologians have recently gone so far as to introduce a third covenant, the "covenant of redemption".  It was made in eternity past and became the basis for the covenant of grace, just described, between God and the elect.  This covenant of redemption is supposed to be "the agreement between the Father, giving the Son as Head and Redeemer of the elect, and the Son, voluntarily taking the place of those whom the Father had given him".  These two or three covenants become the core and bases of operation for covenant theology in its interpretation of the Scriptures.

          Without trying to explain all the details of "Covenant/Reformed" theology I will simply say that it has many problems:

    ++It begins by assuming two (or three) covenants that are never mentioned in Scripture.  Get that fact clear, these assumed covenants of the "Covenant/Reformed" theological world are never mentioned as covenants in the Bible.  I will address this error of "Covenant/Reform" in part 7 and 8 of this series.

    ++It tries to unify Scripture by saying that Biblical distinctions are merely different phases of the same Covenant of Grace.  For example, Berkoff insists that the Mosaic Covenant is essentially the same as the Abrahamic Covenant.  And yet, the apostle Paul asserts the distinctiveness of those two covenants in Galatians 3:18.  Even a cursory reading of these two covenants reveals that the Abrahamic Covenant was unconditional whereas the Mosaic Covenant had many conditions attached.

    ++It denies the distinctiveness of the gospel of Grace and the Gospel of the Kingdom. 

    ++It denies the distinction between Israel and the Church.

    ++It uses a double standard with regard to interpretation of Scripture.  Covenant theologians use the historical-grammatical method of interpretation, except for the passages concerning future events.  When dealing with passages regarding the future of Israel or the kingdom of God they revert to Augustine's allegorical and spiritualizing method of interpretation.

    ++Finally, it places the believer under the Law.

          This last point, in my opinion is probably the most devastating blow against Christian doctrine and practice.  The Galatian error of Law and works has plagued the church from its very beginning.  "Covenant/Reformed" Theology has only served to promote this error. 

          Previously, I noted that the Westminster Confession and the Puritans were two of the primary tools that advanced "Covenant/Reformed" Theology.  If you will bear with me just a bit longer, I would like to point out what one Puritan theologian had to say with regard to the Westminster Confession.  Dr. R.L. Dabney (1820-1898), a well-known Southern Presbyterian [Covenant] theologian, brought out the difference between the Puritan's Westminster Standards, and the Grace-stand of Luther and Calvin.  He wrote, "The cause of this error [the teaching of assurance of salvation] is no doubt that doctrine concerning faith which the first Reformers, as Luther and Calvin, were led to adopt from their opposition to the hateful and tyrannical teachings of Rome.  These noble Reformers....asserted that the assurance of hope is of the essence of saving faith.  Thus says Calvin in his Commentary on Romans, "My faith is a divine and scriptural belief that God has pardoned me and accepted me."

"Calvin requires everyone to say, in substance, I believe fully that Christ has saved me.  Amidst all Calvin's verbal variations, this is always his meaning; which the Reformed churches, led by the Westminster Confession of Faith, have since corrected.  -(Discussions of Robert L. Dabney, Vol. 1, pp. 215-16).

          According to Reformed, Puritan, Covenant theology the idea of telling believers that they can know for sure they are saved is a grievous error.  The covenant view of assurance is diametrically opposed to what Luther and Calvin taught.  Can you know for sure that you are saved?  Not according to Dabney, and his Covenant/Reformed friends.  The end result is a gospel of works with NO assurance of salvation.

          Yes, doctrine in one area will surely affect doctrine in all other areas.  When you start co-mingling and mixing Israel and the Church you open yourself up to all kinds of errors, conflict, and confusion.  On the surface it might not seem like one's view of future events is important, but when you see the trouble it leads to, I'm inclined to think that it behooves us to avoid the "slough of covenant despondency!"

          I am about to the close off the points I want to share and at this point I turn to the matter of Dispensational Theology and the Law.  The traditional view of Dispensational Theology kept Israel separate from the Church.  It kept the Law separate from Grace. Yet, in recent years that distinction has become blurred.  Small cracks were seen in the Dispensational dike about 40 years ago.  Walter C. Kaiser Jr., a non-dispensational theologian observed: 

"Somewhere in the decade of the 1960's, one of the most significant developments in dispensationalism took place.  It happened so quickly, but so swiftly, that it is difficult to document, even to this day.  This is what changed the whole course of dispensationalism: the view that there were two new covenants, one for Israel and one for the Church, was decisively dropped.  The implications of such a move are enormous, as the events that followed duly testified.

The new covenant was made with "the house of Israel and the house of Judah," yet the Church was obviously enjoying the benefits of this same covenant.  They drank the symbolic "blood of the covenant" in the Lord's Supper, and they had "ministers of the new covenant".

But when Israel and the church were viewed as sharing one and the same covenant, the possibilities for major rapprochement between covenant theology and dispensationalism became immediately obvious.  Moreover, that one factor ended the major roadblock in a key hermeneutical rule that dispensationalism had repeatedly stressed in the past: keep Israel's mail separate from the mail that was written to the church.  Thus, 2nd Chronicles 7:14 ("If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves..."), for example, did not need to be restricted, as had been taught, solely to Israel but could now be addressed to the whole church.  On the same basis, the Sermon on the Mount was released from its future kingdom setting for use by the whole body of Christ now."

