A Critique of John Colquhoun's The Law and The Gospel (Pt.4)

Section 1: The Law as written on the heart of man in God's creation.

Again, I continue my critique of the presupposition of the moral law as written upon the heart of 'every' man. But in this fourth part of my dissection of its presumptive understanding of the law (1Tim.1:5-11), we come to how the Ten Commandments are also styled the moral law as an obligation by the Covenanters of Covenant Theology in this view, confusing natural laws with the moral law. Now, on page 14, where I begin, John's proponents rightly call the sovereignty of God the moral ground as an obligation for obeying the natural law, but they are doing this by using the natural law as interchangeable with the moral law. But the moral ground is the sovereignty of God, which they rightly conclude.

Therefore, by nature, they are not interchangeable because we already established that natural law is changeable, but only the ground upon which they have their authority is not, which is why the moral is in the sovereignty of God, and a moral is unchangeable and incorruptible. We have already established that natural laws can be corrupted. So, this is a reminder that we continue thinking critically about what we are being spoon-fed. So when we read in the book "The obligation of the natural law on mankind, then, as resulting from the nature of God and from the relations between God and man, is such that even God Himself cannot dispense with it," we must remember that they mean the moral law when saying the natural law. So, in this case, that statement is true when we understand that God cannot 'discard' or 'set aside' his moral nature as a moral law (Tit.1:2). But we know God discards natural laws, not His moral laws (Jer.31:31-40; Matt.5:17-20). They correctly teach that "since the authority of the law is divine, the obligation flowing from the law is eternal and immutable," but we should also add unless God creates a law that makes a former law abrogated, which flows out of His unchangeable sovereignty as the moral character and nature of the command, "It is finished" (Heb.7:11-12; Jn.12:50; Rom.3:27-31).

Therefore, we are universally obligated to the law of faith in what Christ has fulfilled. John's proponents rightly conclude that "man has no being, no life, and no activity without God," which is the law of sin and death as the work of the moral law of life in Christ as the last Adam for a second man as the Lord from heaven (Rom.2:11-16; 1Cor.15:45-49). But they undermine this conclusion in the next statement, "As long, therefore, as man continues in existence, he is bound to have no being but for God and no activity but such as is according to His will," and I presume what they mean by "His will" is His revealed will as the moral law, but the law of sin and death (by which the immoral man has his being as a law unto himself) is not merely His revealed will but the will of His sovereign Providence, which is not willed as moral in nature (Rom.6:20-23; 2:14-15).

Therefore, what is called the Ten Commandments cannot represent the nature of grace (2Cor.3:6; Rom.7:10-11). It is, therefore, wrong to presume that the Ten Commandments are equal to the moral law of God's nature according to the economic liberty of Yahweh's original grace of life in the garden of God (Rom.7:13-14). Adam fell upon the moral principle of God's law when he disobeyed the knowledge of God's sovereignty through the tree called the knowledge of good and evil, and therefore, the "work" of the law was created through that moral principle after a new nature of evil that brought in the Ten Commandments (as natural law) in addition to the moral law because of the abounding nature of the evil whereby Adam's posterity came into the world as the immoral principle as a law unto themselves to preserve mercy in those God Providentially chose to save according to the grace of life in the promised seed as the moral principle of life with God in being and truth (Rom.5:20-21; Gal.3:19-25).

Therefore, since God can demand perfect obedience to the law of nature apart from the nature that provides eternal life (Rom.10:2-5), natural law reveals not the moral law of God's character but the inability of the immoral man (Matt.5:20, 48). This is why the nature of grace is required, not just holiness of life (Heb.12:14-17), which natural law cannot provide or reveal in the natural man (1Cor.2:14; Rom.1:18-25), for natural law can only expose the exceeding uncleanness of the spirit of the natural man, which is why under natural law the sinner is dead in trespasses and sins through the first cause and principle of the covenant of sin and death according to God's sovereignty that guards the way to the tree of life in the garden of God (Isa.28:15, 18; Gen.3:24; Eph.2:1-3). Again, this is called the "work" of the moral law (Rom.2:14-15), not the continuation of its nature that increases with the impressing of the natural law upon the heart (Jer.17:1), giving testimony to the law of sin and death written upon the soul in the growth of its corruption (Rom.7:25-8:2; Mk.12:13-17).

So then again, when Colquhoun's proponents repeat his folly that says, "That the fair copy of the natural law (by which they mean the moral law), which had been transcribed into the nature of the first man in his creation was by the fall 'much' obliterated, and it continues still to be, in a 'great' degree, defaced and even obliterated in the minds of all his unregenerate offspring. And, indeed, if it was not in a 'great' measure obliterated, what need could there be of inscribing it anew on the hearts of the elect (Heb.8:10)?" we find that they are "keeping alive" this notion that the moral image was scarred or "greatly" wounded as opposed to "totally" obliterated in every measure from the image of the natural man whose spiritual likeness changed as a result (1Cor.15:36; Gen.3:21; Rev.13:2-3, 14-15; 2Thess.2:6-12).

We should conclude from the original details of the narrative that the "likeness" was never fully written upon Adam in perfection as the image of God (Gen.1:26-27, 31; 3:22; Ps.82:6-7; Jn.10:34-36; 1Cor.15:36, 43-49). There is a fundamental difference between creating everything "very good" for the good purpose of God's sovereignty over the creation than by creating everything perfect when that purpose is fulfilled (Rom.8:28-30; 1Cor.15:28; Eph.1:23; 4:13; Col.1:28; James 3:2; 1Cor.13:10; Heb.2:10; 5:9). So if Christ had to be "perfected" as a man of the same creation of the original order being without sin and of the very nature of God, very good according to the image of that likeness (in Adam) never meant perfect from the beginning (Heb.4:3-5; Gen.1:26, 31; 2:1-3).  

Lord willing, we will continue this in my next blog article. But until then, may God prosper your soul and body with life and godliness in your pursuit of holiness through the Word of Life, and may the Spirit bear witness with your spirit that you are sons of God and partakers of the divine nature in the light qualified by the Father of lights. Amen.