Riffs: 02:13:08: The White Horse Inn, Law/Gospel and Why I Want My Sermon On The Mount Back

118 thoughts on “Riffs: 02:13:08: The White Horse Inn, Law/Gospel and Why I Want My Sermon On The Mount Back”

1. Pingback: Horton Responds « The Way into the Far Country
2. Pingback: The Way into the Far Country

3. I want to thank everyone who has contributed to this discussion. It was an excellent thread.

   I’m closing these comments and encourage anyone reading to visit the blogs of the various contributors.

   I’m sure we’ll return to this subject in the future.

   LikeLike

4. Michael,
   Don’t know exactly what you mean with the Scolfield reference bible thing. But will agree with everything you said following it.

   I will say this though, just because I distinguish something as law, does not mean I ignore it. It does mean that I don’t look to it to provide me with salvation. I don’t think the question is whether or not Walther understood the Bible better than Jesus. But whether or not one or the other of us understands Jesus better than Walther when he systematized these distinctions.
   what did Christ mean in John 5:39? “you search the scriptures because in them you think you have eternal life, but they are these that testify of me.” what were the pharisees searching for in them? How does Christ differ. Is Christ our savior when he dies for our sins on the Cross? Or is he our savior when he reiterates the laws of Moses in better poetry? When can law be gospel? I don’t think it can ever be gospel. I don’t care who speaks it.
   Though if I understand your Scolfield reference correctly I will agree with you. There is reason I have begun to read through the Greek New Testament for a couple hours every morning. Nothing like going to the primary source. But I have benefited from looking over the shoulders of giants, Walther being one of those giants. As I also benefit from discussion with you and others on the net.

   LikeLike

5. Michael,

   …” but justified people do them. Imperfectly, but joyfully and diligently.”

   I wonder, Michael,… I wonder.

   I wonder how much of what is done out of a sense of obligation (and not true love).I know you said “imperfectly”, but that still doesn’t get us off the hook.

   I wonder how much is done outwardly, all the while wishing they were doing something else that they would really rather be doing.

   I wonder how many have a little voice in the back of their head that says “well, you’ve got to be getting some sort of recognition from this act, whether from God or from man.

   I wonder just how many follow the Lord’s commands that joyfully and diligently?

   I wonder what the percentage of time diligent Christians spend on others, as compared to the percentage of time spent on themselves.

   I only say this because of what the Bible says about the nature of humakind, the depth of our sinfulness, observation of other Christians, and knowledge of myself.

   Sincerely,

   Steve

   LikeLike

6. I think there is plenty of good news in obeying Jesus commands, even if you believe in justification by faith by grace by Christ. The command to do likewise is good news to the selfish, good news to the suffering and good news about the Savior who has mercy on us.

   I’ve read Walther and he’s valuable, but he doesn’t understand the Bible better than Jesus does. When someone says that a plain statement by Jesus to do something is actually an illustration of some kind of theological distinction where doing something is dead legalism, then the distinctions have gotten too deep.

   I appreciate my LCMS brothers, but there’s a reason I tossed my Scofield Bible. Jesus is the Gospel. Jesus is the good news. Jesus is salvation. And Jesus has all kinds of commands for his new community. None of them will justify us, but justified people do them. Imperfectly, but joyfully and diligently.

   LikeLike

7. Michael Spencer,
   I’m thinking this discussion has morphed readically. What started out to be a discussion on the SOM and whether it was law or gospel, has now morphed into did Christ give an actual command at the end of the parable of the Good Samaritan.
   Yes, go and do likewise, is a command. But it is in no way gospel. That part of the parable is law. It is recorded in a gospel, but it is not gospel. The fact that Jesus says something does not make it gospel, niether is the fact that moses said something make it law. Both of these figures uttered both law and gospel at various times. The law though never saves. The gospel does.
   The best book written on this issue is CFW Walther “The proper distinction between Law and Gospel.” It would make good sabbatical reading.

   LikeLike

8. Larry, you made some great points. Thanks.

   Eric S, welcome aboard! Not quite sure where this boat is headed, but we’re still afloat and steaming ahead at 6 knots. The Internet Monk is in the wheelhouse so not to worry.

   I very much liked the Law = milk , and Freedom = Meat, analogy.

   But I’ve been arguing, so hard and for so long in one direction, that I actually think I’m starting to come around in the other direction.

   Don’t give up on me quite yet, Charley, H. Lee.

   My doctor has instructed me to eat less meat!

   Here’s another good one from my pastor:

   “The law, and it’s demand can never make us, or give us the goodness, that is the intent of that law, but certainly exposes what, and who we really are.” (or something like that)
   – Pastor Mark Anderson

   Thanks all!

   – Steve

   LikeLike

9. The basic fundamentals never get old. Thanks for the reminder.

   LikeLike

10. The key there is that it is a parable and He’s speaking to some Israelites. It’s a “command” to give the Gospel. Nobody is saying “don’t help those in physical need”, I think that’s pretty obvious. But the parables are designed to be about the Kingdom. Heal them up by proclaiming Christ. Let’s put it another way. I’ve discussed this a million times with fellow believers. I, Larry, lay on death’s door step from a health issue, accident, robber attack, maybe my family has been killed…some GREAT tragedy. Sure provide for my needs. BUT! Above all, give me Christ afresh, because nothing, at the end of the day will prevent ultimate tragedy, my death, Lord willing not Job’s situation. At the end of the day I NEED the hope of the CROSS. No amount of white wash or salve in the “here and now” is going to help. BUT, IF I’m given Christ, IF I KNOW that in the end, eschatologically, the Gospel is true, FOR ME, FOR my loved ones…I have hope. EVEN if NOW I suffer. Don’t hear me wrong, suffering is suffering and this is no “buck up ole boy”, but it means, there is REAL HOPE, CERTAIN EXPECTATION. Why kill that! Why withhold that! Bind my wounds in the immediate, but at the end of the day what is that? Certainly death will come one way or the other and no amount of binding will prevent it!!! I need to know that this death is now a fluffy sleep in a warm bed to me…into the arm of Christ. I need to know that when I walk through the waters between the threat of sin and death…God, that is Christ, will hold back the waters of sin and death so that I too like Israel may pass between them into the sweet land of Promise. AND this time FOREVER. Given THAT, this suffering, though very real and very painful, is NOW endured!!!

    Go and do likewise! This amazes me constantly, because I was late to the faith in life, 33. Normally if I worked for someone and that employer said, “Larry ole boy, go to xy and z’s home and tell them that we are giving them a bazillion dollars, they will never have to worry ever again about money.” How asinine I would have to be to say, ‘Whooaaa, I don’t want to deliver that NEWS to anyone.’ Now take that to the infinite level and you see the folly. A pastor, elder, deacon even layman must find his/her joy and drive IN the message, not its effects, yea or nea. If you look for the effects you will always be driven to despair or pride…there are NO exceptions to this.

    Blessings in icy Ky,

    Larry

    LikeLike

11. Brothers in Christ:

    I am new to this site, and I want to start off by saying, “Wow! What a great site and discussion.” A lot of passion out there for Jesus Christ and the gospel.

    All this talk about law and freedom got me thinking, and being a father of twin six-year-old boys, I came up with an easy analogy that a simple guy like me can follow when it comes to this topic. I’m sure I’m not the first guy to think along these lines. I’ll use the following scripture as a starting point:

    1 Corinthians 3:1-3: Brothers, I could not address you as spiritual but as worldly—mere infants in Christ. I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready.

    Hebrews 5:12-14: In fact, though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God’s word all over again. You need milk, not solid food! Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil.

    As everybody knows, infants cannot digest–or at least have a lot of trouble digesting–solid food; hence, the wonderful provision of mother’s milk for sustenance. It appears Paul and the writer of Hebrews understood this basic physiological fact.

    Those of use with kids know that the vast majority of our time as parents is spent policing kids with rules and regulations. With little children, one of the most common things parents say is, “No.” This is how kids learn the rules, from sticking a knife into a power outlet to touching a pan on top of the stove to whacking your brother or sister with a baseball bat. Deep down, a lot of kids love rules because they know where they stand, they know what they can do, and they know what they can’t do. If they follow the rules, they receive favor from the parents; if they break the rules, they are punished. Kids really don’t have to think too much–just follow the rules. It’s a pretty good system, and we all lived through it.

    Then, all of a sudden, kids are 18 years old and, in many cases, out on their own in the world without their parents there to say “No” anymore. In other words, Freedom! Wow, remember what a great feeling that was? Remember all the trouble we got into then? All the stupid decisions we made? All the selfishness we reveled in? All the damage we did to ourselves?

    The sudden freedom was a tough thing for some of us to handle. We abused it. We didn’t really know how to dwell in it. We were all over the map, so to speak. But time passed, and we matured. We started to figure things out. We started thinking. We got real jobs, careers, married, kids, experience. After time, we were now able to live on our own in freedom without our parents’ guidance and without screwing up too much (for the most part!).

    Now think back for a moment to the time when you got your clock rung by the Holy Spirit, to the time the lights got turned on and you found out you had been living your entire life in the dark. If that was too long ago, just look at one of the newbies in Christ in your congregation.

    What were some of the first things you did back then? I’ll bet you attempted to earnestly follow the Ten Commandments. I’ll bet you consciously tried to be a “good Christian” (whatever that is). I’ll bet when you read scripture, both Old and New Testaments, you felt like you weren’t doing the right things or weren’t doing enough good things. But I’ll also bet that when reading scripture, you felt you had a pretty good idea of what you had to do and of what you weren’t suppose to do in terms of your relationship with God. In other words, you knew how to make God happy and how to keep from ticking Him off. You may have even viewed God kind of like Santa Claus: be good and get rewards; be bad and get punished.

    My take is this: the milk that Paul and the Hebrew writer write about?—nothing more than The Law itself; and the solid food?—freedom and righteousness in Christ. Here the algebra: milk = law; solid food = freedom and righteousness in Christ. Infants in Christ, like small children, thrive on rules and regulations. In fact, like infants with milk, the Law is the only thing that infants in Christ are able to digest and understand.

    The Law provides infants in Christ their sustenance. The Law provides a clear delineation of what’s right and wrong, black and white, what Santa likes you to do and what Santa doesn’t like you to do. You really don’t have to think too much, and things are pretty easy to understand—you may even think you understand Romans sometimes. Just follow the rules, and here’s the Bible full of them to follow, and plenty of preachers out there to make it easy for you to figure out which rules are the best to follow. You can read the Bible, follow the rules, and live your life knowing that God’s going to be pretty happy with you. It’s safe. Just like kids following the rules of their parents: everything is safe and orderly, and my parents are pretty happy with me.

    Now, tell that law-abiding infant in Christ about his or her freedom in Christ. Like trying to feed an infant steak, asparagus, and potatoes, they reject it–it is not digestible, and it may even do some harm. They actually have to think. The black-and-white life lived in the law suddenly turns grey and mushy. The easily measured life in the law is now difficult to define and quantify. The life lived in Christ’s freedom is difficult to keep track of, difficult to measure, difficult to tell if I’m making God happy. At least living according to the Law I could compare myself to others (especially the real sinners!), but my life in freedom is incomparable to anything. There is anxiety.

    Telling a law-abiding infant in Christ to live in freedom is like removing all the rules for a six year old. What happens? Chaos and confusion because neither is mature enough to handle it.

    But as the Christian matures, hopefully the freedom in Christ starts to sink in. You learn to trust the Holy Spirit and His work in you. Sure, “you can do anything you want” but you don’t. Hmm… Not through any conscious effort on your part, but maybe, just maybe, because the Holy Spirit has something to do with that. You start to realize that you don’t have to worry anymore about the spiritual project called “Me” and can live your life for others as led by the Holy Spirit. You start to understand why Paul beats us over the head with “righteousness through faith” in Romans, like over 20 times or something.

    Finally you start to understand Paul’s words in Galatians 1: “It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.” And Paul’s words in 2 Corinthians 3:7: “Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone, …”

    When you start to understand the freedom in Jesus Christ, pretty soon you realize every Sunday is simply Halloween for most Christians: they sit their in the pew, looking up at the pulpit, listening to Moses dressed up as Jesus, preaching the Law. And it’s a good costume: the law is preached in the name of Jesus Christ with Bible in hand, spewing out verses from Jesus Christ himself. It’s a good show, and one hard to argue with if you don’t have any maturity in Christ. Indeed, like little kids thinking that the fat man in the costume is actually Santa Claus, infants in Christ actually think Moses in the Jesus mask preaching at the pulpit knows what he is talking about or is a purveyor of the Gospel. It’s sad.

    Come on: following the rules because we think it is what God wants us to do (and because it somehow benefits us either now or down the road) is what 98% of all Christians believe. It’s no different than what 100% of all Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, … believe. That’s why the message of living in the freedom of Christ is neither popular nor understood. Like little kids, people crave the structure and well-defined boundaries in their lives that the law provides. It keeps things easy, and you don’t have to think too much.

    Anyway, sorry for the long post, and sorry for the simple attempt at theology. I’m sure there are those out there much more well versed in these things that can poke holes all over this analogy. That’s fine, because all I really know is this: I need a savior, and Jesus Christ is that savior.

    In His grip,
    Eric S.

    LikeLike

12. I believe Jesus’ “Go and do likewise” is an actual command.

    He commands us to go out of our way to help those that are not of our group. Those that would defile us. To help those that would be considered our enemies. To help the likes of what we might consider scum, and not worry about how it might set us back. To pay for their extended care, no matter the cost to ourselves.

    Yes, I do believe this is exactly what Jesus commands that we do.

    I don’t know about you…but I’m not doing all that well at keeping His command.

    – Steve

    LikeLike

13. Are Jesus’ words “Go and Do Likewise” at the end of the parable of the Good Samaritan an actual command or not?

    LikeLike

14. And yet another point I’ve seen MANY times. Fruit of the faith, real faith that is passively resting and fixed upon Christ alone as opposed to that kind of faith that is just religious bravado and “I’m really doing this to sanctify or proof to myself and/or others I’m being sanctified” (religious show faith) often show up at different times. When I’ve seen either in my family or others, religious faith tends to show up during “high end” tragedies (not to say that all that do are doing this), but these situations draw false faith because BIG events are a kind of glory draw to false religious faith, it picks the glory times to be seen and is fleeting and not long suffering at that. But real saving faith is so not religiously engaged that it is around all the time, even at the low times of need. Glory faith shows up when an event is highly tragic or high end moments. But real saving faith is invisible and steadfast, it is there to change a babies diaper, at a nursing home in the middle of nowhere, watching a neighbors children for them, mowing the grass, doing the daily lowly inglorious things. Because it does not seek glory but Christ alone. False religious faith, even that distilled from Scripture shows up where it can be seen like Hollywood does, it enjoys the lime light of cameras flashing, it enjoys the idea (it thinks) that God is watching it “right now” doing “this thing”. Real faith is quite unaware of God’s watching it, again it is singularly fixed upon Christ alone for it.

    Blessings again,

    Larry

    LikeLike

15. “What is it to do the will of the Father?”

    “Believe in the one whom He has sent.”

    – Jesus (the Gospel of John)

    LikeLike

16. Of course to trust nakedly passively Jesus, for the old man, the “doer” to so die at the Word and the new man the “truster” arise, to what He did, to so trust in nakedly, passively, empty handedly continually in Him as sin bearer and giver of all righteousness – to take the Word at His Word, to receive the incarnate Word of God the Father as HIS last Word on the matter – is the highest appraisement of the Law both as to what it REALLY is, utter selfless altruistic love (what the old man and Satan hate) and the incarnate embodiment of it itself Christ.

    God is not freshening up the old man, He’s calling into being the new man by the Word of Gospel.

