discipulo
Puritan Board Junior
Who is familiar with Moos Commentary on Romans and his exegesis
on the Pauline Corpus?
That might bring some light to both the
Law Gospel debate and to the classical Lutheran teaching of
the place / use of the Law to the regenerate Christian?
Moo is not Reformed in the confessional sense of the word, but he defined himself
as a modified Lutheran.
Whatever that may be, no one questions that he is a great
Pauline Scholar, that he interacts in a wide theological field, while maintaining a
conservative and reformed, in the broader sense of the word, doctrinal approach,
pretty much as does D. A. Carson or Mark Seifrid.
So I’m quite curious to hear your thoughts on Moo and from Moo on this matter.
Certainly there is something relevant there to clarify the debate.
Specially after seeing Bavinck questioned on this, I would like
to see how Moo deals with this.
I must say that Bavinck is one of the Dogmaticians that I have in higher regard, not less
because of his erudition on historical theology (or for the same matter for his philosophical
erudition) that he brings always, in great submission to Scripture, to the systematic
arena.
Does Moo confirm Bavinck’s differentiation between Reformed and classical Lutherans view on
the third use of the Law?
Does Moo clarify Paul's teaching of the role of God’s law in the believer's
sanctification?
on the Pauline Corpus?
That might bring some light to both the
Law Gospel debate and to the classical Lutheran teaching of
the place / use of the Law to the regenerate Christian?
Moo is not Reformed in the confessional sense of the word, but he defined himself
as a modified Lutheran.
Whatever that may be, no one questions that he is a great
Pauline Scholar, that he interacts in a wide theological field, while maintaining a
conservative and reformed, in the broader sense of the word, doctrinal approach,
pretty much as does D. A. Carson or Mark Seifrid.
So I’m quite curious to hear your thoughts on Moo and from Moo on this matter.
Certainly there is something relevant there to clarify the debate.
Specially after seeing Bavinck questioned on this, I would like
to see how Moo deals with this.
I must say that Bavinck is one of the Dogmaticians that I have in higher regard, not less
because of his erudition on historical theology (or for the same matter for his philosophical
erudition) that he brings always, in great submission to Scripture, to the systematic
arena.
Does Moo confirm Bavinck’s differentiation between Reformed and classical Lutherans view on
the third use of the Law?
Does Moo clarify Paul's teaching of the role of God’s law in the believer's
sanctification?
Last edited:
