Sproul: We make distinctions among the ceremonial law, the dietary
law, the civil law, the moral law.
To the Jew, every law commanded by God in the Old Testament was moral in the sense that
it had moral significance to it.
But we make — it’s a useful distinction to distinguish the moral law from the ceremonial
law because we know that the ceremonial law has been fulfilled in the perfect work of
Christ and we know that the dietary laws have been set apart.
They had a historical significance that differs from the moral law of the Old Testament.
We make a distinction in theology between the natural law of the Old Testament and the
purposive law of the Old Testament.
Now, that’s easy to get confused because we make a distinction also between natural
law and revealed law.
But that’s not the distinction in view here.
The distinction in view here is there are laws that God gives in the Old Testament and
in the New that are an expression of His own character that is immutable.
So that if we set them aside or if He set them aside, He would be doing violence to
His own character.
For example, if God would say now in the new covenant it’s OK to worship idols, God would
be denying His own deity, and supremacy at that point.
But when we talk about purposive laws, we say they are laws of God gave for a specific
historical purpose, preparing the world for the fulfillment of those purposive laws in
the person and work of Christ.
Now, this is a question that I don’t think would be a mistake for us to talk about the
rest of the time here because we are living in a time of — since the Reformation — unprecedented
antinomianism, the idea that the law of God, particularly the moral law of God in the Old
Testament has no relevance whatsoever for the New Testament Christian.
And I remember making a statement years ago of those who say that the moral law of the
Old Testament has no relevance to the New Testament Christian is antinomianism.
I got a letter from a professor at a seminary, he had his PhD in biblical studies and he
said to me why are you calling us antinomians?
We’re not antinomians because we believe in the commandments of Christ.
We don’t believe that the Old Testament law’s relevant to us, but the New Testament
law is.
I said what you are now articulating to me is the classic example and definition of antinomianism,
because what antinomianism refers to is the Old Testament law and its relevance to us
today.
And the Christian ought to be able to say with the psalmist “Oh, how I love your law,”
because, you know, we make a distinction between the Word of God and the law of God, but God’s
Word is His law and His law is His Word.
And that moral law is something that the church needs to hold with great precision and care.
It’s what Luther — I mean, what Calvin called the ‘tertius usus’ or the third
use of the law.
God’s revelation of what is pleasing to Him from His people.
I said at the beginning that I would say yes to all of it, because all — the law has
its other purpose, the purpose of being the mirror that reflects our sinfulness, that
reveals to us those — the holiness of God.
It is the schoolmaster that drives us to Christ.
We recite the Ten Commandments, or part of the Ten Commandments every Sunday at St. Andrews.
We preach the law so that people can be pushed to the gospel.
And not only that, the moral law has the significance of being a restraint to evildoers.
I mean, people don’t always obey the speed limit and maybe if the speed limit’s 55
they’re driving 65, but without that sign it’s 85.
So that the law has a restraining impact of common grace, see even in that, but that’s
all I’m going to say about this.