    Blessings,

    Larry

    LikeLike

17. I had alluded to a movie called Les Meserables as showing forth grace. I find these very helpful because the Gospel is so counter intuitive and alien to us as to how it actually produces the humility and fruits the law calls for. While the law, at least a fallen measure of it, is so natural to us even in our fallen state and produces nothing, not due to itself but due to human fallen nature. There are a couple of good movie’s out there that are kind of “parables” of the modern age about the Law and Gospel. They are of course not Divine word, but they do divide much better, unfortunately, than many pastors now days do on Law and Gospel

    The opening and closing scenes are dynamite. The opening scene has an ex-con, a seeding loathsome criminal, Val Jean freshly escaped from prison seeking shelter in a pastor and his wife’s home for shelter. Val Jean is seedy and ill spirited, suspicious all the time, so they feed him give him a warm bed to sleep in…treat him well. In the middle of the night Val Jean decides its time to go so he begins steeling all the fine silver ware and such while the couple sleep. That husband is awakened by this and goes to investigate. Val Jean catches him downstairs and hits him unconscious over the head with a candle stick. The next morning the police have apprehended Val Jean incidental and suspicious of the items he had (the pastor had never reported the incident) and they bring him to the pastor’s house again because Val Jean is desperate and says he had helped him by “giving” him these goods (VJ is lying of course and just shooting from the hip at this point). To VJ’s and the police’s surprise the pastor says yes and then begins to fill VJ’s bag with more silver items saying, “While Val Jean you forgot this and that…what were you thinking”. Of course everyone including and especially VJ are stunned. THAT free grace begins to change VJ which is of course the subject of the rest of the movie. VJ’s pursuer later in the movie, can’t recall the characters name, is a policeman legal beagle letter of the law par excellent from central Paris. He begins to suspect VJ, later in the movie, of being this ex-con that escaped so many years ago. This policeman is “letter of the law” and lives his life by this code with scrutiny above all else. In the end as Paris is beginning to come under revolution a couple of times VJ ends up saving his pursuer’s life. At the last scene the policeman cannot reconcile this grace and states how he lived his life according to the law. The policeman in this scene has the power now to finally apprehend VJ and VJ does not resist. In that powerful last scene he cannot do so because even though he has pursued VJ all his life and with the law in his right, the grace VJ showed him is something else. So the policeman lets him go. The powerful edge of this scene and conclusion is the policeman’s speech about living his whole life according to the law to perfection, yet he lets VJ go and YET he cannot live with himself for doing so. So he puts the handcuffs formerly on VJ on himself behind his back and jumps to his death into the river below.

    Another good movie I recommend is Babett’s Feast, an 80s foreign film. It’s not super high Hollywood quality but it’s story is nuclear. In this small fishing village there are a number of persons under the care and preaching of a rather puritanesqe pastor whose daughters are named Philipi and Martina (a play on ML and PM’s names). The whole town is raised on this subtle legalistic drival. It’s not over legalism mind you. The town is dreary they eat minimal tasteless food and drink no wine or beer. They deny themselves all the time. Over many many years they grow older and the pastor passes away, his daughters “keep things going”. This mysterious Christ figure, a French woman named Babbett, comes into the scene as a gift to the two sisters from an anonymous giver (I’m jumping scenes and details quite a bit to get the jist of it). She cooks and serves them for years. The town as it ages grows more and more backbiting and impatient with each other. Babette wins the French lottery and some sum of money. She wants to take her money and prepare for her employers and the town a traditional French feast (Babette is the culinary genious/artist, it is her gift). They, the sisters and town somewhat reluctantly agree. She begins making preparations by ordering and shipping in all these rich and exotic food items, expensive wine and everything. The town is watching all this unfold and the sisters especially begin to have reservations, “What have we done, what temptation is this”. The sisters begin to have night mares going back to their old pastor’s warnings and such, and visions of Babette really being the devil tempting them. Well the feast goes on and the wine flows and the town begins to unfold and be joyful again with each other, forgiving each other of grudges held for years and so forth, laughing and hugging. The general, a former towns person, gives this wonderful speech near the end of Christ has INDEED suffered.

    This movie is probable my favorite of all time. Because it shows a strong paradox, what appears to be godly is really demonic and what appears to be of the devil is of Christ, and the natural man reads true freedom and grace as demonic and reads bondage under law and resoluteness as godly. The yeast of the Pharisees, in whatever form, be it Wesley holiness stuff, puritan law or other, always gives rise to fruits of the flesh but it will be perceived as godliness and grace gives rise the other way. The minute someone slips up under grace into a more “gross sin”, according to man’s eyes (like sex or theft as opposed to the more egregious pretty sins like piety in church yard work the later hold a man infinitely from grace, because man is bewitched by them and their good look to him.) – the lawyer, the legalist jumps in and says, “See it doesn’t work.” But that’s just the old man trying to live again as AW Pink brilliantly once said, “…on the clean side of the broad road that leads to hell.” It’s even dangerous to think of the Gospel in terms of “something that will effect something”, because it’s right there that it morphs into law and law is pushed because the EFFECT becomes the consuming thing for a pastor, or church or people and not the naked MESSAGE regardless. Preach the Good News 200 proof and let God bring the increase, and quite trying to play god by pretending YOU can change people. Because what a person (pastor or layman) is really doing right there is trying to be deity themselves.

    I highly recommend these two movies to anyone wanting to see in “parable” fashion grace.

    Richly in Christ Alone,

    Larry

    LikeLike

18. I know proof-texting doesn’t ever work, and I’m not trying to prove anything theologically with these texts, but I do want to show that the Bible is far less afraid to speak in ambiguous terms about the relationship between our works and our reward then many of you are. What bothers me is that you all refuse to use the language that all these author’s had no trouble using.

    John Calvin had no problem using the language of the Scriptures when dealing with the relationship between faith/works/rewards. But you would seem to chide him with the way you talk.

    After looking this list over, go find a copy of Calvin’s sermon “On the Final Advent of Our Lord Jesus Christ” (Sermon 20 on the AGES software under the section for sermons on the Diety of Christ) and watch how he protects against self-righteousness and justification by works, and yet has a thoroughly biblical way of speaking about our obedience in faith and the rewards that will be rendered to us because of what we have done through our faith.

    For according to the work of a man he will repay him, and according to his ways he will make it befall him.
    ESV Job 34:11

    and that to you, O Lord, belongs steadfast love. For you will render to a man according to his work.
    ESV Psalm 62:12

    If you say, “Behold, we did not know this,” does not he who weighs the heart perceive it? Does not he who keeps watch over your soul know it, and will he not repay man according to his work?
    ESV Proverbs 24:12

    Tell the righteous that it shall be well with them, for they shall eat the fruit of their deeds. 11 Woe to the wicked! It shall be ill with him, for what his hands have dealt out shall be done to him.
    ESV Isaiah 3:10

    “I the LORD search the heart and test the mind, to give every man according to his ways, according to the fruit of his deeds.”
    ESV Jeremiah 17:10

    great in counsel and mighty in deed, whose eyes are open to all the ways of the children of man, rewarding each one according to his ways and according to the fruit of his deeds.
    ESV Jeremiah 32:19

    The king mourns, the prince is wrapped in despair, and the hands of the people of the land are paralyzed by terror. According to their way I will do to them, and according to their judgments I will judge them, and they shall know that I am the LORD.”
    ESV Ezekiel 7:27

    The one who receives a prophet because he is a prophet will receive a prophet’s reward, and the one who receives a righteous person because he is a righteous person will receive a righteous person’s reward. 42 And whoever gives one of these little ones even a cup of cold water because he is a disciple, truly, I say to you, he will by no means lose his reward.”
    ESV Matthew 10:41

    He will render to each one according to his works: 7 to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; 8 but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury. 9 There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, 10 but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. 11 For God shows no partiality.
    ESV Romans 2:6-11

    So then each of us will give an account of himself to God.
    ESV Romans 14:12

    For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil.
    ESV 2 Corinthians 5:10

    knowing that whatever good anyone does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether he is a slave or free.
    ESV Ephesians 6:8

    And if you call on him as Father who judges impartially according to each one’s deeds, conduct yourselves with fear throughout the time of your exile,
    ESV 1 Peter 1:17

    and I will strike her children dead. And all the churches will know that I am he who searches mind and heart, and I will give to each of you as your works deserve.
    ESV Revelation 2:23

    And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Then another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to what they had done.
    ESV Revelation 20:12

    “Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense with me, to repay everyone for what he has done.
    ESV Revelation 22:12

    Warmly,

    CT

    LikeLike

19. There is of course the very very very earthy practical, if I can use that term correctly, side to this. We all have this tendency, particularly when it comes to ANY law, love, ethics, morals, etc…to speak in such a fashion that we are “removed” from the accusations or implications of said law we are spewing forth. We tend to speak of “I use to be…” or “yea I was LIKE that ONCE…”; or even in the SoM we will tend read Jesus when He says, “You’ve heard don’t commit murder…I say if you have had anger you have” as “Well I agree with Jesus of course, though I’ve not murdered with my hands (flesh defense exhibit #1 being presented), I do realize (flesh defense exhibit #2, I’ve come to great humility is what this means 99% of the time) that when I’m angry it is as if I’ve actually murdered with my hands (flesh defense exhibit #3 – the final denial and really calling Jesus a liar). Because Jesus doesn’t say “like murder” (which is a softening in and of itself of the Law’s accusation), He says that it IS murder and the fact the hands have not act does not in the LEAST alleviate the guilt and REALITY of the murder. The fact it comes from the heart even if hands have not acted is not a “better” thing, but worse! Now put that in your pipe and smoke it the next time you are cut off in traffic, mad at the insurance company worker, mad at waiting in line somewhere, etc…each case murder committed, murder committed, and murder committed. Because you would as soon that person blocking your way to some temporary thing you perceive life to coming to you be gone, dead, murdered (though we wouldn’t use a harsh term like murder, because we like to hide the reality). Same for adultery and all the others. That doesn’t EVEN touch on the fact that ANY time you/me worry or are anxious about our lives in any sense that we are violating the first commandment, putting a god in front of God to be our god, the second, then the third follow and the Sabbath is of course at this point forgotten. These idolatries lead to and cause the sins against the neighbor.

    To get even more “earthy”, the thing us fallen gods hate so much:

    All the huffers and puffers and purveyors of law from Scripture that come back and undermine, even unintentionally, that I’ve known in multiple denominational backgrounds from various Baptist to Reformed Baptist to S. Baptist to Reformed to Wesleyan to various Charismatics, ALLLL of the most conservative nature – I’ve observed a constant. IF we are going to measure law, NONE of them, and I’ve known them personally, ZERO of them even live anywhere near the level of the Law they claim and lay upon others. Zero, nada, none-whatsoever, not one breathes air that I’ve known or met, not even close, not even in the direction, not even moving toward the level and direction they seem to extract out of Scripture for all to have.

    For example: I’ve had more than a few very conservative neo reformed PASTORS who were NOT Wesleyan try to push the Rich Young Ruler off on me as Gospel. Yet, when I pressed if they “had done that”, I either got ‘crickets and frogs’ or a sheepish yes nodding of the head. INCREDIBLE. Because right here in front of me a pastor is claiming this “giving over” is Gospel and the way to heaven, and I know for a fact they have more earthly wealth than I do/did, look me in the eye and say this, imply he’s done it or at least let silence do it for him leaving me spiritually hanging, yet he still more wealthy on all accounts than I am and yet imply that this is what I need to do too. Incredulous and hypocrisy are the words! To lay the “guilt” trip, the ‘if you will be a saved Christian you must do this’, even while they themselves are bald faced liars is beyond credibility. And I’m not talking about health and wealth pastors, I’m talking about otherwise solid conservative doctrinal pastors. I’m not talking about a Bennie Hinn telling me to do this whose so incredulous so as to be laughable. The RYR passage is just one example, other passages have had the same extraction and application, but when pressed the pastor couldn’t even fess up to it, even though he implied by silence he might have leaving YOU hanging.

    The point being is that I’ve never personally seen in my life, nor read in history any of these SUPER Christians every generation seems to have an idealized fantasy about.

    It reminds me of a mission trip to Utah we had. One of the passages, can’t recall it was in their Book of Mormon, I think some where in Moroni, it stated that “if you’ve repented (up to date) of ALL your sins, then you sin, you must AGAIN repent of ALL your sins”. We always would ask them, “have you got there yet.” Answer, “No” or silence (like some of my above accounts). Then we’d press, “Do you think you will and how so, what makes you think you will.” The answer was always that “god” will give us the grace to do so before we die. Now we use to use that to show how Mormonism is against Christianity, not the same. Yet, that crap is EXACTLY what is coming into and is IN far too many Christian circles, churches, pastors, elders, deacons and lay persons minds, teachings and preachings. In Utah we called it antichristic, but in our local churches around here the very same principle we call the Gospel.

    I like Luther’s earthy approach!

    Blessings,

    Larry KY

    LikeLike

20. Brent Gordon,

    Who is that at Brent’s computer?!

    I bid you untie him and put him back in front of his mac! This miniute!

    – Steve

    LikeLike

21. Charley wrote:

    “Can’t God, through the Holy Spirit, inspire Christians to do His will. And can’t following His will makes us a better, more holy, people?…I’m talking about Christian spiritual formation”.

    These are interesting terms;
    “better people”, “holy people” and “spiritual formation” – what exactly is being desired here beyond a union with Christ in death and resurrection?

    It is imperative that we do NOTHING to nullify this work by grace (Galatians 2:21) – that is the priority:
    “Christ daily drives out the old Adam in accordance with the extent to which faith and knowledge of Christ grow. This ‘alien righteousness’ makes progress and is finally perfected at the end (death and resurrection)”. This, notes Luther, is the cornerstone of our living life well – dying to the old, living to the new (Luther on righteousness).

    “One obvious example is God inspiring us to pick up the Bible and start reading. Another would be feeding the poor in His name. Likewise, church planting, evangelizing, keeping Lent, or trying to be more “SOM” in how we interact with others”.

    It is not what we do that is ‘good’ (looking at things from this view is merely going back to ladder climbing), it is the fact that in as we live, in anything we do, the life of Christ (the fruits of the Spirit) may be evidenced – that the marvelous treasure, placed in these earthen vessels, may actually peak through and savor or fragrance a moment, a conversation, an event with the sweetness of Him – that is astonishing indeed. Our daily need is to be those given up to Him, that He can renew us and that His life can be expressed. Christ in us – that is living by faith!

    LikeLike

22. Charley,
    Just read your post.. I think you have a point that comes through… Often (on these posts) we come through much like Luthers’ writings.. stridently harsh (in writing ) to achieve a point and to make it clearly stand out. We often don’t have the luxury to write “one on one” as a Pastor would. The whole goal of these writings should keep the exhortation of the brethren in mind. Certainly the emphasis the writers have been striving to make clear is the objective declaration of the Gospel in light of the “anti” gospel. Having said that, your point of the subjective is valid and should be considered. It IS proper and right and good to acknowledge and thank God (Emanuel) for His personnel walk with us. I believe we just are sensitive to not make it “normative” and thus reduce it to a formula, which would in effect, make God beholden to us. My point I tried to drive home is, that good works are not meritorious. Christ certainly brings good works forth from the Christian, this is true, however, they earn us no reward. Christ alone has won us the reward that awaits us. That in mind, we are free to perform good works which WILL bring praise to God. Praise then, will not belong to us, but to God who initiates the good works out of us, through His Spirit.
    Good point Charley, I’ll be more thoughtful next l next time I chime in.
    Brent

    LikeLike

23. Hahaha!
    Good on ya H. Lee!
    Boys, we might not be able to convert ‘im, but he’s damm lovable!
    God bless you H. !
    Brent

    LikeLike

24. I think my Catholic sympathies are showing, but I find the following from Brent Gordon a little hard to swallow:

    “The world needs good works.. go ahead. You are free to do them.. but not one “smile from God” will they win you.”
    …
    “There are a thousand things you can do to be helpful in this world, you are free to roll up your sleeves and dig in. Just remember, it’s not contributing one wit to your becoming Holy.”

    Can’t God, through the Holy Spirit, inspire Christians to do His will. And can’t following His will makes us a better, more holy, people? I’m not talking about these things saving us, or giving us material riches ala Joel Olsteen. I’m talking about Christian spiritual formation.

    One obvious example is God inspiring us to pick up the Bible and start reading. Another would be feeding the poor in His name. Likewise, church planting, evangelizing, keeping Lent, or trying to be more “SOM” in how we interact with others.

    Growing up, my parents were non-religious. When I first became a “believing” Christian, I found it hard to even say the name Jesus without being embarrassed. Now, I’m reading more, and as Micheal says, “on a post-evangelical journey, discovering what it means to be vitally connected to Jesus.” I find it hard to believe that God is apathetic to my Christian journey of faith.

