tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859222.post113883490917024661..comments2023-07-06T14:46:27.373+01:00Comments on John Camp: A Jeff Dean insight:Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger61125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859222.post-1139861903631473142006-02-13T20:18:00.000+00:002006-02-13T20:18:00.000+00:00Hi TimObviously they are crucial!! Please make an ...Hi Tim<BR/><BR/>Obviously they are crucial!! Please make an effort to read what I am actually saying. I am not saying that these passages represent the essence of the gospel - just that I struggle to understand them in the light of the gospel since on the surface at least they seem quite antithetical to it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859222.post-1139755296115489272006-02-12T14:41:00.000+00:002006-02-12T14:41:00.000+00:00You're half right - it spells the end of salvific ...You're half right - it spells the end of salvific assurance by good works... but it still seems to make salvation dependent on them!!<BR/><BR/>Let's be clear: I don't *want* to believe that this is what Scripture teaches anywhere. But I just can't get around what seems to be the obvious meaning of the passage (and nobody else seems to get around it either). Even Luther seems to understand this as the simple meaning of this and similar passages.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859222.post-1139680057790582762006-02-11T17:47:00.000+00:002006-02-11T17:47:00.000+00:00Quoth Jeff:"That is, those who are vindicated had ...Quoth Jeff:<BR/><BR/>"That is, those who are vindicated had no idea their lives were to be vindicated"<BR/><BR/>Doesn't that spell a far more conclusive end to all assurance of salvation than my interpretation?!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859222.post-1139506213576194592006-02-09T17:30:00.000+00:002006-02-09T17:30:00.000+00:00Sean,I think the key to Matthew 25, at least, is t...Sean,<BR/><BR/>I think the key to Matthew 25, at least, is that both the "goats" and the "sheep" (as it were) say to Christ, "Lord, when did we see you and...".<BR/><BR/>That is, those who are vindicated had no idea their lives were to be vindicated, and neither did the damned forsee their failure to act on Christ's behalf. <BR/><BR/>It would seem, then, that something else is at work--something that credits those who are not seeking their own salvation, and something that discredits those who are. <BR/><BR/>Cranmer certainly maintains that the Lord has prepared good works for us to walk in, but, in keeping with this above interpretation, the prayer book directly contradicts the notion that walking in those works is in any way salvific.<BR/><BR/>Will good works justify? Never. Will the justified do good works? Always.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859222.post-1139504914868335202006-02-09T17:08:00.000+00:002006-02-09T17:08:00.000+00:00Cheers all. I really think this discussion is help...Cheers all. I really think this discussion is helping me to clarify my own ideas and lead us to greater clarity together so thanks. I appreciate it lots!<BR/><BR/>Jeff - I don't think the 2nd use is wrong!!! I think it is essential. I think it is used and taught by Jesus (the Rich Young Man is probably the most text-book example?) and Paul as well as Luther!<BR/><BR/>You hit the nail on the head in your question about theo. anthropology. This is really helpful to disclose our deep agreement - I think that in the church but even more in the world the problem is not antinomianism but legalism - everywhere people are weighed in the balance and found wanting - in work, in relationships, in family, in the gym, by our kids, in the supermarket, in church, etc. etc. Last week at church a woman told me that the reason why she comes to church is because it is the only place she doesn't feel people are weighing her up all the time, evaluating her and judging her. Wow! That is what Christ and therefore Christians really have to offer. I also really believe that transformation and sanctification only come through the gospel.<BR/><BR/>Simeon - the difference between Jesus and the 2nd use is that although he knew we wouldn't perfectly obey the S on the M, he preached it to show us how to live, rather than to cause us to despair of our ability to keep it. That at least is the only way I can understand Matthew's gospel.<BR/><BR/>How do you understand Matthew 25, Luke 16 etc.? I would love to know how to make sense of these passages that seemingly teach salvation by works!!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859222.post-1139488427065351792006-02-09T12:33:00.000+00:002006-02-09T12:33:00.000+00:00I re-read Sean's and Jeff's points about readings ...I re-read Sean's and Jeff's points about readings of Matthew and Paul and the instructions/law that Jesus gave. <BR/><BR/>Experientially, we all go through periods of "cooperation" and "rebellion". Sometimes it is so easy, and so joyful and wonderful to do those things that Jesus asks us to do. It's effortless, it feels like partnership with God, and it does _not_ feel like our efforts. For me, my first few mission trips and leading Alpha was one such experience. That's when it feels good to obey, when those instructions edify and make you feel really close to God.