Indidividualism is the problem, community is the solution.
Jonathan Leeman (in Modern Reformation, HT Dave Bish) has heard it before. Like most writers today he is no fan of individualism and loves community, however he sees a deeper problem, which requires a solution that reaches right down to the root. For him...
the problem is we hate authority, and the solution is repentance.
A very good article. Well worth reading.
Note to self: I need to do a review post of John Frame's article "Law and Gospel". I think that would help crystallise many of the helpful things I have learnt from Lutheran theology over the last year. It would also be very topical in the mist of a lot of confusion in the Reformed world (or blogosphere at least) that Lutherans may say has been a part of Reformed theology since the beginning.
I think I would start by clearing the air by copying Don Carson's point in his article "The Vindication of Imputation: On Fields of Discourse and Semantic Fields" (in the brilliant Justification: What's at stake in the current debates ed. Mark Husbands & Daniel J. Treier).
I then may point out that characterisation of the traditional dichotomy between law and gospel of law = old covenant, gospel = new covenant, is a caricature (c.f. quote from Timothy Wengert posted previously).
Then I should think about why it is important after all.... I might find this bit hard work to write.
Finally I might think about why Reformed Theology often seems to struggle with conflicting urges in the debate.... this will be where I fall flat on my face because it here it will actually become clear what I may have hidden up till then: my ignorance of historical theology.
Law first, Gospel secondOne of the most challenging things to think about in John Frame's article is that it is more biblical to preach the gospel first and then the law, in contrast to what "one commonly hears that it is important, not only to preach both law and gospel, but also to preach the law first and the gospel second". I can see his point here, and yet he doesn't deal with what for Luther seems to be the biggest argument for that ordering: as Christ died and then was raised, so we are baptised into the water of death and are raised to life and repent of sin and are absolved by the confessor.
Inspired by this.
What would you suggest? Do you think my limited reading/sin has made me make some bad choices? This is a genuine request for recommendations (but you will have to work hard to persuade me of Mere Christianity/Basic Christianity if you were thinking of those).
I fear that all of these are a bit to nice. Maybe that's because I'm a bit to horrible... I don't know, there is nothing wrong with being nice after all. But you really can feel a difference between those three and John Piper's Seeing and savouring Jesus Christ. I don't think that it is meant to be so much of a 'seeker book' but nevertheless the Jesus presented by Piper is a whole lot more full blooded that the other three... and yet they remain my top 3 books for seekers... go figure.
I think I'm going to read Vintage Jesus: Timeless Answers to Timely Questions by Mark Driscoll and Gerry Breshears next.
Does anyone else have this nasty dilemma when reading such books, to decide between books which spell out the challenge and the promise of the gospel without neglecting the challenge or putting up unnecessary obstacles (in the form of controversial secondary doctrines) to the gospel?
I still think though that the best thing to do is take someone to a gospel (e.g. with Christianity Explored) or through the bible (e.g. with The World We All Want). Saves all the angst as well, and you can avoid having to add in caveats about how you would phrase things differently!
[I'll try and keep this updated as I find more, but please let me know if you know of anything I don't].
Mark Seifrid is Mildred and Ernest Hogan Professor of New Testament Interpretation at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.
A strict distinction between law and gospel is offered as a prophylactic against works-righteousness. If it is admitted that law is gospel in any sense, all is lost.
But this view assumes the very same view of law that it contests. A proponent of works righteousness sees the law as demands that need to be kept, and the end of the law is simply its keeping. The proponent of law/gospel segregation has the same view of law.
Both detach law from its purpose, which, as Knight argues, is eschatological. Law exists to correct, instruct, lead to maturity. And to that extent, law is always intended as, and in practice often is, good news.
However is this to misunderstand what is properly meant by Law/Gospel. Charles Arand and Robert Kolb in their conversations on the Book of Concord note that even "Christ died for your sins" can be "Law" rather than Gospel if you hear it as condemning you for the magnitude of your sins rather than lifting you from despair (they said it in a really menacing and accusative way to emphasise the point).
Kolb and Arand don't make the connection but I wonder if the same cannot be true for commandments. Commandments can be good news if they bring life rather than condemnation. I think of the beatitudes which Matthew characterises as Gospel (Matt 4:23) although most people teach them as commandments - do this and you will receive this (be merciful and you will receive mercy etc). However, if read in context they seem to be saying: “rejoice because you who are X are going to be saved”. It does not say be X, but assumes that they already are. Equally though it could be preached as an impossible standard we cannot reach in seeking justification by our works.
So the same words can have the different meanings for different people. God knew this so the Law of Moses was intended to be both life and death to people, just as the Gospel is (2 Corinthians 2:16). This may make interpretation of the different statements in the bible a whole lot easier (although it may be cheating).