    While we could feed 1,000,000 mouths and still be a sinner worthy of death, I find it hard to believe that God cares nothing about acts of Christian good will or grave sin committed by Christians. I would think that it pained God to see the numerous wars between Christian Groups. In addition, I would think that it pleased God to see Christian groups so involved in the civil rights movement.

    To say that God did not care about these things because it was sinners doing them makes God seem absent from our lives, instead of an active participant via the Holy Spirit and Jesus.

    I have not committed to any confessions, or counsels, yet. So, maybe I’m just a little green for this discussion. 🙂

    LikeLike

25. Christopher wrote:
    “Those of us who are Reformed understand that we are justified by faith alone. But we must balance our words the way the Apostles balanced their’s, with plenty of imperatives (well up near 1000)”.

    I so agree, and the one we certainly cannot afford to miss to begin with is the one which Paul had to stand alone for:

    “For freedom Christ has set us free:
    Stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery…
    (for) you who would be justified by law are severed from Christ, you have fallen!
    For through the Spirit, by faith, we eagerly await the hope of Righteousness” (Galatians 5).

    “Part of the proclamation of the good news is that, once we’ve believed, we’re empowered to obey”.

    Those made anew as His sons and daughters – freed from bondage – will indeed proclaim.
    I cannot speak for America, but I know there are many here in the UK (including me)who have indeed been ‘made free’ though the marvelous Gospel light shared by those dear friends at the White Horse.

    Howard.

    LikeLike

26. CT.
    You write:”“Go and teach them to obey everything that I’ve commanded you” has to have a robust and clear exposition or we begin looking like those who pick and choose what verses we like.”
    And finish I want my great commission back.

    I hat to do this I don’t want to come off like I am beating you up with theological arguments. But seriously no one has taken the great commission from you, most especially not Dr. Rosenbladt, who I am happy to know personally. That man’s life has been dedicated to exactly that. Believe me, but his understanding of it might be slightly different than yours, because I believe his understanding of the Gospel is different than yours.
    Now for your great commission it simply doesn’t say what you say it says. It doesn’t say teach them to obey all that I have commanded you. It says teach them to observe/keep (Greek word Teirein) [sorry my transliteration sucks but it will have to do] all that I have commanded you. The apostles are to make disciples by doing two things, batpizing, and teaching. The disciples then learn all that Christ has commanded the apostles to teach them, that is they are to teach these disciples gospel, the forgiveness of sins, not a new list of rules. God, literally, knows that we do not need a new list of rules to live by.
    See I used to read it in much the same way you do. That is teach them to observe (reading observe here as obey) all that I have commanded you. Meaning God has commanded the disciples to do this and that, and the disciples are to teach the new disciples to do this and that also. But that isn’t it at all. What is being said here in short is this. Disciples I have commanded you to teach many things. Teach them all I have commanded you to teach them. Don’t let anything slip by. Don’t ignore any of it. It is all important.

    LikeLike

27. Rick, Steve, and others who have tried to get me to see the light,

    Thanks for your efforts. I’m sure you mean every word you say, and you hope with all your hearts that you can “convert” me and others, for our own well-being.

    I’m not a theologian. I kind of wish I were at this point, not so I could argue with you but so that I could have all the fun you seem to be having with Scripture. (NOT sarcastic here. Honestly.) Theology is fascinating for those who are well-versed in it, and you are all well-versed indeed.

    In my working life I was in the computer business, and I now teach business part-time. Relevance? Well, in my current textbook there’s a cartoon of two American tourists talking to a native of some other country. The American wife is saying to her husband, “He doesn’t understand you, George. Try shouting a little louder.”

    I’m not saying that you’ve been shouting; I’m just saying that you’re talking another language. I’m not stupid — got a Ph.D. and all — but you are trying to speak of spiritual matters and I am trying to hear spiritual matters, and we’re just not connecting.

    Steve and probably others think it is because I’m not listening correctly: “So, if I am starting to sound like a broken record, as my pastor says once in awhile, then so be it…because we all need to hear this, over and over, and over again.”

    Since I’m human, that attitude tends to annoy me. “Here, let me explain once again, and *then* you’ll finally understand and agree with me.” I understand, daggone it! I just. don’t. agree. with. you.

    However, once I can smooth my own ego down a bit, I can say sincerely, guys, if I *could* talk you out of your views, I wouldn’t. Your ideas cheer, strenthen, and sustain you, and that is all that I as a Christian can ask for. (Not saying it’s all *you* can ask for, but…)

    I’m going to hang out in my little corner of the vineyard, and wave at you in yours occasionally. Keep the faith, and God bless you.

    LikeLike

28. H. Lee, you say the following:
    Now, I am a layman, and while I can’t argue theology, I can proof-text, of course: Romans 2:”6 He will render to each one *according to his works:* 7 to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; … 9 There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who *does evil,* … 10 but glory and honor and peace for everyone who *does good,* …”

    Well, the problem here is that Romans is a sustained argument. I don’t have to go outside the argument for an answer. Paul’s conclusion just a very few verses later is that “For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.” This states what you seem to want to say quite clearly.

    Only he doesn’t leave it there. St. Paul has leveled the playing field so that Jews and Gentiles are both accountable to God, and it is not who has the law who is saved, but who does it. Who will that be? No one. “There is none righteous, no not one” (Romans 3:10). How many do good as he mentioned in Romans 2:10? None. “there is none that doeth good, no, not one” (Romans 3:12). And the verse that tells all us Reformation folk how to read all law, “Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in His sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin” (Romans 3:20). So how are we to be saved? “But now a righteousness of God without the Law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all that believe: for there is no difference: For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by the redemptions that is in Christ Jesus” (Romans 3:21-24).

    If Romans 3 can come after Romans 2, then reversals of expectation are always possible. This is the nature of Law and Gospel. The Law is spoken as if it is the final word from which there is no appeal. Then the Gospel is spoken as if the Law were no problem.

    Of course if St. Paul is wrong about all this, you may have an argument. But if St. Paul is right, then we have every reason to use his argument as a lens through which to read the rest of Scripture. So why a Pauline lens? Because he is speaking universally. He is telling us the nature of redemption, and explaining how the Law fits into that. And when we read of the nature of the Law, it is clear that the Sermon on the Mount is a sub-species of Law.

    “But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart” (Matthew 5:28). It isn’t an infinite leap to apply the Pauline idea “Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.” (Romans 3:19) to what Jesus says here. Does Jesus’ teaching here not increase the number of people that will see themselves guilty of adultery, one of the commandments of the Law?

    LikeLike

29. I think the aspect of the WHI crowd that bothers me is the apparent lack of exhortations. Those of us who are Reformed understand that we are justified by faith alone. But we must balance our words the way the Apostles balanced their’s, with plenty of imperatives (well up near 1000).

    “Go and teach them to obey everything that I’ve commanded you” has to have a robust and clear exposition or we begin looking like those who pick and choose what verses we like.

    Part of the proclamation of the good news is that, once we’ve believed, we’re empowered to obey. The Holy Spirit causes us to keep God’s commands. We grow in grace.

    Yet it seems like this kind of talk is not only not present in the WHI type people, it’s viewed as very close to Arminianism.

    I want my Great Commission back.

    Warmly,

    CT

    LikeLike

30. Bror Erikson,

    Excellent points you have made in your discussion with Nate.

    I don’t think it’s fair, though…with a name like Erikson, Nate doesn’t have a chance!
    (just kidding Nate, you do have a chance)

    You Lutherans sure are fools. Fools for Christ that is!

    Thanks Bror –

    Steve

    LikeLike

31. Michael,

    Thanks for the heads-up on that Michael. I’ll will watch that. My apologies to you.

    Sometimes in my zeal…well… I appreciate the gentle reminder.

    – Steve

    LikeLike

32. We’re getting very close to some people evangelizing the IM audience. Please don’t do that.

    LikeLike

33. You know, I’ve been pretty much making the same points over, and over, and over again to my worthy detractors.

    Yet, I know this stuff is hard to swallow. Jesus and His work for us is hard to hear. That old Adam just does not want to die to the religious, self justification, self improvement project.

    I see it in myself everyday. In the way I pray, in the way I think, in the way I live, the “doer” in me, just will not leave the God Project alone.

    That is why Law/Gospel preaching is so important.

    Killing off the God project needs to happen and it needs to happen often. Otherwise that new man, or new woman, can’t be raised to new life in Christ.
    This is crucial in our (Confessional Lutheranism)understanding of God’s Word, and the way that God Does His Word…TO US!

    So, if I am starting to sound like a broken record, as my pastor says once in awhile, then so be it…because we all need to hear this, over and over, and over again.

    Then on that day when the old Adam is finally laid down for the last time, we will be raised for the last time to that unspeakable Glory, and all that our Lord Jesus has in store for us.

    Until then, we slug it out down here (with all the defensive and offensive weapons that our Lord gives us) for a few years, knowing all the while that we are as good as there, with our Lord, even as we battle.

    I pray that all my friends, Brothers and Sisters in Christ on this blog, will someday be able to experience that great joy, that total freedom, that Jesus has won for us, and that He wants you to have. Trust in Him alone, and forget about being so cotton-pickin’ religious.

    Remember; when Jesus walked the earth, the people that gave Him the most trouble, that He had the hardest time with, were the religious people.

    Food for thought.

    Sincerely,

    Steve

    LikeLike

34. Nate,

    Romans is awesome, isn’t it!?

    Faith is a gift from God. It is something (as you rightly pointed out), belongs to Jesus,and He gives us a piece of it. And however much of it He gives us… is enough.

    Living the Sermon on the Mount is not “doing”, or performing at a certain level,as you pointed out in your 1st paragraph, but rather, living out the SoM is “trusting”. That is what the law (gift) of faith does. It calls us to trust…not to act.
    The law (gift) of the Spirit, inspires us to act. This acting (James) comes in many forms and at many levels, but none of it…none of it gains us anything that we didn’t already have by the virtue of the gift of Jesus’ faith to us.(in the waters of baptism (Acts 2), and in His Word of promise.

    So while Luther did refer to James as the “epistle of straw”, taken in proper context(totally outside the objective, external work of Jesus on our behalf), James has value as sort of a corrective of stewardship, or 2 x 4 to the head of Christians that were totally wasting their gifts.
    Luther said as much because the work of Christ on our behalf to save and sanctify us is very, very dim at best, in the Book of James. The epistles that were strongly centered in Christ’s work for us were the books that Luther thought were of much greater value. Not reading the scriptures in a monochrome, flat line, everything weighs the same manner, but reading the bible through the ‘lens of grace’ and not through the lens of ‘law’, is why Luther spoke that way. And I, obviously, believe Luther was correct. Paul goes to great lengths in Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, etc. to make the same sort of distinctions. Luther was just parroting Paul in that respect.

    So, when Paul says in Romans 6, that “we are to consider ourselves dead to sin”, he is not saying that we won’t sin anymore, he is saying that now the Lord our God has acted on our behalf, killing the old Adam, drowning him in baptism, so that our sins no longer have dominion over us. They no longer condemn us. (we will still sin, and often, as Paul states in Romans 7)

    So Paul says “why would we still want to live in sin” (living in it, is giving yourself over to it, totally, willfully, as opposed to stumbling over it as the Christian does, for the most part)
    So he says that we keep the law, out of our greatfulness.(again, not because we have to, but rather because we desire to)

    It all boils to down to this…

    Was the cross of Christ enough?

    If not, then what do I have to do?

    If so, then I am free. (as Jesus said)

    For those that are mired in law, that are imprinted with ‘the law lens’ in their reading of scripture…the cross was good…but just not quite everything. I must now “do”.

    Well, the Gospel of Christ that I know, and that the New Testament screams, at the top of it’s literary lungs, says to us “done”. “It is finished”. Now, go and live!

    Thanks Nate! Always a pleasure, my Brother in Christ –

    Steve

    LikeLike

35. I think Nate (and earlier, Mike Horton and Shane Rosenthal) touch on something here that is actually very key to Reformation theology. To see how important it is, you merely have to unpack the “Sola’s” of the Reformation itself, (pretty nicely done, for example, in the Cambridge Declaration of a few years ago). These essentially show that Christ, His Word, Unmerited Grace and the gift of faith from God (as the original puts it, ‘the just shall live by His faith”) are imperative to the redemption of humanity. We not only “move on from the law of sin”, we are ‘dead’ to the law (Romans 7:4) in order that we may belong to Christ and live life well.
    Luther’s excellent work – his treatise on the freedom of the Christian – gives a very helpful understanding of this.

    LikeLike

36. Nate,
    Canon issues aside. (You can’t just declare a book to be canon. There are rules to that game. You have to prove among other things that it was written by an apostle. Otherwise we may as well just declare the Book of Mormon to be canon. The book of James was suspect for 1500 years, and then the Council of Trent decided it was canon. Sorry as a Lutheran I’m not about to let the Council of Trent decide what is or isn’t canon for me.) But again all that aside. You seem to know a little bit about greek, so it should be easy enough for you to read James and see that he and Paul are using the word “faith” in completely different ways. Why is it the word is translated knowledge in the same chapter when it is talking about demons. No I agree with James knowledge alone does not save, but I also agree with Paul and Luther, faith alone does save. Thing is both Paul and Luther teach that faith is never actually alone, but then you aren’t necessarily going to see your good works either.

    LikeLike

37. Christopher,
    The word translated “do not obey” in 1 Peter 4:17 is actually one word in the Greek, “apeitheo”. I looked it up and while it can mean do not obey, even my Roman Catholic Greek cheater book “A Grammatical Analysis of the Greek New Testament,” says this about “apeitheo” :”dis-obey in scripture usu. of disobedience to God, in NT taking the form of disbelieving the gospel.” This is made somewhat evident the way John uses it in John 3:36 as an antonym for the word believe.
    I hope that helps. I found your question intriguing it sent me on a quest to find the answer, and not just the answer I wanted but what does the text really say. I also did a word search to see if we are ever commanded to “Obey the gospel.” But the only time the word obey is used in conjunction with the gospel is in the negative form translated do not obey. The other NT word for obey, often used in the conjunction with Christ, is “hupakouo” which gives the connotation of listen to, rathern than just here.
    So I think I have to remain with Horton on this, we don’t live out the gospel, we live in light of the gospel. The gospel isn’t something we do.

    LikeLike

38. Of course, once we head merrily off into Romans, we have to take care to distinguish between the various forms of “law” Paul is discussing. I’m seeing a tendency to lump everything into the Mosaic law to hammer the inability to be justified by works through the law of the old covenant. Okay, very well and good. But there is nuance. We have the Mosaic law and the natural law (2:12-15). Although a guide, we cannot attain salvation or righteousness through these laws by a law of works (3:27). It is only through the law of faith (3:27) that we can move beyond the law of sin (7:25, 8:2) and defeat it with the aid of the law of the Spirit (8:2).

    Now for the law of the faith, to be able to operate in the law of the Spirit, we need Christ. It is not merely our faith, and thankfully not, but also that of Christ (Gal 3:22, sadly not translated correctly in the English translations “being given through faith in Jesus Christ” should read “through *the* faith *of* Jesus Christ, to those who believe”). The Gospel makes Christ known to us, yes. We must believe and have faith to be justified, yes. But what do we do with that belief? This is where the law of the Spirit comes into play. If we try to live the Sermon on the Mount without faith, we cannot receive the grace that draws us into closer union with Him and thus our salvation. But to cast aside the law of the Spirit in cavalier fashion for those who would proclaim faith is a grave error. Scripture clearly states that we can not be justified by works. But stating that justification is by faith alone will put you in conflict with Scripture (yes Luther wanted to get rid of James, yet it too is canon).

    LikeLike

39. Shane Rosenthal,

    Nice going! That Romans verse (4:5) says it all.

    If it doesn’t, we are really in big trouble.

    – Steve

    LikeLike

40. Christopher,

    I can’t speak for Dr. Horton, but here’s what I’d do with 1Pet 4:17. Paul has a similar comment in Romans 10 in which he says,

    “As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!” But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?” So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ (Rom 10:12-17 ESV).

