The Gospel can't be lived. It's the Law that's lived.
What do y'all think about this particular statement?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The Gospel can't be lived. It's the Law that's lived.
I think the gospel is being contorted.
"The Bible's purpose is not so much to show you how to live a good life. The Bible's purpose is to show you how God’s grace breaks into your life against your will and saves you from the sin and brokenness otherwise you would never be able to overcome... religion is 'if you obey, then you will be accepted'. But the Gospel is, 'if you are absolutely accepted, and sure you’re accepted, only then will you ever begin to obey'. Those are two utterly different things. Every page of the Bible shows the difference."
I think the gospel is being contorted.
How is the Gospel being bent out of shape? Where do you seeing it being bent out of shape? That would be a good place to start.
The Bible's purpose is not so much to show you how to live a good life
TImv: So you disagree with Keller's quote and video?
The Bible's purpose is not so much to show you how to live a good life
but we cannot live the Gospel.
What about this Tim Keller quote:
religion is 'if you obey, then you will be accepted'.
I don't understand, is Horton afraid of antinomianism?
The rigour of the law is not in commanding holiness, the law then should be unjust, but in that it now obligeth us to obedience under a curse, when we are utterly unable to obey; but Christ abateth the rigour of the law, in that, (1.) He removeth the curse, which Towne seemeth to esteem a poore courtesy Christ hath done us. (2.) Giveth grace to obey. (3.) Pardoneth in Christ’s blood the sinful defects of obedience. (4.) Justifieth us not by law (that door to heaven is shut, never to be opened to sinners), but by faith (which is his own gift), laying hold on the righteousness of Christ freely, and of only pure grace imputed to us.
The Gospel can't be lived. It's the Law that's lived.
I find it very frustrating that such a simple doctrine can be the cause of so much disputation, but considering that the enemy of our souls doesn't want us to know what the Gospel is, nor does he want us to rest in the finished work of Christ, I can see why this topic comes up over and over again. The Gospel proper contains no demands, only promises (cf. Ro 3:21-26, 4:23-25, 5:1-2, 5:6-11, 6:23, 8:1-4; 1 Cor 15:1-4, Gal 1:3-5, 3:13-14, et al). Therefore, the Gospel cannot be lived. Can we emulate our Lord Jesus? By His grace, we can. However, the command to do so is still Law and not the Gospel. Can we wash one another's feet as Christ washed the feet of His disciples and thereby testify to the new life within us that God has freely bestowed on His elect in regeneration? Yes, by His grace. However, the command to do so is still not the Gospel - it is Law.
Christ has fulfilled the Law completely for His elect bride. Why do so many want to carry this work out for Him? The Gospel cannot be lived; we live in the light of the Gospel, bearing fruit as our obedience to Him becomes evident via the work of the Spirit in us. We can live in accordance with the Law's demands imperfectly, in the light of the Gospel, and out of gratitude for all that Jesus has done for us in the Gospel, but we cannot live the Gospel. We can be thankful for the Gospel, adorning it with our good works, but we cannot be or live the Gospel.
The life, death, burial, and resurrection of Christ are the Gospel. And if this is the case, which it is according to 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, then we cannot live the Gospel, seeing as it consists of (a.)Christ's life (i.e. His active obedience to the Law), (b.)Christ's death (i.e. His passive obedience to the Law), (c.)His burial and (d.)His resurrection (not ours, but with which we are united by the Spirit). I cannot live a perfect life of obedience to the Law for another, nor can I have the wrath of God poured out upon me for the sins of another - therefore, I cannot live or be the Gospel.
-h.
I don't understand, is Horton afraid of antinomianism?
It is an historical fact that the distinctions which are being made regarding the law and the gospel were advocated by the Antinomians of the 17th century and rejected by the orthodox reformed.
