The Gospel can't be lived. It's the Law that's lived.
I think this phrase deserves it own thread.
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 this phrase deserves it own thread.The Gospel can't be lived. It's the Law that's lived.
Law and Gospel
Last I checked John Frame was not emergent, nor Bridges or Piper or Keller or Mahaney and they all use the same terminology. See the link by Frame.
Law and Gospel
Last I checked John Frame was not emergent, nor Bridges or Piper or Keller or Mahaney and they all use the same terminology. See the link by Frame.
Law and Gospel
Last I checked John Frame was not emergent, nor Bridges or Piper or Keller or Mahaney and they all use the same terminology. See the link by Frame.
From Footnote 7 in the article:
But in Lutheranism, it is often said that “the law always accuses.”
The "law always accuses" would be fairly synonymous with "the law only condemns".
From Footnote 7 in the article:
But in Lutheranism, it is often said that “the law always accuses.”
The "law always accuses" would be fairly synonymous with "the law only condemns".
Heidelberg Catechism Q/A 115:
Why then does God so strictly enjoin the ten Commandments upon us, since in this life no one can keep them?
First, that as long as we live we may learn more and more to know our sinful nature, and so the more earnestly seek forgiveness of sins and righteousness in Christ; secondly, that without ceasing we diligently ask God for the grace of the Holy Spirit, that we be renewed more and more after the image of God, until we attain the goal of perfection after this life.
Last I checked John Frame was not emergent, nor Bridges or Piper or Keller or Mahaney and they all use the same terminology. See the link by Frame.
From Footnote 7 in the article:
But in Lutheranism, it is often said that “the law always accuses.”
The "law always accuses" would be fairly synonymous with "the law only condemns".
Heidelberg Catechism Q/A 115:
Why then does God so strictly enjoin the ten Commandments upon us, since in this life no one can keep them?
First, that as long as we live we may learn more and more to know our sinful nature, and so the more earnestly seek forgiveness of sins and righteousness in Christ; secondly, that without ceasing we diligently ask God for the grace of the Holy Spirit, that we be renewed more and more after the image of God, until we attain the goal of perfection after this life.
Please don't tell me you cited this catechism section to support the idea that the "the law always accuses" or the "law only condemns".
III. In nature restored by Christ, or as it respects the regenerate,
there are many uses of the law.
1.The preservation of discipline and outward obedience to the law.
For although this use has respect chiefly to the unregenerate, as we have already shown, who do not refrain from sin from love to God and righteousness, but only from a fear and dread of punishment and shame, as the Poet says,
Oderunt peccare mali formedine pcena:
They hate to sin from a dread of punishment;
yet it in like manner has its use in relation to the godly, because on account of the weakness and corruption of the flesh, it is useful and necessary, even to them, that the threatenings of the law, and the examples of punishment set before them, may keep them in the faithful discharge of their duty. For God threatens severe punishment even to the saints, if they become nature. "When the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, he shall die in his sin." (Ez. 18 : 24.)
2. A knowledge of sin. This use of the law, although it likewise has
reference chiefly to the unregenerate, nevertheless, belongs to the godly also. For the law is to the regenerate as a mirror, in which they may see the defects and imperfection of their own nature, and also leads them to true humility before God, that so they may continually advance in true conversion and faith; and that whilst the renewing of their nature is going forward, they may become more earnest in prayer and supplication, that they may become more and more conformed to God and the divine law.
...The declaration of the Apostle Paul [he quotes Rom 7, "O wretched man that I am...."], that the law is our schoolmaster, to bring us unto Christ, must be understood of both these uses of the law of which we have just spoken, and that in the elect still unregenerate, as well as in those who are already regenerated. To the former it is a preparation to conversion; whilst to the latter it is the carrying forward, or increase of conversion, since faith cannot be kindled, or remain in the heart, unless open and grievous offences, and such as wound conscience, be hated and shunned.
Ursinus, on Q. 115
Again, the law alone, without the gospel, is the letter, that is, it is the doctrine which merely teaches, demands obedience, denounces the wrath of God and death to such as are disobedient, without producing the spiritual obedience which it requires. But when it is joined with the gospel, which is the Spirit, it also commences to become the Spirit, which is effectual in the godly, inasmuch as those who are regenerated commence willingly and cheerfully to yield obedience to the law.