<BR/><BR/>Then there are times when you just can't bring yourself to obey. You can't catch those insensitive words before they go out of your mouth. You say you forgive someone, but you remain passive aggressive. You want badly to be skinny, or to be loved by a woman (even one on a computer screen.) That's when it feels terrible to obey the law, beause every effort you put in seems to simply fail. That's when the instructions make you despair.<BR/><BR/>The two do, and must, coexist, because there is great danger in prolonged obedience to/ feeling of onenness with the law (in the Spirit-filled way as I described above)--it eventually makes you feel like you are God, or at least somewhat of an equal partner in the relationship. That is because you have experienced, for a period of time, a positive action-consequence relationship. You have (by God's grace) obeyed, been edified, and as a result felt closer to God. The closer you feel, you feel more grace given to help you cooperate even more. Feels like spiritual growth!<BR/><BR/>But sooner or later (usually later) it turns into a conditional relationship. Not so much on God's part, but on yours. YOUR love for God, your delight in Him, your positive feelings towards God, etc. become contingent upon how much grace and attention He is giving you, how much He is enabling you to obey, and how much He is rewarding you (with a feeling of closeness, with actual good things happening, etc.) When He withdraws after a long period of closeness, you are left with anger and resentment. "You're not supposed to treat me like this - I thought it was a <I>relationship</I>!" you say. Still He does not return or answer to your desperate cries, and you get even more angry or disappointed or lonely.<BR/><BR/>Jesus' instructions _can_ edify, descriptively. But they also have an effect of elevating us in a bad way. Once we're 2 floors up, we want to get up to the 100th. My point, with regards to the law, is that GOD WON'T LET YOU find sustained edification/ encouragement/ growth in it (even "with the help of His grace"), because we want to get to the top of it ("with His grace"). That's why I think the sturdiest approach to the law is that it ultimately judges and brings us to despair.bpzahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00095199722369727263noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859222.post-1139484161984202372006-02-09T11:22:00.000+00:002006-02-09T11:22:00.000+00:00Folks, it may be a brief while until we hear from ...Folks, it may be a brief while until we hear from Sean again as he is currently in the midst of running the Oxford University Christian Mission Week (which is worth praying for!). Sean, who is a full-time student, working on his D. Phil in Systematic Theology, in my estimation (and other than Alister McGrath), is the man with the firmest grasp on the Gospel, the Bible, and Ministry (and the relationship between the three), of anyone here at Wycliffe. I wish that one day I could become a member of his church! He has much to teach! JZJohn Zahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13961782491031169865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859222.post-1139483426766415762006-02-09T11:10:00.000+00:002006-02-09T11:10:00.000+00:00Hey y'all, if you add a "y" to "free will" you get...Hey y'all, if you add a "y" to "free will" you get "free willy".<BR/><BR/>SOUTHPARK!!!!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859222.post-1139477923977175562006-02-09T09:38:00.000+00:002006-02-09T09:38:00.000+00:00Sean, thank you so much for another very helpful r...Sean, thank you so much for another very helpful response. I have much to learn from you!<BR/><BR/>My question, in light of what you have said, is the same as JZ's: could you explain more precisely what the difference is between Jesus preaching that which he expected to be obeyed but did not believe we could obey, and Luther's second use of the Law? As in, why is this formulation of Luther's so problematic to use as a helpful interpretive framework for understanding the Sermon on the Mount? I guess I don't see the fundamental difference between using the Law to "kill" and using the Law to "shake us up from our complacency".<BR/><BR/>So please explain, when you have a minute. This is very helpful.<BR/><BR/>Thanks Sean!