The Bible teaches that we're renewed by the transformation of our minds, and so my chief concern in preaching is always to make sure that what I say is as transparent to your mind as possible, and thus the reason for the handouts. I know what New Covenant theology is because I was there when it was born. In the late 1970s, a reaction arose against the Reformed and Puritan view of the law of God, especially among those in the growing Calvinistic Baptist movement in the United States. I suspect, this is my suspicion, opinion, that involved in this reaction, that those involved in this reaction, while rejecting the typical evangelical perspectives on salvation and embracing the doctrines of grace, and typical perspectives of evangelicals about prophecy and rejecting dispensationalism as a prophetic view, actually were, however, when it came to the subject of the relationship of the Old and New Testaments and the subject of the law of God, deeply influenced by what amounted to a dispensational view of the Old Testament and its relationship to the new. This reaction against a reformed view of the law first came to light, at least in my knowledge, in a periodical dedicated to supporting Calvinistic views, a journal called Baptist Reformation Review at the time. This journal published a series of articles rejecting the continuity of the law of God in the Old and New Testaments. and as a consequence, rejecting the doctrine of the Christian Sabbath. I was a very young and new elder of the Reformed Baptist Church of Grand Rapids, Michigan at the time. When I read those articles, because this was quite a popular magazine among Reformed Baptists, I found in those articles views which I regarded not only as a serious departure from Reformed theology, but also a fundamental misunderstanding of the basic biblical and reformed and Protestant understanding of the law of God. I wrote a 10-page letter to Baptist Reformation Review, which was eventually published along with a rebuttal twice its length by John Zenz. To this day, I am convinced that the passage which I attempted to expound in response to the views that have become New Covenant theology today remains a strategic biblical fortress against its heirs. This passage teaches the truth that God's law is substantially one and the same in all ages, and that Christians do not live under a new and different law, which New Covenant theology understands to be the law of Christ, as they say. I want you to turn to that passage in this hour, and that passage is Romans chapter 2. Romans chapter 2, and I'm especially concerned with verses 12 through 15, but as they fit into the overall context of that pivotal chapter of God's Word, especially on the subject of the law. Romans chapter 2 And the verses I'm concerned with, and I'll explain this in a moment, are verse 12a and then verses 14 and 15. For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law. Verse 14, for when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these not having the law are a law I'll argue that should be translated the law unto themselves, which show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness and their thoughts. The meanwhile, accusing or else excusing one another. I love the Lord's Day Sabbath. I love to teach it. I love to defend it. I'm in the process of doing that now in our own church in Owensboro, Kentucky. And you may find my treatment of this subject, since we live in the day of the Internet, at my website. If somebody wants to know how to find that, you need only search Sam Waldron and you'll find it, I think. And I have a number of, four actually, lectures there on the subject of critical introduction to New Covenant theology. But I'm not today going to give in to the great temptation to show the truth of the Christian Sabbath against the extreme anti-Sabbatarian views of New Covenant theology. I'm not going to do that, and one reason I'm not going to do that is that to do so would be to allow one way in which New Covenant theology misrepresents itself to go unchallenged, and almost to admit the truth of their misrepresentation. Because those who hold New Covenant views, as they're called, say that their views only affect one of the Ten Commandments, that the whole argument comes down to the Fourth Commandment because all the rest of the Ten Commandments are repeated in the New Testament. To allow such a statement to stand is wrong because that assertion misrepresents the substance and the effects of New Covenant theology. The issue and the argument is not just about the Fourth Commandment. But it is about one's entire view of the law of God. New Covenant theology adopts at this point a hermeneutic or principle of interpretation found originally in dispensationalism with regard to the Old and New Testaments and their relationship. It teaches that the Old Covenant and the law of the Old Covenant in its entirety, without distinction, has passed away, including the Ten Commandments. Only those parts of the law which are repeated or reiterated in the new covenant are for Christians to observe today. Only those pieces of the law which Christ has picked out of the rubble of the old covenant and fitted into his own new law of Christ and passed on to Christians remain for us today. They are only authoritative for us as they come from the hands of Christ and not as they come from the hands of Moses. This, I must affirm, is a blunt rejection of the historic reformed hermeneutic, which affirms and which argues that whatever is not abolished in Christ from the Old Testament continues for Christians to observe today. When the issues are stated this way, It is clear that the argument is not just about the fourth commandment. It is about how every