Last I checked John Frame was not emergent, nor Bridges or Piper or Keller or Mahaney and they all use the same terminology. See the link by Frame.
No, but he is transformationalist, which creates all kinds of ecclesiological problems, and might be considered as the germ out of which emergent ideas have developed.
Ursinus, on Q. 115
Please read on:
Again, the law alone, without the gospel, is the letter, that is, it is the doctrine which merely teaches, demands obedience, denounces the wrath of God and death to such as are disobedient, without producing the spiritual obedience which it requires. But when it is joined with the gospel, which is the Spirit, it also commences to become the Spirit, which is effectual in the godly, inasmuch as those who are regenerated commence willingly and cheerfully to yield obedience to the law.
For the sake of this conversation, Horton has responded to the antinomian charges here: the-fear-of-antinomianism from whitehorseinn.org - StumbleUpon
Thanks, Rev. Winzer for supplying what was left out. Again.
How would question Question 97 of the Larger Catechism fit in this discussion?
Thanks, Rev. Winzer for supplying what was left out. Again.
The question was whether there is anything in the HC which is analogous to "lex semper accusat."
According to HC 115, there is clearly a pedagogical aspect to the law, even in the tertius usus. Ursinus says as much.
No question whether, as Ursinus says, the gospel transforms our relation to the law. Amen and amen!
The law is wonderful, holy, and good but WE SINNERS are not yet, fully sanctified, and therefore the law continues to accuse us sinners, even as the Spirit is at work in us to conform us, to continue our regneration (in the old sense, in which Ursinus was using that term, of sanctification) in the image of Christ.
It's not an either/or choice. It's a matter of Both/And.
The problem has never been the law.
The problem has always been with sin and with sinners.
Better that you recover the Reformed confession
36. The Law and the Gospel are necessarily dichotomous since the former only condemns and the only justifies.
"God's law (whether expressed in the Old or New Testament) is the norm for the Christian's moral life."
No, the question was NOT whether there is a pedagogical or first use of the law. The question was whether the law "only condemns". That is your theological proposition. Just by the mere light shed by the section of Ursinus which you curiously omitted, it does no good for you to continue to pretend "only" doesn't mean "only". Better that you recover the Reformed confession and amend your theological proposition: The law and gospel are NOT always opposed. The law does NOT only condemn.
No, the question was NOT whether there is a pedagogical or first use of the law. The question was whether the law "only condemns".
"The Law and the Gospel are necessarily dichotomous since the former only condemns and the only justifies"
The decalogue is the general equity of God's law. Christ summarized the decalogue in Matthew 22.37-40.
The law of nature is substantially identical to the decalogue and was revealed in Eden and is known naturally by all humans such that all are without excuse before God.
God's law (whether expressed in the Old or New Testament) is the norm for the Christian's moral life.
There are three types of law in the Old (Mosaic) Testament: moral, civil and ceremonial.
Because civil and ceremonial law were specifically and intentionally tied to the Old (Mosaic) covenant, they were fulfilled in the Kingly and Priestly work of Christ and are therefore no longer binding on the Christian.
The Mosaic civil law, because it was specifically and intentionally tied to the temporary and typical Old (Mosaic) covenant, it was never intended to serve as norm for any other state than Mosaic-Davidic theocracy.
Any attempt to reimpose the Mosaic civil laws or their penalties fails to understand the typological, temporary, national character of the Old (Mosaic) covenant.
The moral law, to the degree it expresses the substance of God's moral will and is not tied to the ceremonies of the Old covenant continues to bind all human beings.
There are three uses of the Law: the pedagogical, the civil and the normative.
The pedagogical use drives sinners to Christ.
The civil use norms the state.
In the New Covenant, only the second table of the Law can be said to bind the
state.
There are two kingdoms: that of the right hand and that of the left.
Both kingdoms are under the authority of Christ, but are administered in diverse ways.
In each Christians live under Christ's lordship according to the nature of that kingdom.
The kingdom of the Right hand describes the ministry of Word and sacrament.
The kingdom of the left hand describes the exercise of power in the ecclesiastical and civil realms.
Because of the distinction between the two kingdoms and because the Decalogue is substantially identical with natural law, Christians should advocate laws and policies in the civil realm on the basis of the universal, natural knowledge of the second table of the law.
The third use of the law norms the Christian life.