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859222.post-1139444118031625222006-02-09T00:15:00.000+00:002006-02-09T00:15:00.000+00:00Sean, one other query from my end. It's sound lik...Sean,<BR/><BR/> one other query from my end. It's sound like maybe you are suggesting that this Usus Theologicus read on the Law (that it convicts rather than prescribes) doesn't "stir us up from complacency". I thought that to be exactly what it does, and, for that reason, I am very reluctant to do away with the Law. I think we need it, though it be confined to its strange back-handed 2nd Use nature only, for exactly that reason. Otherwise, I see anti-nomianism. What do you think, Sensei? (please be gentle)<BR/><BR/> like a very smooth stone in the thin, thin rain, JAZJohn Zahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13961782491031169865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859222.post-1139444002318890282006-02-09T00:13:00.000+00:002006-02-09T00:13:00.000+00:00Mattie,Your citation is a true description: Whoeve...Mattie,<BR/><BR/>Your citation is a true description: Whoever loves Christ will be saved, and whoever does not, will not.<BR/><BR/>So, go and love Christ.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859222.post-1139435977572985612006-02-08T21:59:00.000+00:002006-02-08T21:59:00.000+00:00Jeff -You wrote: "How do you suggest we maintain B...Jeff -<BR/><BR/>You wrote: "How do you suggest we maintain BOTH that grace was purchased at a very high cost, but is nevertheless given out absolutely freely?"<BR/><BR/>Not to speak for Sean or anything, but I know how you do it! Two words: free will :)<BR/><BR/>"Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him." (John 3:36)<BR/><BR/>mattieMattiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07301704521074201603noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859222.post-1139430937805561902006-02-08T20:35:00.000+00:002006-02-08T20:35:00.000+00:00Sean,Your point is very, very important and well t...Sean,<BR/><BR/>Your point is very, very important and well taken. As you will have read above, I agree with you and defend your charge that formulating the Second Use of the Law may invalidate the urgency found in Jesus' teaching. In other word, if Jesus is trying to light a fire under our collective ass, who is Luther to put it out?<BR/><BR/>I would ask, however, whether you are maintaining Christ's concept of forgiveness as strongly as you are defending his formulation of the law. His lavishing of grace is as radical and liberal as his teachings are conservative and overwhelming. <BR/><BR/>As a mere man, I am apt to emphasize one over the other based on the psychological pressures I am feeling at the moment. But Christ was able to hold each dramatically and perfectly. <BR/><BR/>As a final question, I'm curious about your theological anthropology. <BR/><BR/>At first I was going to ask, "Do you believe the problem in our world is too much forgiveness and not enough condemnation?" But, I stopped. That very well might be the problem! Theological anthropology becomes the issue, then.<BR/><BR/>If sin is taken too lightly, how might we maintain to stricture of the law, while still maintaining the liberality of grace?<BR/><BR/>That is, to borrow from Bonhoeffer, how do you suggest we maintain BOTH that grace was purchased at a very high cost, but is nevertheless given out absolutely freely?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859222.post-1139429889573243652006-02-08T20:18:00.000+00:002006-02-08T20:18:00.000+00:00Colton -I think I hit the major points of your pos...Colton -<BR/><BR/>I think I hit the major points of your post, but if I missed anything you wanted answered, let me know.<BR/><BR/>1. We are commanded to love ourselves: "Love your neighbor as yourself." If you hate yourself that's not a very life-giving dictum!<BR/><BR/>2. I don't think the spirit/letter debate really gets to the core of the issue here. That is because I don't think the spirit of the law is/was love. The spirit of the law is/was righteousness, which is not identical. <BR/><BR/>There are a couple influences that make me feel this way. First, right now I'm reading Stanley Hauerwas (who is Methodist and/or Anglican depending on whose account you read) and his assertion is that Christian ethics are inherently different from Jewish or secular ethics because of 1. Christ's nature and our formation in that nature 2. our acknowledgement of our sinful character and a subsequent acceptance on God's behalf that gives us moral freedom 3. the narrative and communal nature of Christianity. In sum, our ethical understanding as Christians is not identical to some "spirit" of the law.<BR/><BR/>As an aside, Hauerwas has a great quotation that I think cuts to the core of the "semi-pelagian" debate earlier in this thread: "Our sin consists in our allowing our character to be formed by the story that we must do everything (pride) or nothing (sloth)." I would add that our sin is also in thinking that we have complete freedom or in thinking we have no freedom. But I digress.<BR/><BR/>Second, a British Catholic named James Alison has applied Rene Girard's mimetic theory to the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus with profound results. His basic contention is that the Hebrew system is contingent on sacrifice (ritual sacrifice, self-sacrifice, priestly sacrifice, etc.) and what Jesus does is "an exact inversion of the sacrificial system: him going backwards and occupying the space so as to make it clear that this is simply murder." His theology is way too complicated to go into in this short post, but I think it has promise. The relevance of Alison to this discussion is that what he is saying is that the spirit of Hebrew law is sacrifice out of requirement; the spirit of the Christian narrative is self-gift out of love. These are inherently different.