Oct 8 Sermon - Law and Gospel - Commentary
A few thoughts
Assurance
[Picking up at 46:00] Very often we turn and leave the gospel when it comes to issues of our assurance. We think, ... "How will I know that I'm a Christian? How do I know that I am saved?" If you asked me that years ago, do you know what I would say? I would rattle of a list of the things that I have done. "Here are the habits that I keep. Here are things I've accomplished this week. These are the good things I have done." What happens when that flips the other way? I'll tell you what happens: People come into my office and they say "I don't know if I'm saved". If the assurance of your salvation rests on you, then I'm going to guess that you've mixed up the law and the gospel. Some say that what the reformation recovered was the doctrine of assurance. Because it took us from looking at the interior of our Christian life and it turned us outward and it said "Look at Christ".
The biblical argument for assurance being grounded, in some part, the Christian's life and experience will require its own post (I'll do that later.) But it needs to be pointed out here that this quote presents a false dichotomy:
Either
[A] you base your assurance solely on the work of Christ without examining your Christian experiences,
or
[B] you base your assurance solely on a somewhat arbitrary and contrived man-made list of holy acts and disciplines you keep.
But (a) the Bible is more balanced than this, and (b), I don't know how adding "virtue... knowledge ... self-control ... steadfastness ... godliness ... brotherly affection ... love" (2 Peter 1:5-7) can be reduced to a list of habits you keep.
General "Law" = No basis for freedom
[16:00] The law as I'm using it this morning is a theological concept. It's an idea. And the law is something that includes all of God's commands no matter where they are found.
No matter whether they are found in the OT. No matter whether they come from the mouth of Moses or from the mouth of Jesus. No matter if they are written in Leviticus or if they are written in Ephesians. The law, in this idea, is all of God's commands no matter where they are found.
The definition of the law as all of God's commands everywhere has a major problem:
You can't use Paul anymore!
If you don't define it as the 613 of the Mosaic covenant, then you can't treat the Galatians (ch. 3) and Romans (ch. 6-8) passages as a direct commentary on the "law" you are defining. Which is unfortunate, because that is where we are told we are free from the law and no longer under its power. So it's advantageous to start with the scripture's definition of "law" when defining it.
It's precisely this problem that leads the more classically reformed types into saying that we are still under (bound by) the moral law as given by Moses. Since they say Paul is only talking about no longer being under the ceremonial law.
Not to say that "law" is never used in this way in the Bible. For instance, Romans 2 has a place where the Gentile are said to keep the law.
The NT commands as "law" may still be used in a condemning way of course, but they are not originally intended that way (by God or the NT authors).
Law of Christ or Moses?
[22:00] One of the ways that he does this and speaks this law is in the sermon on the Mount in Matthew chapter 5, where he says, "you have heard it said, but I say to you." I don't think he's fundamentally changing it, I think he's taking the law there and he wants to expose it all the down beyond what you do all the way down to your passions and your lusts, all the way down to your heart level.
I think it's better to have a more "case by case" approach to this passage (similar to Craig) where each saying is considered individually. (See minute 22.) It's also not clear from A*'s teaching on this his view of the 3rd use of the law.
Staking too much on Romans 7
Rested a lot on the "non-immitation" (i.e. under-realized) interpretation of Romans 7. Probably not wise to stake so much on one passage. I'll concede that it's weird how many of the historical controversies (Augustine vs Pelagius, Luther vs Rome, etc.) have rested so much on the interpretation of this passage. But, while Augustine's theology of grace was spot on, the church fathers weren't always the most reliable in their hermeneutic.
WWJD
The railing against the WWJD bracelets was interesting. Is the law wrong? Is there no place for Christian exhortation to good works? I realize it's good to have both law and gospel and not confuse them (glawspel), but we are we not to look at Christ's example? When Paul talks about the "law of Christ", what is he talking about? Is the "of" in that statement not, in part, epexegetical?
In other words, the "What Would Jesus Do" is just another way of asking "What Did Jesus Do?" when it comes to the NT ethic. That does define how we live. It is immanently NTish to look to the life of Jesus (especially in his dying act) as to how we are to live our life.
I realize, we should probably also wear on the same arm a "WDJD" bracelet. But that doesn't negate the need for Christians to hourly consider "WWJD". "Both and", not "either or". That is the biblical tension, no?