commandment stated in the New Testament should be understood. It is about how every commandment stated in the New Testament should be interpreted. It is about whether we may go to the Old Testament to inform ourselves about how we should understand new covenant laws. It is about how we ought to approach all the laws found in the Old Testament and not explicitly restated or abolished in the New Testament. It is about whether the laws found in the New Testament must stand on their own two feet, whether Christ has given us a brand new law, or whether the laws found in the New Testament stand on the basis of their Old Testament promulgation. Allow me to illustrate this for you in a way I hope that will be practical. The New Testament teaches, you remember, that we should bring up our children in the discipline and instruction of the Lord. But what does it mean to discipline our children? Christians commonly think, in contrast to our liberal context, that it means that we should, at least in part, it means that we should spank them. But where do we find out that disciplining our children involves the use of the rod? Well, let me tell you, there's no such statement in the New Testament. In order to understand that bringing up our children in the discipline and instruction of the Lord involves spanking them and the use of the rod, we must go to the Old Testament to inform our understanding of what discipline is. We have to go to the Old Testament to find this out, because nowhere does the New Testament assert that the disciplined children requires us to spank them. The command to discipline our children, interpreted solely on the basis of the New Testament, does not clearly require spanking. It only requires this when interpreted on the basis of its Old Testament foundation. And what is true here is true everywhere and of all the laws of the New Testament. There are crucial laws, basic laws, laws that everyone knows by the entire human race. which find no New Testament statement, which are found in the Bible only in the Old Testament. This is why it's crucial that we adopt the reformed principle of interpretation on this issue. But what, here is the crucial question, is the reformed basis of the reformed principle of interpretation? Well, it is the biblical teaching that fundamentally The law of God is one in all ages, and thus perpetual, and of binding and perpetual obligation. That view is taught clearly in the Reformed Confessions, including our own 1689 Baptist Confession. At chapter 19, in paragraph 2, it is asserted, the same law that was first written in the heart of man continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness after the fall, and was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai in ten commandments and written in two tables, the four first containing our duty towards God and the other six our duty to man. So my theme in this hour and the reason that I have turned you to Romans chapter two is the substantial identity of the law of God in the Old and New Testament and the continuity between the law written in the heart of Adam, the law contained in the Ten Commandments, and the New Covenant law of Christ. Now, before I proceed, there's something I don't want you to misapprehend. The confession when it says that the law first written in the heart of man continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness does not mean to imply that Adam had the blessing of the New Covenant. Remember, the New Covenant says in Jeremiah 31 that God would write his law on our hearts. In other words, he would give them the redemptive blessing of placing the law of God at the seat of human convictions and human affections so that it controlled the way in principle that his people lived. Now, when the confession says that that law is written on the heart of Adam, it is not asserting, assuming, or teaching that Adam had this new covenant blessing. And when Paul asserts that the work of the law is written on the heart in Romans chapter 2, he is not asserting, assuming, or teaching that Gentiles have this redemptive blessing that is given only through the new covenant. Paul, in fact, does not say exactly in Romans chapter 2 that the law is written on the heart. He actually says, and says very carefully, that the work of the law is written in the heart. Paul is not talking about saved Gentiles in Romans chapter 2, verses 12 to 15. If he were, he would be teaching that people without special revelation could be saved, and this is an even worse error than the one I'm addressing in this hour. So let's be clear about that. Paul says the work of the law is written in the heart. By that language, he alludes to the Ten Commandments, and he alludes to the blessing of the New Covenant, but he is not describing that blessing exactly. Now, as we look at Romans chapter 2 verses 12 to 15, I have one, two, three, four points I want to make before I draw some conclusions. First of all, I need to say something to you about the structure of the passage. So the first point is the structure analyzed. It may have seemed, perhaps it did seem, a little strange to you that I read Romans 2, 12a, skip 12b, skip verse 13, went to verses 14 and 15. But I did that because I'm convinced that this reflects the real structure of the passage. The passage can be understood in terms of an A, B, B, A kind of structure. Verse 12A deals with those without the law and says that they perish. Verse 12B deals with those under the law and says that they perish. So verse 12A deals with Gentiles who didn't have special revelation, didn't have the written law of God. Verse 12B deals with those who did have special revelation, the Jews who were given the written law of God. And then verse 13 proceeds to