<BR/><BR/>3. It strikes me again how interrelated anthropology and our definitions of grace are. I think it is an invitation because I think it can be rejected. You think it is a command because "grace is irresistable." This is likely irreconcilable. What I know (and I think you'll agree), experientially and theologically, is that sin enslaves. There, then, is a "punishment" that comes from rejecting God's invitation to freedom through graceful holiness. That punishment is self-hatred, broken relationships, lack of meaning and purpose, despair, confusion, etc. Perhaps our different perspectives come because you've just never been "sinful" enough, Colton! <BR/><BR/>4. I speculate that this core difference between us comes from which part of salvation we emphasize (btw, soteriology is simply the study of salvation! isn't it a great word?!). I think that Jesus came to set us free from SIN and death. You think that Jesus came to set us free from sin and DEATH. Would you agree?<BR/><BR/>5. As far as the ontological difference, yes, I believe that my nature is changed because of my being put to death and rising again with Christ through baptism. But that's the beinning of the story and not the end. I believe that conversion (metanoia) is a continual experience. Don't get me wrong! I still sin. Lots. That doesn't mean I think God doesn't love me or have grace for me. I just think it breaks God's heart that I reject the love lavished on me in favor of the hatefulness of sin. That's all I'm trying to say.<BR/><BR/>So many other things to say, yet, I really really must get back to work. <BR/><BR/>MattieMattiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07301704521074201603noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859222.post-1139424442614274412006-02-08T18:47:00.000+00:002006-02-08T18:47:00.000+00:00p.s. Mattie,I did not read what you wrote to Bonni...p.s. Mattie,<BR/><BR/>I did not read what you wrote to Bonnie before I posted. I think I see what you are getting at in that comment. As Christians, there are times (I would posit that these times are completely under God's control and completely out out ours) when I am told to do something, and instead of feeling paralyzed or defeated by the command, I feel a freedom, an ability, and a desire to do what I have been encrouraged by the Spirit to do. This is a great feeling. I think this is what you are talking about when you say, "The 'command' of the new covenant is not a legalistic one; it is the invitation to love as God has loved us." Sometimes, as Christians, we hear what could be in other situations called a "law", but instead of serving to break us down, we feel strong in the Lord and willing to follow that which he has called us to do. I know I have felt this way before.<BR/><BR/>However, I would say that these times of freedom in the Spirit tend to be the exception for me, not the rule. And it is so easy to fall into the trap of belieivng that when I hear the voice of the Spirit and do not want to follow (i.e. love others), which is usually the case, my righteousness has somehow diminished from where it was before. However, this cannot be true, because our rigtheousness is never based upon we do; it is based upon what Christ has already done.<BR/><BR/>More often than not, the "invitation" to love _is_ a legalistic one. In fact, calling it an "invitation" is misleading, because it is still a command, is it not? As has been said by others on here recently, God truly expects that we obey his commands; he does not "invite" us to obey if we feel like it. There is no punishment for turning down an invitation. Perhaps in those rare instances when we _do_ feel like it, it feels like an invitation to us, because we are both willing and able to do as we should.<BR/><BR/>The fundamental difference in our views may lie in the fact that I do not believe our anthrolpology is altered when we are saved, whereas I think that perhaps you do.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the incredibly stimulating discussion!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859222.post-1139422429914476642006-02-08T18:13:00.000+00:002006-02-08T18:13:00.000+00:00Mattie,I think you are right to point out, "the 'f...Mattie,<BR/><BR/>I think you are right to point out, "the 'fruit of the spirit' and/or the ethical Christian life DOES NOT 'conform precisely with the prescription of the law.'" For example, we as Christians do not have to restrain from eating certain foods, nor must we be circumcised (the classic example.) Clearly, we as Christains are not beholden to the same specific manifestations of the law that the Jewish people were before Christ's arrival.