    But as you can see, Paul qualifies what he means by “obeying the gospel” in the next verse, when he repeats Isaiah’s question, “who has believed?” So obeying the gospel simply means to be obedient in faith.

    Also, take a look at the definition for the word gospel (euangelion). My Greek dictionary (Louw & Nida) has these helpful and interesting comments, “In a number of languages the expression ‘the gospel’ or ‘the good news’ must be rendered by a phrase, for example, ‘news that makes one happy’ or ‘information that causes one joy’ or ‘words that bring smiles’ or ‘a message that causes the heart to be sweet.’” This information that causes joy, is simply to be believed or not believed. It is not an action to be accomplished. Christ performed the action, and this is the good news. We simply believe it: “To the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness” (Rom 4:5).

    Shane Rosenthal
    Producer, The White Horse Inn

    LikeLike

41. M. Horton,

    You said:

    By the way, I think it’s important to say that we live the law, not the gospel. The gospel is not something to be followed, but something to be heard and believed. It’s pure announcement. The place for the third use of the law is directing us in our life of gratitude as forgiven people. So we live IN THE LIGHT OF the gospel, ON THE BASIS OF the gospel. But it’s the law that gives us things to do, not the gospel.

    Simon Peter says:

    “For it is time for judgment to begin at the household of God; and if it begins with us, what will be the outcome for those who do not obey the gospel of God?” 1 Peter 4:17 ESV

    I think you need to justify yourself.

    Warmly,

    CT

    LikeLike

42. H.Lee Wrote:
    “In the particular case that we were discussing (the SoM), for instance, Paul’s words for you have a higher “value,” theologically, than Jesus’s words. OK. I don’t “get” this, but I accept that you sincerely believe it”.

    If you actually look at Jesus’ words in the Sermon concerning the nature and demands of true righteousness (as I touched upon in a previous comment) then you can see why Paul’s exposition of the nature of Sin, the Law and Salvation by Grace through Faith are so essential to the very essence of Christianity.

    “Now, I am a layman, and while I can’t argue theology, I can proof-text, of course: Romans 2:”6, etc”

    Proof-texting is easy, but follow the argument of Paul’s epistle through from chapter one concerning the issues, and the conclusion is inescapable – we are made anew entirely by grace.

    “I left church feeling even blacker despair than when I had entered it. Being told weekly from the pulpit that I was a worthless piece of garbage, totally depraved, and always had been and always will be and there was absolutely nothing I could do about it, but that’s OK because God forgives me”.

    If that’s all the church you attended provided as theology, then I don’t wonder at your despair and your departure. Yes, we need to show people what they are (and that is ugly), but we so need to bring people to the grace and mercy of God, and then share the life He brings so that our lives become a means to share the riches of His grace and goodness. Fellowship should entail of this.

    “The evil is a *part* of our nature, but one that we can overcome with God’s help. That’s not at all the same thing as saying our whole natures are plainly evil, and we must get rid of them entirely because God hates them”.

    To follow through Paul’s argument, the only thing you can do with the old nature is end it – who needs to be tethered to something that vile? – but the work of Grace is to give us a new nature, to make us new creatures, that can know and mature into God’s people.

    “Thank you for “engaging” in this exchange”.

    It’s pretty imperative that Christians do talk about these things, and there are clear reasons why.

    To end, a few choice words from Martin Luther:

    “It is evident that no external thing has any influence in producing Christian righteousness or freedom, or in producing unrighteousness or servitude…anyone can clearly see how a Christian is free from all things and over all things so he needs no works to make him righteous and save him, since faith alone abundantly confers these things”

    (Treatise on the Freedom of a Christian)

    Regards,

    Howard.

    LikeLike

43. Michael Spencer,

    I have a feeling that we may be getting towards the end of this wonderful discussion that you’ve initiated.

    Your blog is one of the best I’ve seen because you aren’t afraid to tackle anything. Your honesty and integrity in approaching matters of ultimate importance is a great encouragement to me insofar as those qualities seem to be on the wane in this post, post modern world.

    I pray for you continued blessings from our Lord, and that He may be a lamp to your feet and a light unto your path as you journey in the post-evangelical wilderness.

    Thanks so much!

    Your Brother in Christ-

    Steve

    LikeLike

44. To Whom it may Concern,

    I understand that many are not in agreement with the “totally free” grace doctrine, the likes of which Brent Gordon, Howard, Brian, Larry and myself espouse.

    I do think that many may have heard something new in these discussions and I would encourage the two of you(maybe only one) to click on Brent Gordon’s name and also Howard’s name to avail yourself of more stimulating thoughts along these lines.

    Thanks to the aforementioned for your undaunted devotion to the cause that is the Gospel of our Lord.

    – Steve

    LikeLike

45. Shane Rosenthal,

    That was a great reply to my questions.

    Thanks very much. If I understand your answer correctly, you pretty much are in agreement with me and countless others, that our good efforts are not enough, and also that being obligated to do something would be an imperative, and that would mean that we would be right back where we started..under the yoke of the law. We are , however, as is pointed out in the Heidelberg Catechism, inspired by God’s Spirit to do good works. BIG difference between inspiration and obligation.

    So, if we are not under any obligation and we are really free as is said in several places in the N.T., that means that nothing be done on our part. One does not have to do anything to be a Christian. Nothing. Again, this blows the minds of Evangelicals and Roman Catholics, basically because they have pretty much the same Jesus + theology. A lot of Jesus and just a little bit of me, only it usually turns out to be the other way around.

    Luther found this out the hard way after doing 14 1/2 years in an Augustinian cloister. Talk about climbing the ladder!

    Once he heard that sweet, liberating sound of the gospel, he never again went back. Melanchthon went in for the 3rd use of the law , but Luther never paid it much heed.

    Luther said (as Howard pointed out to us)that “the whole gospel is outside of us.” It is an objective and not subjective reality. Christ has declared from the cross that the war is over between a just and demanding God, and his willfull disobedient creation.
    Like some Japanese soldiers on far flung islands in the Pacific, we will not believe that the war could possibly be over so we continue to fight, struggle, and sqwirm, refusing to let God be God and exercise His will. We just have to be involved. We won’t let go.

    Jesus tells us to let go!

    The trouble with the ladder of our efforts to please God, or to attain some greater spirituality, is that there is always another rung. It is a never ending project. People and pastors (not that pastors aren’t people…some are) will (with the best of intentions) keep you on this endless quest for something that you will never attain outside of the person of Jesus Christ.
    You just never arrive!
    In the waters of your baptism, in the body and blood of communion, in the preached word of the gospel…heard and believed…you have arrived! It is finished! (there it is again…funny how that keeps showing up)
    Pastor Mark Anderson says that “there is only one rung on the Christian ladder, and that is the horizontal board that is on the cross. That’s where the Christian life begins,and where it ends.”

    I’m telling all that will hear it, that there is absolutely nothing that can compare to the freedom that Christ has won for you. And once you are totally free of the constricting force of the law, you will never go back again.

    This kind of teaching and preaching is hard to find in our contemporary church culture, but it is out there. The White Horse Inn is a great example. And there are others.

    Thanks Shane Rosenthal! Peace and Grace to you!

    – Steve

    LikeLike

46. Steve (and Howard),

    Thanks for taking time to reply.

    I really don’t know what to say to you, except what I say to the pleasant Mormon missionaries who come to my door once in awhile: “I appreciate your sincerity, but I think your basic premise is wrong.”

    You are theologians, and I do respect that. But I also see that theologians disagree all the time (as Mr. Spencer mentioned above).

    Steve, you say, “You know, H. Lee, the Reformation was all about sticking to what the Bible actually says. We don’t make this stuff up, it all comes from scripture. But what we don’t do as Reformed Christians, Confessional Lutherans, etc, is read the scriptures in a monochromatic fashion, applying the same level of value to each verse. This is where theology comes in.”

    I would suggest that “what the Bible actually says” is not that easily clarified, and that in the process of “clarifying” it, theologians tend to choose the verses that their own theology values most highly. In the particular case that we were discussing (the SoM), for instance, Paul’s words for you have a higher “value,” theologically, than Jesus’s words. OK. I don’t “get” this, but I accept that you sincerely believe it.

    Now, I am a layman, and while I can’t argue theology, I can proof-text, of course: Romans 2:”6 He will render to each one *according to his works:* 7 to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; … 9 There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who *does evil,* … 10 but glory and honor and peace for everyone who *does good,* …” That sounds to me like God is looking pretty hard at what we *do* — but you could probably come back with some other interpretation, and we could play “dueling Scriptures” all night. No point in that.

    But I have been thinking about this whole “Reformationist” approach throughout the day, thanks to you. As you might have gathered from my tone, it has personal meaning for me. I left the Presbyterian Church in which I was raised, after many years, because I simply could not bear Reformation theology. It was pounded at us from the pulpit every Sunday, and every Sunday I left church feeling even blacker despair than when I had entered it. Being told weekly from the pulpit that I was a worthless piece of garbage, totally depraved, and always had been and always will be and there was absolutely nothing I could do about it, but that’s OK because God forgives me — well, let’s just say that after awhile it lost its comic value.

    It didn’t seem to bother most people in the church, but that, I figured, was because no one took it seriously (except me). In my observation, no one I’ve met can or does live their life as if they really believe they are a worthless, hopeless piece of garbage. (Well, some very sad people like drug addicts might, but I declined to be one of them.) Most people talk and act as if they are reasonably decent human beings, trying to get along and do their best for God and neighbor in this life — which I think is the truth.

    But how, I asked myself, can people who *really believe* this “we are forgiven garbage” approach, such as Steve and the WHI folks, not only keep going but actually find strength and inspiration in contemplating their own depravity, forgiven though it may be?

    The tentative answer I found was in my knowledge of the 12-Step programs. The First Step, as you may know, is to “admit we are powerless…, that our lives have become unmanageable.” The Second Step is “Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity.” And so forth.

    In the 12 Steps, though without the moralizing, was the outline of what you seem to be talking about: an admission of personal helplessness, and a surrender to God. I can easily understand *that,* because I have done it and I have seen it work. It works wonders!

    Now, of course it is different from Ref. theology, because what 12-Steppers are fighting is alcohol addiction, drug addiction, codependency, or some other plainly evil thing. The evil is a *part* of our nature, but one that we can overcome with God’s help. That’s not at all the same thing as saying our whole natures are plainly evil, and we must get rid of them entirely because God hates them.

    But still, I think this is a start for me at understanding, for the first time, what makes so many Reformationists (like my former Presby pastor) so dead set on and enthusiastic about their message.

    So although I *still* feel your basic premise is wrong, I have for the first time gotten some glimmer of understanding about it. At least I hope so. Thank you for “engaging” in this exchange (and feel free to point it out if I’ve got it wrong *again*)

    LikeLike

47. This is for Steve who asked,

    “If one is obligated, then one should do it. If this obligation is there and we are so grateful to the Lord for saving us, then why do we not do what He tells us to do? Are you aware of anyone who is keeping their part of the obligation, or are we back to “trying your best” counts for something?”

    Great question. Basically this is the tension between Romans 6 and 7. Six emphasizes our obligation (the imperative that flows from our new indicative status) “Shall we sin that grace may abound? By no means” But chapter seven reminds us that we will still struggle with sin until the day we die. Also, I find the Heidelberg Catechism very helpful here:

    Q 62. …Why cannot our good works be the whole, or part of our righteousness before God?
    A: Because, that the righteousness, which can be approved of before the tribunal of God, must be absolutely perfect, and in all respects conformable to the divine law; and also, that our best works in this life are all imperfect and defiled with sin.
    Q 63. What! do not our good works merit, which yet God will reward in this and in a future life?
    A: This reward is not of merit, but of grace (Luke 17:10)
    Q 64. But does not this doctrine make men careless and profane?
    A: By no means: for it is impossible that those, who are implanted into Christ by a true faith, should not bring forth fruits of thankfulness.

    SR

    LikeLike

48. I think Luther made a distinction between condemning a man’s theology/doctrine versus the man himself. Luther always held out sure hope even heretics. It’s one thing to speak strongly against Christ hiding doctrine another to condemn the man fully. And I think even Luther said we all ‘serve Satan’, pastors, theologians, laymen, the “best of us” from time to time. I know my own “legal bone” doesn’t die so easy in practice as it does in work.

    The funny thing is that legalist, even some who have posted here, my NATURAL gravity is to side with them. I have to fight myself with grace to escape it!

    For what it’s worth.

    Larry

    LikeLike

49. Isn’t it a bit disingenuous to speak as if the “reformers” are of the same mind? Calvin would not have recognized today’s reformed Baptists as Christians. We know what Luther thought of Zwingli. Calvinists persecuted Lutherans. The whole “reformed” label is rejected by Lutherans, and most people who call themselves “reformed” today consider large swaths of the “reformed” community worldwide to be apostate.

    Where exactly is this reformed community that’s being celebrated here?

    LikeLike

50. The danger of this, is that you will find conflicts with Reformed theology and its interpretation of Scripture. What you do with these conflicts is up to you.

    I think the real danger is when we seek to side-step or ‘mumble’ our way around the clear teaching of the New Testament regarding God’s work through Jesus Christ. I’m not about defending “Reformed” theology, I’m about the fact that it’s by grace that a person is saved, through faith, and this is not of ourselves, it is the gift of God. All else will stand or fall because of this key reality.

    LikeLike

51. “Of course, if one reads the works of the Church Fathers, including those you would credit with putting together the canon, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, one can gain much insight into the interpretation of the Scriptures and meaning and manner of our salvation. The danger of this, is that you will find conflicts with Reformed theology and its interpretation of Scripture. What you do with these conflicts is up to you.”

    Nate,

    I’ll buy most of that. The part I don’t agree with is your assertion that Reformed theology is in conflict with scripture.

    Scripture seems to me to be screaming the work of Christ, for us. And not the other way around.
    Why else would they call it “the good news”?

    If you see it another way, I guess that’s “bad news” for you and anyone else that had better get busy and clean up their acts.

    I’ll stick with Reformers, thank you very much.

    Thanks Nate!

    – Steve

    LikeLike

52. Larry,

    Much thanks to you for your staunch defense of Christ’a work on our behalf, and your reminder that the law brings death, anyway you look at it.

    Q: Just why did Christ die for us anyway?

    A: Galatians 5:1

    Luther’s commentary on Galatians may be his best (of all his 54 volumes,or whatever the total of his amassed writing is).

    Howard,

    You have rung the bell once again, my friend!

    I forgot all about those awesome Christ centered scriptures. There are so many great passages centering on Christ’s work for us that it’s hard to keep track of them all!

    – Steve

    LikeLike

53. >The Church Fathers that put together the cannon
    >thought quite a bit of St. Paul and deemed his
    >letters of crucial importance in trying to keep
    >the Church Christ centered and not believer
    >centered. Most of the books in the N.T. are by
    >St. Paul. God must have thought enough of Him
    >to use him to do as much.

    Of course, if one reads the works of the Church Fathers, including those you would credit with putting together the canon, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, one can gain much insight into the interpretation of the Scriptures and meaning and manner of our salvation. The danger of this, is that you will find conflicts with Reformed theology and its interpretation of Scripture. What you do with these conflicts is up to you.

    LikeLike

54. H. Lee,

    Humans are not born children of God. We are born creatures of God and are called and chosen to be His children by His good and gracious will.

    In order for you to be born again, you have to become nothing first. God does not re-create someone from something, especially the something that does not want Him. In Romans 6, baptism is described as an actual death of the old sinner. ‘ Do you not know, those of you who have been baptised, were baptised into a death like His”. God uses baptism to kill us off, and his law also.
    But then He raises us to new life. Where we offer up our sin to God (it’s all we have to offer Him), and He brings down His forgiveness, there is a meeting. And at that meeting a death must occur. In your baptism, that death (of the old Adam)actually happens, He’s not taunting us, God is not a spoiled brat, He is actually killing off the sinner, so that a believer, clothed in Jesus’ white robe of righteousness, can enter the Holy place where He is. So, as it says in the Gospel of John 1:12,13 (speaking to believers now), “you were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” He calls and chooses us as He wills. Jesus said, also in John, “I choose you, you don’t choose me.”