explain verse 12b and to justify the idea that God is going to judge and condemn those who have the law. And then verses 14 and 15 take up the question and explain and justify how it is that those who do not have the law, Gentiles, are subject to God's judgment and condemnation. Thus, we are simply looking at the portion of this passage that deals with Paul's assertion that those without the law, Gentiles who do not have special revelation, those Gentiles both sin and in fact perish in their sins, though they do not have special revelation. And that brings us to the second point, the question assumed. In verse 12a, Paul asserts And certainly it is a startling assertion that those without the law sin and perish. For as many as have sinned without the law shall also perish without the law. Now I say this is a startling, even a shocking assertion for Paul to make. How can men sin, let alone perish, without the law. The broader issue is, of course, the justification for God's procedure in doing this. How can it be just? On what basis can it be just for God to punish men who never had his law? How could they sin? And even worse, how could they perish without the law? You see, the reason for this problem, you know what it is, The catechism teaches that sin is the transgression of the law. But how can men sin against the law they never possessed? And this is not simply a problem for us, those of us who know the shorter catechism. It was a problem for Paul himself. In Romans 4 15, he's going to say the law works wrath. And where no law is, there's no transgression. And yet he is asserted in Romans 2.12 that men can sin and perish without law. But Paul, you're going to say later that where there is no law, there's no wrath and no transgression. How can men sin and perish without the law? And he's going to go on to say in Romans 5.13 that until the law, and therefore before the law, sin was in the world. And then he makes the clear assertion that sin is not imputed when there is no law, and yet Paul says in Romans 2.12 that men sin and perish without the law. Paul, are you confused? How can you say that? You see the problem. This is the question Paul assumes when he makes this audacious statement that men sin and perish without the law. And that must bring us certainly to the third point, the answer provided. What is Paul's answer to this conundrum? This question, how can Paul assert that men sin and perish without the law? The answer is really quite simple. The answer is that, in fact, these Gentiles, in a certain sense, did have the law. In fact, the subject and predicate of the long sentence contained in verses 14 and 15 may be conveyed in the simple words that Paul utters, these to themselves are the law. These to themselves are the law. Paul speaks of the fact that Gentiles are confronted with the law. The Gentiles, in a certain way, do have the law of God. And this is why they can sin And this is why they can perish in their sins. Sin is the transgression of the law of God, and Gentiles, without special revelation, have the law. They, to themselves, are the law. But of course, this immediately raises the question, doesn't it? How, Paul, can you assert this? How, Paul, do you know this? Well, the answer is contained in the clear assertions of verses 14 and 15. He knows that they have the law because he says in verse 14, they do by nature the things contained in the law. They teach themselves and their outward conduct on occasion manifest that they have some knowledge of the law of God. Pagans and Gentiles know in general that it is wrong to steal. First century pagans knew that. 10th century B.C. pagans know that. 20th century A.D. pagans know that it's wrong to steal. They don't need the Bible to teach them that because they do by nature, by the effect of God's creating hand, the things contained in the law. They do by nature the things of the law. And he also goes on to say, in verse 15, that they show the work of the law written in their hearts. So what's Paul's response to the question that he's raised by this astounding assertion that men sin and perish without the law? Well, his response is that they show the work of the law written in their hearts. the effect of the law of God, teaching them right and wrong, teaching them what is moral and immoral, teaching them the natural content of the law of God. These things did not await the publication of the Ten Commandments to be known by men. These things were written on men's hearts. And so Gentiles without the law could sin, and they could perish. because they had the law. They had the teaching of the law written on their hearts by creation. And so they themselves excuse one another when what they have done is not sinful. And they accuse one another, and their consciences accuse themselves, because in their heart God has written by creation a knowledge of the moral law of God. John Murray remarks, the law of God confronts them and registers itself in their consciousness by reason of what they natively and constitutionally are. See, this is a matter of the image of God. Part of what it means for mankind to be the image of God is to have in their hearts, by creation, descending from Adam himself, a knowledge of that law which was later published in the Ten Commandments. This is the teaching of the Apostle Paul. And this is the answer to the great question of why God can arraign in judgment, indict men in judgment who never possessed a written copy of the Bible. The answer is that without the written law, they still have the content of the law written in their hearts by creation in the image of God. And so the implication of this is obvious. If we're all pagans are in possession of the law of God, It can only be because that