Centrality of the Gospel or of preaching?

[raderag]

Are these two principles mutually exclusive, or is there some overlap. The centrality of the Gospel seeks to make worship center around the Gospel, whereas the centrality of preaching is worship that is centered on the teaching of God's word. The CoG standard is often a Lutheran distinctive, and they carry it so far as to mandate that law and gospel is preached at every sermon. There seem to be some reformed churches that try to incorporate both the CoG and the CoP, where the music and liturgy will have a CoG distincive, and yet the sermon will focus on exegating scripture, not necessarily putting the sermon into the law/gospel box.

WHat is the history behind this? If I recall correctly, many of the historically continental Churches have had liturgy that would seem to fit the CoG standard.

What are thoughts on this?

 

[Puritan Sailor]

The congregatoin gathers to hear from God. The pastor is obligated to preach the whole counsel of God, not just law or gospel. He must preach whatever the sermon text is intended to teach.

 

[raderag]

Originally posted by puritansailor
The congregatoin gathers to hear from God. The pastor is obligated to preach the whole counsel of God, not just law or gospel. He must preach whatever the sermon text is intended to teach.

I agree with that, and that is why I said the reformed that use the CoG do not put sermons into the law/gospel box.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Well, most texts do teach that dichotomy in some form or other. But to tie it strictly to that form would distort many texts and you miss out on some deeper concepts being taught.

 

[JohnV]

I'm not getting your drift, Brett and Patrick. What dichotomy are you talking about exactly, Patrick? And what practical distinction are you talking about, Brett? I mean, how does the distinction work out in practice? Are you inferring the difference between historical/redemptive preaching against exegetical/applicatory preaching? How do you distinguish the preaching of the Word from the centrality of the Word in practice, not counting the erroneous use of the office?

[Edited on 19-1-2005 by JohnV]

 

[ARStager]

A agree with John's inquiries and requests for clarity on your dichotomy.

I would lean hard law/gospel if I was told to preach next Sunday.

In the context of peaching through a book of Scripture, of course you don't want to be artificial...but you have to be redemptive-historical, or else you're not being reformed, I'd say. Does the gospel sanctify us through the forgiveness it offers baptized Christians, even, or is it void of that power?

 

[JohnV]

Andrew:

I can't agree with you about the preaching having to be historic-redemptive, unless you qualify that. It's the same problem as 'dichotomy'. I think that expository (exegetical-applicatory) can be historic-redemptive, and vice versa. If they are two completely separate and mutually excluding methods, then we have a dichotomy in the use of both. And then would I agree with you.

Where I find difficulty is that each style has its pitfalls that pastors and churches fall into. Historic-redemptive churches tend to preach comfort in the Covenant to the people, and become the wrong kind of presumptive; while expository churches tend to give the minister carte blanche, allowing insidious teachings a foot in the door. That doesn't mean that there's something intrinsically wrong with either approach. It just means that those who watch over are not always aware of the things they should be aware of, for whatever reasons there may be.

For me, I just don't think they are mutually exclusive.

 

[Ianterrell]

John

 

[openairboy]

Originally posted by raderag
Are these two principles mutually exclusive, or is there some overlap. The centrality of the Gospel seeks to make worship center around the Gospel, whereas the centrality of preaching is worship that is centered on the teaching of God's word. The CoG standard is often a Lutheran distinctive, and they carry it so far as to mandate that law and gospel is preached at every sermon. There seem to be some reformed churches that try to incorporate both the CoG and the CoP, where the music and liturgy will have a CoG distincive, and yet the sermon will focus on exegating scripture, not necessarily putting the sermon into the law/gospel box.

WHat is the history behind this? If I recall correctly, many of the historically continental Churches have had liturgy that would seem to fit the CoG standard.

What are thoughts on this?