<BR/><BR/>However, I would contend that "the fruit of the spirit and/or ethical life" DOES conform to the SPIRIT of the law. Hence, Jesus corrects misinterpretations of the law in those cases in which the letter of the law has blinded us to the more important spirit of the law. To use your own examples, I think this is what is going on with regards to the Sabbath laws and Temple laws. Jesus was not _encouraging_ his disciples to _break_ the Sabbath laws, as you say. Rather, he was showing them what the laws regarding the Sabbath were really all about. <BR/><BR/>Now the question arises, how do we know what the spirit of the law is? Well, as you yourself pointed out, Jesus made it very clear that the spirit of all laws is love: love God, and love your neighbor. These are the two most important commands, because from these two all others flow. Are we capable of keeping these two laws on our own? Clearly not.<BR/><BR/>I also want to address the "you have heard it said... but I say to you" instances. The only time I recall Jesus uttering these words is during the Sermon on the Mount. In these cases, he is not contradicting a law, but rather he is clarifying a law. Example: "You have heard it said, 'Do not commit adultery.' But I say to you, one who even looks upon a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart." In this case, and in the other cases found in the SotM, Jesus is not contradicting the earlier law. Adultery is _still_ wrong for Christians, just as it was for Jews. But what he is doing is making the law tougher (this has been discussed on here before) and bringing things back to the spirit of the law (love of God and love of neighbor) rather than the letter of the law.<BR/><BR/>In closing, I must take issue with one of your closing statements:<BR/>"I think what Jesus invites his followers into is the freedom to live a life of ethical action based on love, in the guidance of the Holy Spirit, rather than rule, hence the restatement of the most important commandment as love of God, love of self, and love of neighbor."<BR/><BR/>We both agree that a life of ethical action based on _rule_ is one that does not provide freedom. Trying to keep the law/rule always humbles, breaks, and kills us, because we cannot do it. However, you assert that "a life of ethical action based on love, in the guidance of the Holy Spirit" is a life of "freedom", "hence the restatement of the most important commandment as love of God, love of self, and love of neighbor." I disagree. First, and on a side note, I am not aware that we are commanded to love our selves. Secondly, though, and more importantly, I do not believe that the simple commands to love others and to love God provide freedom. They are still law. Even if the Holy Spirit is the one to remind us of them, they are still law. By breaking down the law into those two commandments, Christ does not make the law easier for us to keep, therefore freeing us. I am just as unable to "Always Love" (cf Nada Surf) as I am to keep all the laws of the Old Testament.<BR/><BR/>What I am getting at is that freedom is never found in a law, and it certainly is not found in the law as Jesus gives it to us. Freedom comes from knowing that Christ has fulfilled and kept the law perfectly, while we have utterly failed in our every attempt to gain righteousness. But Christ, perfect as he was, died in our place so that we might live in his. Yes, God expects us to completely keep his law. Every last part. And when he looks at us, he sees Jesus, and Christ's righteousness is credited to us, so that, for God's purposes, we have kept the law perfectly. That is where I think freedom comes from.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859222.post-1139417567448638512006-02-08T16:52:00.000+00:002006-02-08T16:52:00.000+00:00Bonnie -That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm sa...Bonnie -<BR/><BR/>That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying Jesus did come to fulfil "the law" - all of it - as it was given to the Hebrew people through the Mosaic covenant. In my understanding whenever Paul talks about law he talks about "the law" not "a law" or "law generally" and since he was a Pharisee, it seems that it was pretty clear what he was referencing.<BR/><BR/>I believe we have been given a new and everlasting covenant, one with consequent blessings and responsibilities. The "command" of the new covenant is not a legalistic one; it is the invitation to love as God has loved us. The "command" of the prior covenant was "the law."<BR/><BR/>MattieMattiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07301704521074201603noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859222.post-1139414466034428872006-02-08T16:01:00.000+00:002006-02-08T16:01:00.000+00:00Thanks Simeon for taking the time and trouble to r...Thanks Simeon for taking the time and trouble to respond to me. I'm afraid I don't have time at the moment to respond in as much depth as I want and as your thoughts deserve but I am really interested and excited by this discussion so I hope we can continue it!