law was written in the heart of Adam at creation and has not been totally effaced, destroyed even by the fact of the fall. But that brings me to the fourth point, the solution amplified. All this has enormously important implications for our relationship to the law of God and the whole subject of New Covenant theology. This passage makes clear the identity of that law with which even the Gentiles are confronted. First of all, I want to say that it's clear from the passage that the law in view is the law of God. It is evident from verse 12A itself that it must be the law of God of which Paul is speaking, because there he says, as many as have sinned without the law shall also perish without the law, they have sinned. And what is sin? Is it the transgression of the law of man? Of course not. Is it the transgression of the dictates of culture? No. It is the transgression of the law of God. And if Gentiles sin, it can only be because they transgress the law of their Creator, the law of God. Now, in verse 14, some may be confused By the way, Paul states himself in the way it's translated in our copies of the scripture, because he says these not having the law are literally law unto themselves. The reference here superficially may seem a little abstract. They're not. Apparently, we could think the law of God unto themselves are just some law or other unto themselves. But if we draw that conclusion from the Paul's language, we are, we are horribly mistaken. In fact, the term law without the article, the little word The, often refers to the law of God in Romans, and is in fact so translated. For instance, there in Romans 2.13, where we read, not the hearers of the law are just before God. but the doers of the law shall be justified in either reference to the laws the article present and yet the translators translated with the article because this is clearly what Paul means it is not the heroes of any law or other that are just before that are not just before God is the heroes of the law of God Paul doesn't use the article because he assumes that we know that of course it's only the law of God that he can be talking about similarly In Romans chapter 2 and verse 25 we read, for circumcision verily profiteth if you keep, and Paul does not use the article. He simply says if you keep law, but if you be a breaker of law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision. But again, the lack of the article does not mean that he's talking about some law or other. Everyone knows, and the context shows, and the translators assume. that it is the law of God that's in question. Similarly, I argue on the basis of these texts and many others in the Book of Romans that when Paul says these to themselves are law, we should understand him to mean, and the text should be actually translated, these to themselves are the law. Because the reference is clearly to the law of God. And in fact, it must be that. Because if he means that these to themselves are law in the abstract, or if he means that Gentiles don't have law in the abstract, that would in fact be false. The Romans and the Greeks had plenty of law. What they did not have was written copies of the law of God. And in fact, finally, Paul makes clear in verses 14 and 15 that it is the law of God of which he is speaking, because the proofs for his statement are these. They do by nature, the things contain Not in some law or other. They do by nature the things contained in, the article is present here, the law. And in verse 15, which show the work of the law, article present again, written in their hearts. And so the law in view is the law of God. The second thing you must understand about the Answer to Paul's question here is that the law in view is substantially the Ten Commandments. Paul is asserting, in other words, in this context that it is substantially the Ten Commandments with which Gentiles confront themselves by nature. The phrase the law in Romans to read the entire chapter clearly designates the law of God delivered to Israel on Mount Sinai, specifically the Ten Commandments. The whole passage is about how the fact that Gentiles confront themselves with the same law that was substantially given to Israel on Mount Sinai. And so Paul speaks of that law in verse 13 where he says, not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. And when he turns to the Jews in verse 17, He says, Behold, thou art called the Jew and restest in the law and makest thy boast of God throughout the rest of the chapter. It's the law of God given on Mount Sinai of which he is speaking. And so when he asserts that Gentiles have the law written in their hearts, when he asserts that they confront themselves with the law of God, he is asserting nothing less than that they have by nature the same law that was republished in the Ten Commandments to Israel. Thus, by asserting that Gentiles are in possession of the law, Paul teaches that there's a substantial identity, fundamental unity and continuity between the law of God revealed in the Ten Commandments and the law written on the heart of Adam by creation. But there's a third thing that we have to see here. The Ten Commandments were in effect then prior to Sinai. Prior to the thunderous revelation and promulgation of the Ten Commandments on Mount Sinai to Israel, the Ten Commandments were already in effect in the world. Proof of this may be obtained from those passages prior to Exodus 20 which support the statement of the confession that the law first written in the heart of man continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness after the fall. And so we can go to the passages in the Bible that record things prior to Sinai And we find the fourth commandment stated prior to Sinai in