The law turned into gospel

[mvdm]

Hard to find a better example of this antithetical view of Law/Gospel than this from Scott Clark:

"The Law and the Gospel are necessarily dichotomous since the former only condemns and the {latter} only justifies"

That is a good example. Especially considering that it is in the context of the doctrine of justification. What Reformed theologian denies this antithetical relation in regards to justification?

However, if the example was given as a way to discredit his view of sanctification, then the rest of the context in which this example is given is most helpful:
Westminster Seminary California

Three things of notice:
1. the law and gospel are opposed to one another at the point of justification. The law does not justify.
2. isolating one statement out of a systematic theology context is a disservice to one's entire thought
3. the law is affirmed as in harmony with gospel later on in point 22 of section 8, among many other theses to the same, especially point 39 of section 5 (just 3 points after the given example)

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.

 

[hrdiaz]

First, it is inappropriate to say that righteousness is fulfilled in believers in terms of justification. That would mean Christ's work without us is in fact within us.

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,

For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

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?

Secondly, there are real benefits distinct from legal benefits announced in the passage and these are left without any connection to the work of Christ if it is understood of justification.

How so?

 

[TeachingTulip]

First, it is inappropriate to say that righteousness is fulfilled in believers in terms of justification. That would mean Christ's work without us is in fact within us.

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,

For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

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?

Secondly, there are real benefits distinct from legal benefits announced in the passage and these are left without any connection to the work of Christ if it is understood of justification.

How so?

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.

 

[hrdiaz]

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

 

[hrdiaz]

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.

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.