<BR/><BR/>I think your theology is right but your exegesis is wrong! I am not criticising the theology itself. I don't object to reading Matthew through Paul's spectacles - I think it's necessary. But I also think we need to read Paul through Matthean spectacles - i.e. take each on their own terms, and then try and understand them together.<BR/><BR/>Jesus and Luther saw the correspondence of legalism and antinomianism - they are two sides of the same coin. So they both fiercely attack the lowering of standards which they saw. They both restate God's will, and demand that it is done. The distinction between expectation and will is meaningless - yes of course Jesus knew damn well that people wouldn't meet the standards he set out but that doesn't mean he is setting them out as a theological use of the law. He is setting them out because he wants them to be obeyed. Matthew 25 is a perfect case in point. How on earth do you derive eschatological assurance from that? ISTM we can't avoid the fact that Jesus wants to shake us up from our complacency, as well as providing us with assurance of forgiveness. I haven't so far made any more sense out of that paradox than I have out of human responsibility and divine sovereignty, so I believe them both, not knowing how to square them. Assurance is important, but so is stirring us up from complacency.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859222.post-1139411711424907802006-02-08T15:15:00.000+00:002006-02-08T15:15:00.000+00:00Hi Mattie! If Jesus only came to fulfill the cerem...Hi Mattie! <BR/>If Jesus only came to fulfill the ceremonial law (i.e. "the battery of Hebrew behaviour"), doesn't that make his fulfilment relevant only to the Jewish law?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859222.post-1139407084889323392006-02-08T13:58:00.000+00:002006-02-08T13:58:00.000+00:00Simeon -I don't have the time right now to reply t...Simeon -<BR/><BR/>I don't have the time right now to reply to your entire post (and I am still planning to reply to your e-mail when I find time - crazy week!), but I need to quickly disagree on one thing. I would contend that the "fruit of the spirit" and/or the ethical Christian life DOES NOT "conform precisely with the prescription of the law." In fact, there are several times when Jesus says, "you have heard it said...but I say to you." I don't have time to find the precise cites, but I think of stopping the stoning of the adulterous woman, desacralizing the temple, and encouraging his disciples to break the sabbath off the top of my head. I read this explained by the fact that parts of the law are ethical (ie. 10 commandments) and parts are ceremonial (ie. levitical instructions) and Jesus only undermines the latter. I would disagree with this interpretation for a couple of reasons, such as the fact that keeping the sabbath is in the Mosaic law and also that the Hebrew people themselves did not make such a distinction.<BR/><BR/>I think the reason this is an important point for me is that Jesus did come to fulfill the law; the Roman Catholic Church (and myself personally) doesn't dispute that. "The law" as Jesus spoke of it was a specific battery of Hebrew behavior designed to bring about righteousness (which was often quite retributive), not moral action generally. The Sermon on the Mount does not follow the law; it is dramatically different! I think what Jesus invites his followers into is the freedom to live a life of ethical action based on love, in the guidance of the Holy Spirit, rather than rule, hence the restatement of the most important commandment as love of God, love of self, and love of neighbor.<BR/><BR/>More later (if I get this damn paper on Hauerwas done...),<BR/><BR/>MattieMattiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07301704521074201603noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859222.post-1139406224632545422006-02-08T13:43:00.000+00:002006-02-08T13:43:00.000+00:00Jeff, all you had to say was "blindspot!" I get i...Jeff, all you had to say was "blindspot!" I get it now. That is one concept that I do understand! (All the other stuff you said was good too. I've never thought about antinomianism as a from of _keeping_ a new law, but you are clearly right to point this out. In fact, now that I think about it, that is pretty brilliant.)<BR/><BR/>Simeon, those were very helpful posts as well, especially the second. I get eschatology; one of these days I will know what "soteriological" means.<BR/><BR/>:)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859222.post-1139396253303226392006-02-08T10:57:00.000+00:002006-02-08T10:57:00.000+00:00One more point: the overwhelming significance of t...One more point: the overwhelming significance of the soteriological/ eschatological question does not therefore empty the Law, or Jesus’ moral teaching, of meaning, as Jeff fears it would. We cannot read Matthew 5:17-20, etc., and not think there is real content to the Law. There are two reasons why the Law is not emptied of meaning:<BR/><BR/>1) Jesus really had to die. The Law really had to be fulfilled in our place; it was not just a rhetorical device God used to bring us to our knees, though it is also that. It required the real, historical, death of God himself. It didn’t just have to be fulfilled “in theory” but not in practice. It had to be fulfilled in practice, but not by us.