Genesis 2, 3, Exodus 16, and Genesis 7 and 8. We find the fifth commandment assumed as authoritative in Genesis 37, 10. We find the sixth commandment assumed as authoritative in Genesis 4, 3-15. We find the seventh commandment in Genesis 12, 17. The eighth commandment in Genesis 31, 30 and 44, 8. the ninth commandment in Genesis 2712 and the 10th commandment in Genesis 6 and 13. The Ten Commandments, because they were written on the heart of Adam by creation, therefore are authoritative prior to their giving at Mount Sinai. And there's a fourth observation we need to make here. The New Testament teaches that the Ten Commandments in their specific identity and organic unity are still in effect. They are still in effect. In the New Testament era. Now, this is a task that would take this hour and several more to show you all the evidence for this. Paul assumes everywhere that the law of God still is relevant for Christians. When he teaches about the subject of women in the church in 1 Corinthians 14, he adds the little phrase to support what he said, as the law also said. But if the law of the Old Testament no longer binds Christians, what in the world is Paul saying that for? But the passages I want to turn you to are, first of all, are just two. And the first is Ephesians chapter six. Ephesians chapter six. Here, Paul says, children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. And we ask, well, how, Paul, do you know that this is right? And here is Paul's answer. He quotes the fifth commandment. Honor your father and your mother, which is the first commandment with a promise. What do you mean, Paul, first commandment with a promise? Well, it's the first of the ten commandments that has a promise attended to it. Paul is here citing the fifth commandment where it stands and as it stands in the Old Testament in support of his dictum that children should obey their parents in the Lord. See, Paul does not assume what New Covenant theology assumes. that the law of God found in the Old Testament has been abolished, and we only stand under the law of Christ now, which is a brand new law. Paul assumes that he may support his teaching about the life of the family directly from the Old Testament. He calls it the first commandment with a promise. He's thinking of it in the context of the Ten Commandments. And he says, this is why it's right. It's right because it's in the Ten Commandments. where the fifth commandment stands in the Old Testament. As it stands there, it binds Christians. What is true of the fifth commandment is true of all the Ten Commandments. Another passage that's so relevant in this regard, and here I want to commend you my dear brother's book, In Defense of the Decalogue, in which he gives a prolonged exposition of this passage that I can only suggestively point to. I want you to turn to 1 Timothy 1 verses 8-11 where Paul says in a passage that deserves far more attention than I'll be able to give it, but we know that the law is good if a man use it lawfully. But Paul assumes that the law, he's clearly referring to the law found in the Old Testament, is good. Of course, he acknowledges there are unlawful ways to use the law, but of course it's a great contradiction to use the law unlawfully, isn't it? It's ridiculous to use the law unlawfully. It's a ludicrous kind of thing, but Paul acknowledges that some people engage in such ridiculous activity and use the law unlawfully. But if there is an unlawful use of the law, there is also a lawful use of the law, and Paul goes on to speak of that lawful use of the law when he says, knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient. Now, we could pause to comment upon that somewhat strange statement. I think Paul is thinking of the place where Jesus said, I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. But at any rate, he goes on to say that the law is made for the lawless and disobedient for the ungodly and sinners for unholy and profane. And there he summarizes the content of the first four commandments. But then beginning with the next phrase in order, he summarizes the worst transgressions of the fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth and ten commandments in order look what he does he comes to the fifth commandment and he names the worst violation of the fifth commandment what would be the worst possible violation of the fifth commandment children was the worst way you could possibly violate that command well by killing your parents and that's what he speaks of for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers for manslayers that he thinks of violations of the sixth commandment for whoremongers and for them that defile themselves with mankind. These are the worst violations of the sixth commandment. Thou shalt not commit adultery, fornication, and homosexual fornication. And then he returns to the worst violations of the seventh commandment for manslayers. Thou shalt not kill, pardon me, for them of that uh... party he deals with manslayers after the fifth amendment i got ahead of myself in the last phrase of first of nine then the worst violations of the seventh commandment and the beginning of first and and then the worst violations of the eight commandment thou shalt not steal now what's the worst possible violation of the eighth commandment stealing a man's possessions is bad enough what if you steal the man himself Then you stole everything that is his right. And so Paul speaks of men stealing kidnapping as the worst violation of the eighth commandment. And then he speaks of the terrible violations of the ninth commandment for liars for perjured persons thou shalt not bear false witness. And then he sums up the 10 commandment the 10th commandment thou shalt not