          Today those cracks have turned into a virtual flood as a new brand of dispensational theology has come on the scene in the past forty years.  Progressive Dispensationalism (which is really regressive in nature) has continued to blur and confuse these Biblical distinctions even more.  This new brand of dispensationalism is really a compromise effort between dispensational and Covenant/Reformed theology.

          Confusing?  You bet it is now with the likes of Dr. John MacArthur who claims to be a dispensationalist.  He attempts to walk in both camps of the Covenant/Reformed theology and Dispensational theology.  He has not only confused his own faithful followers but he has created a firestorm in the Dispensational camp.  I will explain:  Dr. John MacArthur states as follows:

"Dispensationalism is a fundamentally correct system of understanding God's program through the ages.  Its chief element is a recognition that God's plan for Israel is not superseded by or swallowed up in His program for the church... And in that regard, I consider myself a traditional premillennial dispensationalist." 

But on the other hand he states:

"There is a tendency, however, for dispensationalists to get carried away with compartmentalizing truth to the point that they can make unbiblical distinctions.  An almost obsessive desire to categorize everything neatly has led to dispensationalist interpreters to hard line not only between the church and Israel, but also between salvation and discipleship, the church and the kingdom, Christ's preaching and the apostolic message, faith and repentance, and the age of law and the age of grace.  The age of law/age of grace division is particular has wreaked havoc on dispensational theology and contributed to confusion about the doctrine of salvation."

          It's no wonder that Dr. MacArthur advocates the Works oriented gospel known as Lordship-Salvation.  He refuses to recognize the difference between the gospel of the kingdom and the gospel of grace.  He blurs the distinctions between Israel and the Church... between Law and Grace... between discipleship and salvation.  As you read through the writings of Dr. MacArthur, you will see that the majority of authors he quotes are Puritans and Covenant/Reformed theologians. 

          His theology has definitely been tainted by the Law.  I have hundreds of Dr. MacArthur's sermons and it wasn't until a few years ago that I took time to analyze his remarks.  It struck me early on as I listened closer to what he was saying and begin to see the confusion he was spreading to his radio audiences.  In years past, I held Dr. John MacArthur in high esteem; however, it becomes easy to be misled even by someone of his reputation and scholarship.  That was most recently revealed when he made the statement that a Christian could take the "Mark" of the Beast and still be saved.  That created one of the most controversial statements when held against the Biblical text, which states if one took the "Mark" of the Beast they would be deemed to Hell.  Revelation 13:7; 14:11; 15:2; 16:2; 19:20; and 20:4 does not teach that lesson!

          There are numerous doctrines and practices that are eroding the foundation of Dispensational theology.  Men such as Dr. John MacArthur and Dr. Charles Stanley would lead us to believe that as Christians we have no sin nature.  They tell us that our problem lies in the fact we simply have residual bad habits that are left over from when we were sinners.  By ignoring the sin nature in us, they are merely putting a "Band-Aid" over the real problem.  They deal with symptoms and not the cause.  They would try to utilize the Law in order to keep the flesh under control.  They resort to the world's system of "behavior modification" to deal with a spiritual problem.  Theological seminaries have been for decades doing this by the introduction of psychology as a substitute for Biblical principles and doctrtine.  It is to be modern by their perspective.  I know this as I have had to endure countless courses required in each of my three seminary degrees: M.Div., M.S. in Church History/Theology; and a M.A. in Apologetics.

          Theologians like MacArthur and Stanley leave Christians wallowing in Romans 7 with NO HOPE of reaching Romans 8.  Dr. MacArthur and Dr. Stanley have followed the slippery path right behind their so-called progressive friends and the myriad of others who would mix Law with Grace.  This is even further diluted by Dr. Stanley's son Andy.  His writings sound like they were written by a New Age guru. 

          I have attempted to show the pitfalls and dangers of embracing a Law-tainted doctrine.  Yet, even those of us who promote the teachings of Grace have a morbid propensity to slip back into the Law in our own Christian life.  For instance, when we receive a material blessing and begin to wonder what we did to deserve it.  Or when something bad happens to us we immediately wonder what evil we did to deserve it.  We naturally think that somehow we must merit God's blessings.  Or we think that our failures result in demerits in the eyes of God.  This type of mentality comes from the Law and not from Grace. 

          The way we treat each other also reveals our failure to understand and appropriate Grace.  Sometimes we feel that we should give Grace where Grace is due.  But Grace that is deserved is not Grace - it's merit.  All I can say in closing is it's a good thing that God doesn't just give us Grace when we deserve it.  We would be in a heap of trouble if that were the case!

          When bank tellers are taught to tell counterfeit money from the real they are given genuine currency to handle.  By knowing the real, they will be instantly able to recognize the counterfeit.  Only a solid understanding of Grace will keep us from being ensnared in the tangled web of Law-based Covenant/Reformed theology.

          I hope this has blessed your understanding the dangers of co-mingling Law with Grace.

Blessings from our Lord of Grace, Jesus Christ,

Pastor Bob