I don't see the principles as mutually exclusive at all. My church has confession of sin and pronouncement of foregiveness right after God's call to worship, so we have the "law", if you want to call it that, at the very beginning and we acknowledge our guilt. We then have the announcement that sins are forgiven ("gospel" if you want to call it that) before we hear from God's word. However, since we know that we are forgiven we can freely hear God's Word, which includes a call to obedience, taking up our cross, self-denial, etc. It is basically, "I am the Lord your God that brought you up out of Egypt...so do this."

I personally see the Torah as good and reviving the soul, so I rejoice when it is preached. I enjoy living on every Word that proceeds out of the mouth of the Lord. I love and walk in his commandments, so I don't see the "law" in a strictly Lutheran, which the aforementioned concepts is predicated upon. After all, it is written on my heart in the New Covenant.

I would end the service with the Yhwh having a meal with his people. "Whoever eats his flesh and drinks his blood shall live..."

openairboy

 

[ARStager]

Does the law bring life, Keith?

 

[openairboy]

Originally posted by ARStager
Does the law bring life, Keith?

"The law of the Lord is perfect, reviving the soul"-Psalm 19:7.

Yes, it revives.

openairboy

[Edited on 20-1-2005 by openairboy]

 

[Puritan Sailor]

I guess I should be more clear. The law/gospel dichotomy I don't think is either/or but rather both. It's how you use the law in the passage in question, and also how you apply the gospel as well. I don' t think the passage should be stuffed into the Lutheran idea of a law/gospel box. But rather, I think you will find that no matter what passage you preach from, you will find both elements to some degree and if you're teaching the intent of the text, you will end up teaching those things anyway. The gospel doesn't make sense without the law. I guess that's what I was saying.

 

[ARStager]

The law "revives our soul", "converts us", because in it's pedagogical use it sends us to the cross alone for refuge. But the letter of the law kills. Only the gospel makes us alive. We're grateful for recieving the law, because it's perfect and shows us who we are in relation to God's holiness, and the benefit of the law is that it leaves us no resort but in the gospel, which alone brings life.

You'll probably say that I'm too Lutheran on this point, but hey...here I stand.

At the same time, I'm not dismissing the 3rd use. But, as Patrick said, a given passage can be applied as a 2nd use or a 3rd use.

 

[Larry Hughes]

I think that the true Martin Luther Lutheran distinction is not so much as a box A = law and box B = gospel in the delivery necessarily, though one could preach a sermon that distinct on certain verses. But that the pastor understand this distinction or he will be confused then confuse it in his delivery.

Good pastors who actually work at their message should rather not confuse the two in their own thinking nor in their delivery language when preaching, nor do so by implication or actions. That is where the terror and confusion can set in.

E.g. 1: I've run into a pastor or two that where elated because they preached a 'hell fire and damnation' sermon only and had "many converts". I would fear such converts because the fear of avoiding hell is not necessarily conversion, there must be a love and desire for Christ and this only comes from pure Gospel unmixed.

E.g. 2: The problem also arises when we add to the pure gospel which reformers would define as the empty hand receiving or the soul looking (faith) to Christ - nothing else. When we add to the gospel directly or implicitly by confusion we tend to make the hearer hear, "DO THIS to," in essence, "purchase the Gospel or move God to mercy." Then they wonder, "Did I do it right, with a true heart, etc..." This is the deadliness of the alter call & similar type of ending approaches. Or for example a pastor that says at the end, "Have you GIVEN all your heart to Jesus" in essence to exchange for mercy. Well, who can answer? Answer: only someone who does not really understand the depth of sin.

Sometimes the truth shines more by constrasting it with what it is not, like Satan's preachers. I remember preparing for a mission trip out at Provo, Utah to the Mormons. One of the things we did was go through their Quad at night looking at various verses written by Joseph Smith and then pointing out contraries in the KJ Version (the only one they will listen to). I'll never forget this one verse in Moroni out of the Book of Mormon that I read, "Repent ye of all your sins, then is my grace sufficient for you..." This blocks grace forever and in fact is no grace at all.