covet. And he says and if there be anything other other other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine and then notice what he has having just summarized the Ten Commandments, the first four in general language, the last six in specific language. He goes on to say that all this is according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my promise. The law of God is not contrary to the gospel. The law of God is according to the gospel of the glorious gospel of the blessed God. And so the Ten Commandments we learn from these passages. and many others remain in effect in the New Testament. The last thing I want to say, by way of an observation on the solution amplified, is that the confession and the Bible does not teach that the Ten Commandments exhaust the moral law of God found in the Old Testament. The confession does not teach, I'm not teaching, that the Ten Commandments are an exhaustive and detailed treatise of the whole moral law. They are rather a comprehensive summary. The Shorter Catechism teaches this very clearly. It says, where is the moral law summarily comprehended? The moral law is summarily comprehended in the Ten Commandments. Even the fact that there are ten commandments suggests the fact that it's a summary and not an exhaustive and detailed listing of all moral laws. Well, this is then Paul's teaching. Paul's teaching is not that God has many different laws for the various dispensations of the world and the various ages of the world. Paul's teaching is that the law written in the heart of Adam was written in the Ten Commandments, rewritten in the hearts of the believers when it was written on their hearts in the New Covenant, so that there is substantially one and the same law throughout every age of the world. That's the teaching of the Apostle Paul. and it is directly contrary to New Covenant theology. And that brings me to the applications and lessons with which I want to conclude this hour. First, Romans chapter 2 wrecks the entire foundation of New Covenant theology. It wrecks that foundation by teaching that the law of God is basically one and the same in all ages. The law of Christ is not a brand new law standing on its own two feet. The law of Christ is the law that Christ gave to Israel on Mount Sinai, freed of its ceremonial enlargements, freed of its civil enactments, but that law in essence still, I cannot say it better than the confession does, the moral law doth forever bind all. as well justified persons as others to the obedience thereof, and that not only in regard to the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the creator who gave it. Neither doth Christ in the gospel anyway dissolve, but much strengthen this obligation. Second lesson, we must always be careful to remind ourselves As the epistle to the Romans is soon to remind those whom Paul writes there, the Christians are not under the law as a covenant of works, but as a rule of life. Christians are not under the law as a covenant of works by which they must be justified, but they are under it as a rule of life, a friend of Jesus to tell them how they should live in a way pleasing to him. Again, the confession says it so well. True believers be not under the laws of covenant works to be thereby justified or condemned. Yet it is of great use to them as well as to others as a rule of life informing them of the will of God and their duty. One teacher of New Covenant theology in my country is famous for saying that we should never let the law of God into our conscience. Oh, he said it publicly. He said it while he was preaching. What should our response be to an outlandish statement like that? Never let the law of God into your conscience. Well, it must be in terms of this fundamental distinction. I agree with the man, but his statement needs to be carefully qualified, doesn't it? We must never let the law into our conscience as a way of being justified. We must never let the law of God into our conscience as a covenant of works. But we must certainly invite it into our conscience as a rule of life and a guide for how we may please our Savior. A third lesson is this. The law as a rule of life is not our enemy. it is our friend. To use the title of Ernest Kevin's book, we must always remember the grace of law. We must sing with the psalmist, Psalm 119 verse 45, and I will walk at liberty, for I seek your precepts. The law is not only holy and just, But Paul adds, very importantly, good. The law is holy and just and good. And by that he means to say that the law is good for us. It is beneficial. It's a wonderful way to live. It's a preservative against so much folly. It's a preservative against doing things that will wreck our lives and bring us great unhappiness. The law of God is good. There is an old hymn that stems from the first days of the Reformation that sums up the entire Reformation doctrine of the law of God. It goes like this. The law of God is good and wise and sets His will before our eyes, shows us the way of righteousness, and dooms to death when we transgress. Its light of holiness imparts the knowledge of our sinful hearts that we may see our lost estate and seek deliverance ere too late. To those who help in Christ have found and wooden works of love abound, it shows what deeds are his delight, and should be done as good and right. When men the offered help disdain, and willfully in sin remain, its terror in their ear resounds, and keeps their wickedness in bounds. The law is good, but since the fall, its holiness condemns us all. It dooms us for our sins to die and has no power to justify. To Jesus we for refuge flee, who from the curse has set us free, and humbly worship at his throne, saved by his grace through faith alone. Amen.