    You know, H. Lee, the Reformation was all about sticking to what the Bible actually says. We don’t make this stuff up, it all comes from scripture. But what we don’t do as Reformed Christians, Confessional Lutherans, etc, is read the scriptures in a monochromatic fashion, applying the same level of value to each verse. This is where theology comes in. Our theology reads the scriptures through the lens of God’s gracious promises to us. We say that grace trumps the law.

    When Jesus separates the sheep from the goats , he’s not looking for lawkeepers, but rather those that acted un self-consciencely. They had no idea they were doing something that would gain them something.” When did we do this?” “When you did it to the least of these you did it to Me.”
    Do you see the difference between being inspired to good works and doing them out of hope for reward or fear of punishment?

    Theology isn’t mentioned anywhere, it is done…by us, in order to distinguish God’s Law from His Gospel.

    Reformation theology is all about the Gospel. That our sins are forgiven for Jesus’ sake, out of his love for the ungodly, by faith (alone) is the bedrock on which the Christian Church stands or falls.

    God the Father, in his purity and righteousness, would be unapproachable (no one has seen God and lived) were it not for our Mediator and our Savior, Jesus.
    God doesn’t view us as worms, or slime, because God made us in his image. The fall into sin would not be such a great tragedy if God thought of us like that. And I never said He does view us like that.

    This whole discussion is about whether we can keep the commandments of God, if we have to keep them, or if we need to try to keep them, and the implications of those scenarios in the actual living out of the Christian faith in our daily lives.

    The Church Fathers that put together the cannon thought quite a bit of St. Paul and deemed his letters of crucial importance in trying to keep the Church Christ centered and not believer centered. Most of the books in the N.T. are by St. Paul. God must have thought enough of Him to use him to do as much.

    That was a bit(ok, more than a bit) herky -jerky, but then…so am I!

    Blessings to you H. Lee!

    – Steve

    LikeLike

55. Extra! Extra!, read all about it…
    Jesus says in the sermon on the mount:

    “Do not think I have come to abolish the law and the prophets – no, I have not come to abolish them but to FULFILL them (because not one aspect of this law can pass away until fulfilled)”.

    We are told to take note that anyone who seeks to relax on any one of these commands, event the very least, will be least in the Kingdom, for “Unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom”.

    So how is that possible?
    How can we keep the law?

    This is EXACTLY where Paul’s teaching concerning the nature and purpose of the Law (Romans 1-3) and Christ’s fulfillment and work of Redemption (Romans 3-8) comes into play – there is no discrepancy here, only completion. If this is merely ‘theology’ and ‘bad Christianity’ then we are in really deep trouble – what exactly is the alternative?

    Christ’s words in this sermon are comforting because He teaches us to seek first God’s kingdom – GOD’s RIGHTEOUSNESS – and everything else is then provided.

    LikeLike

56. Steve,

    “…The Sermon on the Mount by David Scaer…”

    That was wonderful posting that Steve! I always found it amazing when my rightwing friends would tout the 10 Commandments and my leftwing friends would counter with the SoM. I use to tell both of them, “Do you not realize they are the same and both accuse you and me and damn us. The reason we NEED Christ is because we don’t LOVE altruisitically.”

    You lifted my spirits with that quote, that was Gospel served well! I guess that’s the thing. When the SoM or other are used in such a way that they engender “I must do” one always feels the “tightening up” inwardly, even if you DO things that outwardly work what the SoM speaks, one’s heart is suddenly burdened and thus one is really not doing it. But when I hear that Jesus did it for me, just like your wonderful quote said one feels that “release” or relaxing and one finds oneself just free to do and love from the inside out.

    The Gospel, pure Gospel, gives us a “taste” of what it will be like, FREE, and free to love. We just cannot “feel” that here and now it seems. But the tightening comes from the imperative side, and the freedom comes from the indicative side. It reminds me of that opening scene in Les Misreables (I never can remember how to spell that).

    Yours truly,

    Larry KY

    PS: Howard, I second Steve. Great posts brother, been there too!

    LikeLike

57. Howard,

    You are a true bulldog for Christ!

    – Steve

    LikeLike

58. I echo Mr. Spencer’s echo of Spock: “Fascinating.”

    The doctrine that Steve and the WHI folks proclaim is one that I, and apparently several other commenters here, find bizarre and grim:

    Timothy: “I would not think that Jesus would talk to simple people as His disciples with some hidden spiritual meaning, or using the Sermon to kill them as Pharisees would kill with their “letters”. His words are spirit that gives life.”

    Charley: “Of course, nobody can fulfill all of the Sermon on the Mount, but I am sure only this kind of living can move the unbelievers to see the light of Jesus and glorify God.”

    The God that Steve (and the WHI) describe is not our loving Father, but rather this utterly Other being, unapproachable, unknowable, utterly pure. We humans are not His beloved though faulty children; we are filthy worms or slime, intolerable to His purity. Jesus came to die to reconcile us (the slime) to God (the Other). And that’s the Good News!!

    Since we all seem to be speaking frankly here, I’ll say that this story sounds to me like bad science fiction. Yet apparently in some circles it is Reformation theology. Far more “fascinating,” to some people this view of our relation to God is joy and comfort!

    To adopt this view, of course Jesus’ own life, behavior, and teachings have to be minimized or reinterpreted by the correct Reformation code. So Jesus, in the Sermon on the Mount, is not giving hope and comfort to ordinary people, to the meek, the merciful, or “they that mourn.” Instead, he is taunting them with their weakness, as a father would taunt his young child: “Come on, you can lift that table! You saw Daddy lift it, didn’t you? What’s the matter with you? Try harder!!”

    The goal of this taunting is to make the child (us) collapse in despairing tears. Good News, indeed.

    In contrast to this weird interpretation, I can read that Jesus named God as our Father. The early church prayed, shockingly, to God as “Daddy.” Over and over again, Jesus tell us that God loves us with a father’s kindness, and He speaks of various people (the Samaritan, the shepherd seeking the lost sheep, and others) as exemplars of God’s love toward us, and of the way we must behave toward each other.

    In His message about the Last Judgment, people are divided, not by whether they were justified, sanctified, or in some other theological slot. Indeed, theology isn’t even mentioned in those last chapters of Matthew. Rather, you’re invited into the Kingdom if you’ve acted lovingly toward your fellow human beings. Your theological standing apparently doesn’t matter at all; the “sheep” don’t reply, “Why, yes, Lord, we did all these things because we were first sanctified and then we were justified.” (or is it the other way around?) Instead, like the “goats,” they say, “Huh?”

    The Reformationist approach to the Gospels is apparently to ignore them as much as possible, in favor of Paul’s more abstruse musings. When Jesus’ simple yet profound sayings *must* be addressed, make their message cryptic and gruesome. God forbid (indeed) that anyone reading the NT should perceive God as the loving Father of All.

    This Reformationist approach may be excellent theology — I’m in no position to know. But it is very bad Christianity, IMNSHO.

    Yet if it gives some people strength and hope, I suppose it shouldn’t be completely condemned. Perhaps if ones early spiritual life has been a set of rigid rules which were impossible to follow completely, that might indeed be ones view of God. And the only relief from such spiritual abuse might indeed appear to be utter despair.

    LikeLike

59. We so, so often make something other than Christ’s saving work the be all and end all of church –
    a particular view of ecclesiology or spiritual gifts or holiness and on and on – they all prove to be a ‘bewitching’ which effectively seeks to move our gaze away from the message of ‘Christ Crucified’ to the misery and chains of ‘another gospel, which is not another’. The tragedy is how often we deny our birth right, trading it up for such a sour alternative.
    The time is most certainly here to abandon such nonsense and to ‘earnestly contend for the faith once delivered to the saints’, and not some legalistic, dualistic, counterfeit.

    LikeLike

60. I should of said (of Spock),… if he had ‘ears’ to hear!

    Thanks Michael! What a fantastic post on an issue that is not talked about enough.

    Your Brother in Christ,

    Steve

    LikeLike

61. As Spock says…”Fascinating.”

    If Spock were one of us, he’d say… “Fantabulous!!!”

    LikeLike

62. As Spock says…”Fascinating.” 🙂

    LikeLike

63. To Michael(the one and only I.M.)Spencer,

    When I read those two passages I hear this:

    Here I am! Look no further. The One that is your salvation, the One who is the source and goal of not only your life, but the life of the world, IS HERE! Repent and Believe!

    Repent of what? Your failure to keep the law, to be what God demands you to be.

    Like Luther said, “if you are sorry, that is enough”. We can’t even do that on our own, so the Holy Spirit leads us to repentance. And then we hear those wondeul , beautiful,life giving words,…”Your sins are forgiven for Jesus’ sake.”
    And we are raised to new life.

    That’s Jesus’ favorite thing to do; raising the dead. “He loves fresh dirt!” (a quote from James Nestingen)

    Anyway, that’s what I get when I read those passages through the lense of ‘the gospel’, and not the lense of the ‘the law’.

    LikeLike

64. So what is the “gospel” Jesus is proclaiming in Mark 1:14-15? What is the Gospel of the Kingdom in Matthew 9:35?

    LikeLike

65. Here here Howard!
    I spent 20 years of my ‘christian life’, climbing some ‘ladder’ upwards on to new ‘glories’ ( american evangelicalism). Just when I thought I was ‘there’, some well intentioned christian told me, “now I have to speak in tongues” or some other such demonstrable evidence that I was ‘growing’…. Enough is enough!
    Jesus Christ just never seemed to be enough for these kinds of movements..
    It just never is enough just TO BE in Christ.
    Thanks be to God, I walked into a Lutheran worship service ( a Lutheran Church that is still confessional ). I heard for the first time law SEPARATED from the Gospel. While I was ‘climbing the ladder’ I heard the Christ came down the ladder, even into the grave FOR ME! What more could anyone add to that great news?
    I just don’t understand talk of trying to live out the SoM. I don’t get it. Having been freed from the law, why would anyone want to cling to it again? Law MUST be preached or there is no Gospel..that is true, but it is only preached to condemn and accuse, NOT to tune up our performance to please God! The faith of Christ is the only thing that pleases God. He gives us that faith out of His ‘free will decision’. When someone ‘get it’ and repents, the whole counsel of Heaven leaps for joy.
    3rd use of the law? No way! Forget it! Those who pay it lip service are doing just that. The law suppresses civil evil and exposes us as sinners so that Christ might be revealed to us as Saviour.
    I am with Steve on this also,.. How is everyone doing with their performance in keeping the SoM (3rd use of the law) How are you doing?
    Are you doing better today than you did yesterday? How do you even gauge such a thing? Forget it! TRust Christ ALONE and just BE. Good works will tumble out of you, often without you being aware of them.
    “I am the vine…” Christ is the one who gets good works out of us . It’s HIS work in us. Why this ‘nervous nelly’ compulsion to ‘help God out’ in getting Christ to wring performance out of us?
    “abandon good and evil and depend on Christ” (Luther)
    Thanks,
    Brent

    LikeLike

66. We’re certainly pretty good at adding and subtracting from God’s requirements to deem ourselves ‘good’ or at least OK (doing a little better than last week), but as Dr Rosenbladt notes:

    “If the Ten Commandments were not impossible enough, the preaching of Christian behavior, of Christian ethics, of Christian living, can drive a Christian into despairing unbelief. Not happy unbelief. Tragic, despairing, sad unbelief. (It is not unlike the [unhappy] Christian equivalent of “Jack Mormons” – those who finally admit to themselves and others that they can’t live up to the demands of this non-Christian cult’s laws, and excuse themselves from the whole sheebang.) A diet of this stuff from pulpit, from curriculum, from a Christian reading list, can do a work on a Christian that is (at least over the long haul) “faith destroying.”

    That is the reality we commonly face today – certainly it is a similar to that Paul faced when he ‘stood alone’ against the heresy that stained the Galatians, or the one Luther faced when he stood against so many before the diet – Law disenfranchising the Gospel in common, everyday Christian teaching and practice. It has to end.

    LikeLike

67. Howard,

    It is time that living under the law is stopped. But, it was also time when St.Paul was teaching it (he still is teaching it).

    We don’t want to stop living under the law. It is written on our hearts and it is our default position.

    That is why the law needs to be preached and taught as a means to death. The death of the law/obligation keeper.

    We just don’t want to die. That’s it in a nutshell.

    In the face of those who preach and teach the law as a guide, or princilples for Christian living, we say to the hearer “your sins are forgiven for Jesus’ sake”.

    That’s the Gospel..and that’s enough.

    LikeLike

68. Our dear Lord invited us to come to Him for ‘His Yoke is Easy and His Burden is Light’ – He is the one who will not break the bruised reed nor extinguish the smoldering flax. He is the God who looks mercifully upon the one who cannot even raise his eyes heavenward. When you have encountered so many environs which tell you THEY decide who you can marry and when, who will be of use and who will not,who is saved and who is not, who is right and who is not, then the very last thing you need is more teaching that wants to tell you that you are under LAW! Because of HIS work, I can now come with boldness to a throne of GRACE and find MERCY IN TIME OF NEED. I wish more teachers and leaders would wake to the fact that so often today, Christians find themselves ‘outside the camp’ because they finally realize enough is enough – they are totally burnt out due church going merely becoming a weekly cycle of over burdening the faithful with all manner of obligations and requirements (generally not scriptural imperatives) whilst DENYING the ministry of the Gospel. Isn’t about time this stopped?

    LikeLike

69. Shane Rosenthal,

    Thanks for your thoughtful input to Michael Spencer’s stimulating post, which was a direct result of the White Horse Inn.

    You and the team at The White Horse Inn do a fantastic job wek in and week out. I along with countless others owe a great debt to your efforts. Thank you very much!

    Now, down to brass tacks. You mentioned that the one who’s been justified does have obligations(not in order to be saved)to keep the law. If one is obligated, then one should do it. If this obligation is there and we are so grateful to the Lord for saving us, then why do we not do what He tells us to do? Are you aware of anyone who is keeping their part of the obligation, or are we back to “trying your best” counts for something?

    – Steve

    LikeLike

70. One point that I would like to add to this discussion is that Reformed Christians have always taught that believers do have obligations to keep the law by virtue of both creation and redemption. We are made in the image of God, and his law is imprinted on the conscience (creation). We also have been redeemed, and “in view of God’s mercy…” we owe God our “reasonable service” (redemption).

    But the important thing to remember is that we are not obligated to keep the law in the sense of a “do this and live” covenant. With respect to justification, there are no obligations to the law, but rather (“to the one who does not work, but trusts, his faith is credited as righteousness…”). This particular point has fallen on hard times, and this is why we at the White Horse Inn spend so much time on it. It lies at the heart of the gospel. We are granted access to heaven simply by trusting the bare promise, by faith in the completed work of Christ alone.

    But just because the “do this and live” covenant has be eradicated, does not mean the “do this” has been abolished. The one who has been justified does indeed have obligations to keep the law, but just not in order to be saved. We are not our own, but have been bought with a price,” and therefore we should serve God out of gratitude for all his good gifts he has mercifully given to us in Christ.

    Shane Rosenthal
    Producer, The White Horse Inn

    LikeLike

71. Brian,

    Good comments Brian.

    I like what you said about “honesty driving one to despair” (over one’s performance).

    I will certainly check out Tom Weaver’s ‘Gospel Solution’.

    Brent,

    I love the St. Paul quote that “Christ is the end of the law to those who have faith.” Romans 10:4 (The end of law except for the 3rd use?)

    Howard,

    “I am totally tired of ladder climbing schemes for the saints”.

    Here, here!
    For in those schemes, one never quite arrives…there’s always another book to buy, another deed to do, another rung to climb.

    Many thanks to you guys and the thoughtful comments by all contributors to this posting!

    – Steve

    LikeLike

72. Wonderful comments here! Good on you Howard! I agree with your assessment.

    With loving respect to brother Ruben, one MUST do theology when reading the Holy Bible. Scripture must be read through the lenses of the Gospel or else we have just another law book. This is how the canon of scripture was compiled. The Church fathers did Theology when choosing the books. To say that one can just “read it like a child” is nonsense ( I don’t intend to insult, just make a strong point). There are 100’s of american sects of Christianity, all claiming the Bible as their source.. Are they all right? This simply is not enough. We must not read the Bible like a “christian Qur’an”, we must instead look for Christ to be revealed AND in His revealing, look for the forgiveness of sins which He promises.