Assurance
[Picking up at 46:00] Very often we turn and leave the gospel when it comes to issues of our assurance. We think, ... "How will I know that I'm a Christian? How do I know that I am saved?" If you asked me that years ago, do you know what I would say? I would rattle of a list of the things that I have done. "Here are the habits that I keep. Here are things I've accomplished this week. These are the good things I have done." What happens when that flips the other way? I'll tell you what happens: People come into my office and they say "I don't know if I'm saved". If the assurance of your salvation rests on you, then I'm going to guess that you've mixed up the law and the gospel. Some say that what the reformation recovered was the doctrine of assurance. Because it took us from looking at the interior of our Christian life and it turned us outward and it said "Look at Christ".
The biblical argument for assurance being grounded, in some part, the Christian's life and experience will require its own post (I'll do that later.) But it needs to be pointed out here that this quote presents a false dichotomy:
Either
[A] you base your assurance solely on the work of Christ without examining your Christian experiences,
or
[B] you base your assurance solely on a somewhat arbitrary and contrived man-made list of holy acts and disciplines you keep.
But (a) the Bible is more balanced than this, and (b), I don't know how adding "virtue... knowledge ... self-control ... steadfastness ... godliness ... brotherly affection ... love" (2 Peter 1:5-7) can be reduced to a list of habits you keep.
General "Law" = No basis for freedom
[16:00] The law as I'm using it this morning is a theological concept. It's an idea. And the law is something that includes all of God's commands no matter where they are found.
No matter whether they are found in the OT. No matter whether they come from the mouth of Moses or from the mouth of Jesus. No matter if they are written in Leviticus or if they are written in Ephesians. The law, in this idea, is all of God's commands no matter where they are found.
The definition of the law as all of God's commands everywhere has a major problem:
You can't use Paul anymore!
If you don't define it as the 613 of the Mosaic covenant, then you can't treat the Galatians (ch. 3) and Romans (ch. 6-8) passages as a direct commentary on the "law" you are defining. Which is unfortunate, because that is where we are told we are free from the law and no longer under its power. So it's advantageous to start with the scripture's definition of "law" when defining it.
It's precisely this problem that leads the more classically reformed types into saying that we are still under (bound by) the moral law as given by Moses. Since they say Paul is only talking about no longer being under the ceremonial law.
Not to say that "law" is never used in this way in the Bible. For instance, Romans 2 has a place where the Gentile are said to keep the law.
The NT commands as "law" may still be used in a condemning way of course, but they are not originally intended that way (by God or the NT authors).
Law of Christ or Moses?
[22:00] One of the ways that he does this and speaks this law is in the sermon on the Mount in Matthew chapter 5, where he says, "you have heard it said, but I say to you." I don't think he's fundamentally changing it, I think he's taking the law there and he wants to expose it all the down beyond what you do all the way down to your passions and your lusts, all the way down to your heart level.
I think it's better to have a more "case by case" approach to this passage (similar to Craig) where each saying is considered individually. (See minute 22.) It's also not clear from A*'s teaching on this his view of the 3rd use of the law.
Staking too much on Romans 7
Rested a lot on the "non-immitation" (i.e. under-realized) interpretation of Romans 7. Probably not wise to stake so much on one passage. I'll concede that it's weird how many of the historical controversies (Augustine vs Pelagius, Luther vs Rome, etc.) have rested so much on the interpretation of this passage. But, while Augustine's theology of grace was spot on, the church fathers weren't always the most reliable in their hermeneutic.
WWJD
The railing against the WWJD bracelets was interesting. Is the law wrong? Is there no place for Christian exhortation to good works? I realize it's good to have both law and gospel and not confuse them (glawspel), but we are we not to look at Christ's example? When Paul talks about the "law of Christ", what is he talking about? Is the "of" in that statement not, in part, epexegetical?
In other words, the "What Would Jesus Do" is just another way of asking "What Did Jesus Do?" when it comes to the NT ethic. That does define how we live. It is immanently NTish to look to the life of Jesus (especially in his dying act) as to how we are to live our life.
I realize, we should probably also wear on the same arm a "WDJD" bracelet. But that doesn't negate the need for Christians to hourly consider "WWJD". "Both and", not "either or". That is the biblical tension, no?
Comments
Post a Comment