<BR/><BR/>2) The fruit of the Spirit, the descriptive transformation and holy behavior and moral life and so on of the believer, conforms precisely with the prescription of the Law. And where it is not taking place, that person is not saved (though I think God’s idea of sanctification and our own expectation is not always exactly the same. Hence planks/ specks). We really will act more and more as Jesus commands us to in the SotM. Precisely so. The difference is merely whether or not the human will is the Archimedean point on which that sanctification/ transformation turns. But to take the moral prescriptions of Matt. 5, etc., solely on face value, is to ignore the overwhelming and all-significant fact of the severe and eternal Judgment to come, to which Matthew also testifies.<BR/><BR/>Ok those are just my thoughts. The historical issue is an extremely important one—thank you for bringing up the importance of understanding the texts as they were meant to be understood. My problem I suppose is that so often these days the historicism is used as a trojan horse for a semi-Pelagianism that has vast soteriological and eschatological—not to mention pastoral!—implications. I believe that Bible cannot be made sense of without understanding the “more important” bits in light of the “less important” bits, awkward as I know that sounds. But it is undeniable that our relationship to the final Judgment is more important than, well, anything. Insofar as they are opposed, soteriology must always trump ethics (though we hope and believe that they will not in practice be opposed!).<BR/><BR/>What do you think, Sean? Is my reading too skewed?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859222.post-1139395870314360652006-02-08T10:51:00.000+00:002006-02-08T10:51:00.000+00:00Sean, Thank you so much for this explanation. A fe...Sean, <BR/><BR/>Thank you so much for this explanation. A few things: first, I suppose I am not really very troubled by the point that Jesus very likely meant the prescriptions of the SotM to be followed, lived out, etc. “in reality” rather than just in the supposedly abstract and theoretical mechanics of imputation. <BR/><BR/>It seems to me that, no matter how concerned he was during his teaching ministry to make sure that people understood that they needed to be holier than the Scribes and the Pharisees-- and in reality, not just in theory—his expectations about what would happen must at the least have been a bit lower than you imply. The reason is that he felt that he needed to die. The situation of his followers, of the Jews, and in fact of “all nations” was such that a new covenant was needed in his blood, “which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins” (Matt. 26:28). Maybe his view of the direness of the human predicament darkened over the course of his ministry, leading him to the conclusion that the Cross, not just the Incarnation, was needed in order that his followers would not “go away into eternal punishment” but “into eternal life” (Matt. 25:46). Or maybe John saw more clearly than Matthew that Jesus had the whole story in mind from the beginning—but that is a different question. The point is that for some reason, even in the Matthew account, he felt his death was necessary, and the SotM must be read at the very least with this in mind, if not solely through that lens.<BR/><BR/>A second point: I am nervous—as you guessed I would be!—by the blurriness and vageness of your account of how Paul and Matthew might be squared. That one espouses the human perspective, and the other the divine, seems like a scholarly distinction that neither Paul nor Matthew would have admitted to. I say this also because it seems to me that nervous and insecure human beings, faced with the eschatological reality of a final judgment to come, a judgment that will send some to eternal punishment and some to eternal life, will find little solace in this awkward juggling of perspectives. <BR/><BR/>When you talk about “God transforming us, but at the same time we must strive to live holy lives”, what does “must” mean? Is it a non-eschatological “must”? Is it the striving that is key, not the achieving of the holy life? If so, is it the striving then that has eschatological significance? Eschatologically and soteriologically speaking, is the striving prescriptive, or merely descriptive?