The fact is, the gospel is more than a message -- it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth. To those for whom the gospel is merely a message it is the savour of death unto death and a killing letter. To those who have known the power of the gospel, there is deliverance from the condemnation and the domination of the law; from the penalty and the power of sin. Sin shall not have dominion over you; why? Because ye are not under the law but under grace. Samuel Rutherford explains what it means to be delivered from the rigour of the law (Spiritual Antichrist 2:122, 123):
The rigour of the law is not in commanding holiness, the law then should be unjust, but in that it now obligeth us to obedience under a curse, when we are utterly unable to obey; but Christ abateth the rigour of the law, in that, (1.) He removeth the curse, which Towne seemeth to esteem a poore courtesy Christ hath done us. (2.) Giveth grace to obey. (3.) Pardoneth in Christ’s blood the sinful defects of obedience. (4.) Justifieth us not by law (that door to heaven is shut, never to be opened to sinners), but by faith (which is his own gift), laying hold on the righteousness of Christ freely, and of only pure grace imputed to us.
Those who obey the law, do you not hear what the law requires -- personal, perfect, and perpetual obedience. Woe, woe, woe to you, who desire to become teachers of the law.
The Gospel can't be lived. It's the Law that's lived.
To say that we live either the law or the gospel, without explaining further, is unwise and not in keeping with typical biblical language.
We have DIED to the law. So can we now live the law? No.
The law remains helpful in many ways. I might even say I live it in the sense that it helps inform my life of gratitude. But the claim to be my life belongs to another: "I died to the law, so that I might live to God. I have been cricufied with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me" (Gal. 2:19-20).
Does this mean then that we live the gospel? No again. At least not in the narrow sense of that word as it's used in 1 Cor. 15.
But since the gospel is Christ's work, and I do live in Christ, there's a broader sense of the gospel in which God's acceptance of my own good works, done in Christ, makes them an indispensible part of that gospel. In addition, the gospel powers any ability I have to live for God and is the basis for my life of gratitude. So in that sense too, at the very least we must say that I live out the implications of the gospel or that I live by the gospel. We might even say (very carefully, and making sure to point out how we mean something different from the emergents) that my life is part of the gospel.
This all gets difficult because definitions are fluid:
1. The Bible uses "gospel" sometimes in a more narrow sense and sometimes in a broader one. And since the core of the gospel, the crucifixion and resurrection, are the central event in all human life, it's hard to know how sharply to draw the line between gospel and non-gospel. The ripples of the cross are both vast and essential to the cross itself.
2. When we talk of "living by the law" some mean trusting in our works while others mean a life a thankful obedience. The law, after all, has those three uses.
3. Even the word "living" can be confusing. Do we mean our behavior or our salvation? And aren't our behavior and our salvation clearly separate things, yet necessarily and organically connected?
My point is that when we use these little phrases, we also need to take a bit of care to unpack them and explain our terms. And when someone else comes up with a little phrase that sounds wrong to us, we need to find out what they mean before embracing or villainizing their phrase. Finally, we need to understand that if we do decide to speak either of living the gospel or of living God's law, we must clearly say that we do so only and wholly in Christ.
The Bible uses "gospel" sometimes in a more narrow sense and sometimes in a broader one.
Do you see the newer teachers like Piper, Mahaney, Keller, etc, who use the term "gospel" in a very broad sense as reviving a form of antinomianism?
Jack,
You said:
The Bible uses "gospel" sometimes in a more narrow sense and sometimes in a broader one.
How much of this discussion is real meaty disagreement and how much of it is merely one camp arguing for only the narrower sense of the word "Gospel" and the other camp beginning to stress the broader definition as well?
Did anyone ever use "Gospel" in this broader sense prior to the last couple decades or so? Is this a new trend regarding the use of the word Gospel?
Jack,
You said:
The Bible uses "gospel" sometimes in a more narrow sense and sometimes in a broader one.
How much of this discussion is real meaty disagreement and how much of it is merely one camp arguing for only the narrower sense of the word "Gospel" and the other camp beginning to stress the broader definition as well?
It feels to me as if much of the discussion is about how people wish we would use the word, even though we largely agree in our theology. I suspect much of this is due to different errors we're each interested in combatting. Some are chiefly interested in combatting antinomianism or lax living. Some are more interested in combatting legalism. Some are opposing liberalism. Some want to emphasize the role of grace as a motive in sanctification. And everyone, naturally, wants to use that wonderful word, "gospel," chiefly in a way that supports what they care most about.
That's probably too simple. But I know for sure that I do that.