How is the natural or moral law not the two laws Jesus mentioned in Matthew 22:36-40?

[5Solas5Points]

I understand the reformed position is the ten commandments are the moral law written on the heart prior to the giving of the law but at a more basic and fundamental level doesn't it all boil down to love God and love neighbor? How would this not be the law written on the heart since Jesus clearly says everything else flows from these two? The ten commandments are the natural outworking of these two commandments but I still see at a more fundamental level it's these two. Also, I don't see how the Sabbath is part of the natural law since it's a positive law? I'm open to correction on this I just see those two being the moral law written on the heart and the ten are the outworking of those two.

 

[RamistThomist]

Jesus' command is a sum of the ten commandments, which itself is a summary of the moral law.

 

[5Solas5Points]

Jesus' command is a sum of the ten commandments, which itself is a summary of the moral law.

That's begging the question. Why would God write ten commandments when if He wrote the two it would cover the ten and every other law. Paul says in Romans 13 that every command is fulfilled by loving your neighbor so if God wrote that it would cover not only the the laws in the ten but any other law

 

[Polanus1561]

That's begging the question. Why would God write ten commandments when if He wrote the two it would cover the ten and every other law. Paul says in Romans 13 that every command is fulfilled by loving your neighbor so if God wrote that it would cover not only the the laws in the ten but any other law

The law to covet must be fleshed out Rom 7:7. The Ten Commandments also provides clearer testimony in condemnation.

 

[Request-Deleted member 11775]

If the 10 commandments can be distinguished into two tables, the first summarising our duty towards God, and the second our duty towards man, why should not the Ten Commandments, which summarily comprehend the whole of the moral law not be able to be further summarised into two laws which summarily comprehend each table? The larger catechism is helpful on this.

The law is spiritual, reaching to the thoughts and inclinations as well as to words and deeds, and has a great breadth, “thy law is exceeding broad”. Samuel Bolton on the True Bounds of Christian Freedom is excellent and very readable when it comes to the law of God and bringing together all of Scripture’s teaching on the subject.

The 4th commandment is partly moral and partly positive, which is why the particular day of the week, being based purely in Gods will, could be changed from the 7th to the 1st upon the resurrection of Christ. For further explanation of this, I’ve found Boston or Vincent or Fisher on the Shorter Catechism helpful.

 

[5Solas5Points]

The law to covet must be fleshed out Rom 7:7. The Ten Commandments also provides clearer testimony in condemnation.

If Paul wouldn't have known what it was to covet if the law hadn't said it how was the law not to covet written on his heart?

 

[5Solas5Points]

If the 10 commandments can be distinguished into two tables, the first summarising our duty towards God, and the second our duty towards man, why should not the Ten Commandments, which summarily comprehend the whole of the moral law not be able to be further summarised into two laws which summarily comprehend each table?

The law is spiritual, reaching to the thoughts and inclinations as well as to words and deeds, and has a great breadth, “thy law is exceeding broad”. Samuel Bolton on the True Bounds of Christian Freedom is excellent and very readable when it comes to the law of God and bringing together all of Scripture’s teaching on the subject.

The 4th commandment is partly moral and partly positive, which is why the particular day of the week, being based purely in Gods will, could be changed from the 7th to the 1st upon the resurrection of Christ. For further explanation of this, I’ve found Boston or Vincent or Fisher on the Shorter Catechism helpful.

Thanks. And I'm not being argumentative. I just really don't understand this so I'm trying to pushback to get my questions answered. I'm Romans 7:7 how could the law have been written on Paul's heart if he says he wouldn't have known it apart from special revelation?

 

[Request-Deleted member 11775]

Thanks. And I'm not being argumentative. I just really don't understand this so I'm trying to pushback to get my questions answered. I'm Romans 7:7 how could the law have been written on Paul's heart if he says he wouldn't have known it apart from special revelation?

You’re welcome. Matthew Poole points out in his commentary on Romans 7 how the heathen themselves knew that the lusts that are willingly nurtured in the heart were wicked, so it was known without special revelation. What exactly the apostle is getting at there is not that it was altogether and entirely unknown without special revelation.

