Hello again all,
I’m just going to take up the time to saliently sum up the key content as I see it from the past three pages.
Namely, since when I last commented here and said:
“Brian German writes in his new CTQ aritcle: "...if the law is not in its essence God’s eternal will but construed as something else—whether that be “its condemning office” or any sort of “legal scheme,” “nasty tool,” or “disposable tool” —Luther’s understanding of the fulfillment of the law will suffer catastrophically."
http://www.ctsfw.net/media/pdfs/GermanLutherontheFulfillmentoftheLaw.pdfThe footnote shows it is Steven D. Paulson who describes the law in all of those ways.
Being a heresy-hunter of the first class, it is my contention that Paulson denies the third use of the law for the same reason that He believes Christ committed sin, namely, because, for him, the law of God is not His eternal will we are created to walk in but is really something else.”
...Peter Speckhard has said, among other things:
“Our “view” of eternity is only what God reveals. For example, we know in this world that God is eternally triune. We know God is Love. And we know we live in eternity. So unless you’re saying that we live in eternity with the triune God who is love but it is not His will that we live in love in eternity, it seems obvious that His revealed will, that we live God and neighbor, applies to eternity as much as His self-revelation that He is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit….
It seems to me your objection to the idea that the Law reflects God’s eternal will relies on some knowledge that either God doesn’t want us to live Him and our neighbor in eternity or on an objection to the idea that loving God and neighbor summarizes the Law….
The issue was be been looking at here is whether the law as revealed expressed God’s eternal will. You might compare the question to whether the written instructions (for a dish or a building) represent the ultimate pattern in the mind of the chef/architect. In eternity, when we can do it without the instructions, what we will be doing apart from the instructions will still conform to the pattern the instructions outlined. The pattern is eternal whether the written instructions are or not….
The 3rd Use relates to the idea that the Law is God's eternal will. That is, the Law as a guide is just that, a guide or map. It describes what is. It doesn't tell you what to do so much as give you a true blueprint of divine, eternal reality.”
Hear! Hear! Some home runs there…
Meanwhile… readselerttoo does not have me nearly as excited….
“It is a waste of time trying to reflect on an essence of God’s will, etc. because at that point we are attempting to hide from God’s inescapable judgment over us.”
Didn’t Jesus tell us what God’s will is and what the law meant (see above)? Who is hiding? As a new creature in Christ, I like the idea of God’s law being fulfilled in love, even if I don’t and can’t love the way Jesus did and He means for me to as well….
“But sanctification is not as our Methodist friends would have it. It is a making holy but not without a death involved. Sanctification (and Forde/Paulson may be in agreement here, I don't know about them)) is not without suffering and death. See how Jesus uses sanctification in John's Gospel, chapter 17.”
Why are the Methodists always brought up here? One is either Elertian or a Methodist? Poor Luther… nowhere to go….
“Anyone who believes that the telos, the end and goal to life in Christ falls back upon whether the law gets done or not is to fall into the clutches of Calvinism and Karl Barth in particular.”
Mercy… Elert saw Calvinism everywhere…
“Why would Luther rely so much on Galatians and Romans if there wasn't something else besides the endpoint being fulfillment of the law?”
Is true love between persons boring or something? I’m not saying there isn’t more to eternal life, enjoying the whole of the New Heavens and Earth, but why in the world would we want to discount this or throw it into doubt for a minute?
“…life in Christ is not necessarily against the law but it is not FINALLY built upon law. If it was then Christ's death on the cross would have no meaning, no import, no force in history, our own or in general.”
No one, I think, is saying it is finally built upon law… More in next answer below.
“Jesus is alive and active forgiving sins and there to be with us forever... If that is law-filled life then I may as well go into Judaism or simply live as an atheist or even an agnostic.”
Only Jesus perfectly embodies the law – which, yes, involves compassion and mercy – for our sakes, so not sure at all why you would say this either.
“…the directives given to Adam and Eve in the Garden prior to the Fall were not laws per se but directives given to persons who were created responsibly in God's image.”
Well, Luther called it law. He also said that it threatened, although Adam and Eve also felt no threat (perhaps warning would have been a better word).
DCharlton:
“While the Old Adam would attempt to use the Law as a guide to holy living, the New Adam is guided by the Spirit to willingly (without the compulsion of the Law) the things called for by the decalogue. Is this decalogue to which the sanctified person is conformed the Law, or not?... The Holy Spirit will make us into people who just do have true faith in God, and who just do love our neighbors as ourselves. We will do all that without either the compulsion or the guidance of the Law. Nevertheless, the decalogue will accurately describe the shape of our sanctified lives. ”
Why can the New Man not use the Law as a guide to holy living? Why is this somehow antithetical to the Spirit guiding the New Man willingly? Luther talked about how the command given in the Garden would have increased Adam and Eve’s knowledge. Even our Lord Jesus, according to his human nature, “And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature and in favor with God and man.” He became perfect.
I know Forde wouldn't like me talking that way....
+Nathan