Denial of the third use of the Law (tertius usus legis) leads to antinomianism.
The third use of the law, like the first use, also drives us to Christ.
Because it cannot be known apart from divine revelation in Holy Scripture, no one may bind our conscience with any law other than that revealed by God.
Sanctification is as gracious as justification.
Sanctification is the result of justification.
The revelation of God's moral will in Scripture does not eliminate the need for wisdom in the interpretation and application of divinely revealed moral norms
in the Christian life whether in the church or in civil life.
The Christian life flows from the right use of the means of grace.
There is a proper distinction between God's hidden (decretive) and revealed (moral) will. The latter has been revealed in Holy Scripture and must be known and obeyed. The former is only known ex post facto.
There is no secret revelation of God's decretive will.
It is more helpful to consider that prayer is the chief part of thankfulness than a means of grace considered narrowly.
Broadly considered, prayer may be described as a means of grace since it is a divinely instituted element of worship through which God has promised to operate.
Theonomy is not a Reformed ethical system.
Only that should be done in worship which is explicitly taught or implicitly required by Scripture.
The Christian life flows from and is impossible without theology.
The Spirit must never be divorced from the Word. Any such separation is fanaticism.
Inasmuch as modern evangelicalism (from c. 1720) is driven primarily by religious experience and not objective revelation as revealed in Scripture and confessed by the church, the Reformed may be described as evangelical but we are not modern evangelicals.
To be fair, Randy, # 6 Under Ethics in the same link states this:
"God's law (whether expressed in the Old or New Testament) is the norm for the Christian's moral life."
I've read elsewhere that Dr. Clark has held to the three uses: The Three Uses of the Law « Heidelblog
Note in the above link Dr. Clark says, "We don’t say that it only accuses, however! There’s a difference."
There is much value in this thread, but it shouldn't be sidetracked by arguments born from misunderstanding. I may have missed it, but when I read through this thread I don't see Dr. Clark asserting what mvdm is stating:
No, the question was NOT whether there is a pedagogical or first use of the law. The question was whether the law "only condemns". That is your theological proposition. Just by the mere light shed by the section of Ursinus which you curiously omitted, it does no good for you to continue to pretend "only" doesn't mean "only". Better that you recover the Reformed confession and amend your theological proposition: The law and gospel are NOT always opposed. The law does NOT only condemn.
I note that “lex semper accusat” is not really the same thing as "the law only condemns." I think one can say, on one hand, "the law always condemns" and also say that the law is the norm for Christians.
So, if there are to be accusations, let them at least be accurate.
36. The Law and the Gospel are necessarily dichotomous since the former only condemns and the only justifies.
36. The Law and the Gospel are necessarily dichotomous since the former only condemns and the [there is a word missing here] only justifies.
To be fair, Randy, # 6 Under Ethics in the same link states this:
"God's law (whether expressed in the Old or New Testament) is the norm for the Christian's moral life."
I've read elsewhere that Dr. Clark has held to the three uses: The Three Uses of the Law « Heidelblog
Note in the above link Dr. Clark says, "We don’t say that it only accuses, however! There’s a difference."
There is much value in this thread, but it shouldn't be sidetracked by arguments born from misunderstanding. I may have missed it, but when I read through this thread I don't see Dr. Clark asserting what mvdm is stating:
No, the question was NOT whether there is a pedagogical or first use of the law. The question was whether the law "only condemns". That is your theological proposition. Just by the mere light shed by the section of Ursinus which you curiously omitted, it does no good for you to continue to pretend "only" doesn't mean "only". Better that you recover the Reformed confession and amend your theological proposition: The law and gospel are NOT always opposed. The law does NOT only condemn.
I note that “lex semper accusat” is not really the same thing as "the law only condemns." I think one can say, on one hand, "the law always condemns" and also say that the law is the norm for Christians.
So, if there are to be accusations, let them at least be accurate.
All confessional Protestants have always taught that the Law does more than accuse. I was just reading Luther's lectures on Genesis (c. 1535-36) in which he taught, at length, the normative use of the moral law for the believer. The Lutheran Book of Concord teaches the third use of the law explicitly. Remember, the Harmony of Reformed Confessions (1580) included the Augsburg Confession. The antithesis that some seek to draw between the Lutheran confessions and the Reformed confessions, on the normative/third use of the law wasn't highlighted in the classical period.