Confusion of the Law and Gospel is a real and major issue, that's why there is so much confusion about it today.

 

[openairboy]

Originally posted by ARStager
The law "revives our soul", "converts us", because in it's pedagogical use it sends us to the cross alone for refuge. But the letter of the law kills. Only the gospel makes us alive. We're grateful for recieving the law, because it's perfect and shows us who we are in relation to God's holiness, and the benefit of the law is that it leaves us no resort but in the gospel, which alone brings life.

You'll probably say that I'm too Lutheran on this point, but hey...here I stand.

At the same time, I'm not dismissing the 3rd use. But, as Patrick said, a given passage can be applied as a 2nd use or a 3rd use.

We'll just have to disagree. This Psalm says nothing about the cross or a pedagogical use. I don't think the Psalmist had the cross or a pedagogical use in mind when he penned those words. When worshippers sang the song, I don't believe they were saying, "Well, this is only its pedagogical use." No, the Psalmist has nothing but praises for the Torah in this Psalm and others ("the precepts of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart", the precepts cause the heart to rejoice, not because of some "pedagogical" use; the Torah enlightens the eyes, etc.), and it isn't simply so he can get to "the gospel". You'll bring your hermeneutic to every verse, so I have no presumption that I can change your mind. We have differing hermeneutics.

The Torah revives the soul; the Torah does that.

openairboy

[Edited on 21-1-2005 by openairboy]

 

[Larry Hughes]

But the Apostle Paul does say:

Romans 1:16, "For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek."

1Cor 1:18, "For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God."

Act 13:39, "and through Him everyone who believes is freed from all things, from which you could not be freed through the Law of Moses."

And speaking of the Law in relationship to sinful man in Romans 7:13, "Therefore did that which is good become a cause of death for me? May it never be! Rather it was sin, in order that it might be shown to be sin by effecting my death through that which is good, so that through the commandment sin would become utterly sinful."

Thus, the Law good in and of itself slays the sinner who is by definition lawless & the Gospel as Paul says is the power unto salvation for all who believe.

 

[ARStager]

Thus, the Law good in and of itself slays the sinner who is by definition lawless & the Gospel as Paul says is the power unto salvation for all who believe.

 

[JohnV]

from Patrick
I guess I should be more clear. The law/gospel dichotomy I don't think is either/or but rather both. It's how you use the law in the passage in question, and also how you apply the gospel as well. I don' t think the passage should be stuffed into the Lutheran idea of a law/gospel box. But rather, I think you will find that no matter what passage you preach from, you will find both elements to some degree and if you're teaching the intent of the text, you will end up teaching those things anyway. The gospel doesn't make sense without the law. I guess that's what I was saying.

OK, now I understand. I am what you may call a non-dichotomist, which is to be rather strict about that term. Under this, it is impossible to speak of a law/gospel dichotomy, since the Word has both. To use that term is to misunderstand them both. Another example of it would be the use feminists make of the equality/headship principles, as if they were opposed to each other instead of the Bible teaching both, and perfectly.

from Andrew
I guess I should be more clear. The law/gospel dichotomy I don't think is either/or but rather both. It's how you use the law in the passage in question, and also how you apply the gospel as well. I don' t think the passage should be stuffed into the Lutheran idea of a law/gospel box. But rather, I think you will find that no matter what passage you preach from, you will find both elements to some degree and if you're teaching the intent of the text, you will end up teaching those things anyway. The gospel doesn't make sense without the law. I guess that's what I was saying.

We may ask ourselves, "When was the law given? Was it before they were made perfect, or after?" The answer lies in the fact that the giving of the law was an act of grace. Not only Psalm 19, but 119 and all the others reflect this wondrous mystery founded in the promised Messiah. This is what the patriarchs and other OT saints longed to see and hear, but did not. Yet they knew that the giving of the law was an act of unmerited grace.