However, due to the effects of the fall, man’s understanding became darkened, his affections disordered, his will disposed only towards evil, his conscience defiled and his memory degenerated. The giving of the law by special revelation after the fall served several purposes, including restraining of sin and convincing of sin, and Bolton highlights seven of these purpose, from which here follows a brief quotation:

“To restrain transgression; to set bounds and banks to the cursed nature of fallen man, not only by revealing sin, but also the wrath of God against sin: ‘tribulation and anguish to every soul of man that doeth evil’ (Rom. 2. 8-9). We read in Gal. 3. 19 that ‘the law was added because of transgressions’. This Scripture Jerome and Chrysostom understand to refer to the restraining of transgressions. The law may restrain sinners, though it cannot renew sinners; it may hold in and bridle sin, though it cannot heal and cure it. Before God gave the law, sin had a more perfect reign. By reason of the darkness of men’s understandings, and the security of their hearts (Rom. 5. 13-14), death reigned, and so sin, from Adam to Moses, as the apostle shows. Therefore God might give them the law to show them, not only that they sinned in such courses as they walked in, but to show them also that heavy wrath of God which they drew upon themselves by their sin, the effect of which might be to restrain them in their course of sin, and to hinder sin so that it could not now have so complete and uncontrolled a dominion and reign in the soul. Though it continued to reign - for restraining grace does not conquer sin, though it suppresses and keeps it down - yet it could not have full dominion. The sinners would be in fear, and that would serve to restrain them in their ways of sin, though not to renew them.”

You can find the full section here in ch. 3 Law and Grace:

The True Bounds of Christian Freedom (eBook) | Monergism

by Samuel Boltonin ePub, .mobi & .pdf formatsThe True Bounds of Christian Freedom is a biblical exposition of the place of the law in the life of the

www.monergism.com

 

[RamistThomist]

That's begging the question. Why would God write ten commandments when if He wrote the two it would cover the ten and every other law. Paul says in Romans 13 that every command is fulfilled by loving your neighbor so if God wrote that it would cover not only the the laws in the ten but any other law

For the sake of brevity I was merely alluding to the Shorter Catechism's discussion.

 

[Polanus1561]

If Paul wouldn't have known what it was to covet if the law hadn't said it how was the law not to covet written on his heart?

There is a difference between the law in the conscience and the clear 10 commandments. One is easier to suppress than the other, One is your inner voice and the other is the clear written law. You can sear the conscience but the written law remains written. The commandments also come as a divine command from the Lawmaker who historically spoke at Sinai. So in the law you had a particularized written commandment from God which clearly labels this as sin. It reveals the objective sinful workings of the inner life that conscience cannot be guaranteed to reveal.

 

[RamistThomist]

I'm Romans 7:7 how could the law have been written on Paul's heart if he says he wouldn't have known it apart from special revelation

It got "activated," so to speak. God's law is certainly written on my heart, but I am not thinking about each particular at all moments. Special revelation brought it to his consciousness.

 

[MyCrows]

Thanks. And I'm not being argumentative. I just really don't understand this so I'm trying to pushback to get my questions answered. I'm Romans 7:7 how could the law have been written on Paul's heart if he says he wouldn't have known it apart from special revelation?

I think Paul might have had a higher estimation of his own performance in regards to the law, before he truly realized the scope of the law, as it rightly applies.

Perhaps when Paul understood the heart-reaching application of the law not to covet, and not just the surface reading, his understanding of what it meant not to covet was shattered.

1. Paul knew in his heart it was wrong to covet.

2. Paul thought he could obey the command not to covet on a surface level and still be keeping the law, because he was self-righteous.

3. Through the illuminating and convicting power of the Holy Spirit, God shows Paul that the command not to covet condemns him as he is, because the command not to covet is aimed at the heart.

Thoughts?

 

[5Solas5Points]

You’re welcome. Matthew Poole points out in his commentary on Romans 7 how the heathen themselves knew that the lusts that are willingly nurtured in the heart were wicked, so it was known without special revelation. What exactly the apostle is getting at there is not that it was altogether and entirely unknown without special revelation.

However, due to the effects of the fall, man’s understanding became darkened, his affections disordered, his will disposed only towards evil, his conscience defiled and his memory degenerated. The giving of the law by special revelation after the fall served several purposes, including restraining of sin and convicting of sin, and Bolton highlights seven of these purpose, from which here follows a brief quotation:


You can find the full section here in ch. 3 Law and Grace:

The True Bounds of Christian Freedom (eBook) | Monergism

by Samuel Boltonin ePub, .mobi & .pdf formatsThe True Bounds of Christian Freedom is a biblical exposition of the place of the law in the life of the

www.monergism.com

I just downloaded the book. Looking forward to it. Thanks brother

 

[Alan D. Strange]

Just to keep things clear. God's Word never says that the law is written on the hearts of unbelievers. The law is written on and in the hearts of believers, causing them to delight in it even as it convicts them (the sort of thing to which Paul bears witness in Romans 7:22).

Romans 2:15 says that "the work of the law is written on their hearts," i.e., the hearts of unbelieving Gentiles. Notice that it is not the law directly said to be written on unregenerate hearts. It is "the work of the law," that is, the law in its effects, not the law directly. The effect of the law as described here in Romans 2 is, in its more obvious violations, to render the conscience guilty (with no gospel remedy). It is important to observe and maintain this distinction.

Peace,
Alan