The law turned into gospel

Discussion in 'Calvinism & The Doctrines of Grace' started by MW, Jan 14, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. mvdm

    mvdm Puritan Board Junior

    I appreciate the attempt to make sense of his theological propositions, but the quote I highlighted says the law "only" condemns. "Only" does not permit exceptions, nor does that statement give any. While he goes on to affirm the 3rd use of the law, {of course he must}, he has no stable theological basis to do so.
     
  2. hrdiaz

    hrdiaz Puritan Board Freshman

    I guess what I find problematic about thinking about this passage as not dealing solely with justification is that the structure of the passage seems to demand that we interpret this passage as dealing solely with justification. For there is a parallel structure that speaks of God condemning sin "in the flesh [of Christ]," while v. 4 speaks of the righteous requirement of the Law being fulfilled in us. If it is the case that Paul is drawing a parallel, which I think it is very clear to establish, then what do you make of sin being condemned in the flesh [of Christ]? Wouldn't the parallelism here demand that just as we are truly meeting the righteous requirement of the Law internally that Christ was, inversely, truly was sinful?

    If we understand the passage to be speaking about justification, however, then we face no difficulty when we meet the parallel of what God did in the flesh [of Christ] and what God has done in us. How does one make sense of this parallel structure? Does it not echo the words we find in 2 Corinthians 5:21,

    Did Christ literally become sin? Or was our sin imputed to Him? Obviously, the latter. Therefore, how is understanding Paul's parallel structure in Romans 8:3-4 and, thereby, interpreting v.4 to be solely concerned with justification, a "strained" interpretation?

    How so?

    :think:
     
  3. TeachingTulip

    TeachingTulip Puritan Board Sophomore

    In my humble opinion, Romans 8:3-4 should be read and understood forensically; not ontologically.

    Justification is without a doubt, forensic, and Sanctification is without a doubt experiential . . . but neither infers an ontological change in the definition or being of the justified and sanctified sinner.

    The creature, even being justified by the grace of God, and sanctified by the power and Holy Spirit of God, remains a creature.

    Even in glory, creatures will remain creatures.
     
    Last edited: Jan 21, 2011
  4. hrdiaz

    hrdiaz Puritan Board Freshman

    :ditto:
     
  5. hrdiaz

    hrdiaz Puritan Board Freshman

    I didn't mean, btw, to suggest that one can read Romans 8:3-4 ontologically. My point was that it seems to me that if Paul is setting up a parallel between what occurred in the flesh[of Christ] and what God has done in us, then reading v.4 as dealing with sanctification seems create theological problems.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page