    Again to topic: Steve again has made his point clearly and correctly. All our efforts are ambiguous at best. The theme that I’m reading from the proponents of trying to live out the SoM, is just that ..”trying” as if somehow the intention is meritorious. It’s not. Not even just a little. If one wants God to look at human behavior to, even in a fraction of good intentions, then Grace will simply be put aside and the rule book will be brought out to judge the performance. No where will “sincerity” or a “good desire” be considered in order to curry heavenly favor.

    I refer back to my earlier post: the problem for us are these words; “He was crucified, died and was buried”… This is too complex to just say , He had to die to pay off a debt to a beetle browed deity ..No the theology of the cross is much more than that. Chiefly for our discussion of the SoM, the death of Christ IS for us just what Christ uttered.. “it is finished” that means our striving to please God, because we can’t. Jesus can and does FOR YOU.
    Good works in the “christian life” Go ahead! who’s stopping you? The world needs good works.. go ahead. You are free to do them.. but not one “smile from God” will they win you. Christ alone has won your “smiles from God” all by himself. He accomplished that out of His love for ungodly, unlovely people.
    St. Paul tells us that “Christ is the end of the law to those who have faith”.
    No-one, not the Pope nor some folksy, smiling, “best possible you” is going to prescribe some “code of ethics” for Christians! The Holy Spirit is able to sanctify the sinner whom He justifies. WITHOUT our cooperation. He does this through hearing the Gospel,Holy scripture and the Sacraments. He makes us Holy not because we act more and more Holy by our “best purpose now” living, but by His Spirit at work in the aforementioned. Live in FREEDOM! Help your neighbor if you’d like! There are a thousand things you can do to be helpful in this world, you are free to roll up your sleeves and dig in. Just remember,
    it’s not contributing one wit to your becoming Holy.
    Jesus Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit at work in the poor words of the preacher is what makes sinners Holy when those words are heard and believed.
    Thank you,
    Brent

    LikeLike

73. Having been through virtually every brand of ‘teaching’ in my thirty plus years in the faith, I wish I could say I’ve found examples of churches where the glory of the gospel has indeed made me free to serve. The reality has been very different – we simply don’t have something as refreshing as the White Horse Inn here in the UK. What we do have is large swathes of evangelicalism saying what I should and should not do, all of the time, most of the time – it has literally been over a decade since I last really heard the message of ‘Christ and Him Crucified’ preached from a pulpit (and that from a visiting minister). I am totally tired of law and ‘ladder climbing’ schemes for the saints. The reality is that we usually do not placard the message that we should, so please, Mike, Kim, Rod and Ken, keep doing what you are doing – if it were not for God’s intervention through such means over a decade ago, I know my life would have been very different.

    LikeLike

74. Lutheran’s aren’t the only one who talk this way. Listen to what Tom Weaver says in his “Gospel Solution” :

    “The main reason Jesus uttered the Sermon on the Mount was to bring people like Tom Weaver to that place where he would admit he was entirely unworthy of being in the presence of a holy God. Like that Roman soldier, I know that I do not deserve to ask the Lord to do anything for me. I’m completely without hope and merit. But fortunately, that knowledge prepares me for the marvelous message of the gospel of grace found in Christ Jesus. It prepares me without my keeping the law, without forgiving, without loving my enemies. Why? Because I’m hopelessly unable to do any of those things to ever win my salvation.

    If you can accept that the teachings of the Lord before the cross were not designed to tell you how to live but to flatten out your self-righteousness, you will be right where God wants you. You will be ready to accept the work of Jesus on the cross, without which no one will ever come to the Father. This teaching is not the ultimate pattern for living. It demonstrates God’s standards, and those standards are impossibly high for unworthy people. Their purpose is to bring us to the place where we fall at His feet and cry: “Lord, be gracious to me, a sinner.””

    For myself, this is a much needed corrective to the CofC/Pelagian doctrine that I grew up with. Doctrine that said it was just a matter of the will to be able to do those things that Jesus commanded. Of course if you were honest enough with yourself it would just drive you to despair.

    Does Weaver’s end of the spectrum go to far? Perhaps… balance is the key. But if forced to choose I’d stray towards that end any day.

    LikeLike

75. Mike Horton,

    I appreciate your thoughtful clarification of the intent of your latest WHI program.

    I too am a Lutheran, but one that does not ascribe to the 3rd use of the law for the reasons I gave in almost all of my responses in this post.

    If I gave the impression to people that I believed you also did not believe in the 3rd use, then I do apologize. That was never my intent.

    I happen to follow the late Gerhard Forde’s view of the 3rd use ,that being that it opens the back door for legalism to enter and place a drop of poison in the glass. One drop of poison in the clear, pure, waters of the Gospel, is enough to spoil the whole thing.
    Besides, I believe the supposed 3rd use (a guide on how to live)is contained in both of the other uses.

    If the Holy Spirit is not capable of inspiring us to good works apart from any use of the law, it seems to me that the gospel isn’t everything it claims to be.

    BTW, next to my pastor’s classes, your program is the greatest!

    Thanks!

    – Steve

    LikeLike

76. This is such a critical issue and I’m such a fan of what you’re doing with this blog that I was compelled to check the responses.

    I’m only responding–again–because the replies reflect a lot of misunderstandings about (a) what we said on the program; (b) what we hosts believe more generally; (c) what Reformed Christians have historically meant by the Law/Gospel distinction.

    (a) Many responses react to positions we never argued in that program. None of us said the Sermon on the Mount merely gives us “helpful advice.” We said that a lot of preaching, using such passages, TRANSFORMS this rich sermon into mere “tips for living.” As I said in my reply, this program wasn’t on the Sermon on the Mount. Maybe we need to do one focusing on that marvelous passage, so that we can flesh out its positive significance instead of pointing out how it’s misused. Just for the record, my own view is that the Sermon is mainly about the eschatological in-breaking of the kingdom that the old covenant theocracy foreshadowed. With the King present in person, the kingdom gathers around him. All of its powers of the age to come converge in his description of a realm that is “already” and “not yet” in its present manifestation. For now a kingdom of grace, it will be revealed as a kingdom of glory at Christ’s return. The intentional parallel with Moses (a sermon from a mountain) highlights that one greater than Moses is mediating the new covenant polity that, instead of issuing in holy war and the distinction between Jews and Gentiles, issues in peace and the union of all peoples in Christ. There’s a lot more in there, but that’s enough to indicate that I hardly consider it as “helpful advice.” That, in fact, is the distortion that we were challenging on that program.

    (b) Many responses at least implied that we (and I) deny the third use of the law. This is simply wrong. I have written books on the normative function of the law in the Christian life and wherever I have treated this distinction, I’ve always insisted upon the third use. BTW, the same could be said of the other guys, including Rod: Lutherans are as confessionally bound as we are to affirm the third use of the law against antinomianism. It’s in their Book of Concord. I have never endorsed the “Sonship” curriculum or position. My view is nothing more than ordinary, garden-variety Reformed theology. For a fuller, more nuanced and comprehensive discussion of justification, Paul and the law, eschatology and soteriology, the historia salutis and the ordo salutis, etc., I’d suggest my recent book, Covenant & Salvation: Union with Christ (WJK). A lot of the sweeping characterizations of my view above could be corrected by reading that book, although I realize you probably have more interesting reading near at hand. The assumption that Tom Wright was the first to relate justification to the kingdom of God, covenant and eschatology is difficult to understand in the light of the whole history of Reformed treatments. I think a lot of people are reacting against a “Four Spiritual Laws” kind of reductionism to salvation as “me-and-my-personal-relationship with Christ,” but this is pietism rather than Reformation theology.

    (c) Distinguishing law and gospel is regarded by some of the replies as a denial of the former. That just doesn’t follow. Loving God and neighbor is just as fully in force–in fact, more fully revealed in all of its depth and richness–in the new covenant as in the old. In fact, it is the gospel that announces that because Jesus has conquered death and hell, condemnation and sin’s tyranny over our lives, we are liberated from fear to be servants to our neighbors. Law and Gospel are both fully operative today, but as always, they do different things. We don’t need to find a balance between Paul and Jesus. They’re in perfect agreement: those who think they’ve fulfilled the law have not, but Christ has accomplished this for us decisively and poured out his Spirit so that we can be incorporated into his new creation–into which the Sermon on the Mount gives us such a profound glimpse.

    Sorry to ramble.

    Mike

    LikeLike

77. Howard and others,

    So… If I try to be a good person (i.e. follow the SoM), because I want to please to God, that’s a bad thing? I understand that, like Luther, we can get wrapped up in trying to reach an unobtainable goal (i.e. perfection). This takes our eyes off the prize of Jesus. But, going through my life saying “I’m saved, God will now make me a better person,” just does not cut it for me.

    Maybe I’m not Calvinist enough. I believe I can’t be saved apart from God’s grace, but I also believe that God wants us to use our free will to accept that grace. Yes, He gives us all the grace required, but we still have the opportunity to reject it.

    Likewise, holding the SoM up as a goal does not mean I’m trying to buy salvation (just like our choice to cooperate with God’s freely offered grace is not the same as trying to purchase it). We will screw up, we will sin, we will be the imperfect beings that we are. But as long as our goal is trying to follow Him, instead of trying to buy salvation, we are doing right.

    Our eternal resting place was purchased on the cross, so it does not depend on how successful we are in following the SoM. But if I unrepentantly cheat on my wife, I expect to hear about it after I die.

    LikeLike

78. This is an example of Theology taking precedence over Christ. To me, following His teachings is what faith is all about. I show my faith and dependence on Him when I listen to and apply His teaching to my life. That’s true faith, intellectual assent is not faith.

    I really think theology makes one miss the forest for the trees. I wish we could approach the Bible like children and take it for what it is and not try to compartmentalize and categorize everything!

    LikeLike

79. Here are some quotes from Scaer’s The Sermon on the Mount that speak to some of the issues discussed in this post:

    “The Sermon on the Mount is Gospel in several senses of this word. It is Gospel because its message not only originates with Jesus, but because it is about him.”

    “The Sermon on the Mount is for those who have recently joined themselves to the community of faith; it was never intended as a sermon to awaken faith. When the sermon is understood within the context of the community of faith, its Christological content becomes clear. Outside of this context, it has frequently been interpreted as ethic and regulation.”

    “Catechesis was a vital part of early church life and Matthew was the premier example of it. The Sermon is an earlier compendium of Christian doctrine used in preparing for Baptism or used with the baptized in preparing them for a fuller participation in the Christian community.”

    “More recent interpretations of the Sermon on the Mount have attempted to emphasize the Christological element. Such an approach, where it is consistently carried out, resolves the tension between the demand of the Sermon (the Law) and its fulfillment in Christ (the Gospel).

    “The message of the Sermon is not a demand, driving the Christian to an impossible moral perfection, but it comes to the Christian as a demand fulfilled already in Christ and which is now made possible for believers, since it has first reached its demands in Christ.”

    “This is basically the approach taken in this present work, which also takes the Christology of the Sermon as the one pervasive theme. This is not, however, an isolated, dogmatic Christology, but one in which Jesus comes into a living relationship with his disciples. Thus ecclesiology in its highest expression is only an extension of Christology, what the church believes and confesses about Jesus. The sermon describes what the church has already become in Christ (Christology) and the manifestation of perfection at the end time (eschatology). Graham Stanton put the matter in this way: “If Christology is Matthew’s primary concern, discipleship (ecclesiology) is not far behind.”

    LikeLike

80. Good to find a page where people are thinking about what really matters!

    The message of the Gospel is straightforward –

    GOD justifies the wicked (us)
    GOD is reconciling and redeeming us, and grants us the only means to do so – faith in the finished work of Jesus Christ, who is OUR righteousness, sanctification, etc. ANY attempt we make to establish a righteousness before God by any other means is merely seeking to re-introduce legalism (a regime of law keeping) by the back door, which, as Steve has rightly noted, is essential for the moralism (self-justification) of our old nature.

    The clear examples of the errors made by the early church (discussed by Paul in Galatians, Colossians and so forth) shows us exactly what happens when something other than a ‘righteousness not of ourselves’ becomes the bench mark or litmus test of Christianity. Away with such nonsense! Luther was EXACTLY right in his correspondence with Melancthon:
    “THE WHOLE GOSPEL IS OUTSIDE OF US”.

    In HIS righteousness,

    Howard.

    LikeLike

81. Michael:

    Have you had a chance to read The Sermon on the Mount by David Scaer?

    Scaer argues that Matthew’s Gospel was used as catechesis in the early Church and that the Sermon on the Mount is all about Christology. He argues that the moral demands made in the SOM are descriptive of Christ’s perfect obedience to the Law and the Righteousness he earned for us.

    From the product description:

    “The Sermon on the Mount is a critical study of Matthew 5-7. Dr. Scaer explores each unit of the sermon and presents the rich Law/Gospel truths in Jesus’ words.

    This sermon, the author argues, is designed as instruction for God’s people; Matthew’s purpose in including this sermon is catechetical, or a focus on preparing catechumens for Baptism and life in Christ in the church.

    Scaer discusses the individual sections of the sermon in a way that helps readers understand both the content and the goal of Matthew’s text.”

    LikeLike

82. Steve,

    You responded to my post with some texts, so I thought I would comment on them in light of my contention that your phrase “You are totally free to help the neighbor – or not!”

    ‘We are saved by Grace through faith, not of works, lest anyone should boast.”

    Yes! Salvation is by grace. We have no merit we can bring before God to escape His wrath. However, this does not “free” us from the obligation to love (although we will never love perfectly). It does, however, assure us daily that when we do fail to love, we are still accounted righteous before God in Christ.

    “Now to one who works, his wages are not reckoned as a gift but as his due.
    “And to one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness.”

    Again, yes! See my above comment. Your assumption seems to be that the only obligations we have are in the category of “salvation”. My contention is that God’s gift of salvation itself lays upon us obligations. Let me put it this way:

    Am I obligated to love my neighbor? Yes, because Christ first loved me.
    Is my salvation dependent upon my meeting this obligation? Absolutely not, salvation is purely through the grace of God in Christ who endured God’s wrath for my sake.

    So I stand by my earlier remark that you will not find a statement such as “You are now totally free for the neighbor – to help him or not!” in the New Testament.
    Instead, what you find in the New Testament, especially Paul’s letters, is first a discussion on salvation which appropriates the beginning, middle, and end of salvation to God in Christ alone. But when the New Testament writers want to exhort believers to live a life “worthy of the calling they have received” they do not resort to hedging their exhortations with repeated assurances that “while I am asking you to do this, please don’t misunderstand and fall back into works righteousness.” No. Instead they simply plunge forward with positive commands: Love one another; put away all malice; etc.

    I’m simply arguing that the method the New Testament writers used to urge their readers on to the “high calling” of Christ is the means chosen by the Holy Spirit to do the same for us.

    I hope this clears up the reasons for my objection to your earlier statement and the problem I have with the WHI program I-monk is referencing.

    Peace.

    LikeLike

83. Paul warns not against keeping Christ’s commands(a form of law keeping), but warns against trying to be a keeper of the law covenant. In the law covenant, you live by keeping all its commands. And this is what Paul warns against. But in the New Covenant, which is not like the law covenant, we are under the law of Christ. Keeping the law of Christ is not the basis of the New Covenant. So I would argue that the gospel has transformed the law. In the new covenant, the law does not condemn us. Now it has become a delight, and we are free to be slaves to this new law of righteousness. Hear me clearly, being a slave to this righteousness is not the basis of the covenant. But surely we must say that the gospel has made the law a delight, precisely because the new covenant is not the law covenant. This, I think, is the redemptive historical law/gospel contrast which Paul is setting up in Galatians.

    LikeLike

84. I lied(add another sin to the pile). I said that was my last comment, but I can’t let DD’s question to me go unanswered.

    “If I sleep with my girlfriend, He’s still pleased with me?” “If I steal from the gut next door God’s still smiling and happy?”

    You’d better hope so! What makes you think that God deems those sins worse than any other ones you are still committing everyday? We sin in thought, word, and deed, you know. Not only when we do what we ought not, but also not doing what we ought be doing. And each sin, no matter how small or meaningless you think it might be, is enough to send you to Hell, if you did not have an advocate.
    Who’s going to judge you, anyhow? It’s the one who died for you.

    St. Paul still sinned after he became an apostle. “What I should do I don’t do, and what I shouldn’t do I do.” (Romans 7:15)

    Do you think you are somehow different than St. Paul?

    I don’t know any Christians that don’t willfully commit sin…everyday!
    If you don’t come to a complete stop at a stop sign, you are sinning. If you are 3 miles an hour over the speed limit, you are sinning.
    Get my point? Sinning is what we do. The list of sins of omission that each of us commits each year could fill a swimming pool!

    But, St. Paul also tells us that we are to consider ourselves dead to sin, because we have been put to death in baptism. (Romans 6:11)

    The great Reformation principle still applies, “Simul ustes et pecator”, totally sinful, yet totally justified.

    I would also ask you, respectfully, D.D., to remember that we get zero points for trying. The law must be keep perfectly if we want to be justified in the sight of the law.

    Well, how are ya doing?

    OK, Michael. I cry uncle. No mas. No mas. I think I now have just an inkling of understanding of what St. Paul, and Luther were up against. Don’t get me wrong…I am nothing, and I know it. I mean going up against the law and the old Adam is murder. He just doesn’t want to die! I know it’s true because I see it in myself!

    Thanks again, all! If you want to joust some more over this one, talk to Brent Gordon, or Mike Horton…I’m spent (for now).

    – Steve

    LikeLike

85. “I’m here to tell you that your Father in Heaven is pleased with you before you start the day, because of what Jesus has done for you.”

    So if I then sleep with my girlfriend, He’s still pleased with me? If I steal from the guy next door, God’s still smiling and happy?

    Why then does the writer of Hebrews state:

    “If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace? ”
    (Hebrews 10:26-29)

    I assume the “go out and do some good” is sarcastic, seeing as how you’ve been railing against the idea that we need to do good…that is trying to earn it after all.

    I can’t disagree with the idea that Christ is a “Now I get to do whatever I want”-Free card. Does he forgive screwing up? Yes. Does that mean we no longer have to try NOT to screw up?

    DD

    LikeLike

86. The question has been asked a few times here (in the comments of this post), “How are you doing?”

    If we decide that there is a legitimate use of the law that both Jesus and Paul are using, to help us with our conduct, we must ask ourselves the obvious question… “how are we doing?”

    Rules and laws at any level demand a certain level of performance.

    How’s it going out there? Does anyone dare to answer the question? Is anyone doing alright?

    If you are “doing alright”, I’d like to usher you into the Temple to observe the Pharisee and the tax collector and listen to Jesus, as he tells the disciples exactly what He is looking for.

    “For freedom Christ has set us free.” In freedom there is no demand. Period.

    He who began a good work in you will bring it to completion, and He doesn’t need your feeble efforts at being a law keeper to help Him out.

    St. Paul says quite clearly in Galatians, “cursed be every one who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law and do them.” (Galations 3:10)

    He says that if you want to be a law keeper, then you sever yourself from Christ. Pretty heavy!

    Any way you slice it, law is law, is law, is law. Any demand that existence places upon us to fulfill our humanity, is law. It is not merely the 10 commandments, or the SoM, it’s is any demand made of us to be what we ought be, or do what we ought to do.

    Doing good is an unconscious act for another without any hope of reward or fear of punishment.
    I have never met a pure motive yet. It’s all filthy rags.

    Once you have the handcuffs removed from you by the grace of God, you will never again submit yourself to the yoke of any law.

    Once free, you will go and do without the breath of a demanding diety on your neck.

    For those of you that still insist on having to achieve some level of performance, I’m here to tell you that your Father in Heaven is pleased with you before you start the day, because of what Jesus has done for you. So relax, and glory in the forgiveness of sins that is a gift to you in the cleansing waters of your baptism, in His Word, and at His table.

    Then go out and do some good!

    (those are my last comments in this vein – thanks for letting me opine)

    – Steve

    LikeLike

87. Great post. Someone may have mentioned this in the comments; I haven’t read them all.

    I also love the law/gospel distinction. I used to hold the view espoused on WHI. But the more I’ve wrestled with the text, I have backed off of the individualistic/generic view of law/gospel. One way that I have thought about it is to ask how Paul (from whom the Lutheran/Reformed tradition get much of the law/gospel contrast) used the term nomos. Luther definitely read Paul’s term “nomos” as a generic anthropological category, saying that the law is whatever commands. I think there are aspects of truth to what Luther and some of the Reformed were trying to communicate with this. But I am more convinced now, from pondering Galatians, that this is not exactly what Paul meant by “nomos.”

    The answer to the problem is revise the law/gospel distinction according to Pauline categories. In Galatians, instead of reading “nomos” as a generic category for commands, translate “nomos” as “law covenant.” Most english translations lead astray at this point, translating “nomos” as “law,” which communicates some generic idea that any commands fit into the Pauline conception of “nomos.” This generic understanding of “nomos” is precisely how the older law/gospel distinction pushes all the commands of the Sermon on the Mount into the category of “nomos.”

    But if you read Paul in Galatians, he clearly is arguing in redemptive historical terms. He is contrasting the “law covenant” with the new covenant, which is based on promise. This distinction allows commands within both covenants, but the commands function differently in each.

    A great overview of this modification can be found in the writings of Douglas Moo. He calls it a modified Lutheran view of the Law. So again, everyone should try reading Galatians in their English Bible, and everytime (virtually) the text says “law,” read it as “law covenant.” I think you will find that this translation fits better Paul’s overall argument in the letter.

    LikeLike

88. If Jesus is Lord, then Satan isn’t. That’s the gospel:

    “For he delivered us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins” (Col 1.13-14, cf., Acts 5.31, Heb 2.14).

    Because we have received forgiveness, we no longer fear death, and so that fear no longer enslves us to Satan. And because we are forgiven, not in spite of it, we are liberated to live as who we are, the king’s rescued people (Col 3.1, 3.5ff, Ro 8.11-12, 8.15, Heb 2.15).

    LikeLike

89. Michael – I’m like you in loving the law/gospel distinction but of late I’ve had some occasion to rethink it – chiefly because I’m listening to John Frame’s lectures on ethics from the RTS page on iTunesU. One of the things I find interesting is that he says almost the same thing as Wright, but he can get away with it – the gospel is the gospel of the kingdom and the kingdom is the rule of the law of God. Law and gospel are not opposed because the gospel comes to write the law of God on the heart. He does say that there are some functional distinctions one can make in the discussion, but we err when we oppose law and gospel. I’d recommend those lectures to your readers.

    LikeLike

90. Thanks for the kuddos and your own insights! Conversational theology isn’t exactly formal theology. In the latter case, I’d want to offer a careful presentation that did more justice to the role of the Sermon on the Mount in the Christian life today (which I’ve done elsewhere, especially in a book on the Ten Commandments that applies the law in its third use throughout). But that program wasn’t on the Sermon on the Mount; it was on the way in which some folks today are making it the gospel. By definition, imperatives (commands) are not indicatives (promises/announcements).

    When we confuse Law and Gospel in the Sermon on the Mount, we make our kingdom living the good news. But that doesn’t eliminate the positive, normative function of the law that is prescribed there. It’s just not the gospel. The gospel is present in the Beatitudes. On the basis of our already being the mourners who have been comforted, the cursed who have been blessed, the sinners who have been absolved, and the fact that the King has brought the new age of the kingdom with him into this present evil age, we can now live in the Spirit (loving our enemies, for example), rather than in the flesh (cursing our enemies). God has blessed the cursed and this frees us for the first time to imitate his kindness.

    So maybe we need to do a program just on the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus is saying a lot more there than “You can’t pull this off.” He was introducing us to the new world that he inaugurated and will finally consummate when he returns. This program was on how we distort the Sermon in the service of moralism, so it was necessarily one-sided.

    By the way, I think it’s important to say that we live the law, not the gospel. The gospel is not something to be followed, but something to be heard and believed. It’s pure announcement. The place for the third use of the law is directing us in our life of gratitude as forgiven people. So we live IN THE LIGHT OF the gospel, ON THE BASIS OF the gospel. But it’s the law that gives us things to do, not the gospel.

    Thanks a lot for your iron-sharpening remarks!

    In Christ,

    Mike Horton

    LikeLike

91. Alright, I am listening to the episode of the WHI right now. Maybe a point of clarification on what the “usual cast of characters” are talking about. At least two of the men on the show hold to the Heidelberg Catechism (Kim and Mike), but I don’t think Rod or Ken would disagree. Anyway, the HC is split into three parts, (1) guilt [law] (2) grace [gospel] (3) gratitude [law]. Guilt leads us to Christ/Gospel, Grace is the call of Gospel and Gratitude is the live we live i thanks to God for saving us from our Guilt by his Grace alone. So, I don’t think they would disregard the continuing validity of the Sermon on the mount for the justified sinner, i.e. they are not antinomian. The justified Christian relates to Law differently than sinner who has never been redeemed. These are merely the three uses of the law that Calvin spoke about: (1) to drive us to Christ (Rom 3:20) (2) to be used in city of man to suppress evil (3) to live a life of gratitude to God out of thanks for what he has done for us in Christ.

    Hope this helps clear things up. (I think they make this clear in the last 8-10 minutes or so)

    LikeLike

92. Lanier,

    ‘We are saved by Grace through faith, not of works, lest anyone should boast.”

    “Now to one who works, his wages are not reckoned as a gift but as his due.
    “And to one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness.”

    The above are in the new testament (Romans)

    “Now that you don’t have to do anything…what will you do” (Steve)

    ” You will never find such a statement in the mouths of new testament writers” (Lanier)

    I beg to differ. This is exactly what St.Paul was saying, in not the exact words. but can’t we do a little theology?

    If we aren’t willing to do some theology, but instead trade proof texts we will really end up with a schizophrnic view of the Christian life.

    When churches use the Law (watered down so it’s managable) as a means to make you better (biblical principles, etc.) they are setting people up to despair of the whole Christian project, or they become prideful and self-righteous (those that think they are actually doing a pretty good job), or they become phonies (acting the same way, speaking the same, carrying around the same 3 foot long bible). They play church and put on the front so no one will know what’s really going on inside their heads and hearts.

    On the other hand, when the Law is preached in it’s strong, intended fashion, as Jesus did it, it will kill off the old sinner and create a repentant heart and then the Gospel can move in. Dying and rising. A process of salvation (“for those of us who are being saved…” St. Paul).
    This baptism, in a nutshell…dying and rising.

    That is the shape of the Christian life. And then of course we can speak of the implications of such a dying and rising, or the good works that will naturally flow from faith.

    This view has never been a popular one in the church and I can see (guess) that it will never be popular. For the old Adam just can’t leave it alone. (so we to kill him off, again, and again, and again.) That is why Jesus commanded us to baptise and partake of Himself at His supper. So we could have this done..to us…externally…so we couldn’t mess it up with our efforts to help.

    Am I crazy…or what?

    LikeLike

93. Steve is correct on the issue. Righteousness by faith apart from the law is given, through the hearing of the Gospel, to those whom God has enlightened to hear it. Such “good news” delights the hearts of saints who have been freed.

    Luther once said in light of this..”Turn away from good and evil and depend on Christ” Steve said that our desire is to “take the bull by the horns ourselves”: St. Paul rhetorically asked as much of the Galations; “Having begun by the Spirit, are you now going to perfect it in the flesh?”

    The problem for sinners is the words in the creed , “He died”.. This accuses us.
    It’s over. We’re finished. There is no more wiggle room for our efforts to please God by our “striving” Moses cannot sneak back in the picture to help us please God. Faith alone is what is pleasing to God. Alone in Christ.

    The whole saving power of the Gospel is contained in the words, “For You”.
    I admit, I don’t get too cheery when I read the SoM.. but my heart leaps for joy when the preacher says “Christ gave himself for you”..

    Trying to ‘live out ” the Gospel is nothing more than christian Buddhism. It’s spiritual naval gazing. It’s sort of like being a spiritual peeping Tom. When one objects to this and wants to have their performance matter regarding living out the SoM, then he must be asked, “how are you doing?”
    “how is your performance today?” then he must hear, “IT”S NOT GOOD ENOUGH”! The Holy law of God demands perfection. There is no escape.
    Christ alone, the cross alone, faith alone.
    Be free in you bondage.. Live despite your death.. Glory be to God through Christ who reigns with the Holy Spirit..Amen

    LikeLike

94. It certainly seems to me that some of the attraction of this type of extreme anti-works theology is related to our loss (and now cluelessness) as to the resources of the church in spiritual formation.

    We read we are to stop sinning. We find we can’t do it, and even find we often don’t want to. Big surprise. But instead of availing ourselves of the formational and transformational behaviors Christians have engaged in for centuries (worship, mutual confession and submission, spiritual direction, prayer and fasting, etc.), it sure is simpler to decide these look too much like earning our salvation (plus they are hard work!). So we figure if we can’t follow the clear teachings of Jesus right now today we probably never can, so He must not really mean them. Not really. Surely he had some other, more nuanced, more theological point we could arrive at that doesn’t actually require us to engage in the development of our character into Christlikeness.

    Seriously, go read the Gospels again and see how many times Jesus clearly states or tells parables about bearing fruit. If you have to undermine most of these in the name of your theology, I’d be questioning your theology, not Jesus’ words. I have to agree with NT Wright on this one. If the Gospel is escapism (God will take us to heaven somewhere else after we die) this sort of trip down do-nothing lane makes some sort of sense in the Gospel. If the Gospel is invasion (God breaking into and redeeming the fallen creation through a “new creation” community indwelled by the Spirit and embodying reconciliation in Christ) then embodying the teachings and life of Jesus might actually be crucial, even central, to the purpose of the Gospel.

    Horton and company have a hold on part of the Gospel–that we are saved by the grace of God in Christ. But the New Perspective and NT Wright represent good theology–whether they want to admit it or not–and the heyday of grace/works as the sum total of the Gospel is over. We need a more holistic view that doesn’t lead to such silly extremes.

    LikeLike

95. The SoM IS the Law. It’s the Law broken down past the external obediance to internal obediance. Thoughts and intents of the heart and all. It illustrates that just not killing your neighbor isn’t the point, but loving him is. That none of us can live up to these ideals…we need grace.

    But does grace mean we can do whatever we want and still be Sons of God? Should we sin because grace covers us since we are incapable of living up to those ideals? I think not.

    It’s not a checklist, a way to earn your own salvation. Rather, it’s a guidepost to ascertain if you’re on the right road. In the SoM, Jesus lays out what Paul will later call the fruit(s) of the Spirit. If we are “in Christ” we should be showing the fruit not because we want to earn God’s approval, but because we empathize with the other person.

    If you give to the poor, don’t do it thinking “See God, I gave to the poor.” That’s the Law. Give to the poor because of love, compassion, the idea that you’d hate to be in their shoes.

    Are there times when we, as fallen humans saved by grace, aren’t “there” spiritually yet? We don’t really care about the hobo in front of the ball game? Yes. I think it is then that we have to go ahead and give anyway, because we were commanded to. Sooner or later, if we’re growing in Christ, we will WANT to give. Old things passing away and all thing becoming new…

    Rebellion against the things God has told us to strive for, under the excuse that we can’t really be perfect anyway, is still sin. Having sex outside of marriage is still sin, even if you’re a Christian. Shall we continue in sin so that grace may abound?

    God forbid.

    DD

    LikeLike

96. I now hold you personally responsible for that hour of my life that I will never get back. Thanks alot. I am not dumber and number for having partaken, or at least I’m more glazed over somehow.

    LikeLike

97. Sermon on the Mount do sound like Jesus’ Commandments. I would not think that Jesus would talk to simple people as His disciples with some hidden spiritual meaning, or using the Sermon to kill them as Pharisees would kill with their “letters”. His words are spirit that gives life.

    Of course, nobody can fulfill all of the Sermon on the Mount, but I am sure only this kind of living can move the unbelievers to see the light of Jesus and glorify God.