<BR/><BR/>You may say that I am reading Matthew with Pauline spectacles, or that I am reading a 1st century text with the problems of 16th-21st century theology in mind. But I do not think so. If, as the New Testament seems to testify, there is a final judgment of utmost importance, if soteriology has the overwhelming ultimate significance that such a final judgment would seem to be giving it, then these questions are of utmost importance. In fact, they are of more importance than figuring out precisely what Matthew seemed to mean Jesus to have meant in chapter 5! <BR/><BR/>This does not make the historical question irrelevant, but it does, in a sense, make it secondary, at least insofar as this historical datum would seem to undercut or qualify the other, eschatological data in the New Testament, and in fact in Matthew itself (For instance, another “dikaio-” word is used in an unambiguously eschatological sense in 25:46, for it is the “righteous” (oi dikaioi) who will go to “eternal life”. Therefore the righteousness of Matt. 5 has soteriological consequences, does it not?). We cannot step back and say “on the one hand, moral striving and even achievement is genuinely significant to Jesus, and on the other, eschatology and salvation from damnation is another, equally significant theme for Jesus in Matthew.” We cannot do this because if the latter is true, then it must be more important than everything else. <BR/><BR/>Thoughts, Sean? Anyone else?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859222.post-1139350515879813352006-02-07T22:15:00.000+00:002006-02-07T22:15:00.000+00:00Damn the lack of spell-check, etc.Damn the lack of spell-check, etc.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859222.post-1139350469379727932006-02-07T22:14:00.000+00:002006-02-07T22:14:00.000+00:00Colton,Romans chapter 6 and following would be inf...Colton,<BR/><BR/>Romans chapter 6 and following would be infinitely more simply had Paul access to post-modern thought.<BR/><BR/>Shall we sin that grace may about? Certainly not!<BR/><BR/>Imagine Paul is using only first-order discourse here. Shall I commit adultery in order that I may receive forgiveness for having committed adultery? (Especially if the grace one receives after sin is much better than the innocence enjoyed before sin?)<BR/><BR/>Paul must say only "Certainly not!" Why? Because of the sentiment expressed in Derek Webb's single "A New Law". If Paul is only speaking in first order discourse, then the logical conclusion of the Gospel is that we should do precisely that which God has forbidden us to do. Thus, he can give us the grace of forgiveness, and everyone will be better off.<BR/><BR/>The problem is that such intentions are predicated upon our desire for "a new law". <BR/><BR/>"Wait. So...before, I got grace by not committing adultery?"<BR/>"Yes."<BR/>"But now I get grace if I have committed adultery?"<BR/>"Yes."<BR/>"So I should go commit adultery?"<BR/>"No."<BR/>"Huh?"<BR/><BR/>As you are ***always so correct to point out***, the grace of God must hit us in our *blindspot*. If I am sinning because I think sin is the new virtue (black is the new white? gay is the new black?) then I am merely trying to keep a new law. <BR/><BR/>Paul is saying that any law we attempt to keep, even if it represents a TOTAL superversion of the law we have previously lived under, is still trying to keep *a* law. That's why Luther tends to write about "the Law" as a category of existence, rather than a set of ethical standards.<BR/><BR/>(This, incidentally, is why we fight against new interpretations of "the Law" in the Episcopal Church--not because defining any particular action as sinful or not sinful will ultimately make a difference in whether someone commits a sin, but rather because we must maintain that the experience of failing to keep the Law does not absolve one from the responsibility. Kant wrote, "You can because you should," encapsulating the beliefs of millions of evangelicals. Kant did not understand the Second Use of the Law).<BR/><BR/>The reason we must maintain that the Second Use of the Law is descriptive rather than prescriptive is because the guilt of failing to fulfill the Law is real and true and worthy of a death sentance. <BR/><BR/>Experientially, if we maintain that the Law only exists to drive you to despair, then despair will be the focus, and not guilt. The cross is proof that the guilt is the cause of the despair, not vice-versa.<BR/><BR/>I say this because I am often very prone to maintaining that "guilt" is not really interesting except insofar as I have to connect "guilt" with "despair" when preaching. That is, I'm always trying to get people to believe that fear of abandonment is not only a type of despair, but principally a type of guilt. In truth, I often miss that point that we are morally implicated FIRST and we despair of that only SECOND. <BR/><BR/>The Law exists because God demands perfection of us. Any other discourse on the Law must first acknowledge this fact. The Second Use of the Law can only be described *after* one has come to grace.<BR/><BR/>(This was hotly contested among the second generations of Lutherans, but I follow the English Reformers on the point: Recite the Ten Commandments at the beginning of every service! Grace is only gracious when its underservedness is known!)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com