    I am in about one fourth of Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones two volumes on the Sermon of the Mount, and I would recommend his books to you. They are very moving and soul-changing. But the words above are mine, not from MLJ, in case you would think I am recommending that understanding as coming from the famous books 🙂

    LikeLike

98. Lee Irons has a take on this that might be helpful in this discussion – http://www.upper-register.com/papers/three_enshrinements.pdf. Basically he says that for the Christian, the “Law of Moses”, i.e. the ten commandments et al, has been replaced by the “Law of Christ”, of which the SoM is an expression.

    The sense of “law” in this use is different from the OT “law”, in that there is no longer punishment for failure to keep it, because Jesus has already taken the punishment on our behalf. Not only that, but He has already kept the law on our behalf. Lee says, “Christ has not only fulfilled the Mosaic Law by means of the fuller revelation that he brings (points 1 and 2), but by means of his keeping the Law in our place, thus calling us to an obedience in union with him that is the result rather than the basis of God’s favor….”

    LikeLike

99. I don’t know what living the gospel would mean. Seems to me that if living the gospel, means trying to do what the SOM says than this can only mean living the gospel is trying to fulfill the law in your own life. So I don’t think I would use that term. Maybe living the Christian life, would be better. But then I always tell my parishoners: living the Christian life, isn’t living the perfect life, but living the forgiven life.
    It doesn’t mean you can’t love your enemy or try, but after your done trying your forgiven for your feeble attempts. And if you find you shot the SOB then your forgiven for that too.
    And I don’t know that extra biblical distinctions between justification and sanctification, that make our sanctification dependent on us are all that helpful. I find it very interesting that in the 6th Chapter of 1 Corinthians, as Paul is in the middle of taking people to task for their sins and unrighteous behavior, he pauses to tell them all that “such WERE some of you” Even though the activity is still going on among the people he is addressing, and he continues, “but you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the lord Jesus and by the Holy Spirit. The completeness of our sanctification is as much a reality now as the completeness of our justification. So no, you can try to live out the SOM if you want, but to try and be justified by life or Sanctified by your life, then yes that is an insult to all the work Jesus accomplished for you on the cross. Like trying to payback a dear friend for a gift. And please don’t call it living out the Gospel, unless what you mean by it is looking to the cross and knowing your sins are forgiven.

    LikeLike

100. Might want to consider some comments here:

     http://farcountry.wordpress.com/2008/02/14/imonk-on-whi-on-lawgospel-in-the-sermon-on-the-mount/#comments

     LikeLike

101. Great post, Michael. It seems to me that this is the problem with over commitment to a system. There is no room left paradoxes, complexity, and mystery.

     I would agree that the law and in this case Sermon on the Mount takes out the legs of self-righteousness and drives me to Christ. But Jesus came not to abandon the law but to fulfill it. The law is not a bad or evil thing! God forbid we ever think that! It is very good and even godly. This is how God wants us to live.

     So when God says that I ought to stop lying I ought to stop lying. When I am called to be patient I should be patient. When I am told to love my wife like Christ loved the church – do it!
     But I will never do anything in such a way that I can confidently conclude that God is pleased with me because of my works.

     Again, allegiance to a system of theology will always lead to this kind of imbalance. Can we not learn from the many teachers God has given to his church?

     LikeLike

102. Good grief, living out the SoM commends the gospel. It’s how we salt-and-light it to the world. — Jared

     Not if your Gospel is divided up into neatly-wrapped Dispensations.

     Or if it consists of only (1) Young Earth Creationism, (2) Pin the Tail on The Antichrist, (3) Zero-sum Culture War, and (4) not much else. Not all Christless Gospels come from the Joel Osteen wing.

     LikeLike

103. Though I am a “sort of” dispensationalist in my view of God’s program on earth, and though I see a major distinction between “Law” and “Grace”, I cannot buy most of the arguments casting off Jesus’ teachings to some other dispensation, planet, time or whatever simply because we cannot or do not want to live it. Exactly THAT issue has been key to many of the responses I have made in the past. I believe Jesus’ teachings in the Gospels to have been the foundation of what was to follow, and hence apply to us (the U.S. as well) the church. Why would Jesus in His parting words to His disciples have said;
     Mat 28:19;
     “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe ALL things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.”
     if He by it intended to exclude most everything He said?

     Let us get back to a Christ centered Gospel!

     While the teachings of Christ and His Apostles in fact do not contradict one another, they do according to many contemporary interpretations of the Epistles. The Epistles can readily be interpreted within the teachings of Christ in the Gospels if we reject the Greco-Roman mindset that took over late in the first century.

     This past week I ran across the testimony of Menno Simon on the net dating from 1554. He addresses the issue of The Faith and the believer’s walk quite well. Here is one brief clip;
     “But they were true Christians, though unknown to the world, if in anywise we believe that Christ’s word is true, and his unblamable, holy life and example infallible.”
     Just like every other reformer, Menno did not get it all right, but in regards to the relationship of the believer’s life to his/her faith, he probably was closer to the truth than the others. (By the way, the original Mennonites were called “Mennonites” rather than Anabaptists, not because they were the followers of a man, but rather because they did not want in any way to be associated with the radical wing of the Anabaptists “Munsterites etc.”.)

     I personally believe that the teachings of Jesus as found in the Gospels are for me!

     LikeLike

104. Michael,

     Great, great post. This is my point of departure from WHI. It is the same puzzling approach to the Sermon that Lloyd-Jones expresses, for I think somewhat different reasons. WHI has made the law as tutor to lead to Christ, period. They epitomize Lutheran understandings of the Law and the Christian life, which takes the law/gospel distinction and turns it into a law/gospel dichotomy.

     In my denominational currents, a discipleship program called ‘sonship’ has attempted to build a while system of sanctification on this law/gospel dichotomy. It is helpful to keep grace primary in sanctification – and I am eternally grateful to Sonship, and its founder Jack Miller, for this.

     But it empties the Spirit of His role; it empties the Sermon on the Mount of its transformative power. Yes, we should always read the Sermon in light of its potential to condemn us – as all of God’s commands and prescriptions might. But we should always see its glory, its ‘north star’ ethical direction for us, its corrective force in helping us concretely answer the question of whether we ARE living the gospel out.

     Dan

     LikeLike

105. One more this about that.

     We, as creatures of God, already know, inherently, what do do. The law is written upon our hearts.

     Our sinful, selfish nature, is what keeps us from doing it perfectly (if we will do it at all).

     I have these discussions all the time with my neighbors that go to these holiness churches.

     Biblical principles, rules for living,etc., keeping the old Adam active and fully functioning.

     We, as adults, know perfectly well, what we ought not be doing and we we ought be doing as selfless followers of Christ. We will not to do it.
     I repeat… we will not do it. The evidence is found in each of our lives everyday. I have never met a person who can get past the 1st commandment.

     Jesus took the rich young man right there, to the 1st commandment, when the man asked Jesus what to do to gain the kingdom of Heaven. “Sell all you’ve got and follow me.”

     He would not. And we will not.

     The old Adam dies hard, as is evidenced by the discussion here on this blog.

     LikeLike

106. I’m reading The Cost of Discipleship, and Bonhoeffer stressed the call of Christ and our need to single-heartedly follow that call without theologizing ourselves out of the demands of Christ. I particularly liked his chapter on the “Extraordinary” in reference to love of our enemies and how we can’t do that without first knowing the love of Christ through the cross.

     LikeLike

107. Just to bang my own drum for a second, here’s a link to a blog post I did last year which sought to reconcile NT Wright’s “Jesus is Lord!” perspective with the “justification by faith” emphasis of traditional Reformation Christianity: Jesus is Lord and your sins are forgiven.

     Though five-point Calvinists may wish to skip that link. You really won’t like it… 😉

     LikeLike

108. Good thoughts here. This is a needed clarification I think. I wonder what Horton would say in response?

     z

     LikeLike

109. “Now that you don’t have to do anything…what will you do? You are now totally free for the neighbor. Free to help him…or not!(That statement drives Evangelicals and Roman Catholics nuts)” – Steve

     The reason it drives some of us nuts is because you will never find such a statement in the mouths of the New Testament writers. Can you imagine these statements in the New Testament?

     “A new commandment I give to you – love one another. Or not!”

     “Add to your faith goodness, but, you know, not real goodness because you’re not capable of THAT.”

     “What good is it my brothers to say you have faith without works. Well, actually you can’t have any good works so I guess it’s ok to say so.”

     Sorry for the sarcasm, but my point is that if we hold to a certain understanding of the Scriptures that the New Testament writers never approximated in their writings, we may be going down a wrong road.

     LikeLike

110. On the one hand I can understand what the WHI guys are reacting against – the overly prescriptive evangelical 12-Step sermon. Though given that most of the presenters were pastors of some kind, I do occasionally wonder how they would practically counsel a member of their congregation who was struggling with some kind of habitual sin.

     I didn’t really have a problem with SotM = ‘Love God and Love your neighbour’ = ‘Law’, insofar as it’s a ‘more excellent way’.

     I’d see Jesus as living the SotM and myself living in light of it as a natural response of love. Always knowing that to the extent I lived in remberance of the Gospel, I only did so by God’s grace.

     Perhaps the Law/Gospel division can become it’s own theology of glory when it isn’t used to point back to the cross.

     LikeLike

111. Sorry, that is of course, “not only the WHI which is negative”.

     LikeLike

112. I’ve been thinking about this issue of “living the gospel”, especially given it’s not the WHI which is negative; Goldsworthy, too, has been deeply critical of the concept and for the same reason: only Jesus “lived the gospel”.

     For me, the distinction is between Jesus, who lived out the gospel, and us, who live in it.

     LikeLike

113. The first thing that came to mind reading this was the Westminster Catechism’s chief end of man.

     Why try to live out the SoM? Because doing so (whether or not we succeed) brings glory to God when it is attempted by someone who has been redeemed and is not under a lawful obligation to do so.

     Would reading the SoM, or seeing it lived out in a Christian’s life lead someone to salvation? Perhaps if the Spirit was leading them to repentance it could.

     Am I under obligation to obey the SoM? Absolutely, but not because of the law but because I have been bought body and soul by the blood of Christ. I have been redeemed from sin, but the purpose of my creation remains: to bring glory to God.

     LikeLike

114. I do believe that Jesus’ sermon on the mount was given for the sole purpose of putting our old Adam to death.

     He re-presented the Law, but in a way that made absolutely clear the impossibility of our efforts.
     “If you even look at a woman…”
     “Blessed are those who forgive…”
     “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness”
     “Be perfect as your Father…”

     There’s nothing said there about trying.
     The imperative is for right now….BE!

     It’s not our worst we ought to worry about, it’s our best that should offend us. It’s not good enough either. “All our righteous deeds are as filthy rags.” All!

     To hold out that we ought give these things our best shot is to keep the old Adam alive. He needs to be killed off, every day,(at least on Sunday for Heavens sake!. All over the place, there are pastors giving that old Adam mouth to mouth!

     In Luke 14:33 Jesus says that “whoever does not get rid of all they own cannot be my disciple.” How are we doing?
     Again, the Law on steroids! Not meant to drive you to your best efforts to divest, but to kill you off to the self, to the religious project.

     As far as sanctification goes, does not the Holy Spirit inspire us? Why do we not trust in the power of God as manifested in his Spitit? Why must we always grab the bull by the horns ourselves, Grabbing the bull(apple)by the horns is what got us into this mess to begin with.

     The Law kills. St. Pauls calls it the ministry of death in 2nd Corinthians.

     The late Gerhard Forde has written a great piece on sanctification. (Google it)

     Two uses of the Law are enough to accomplish civil righteousness and the death that needs to happen for the Gospel to do it’s work.

     When Luther was asked, “what about the flood of iniquity that will come as a result of this understanding of justification by faith?” Luther said, “Let the flood gates open!”

     He rightly understood what is at stake. Our freedom,(and Gods) versus the yoke of slavery which is the Law in all it’s forms.

     Do good, do good, do good! Knowing all the while that you are already dead to sin (Romans 6).

     Now that you don’t have to do anything…what will you do? You are now totally free for the neighbor. Free to help him…or not!(That statement drives Evangelicals and Roman Catholics nuts)

     Yes it’s radical! The Gospel is radical. It turns everything upside down. I thank God that this doesn’t make sense to us. If it did I’d start to worry about it.

     Great post! Thanks for letting me get my 2 cents worth I.M.!

     LikeLike

115. Head a’splode.

     They are reducing The Sermon on the Mount to “Love God and your Neighbor”? To law? I can’t believe they really believe that, although from how they frame the issue to skewer MacLaren they certainly aren’t doing themselves any favors. Reducing the Beatitudes to “helpful advice”?

     Now, they most certainly are correct in emphasizing that such things are not a replacement for the redemptive work of Christ. But I understand the distaste it leaves in the mouth when it feels like the SotM is reduced in theological significance to an obscure Old Testament story as presented in the Picture Bible.

     “All the law can show us is what true obedience is?” How horrifyingly shallow. For those that believe in Christ the SotM is a guide to what our attitudes should be, what our appetites should be, how we should direct our wills that we should better know and become more like Christ through His divine grace. Of course the word “synergistic” is probably considered a four lettered word on a Reformed radio show.

     I’ll just let the “if they’ve never heard the law they’re not going to know God is angry with them He needs to be reconciled to them” and thumping emphasis on the emphasis on substitutionary atonement aspect of salvation pass.

     LikeLike

116. “I continue to believe that disciples are called to hear and obey the Lord Jesus.”

     Me too. Too often people read every passage through their justification goggles. Yes, it’s good to know your theology. But some read the SoM, and all they can think is “He really did not mean that literally, after all, we are not saved by being good people.”

     If God wants us to strive for perfection, then we should strive for it. God knows we will never come close to reaching it, that’s not the point.

     The Bible is not just about how we get to heaven. It’s also about what we do in the meantime. The SoM tells us not to simply believe, but to be an example of belief. If it’s His will, why should it matter that it won’t technically save us?

     My faith/works theology is not as refined as yours. But I agree with the sentiment of your post. Keep it up.

     LikeLike

117. “The command to love enemy is both beyond us and binding on us. Both uses need to be heard.”

     Yes, I think this is right. This is why, to me, existentialism is a needed corrective for systems of doctrine which have these absolute beginnings (whether that be the Law/Gospel distinction or the sovereignty of God). As an intellectual process, we need these abstractions to explain the heavenly things revealed. However, these systems with absolute beginnings, which thus attain a timeless state and otherworldliness, are radically disconnected from the factual setting the Christian lives in concretely. When I am actually confronted in the present moment to love my enemy, not in the abstract, but in the flesh and blood person before me, I find the commencement of the moral process in me to be like fingernails on a chalkboard even though this magnificent Baroque oratorio composed by my theologians is playing in my head. When I try to come in, I’m dissonant and abrasive, and it seems as if the oratorio had been nothing but two or three kazoos. The problem with justifying my ethical failures is that in real life I have just created a dilemma: either I make my own existence an abstraction (which is what I think the WHI guys end up doing) or the system gradually becomes something fantastic, a Shangri-La (sorry to change metaphors in midstream).

     The problem with systems of doctrine that have these absolute beginnings is that they are attempts to resolve or mediate a paradox. I cannot love Jacob…I must love Jacob. In my decision and action, I cannot escape the paradox. I need spiritual formation, discipline, to grow into obedience to Jesus. Clearer and more thorough intellectual grasp of a system of doctrine is precisely what I don’t need for action, even if that system is objectively correct and beautiful in every detail.

     If the Sermon on the Mount is not a real duty for me, then I think what’s happened is that I’ve managed to theologize my way out of the claim Jesus makes on my life. Should the rich young ruler have gone home at peace rather than in despair?

     If this program was just another occasion to bang on N. T. Wright’s mitre, then I suppose it’s nothing more than the usual excessiveness in pursuit of a holy cause. While I would agree that the Sermon on the Mount, to be understood in its fullest scope, should be integrated with the whole NT, it is also the case that our doctrinal derivations from Paul’s big letters should be integrated with the Gospels. It is Wright who underlines the latter, and I think that’s probably the right corrective for the moribund state of the Reformation today.

     LikeLike

118. Yes. Yes. Yes.

     It’s not an insult to the Gospel to seek to live out the Sermon on the Mount.

     Good grief, living out the SoM commends the gospel. It’s how we salt-and-light it to the world.

     Anything else I’d say you already said.

     Great post.

     LikeLike

Comments are closed.