Re: Sin, Agape, etc.?

From: George Murphy (gmurphy@raex.com)
Date: Sun Jul 20 2003 - 15:20:37 EDT

  • Next message: Michael Roberts: "Re: Cambrian Explosion"

    Cmekve@aol.com wrote:
    >
    > In a message dated 7/19/03 4:39:21 AM Mountain Standard Time,
    > gmurphy@raex.com writes:
    >
    > << The law has two basic functions:
    > 1) It maintains order in the world (civil use).
    > 2) It makes people aware of their sin (theological use).
    > Those who are justified in Christ are free from the law (Rom.10:4). But
    > Christians
    > in this life are still sinners (as well as saints!) & thus always need to
    > hear the
    > law in its 2d use. They also live in the world with others, including
    > non-Christians,
    > & for the sake of their neighbors are subject to the law in its 1st use.
    >
    > I think the question at issue here is whether or not the law has a "3d
    > use" as a
    > guide for the Christian life. The Reformed tradion has generally said
    > "Yes." The
    > Lutheran tradition has been somewhat ambiguous about this but I think most
    > consistently
    > says "No." This does _not_ mean that Christians are not subject to the law
    > at all, but
    > simply that it functions for them in the 2 ways noted above, & that there is
    > no
    > distinctively Christian use of the law. To put it another way, apart from
    > use #1 the
    > law always has a negative function - "the law always accuses."
    >
    > >>
    >
    > George:
    >
    > What you say above is true but it seems to lead to typical modern Protestant
    > (not just Lutheran) antinomianism. If I understand them correctly (and that
    > could be a big 'if'!), a number of Lutheran theologians have responded to
    > Veritatis Splendor by emphasizing a third use of the Law. David Yeago and Reinhard
    > Hutter have been most vocal. For instance Hutter writes:
    >
    > "Thus according to Luther's eschatological understanding of faith, when
    > Christ himself, the new Adam, is present in the believer, there is no difference
    > anymore between God's gospel -- God's forgiving, restoring, and sanctifying
    > acrtivity in Christ -- and God's commandments as the gospel's creaturely form of
    > freedom. Christ's law, Luther says, "is faith, that is, that living and
    > spiritual flame inscribed by the Spirit in human hearts, which wills, does, and
    > indeed is that which the law of Moses commands and requires verbally..."" ["The
    > Twofold Center of Lutheran Ethics: Christian Freedom and God's Commandments", in
    > Bloomquist and Stumme, 1998, The Promise of Lutheran Ethics, p44]
    >
    > It seems that the argument is that perfect gospel freedom IS following the
    > Law (of course always keeping simul justis et peccator in mind during this
    > life). I probably haven't been very clear as I'm still trying to absorb it myself.
    > Anything here you can sink your teeth into and comment on ?

    Karl -
            If it's clear that the law in its 1st & 2d uses applies to all, inlcuding
    Christians, then we've guraded against antinomianisn as well as possible. The question
    is, as I said, whether there is a distinctively Christian use, different from these two.
     The 6th article of the Formula of Concord certainly speaks of a 3d use but is really
    speaking about the continued need of Christians for the first 2 uses, & especially for
    the 2d. & this is because of the simul justus et peccator. E.g., "If believers and the
    elect children of God were perfectly renewed in this life through the indwelling Spirit
     in such a way that in their nature and all its powers they would be totally free from
    sin, they would require no law, no driver. ... But in this life Christians are not
    renewed perfectly and completely" (Tappert pp.564-565).
            
            Denial of the SJEP with its denial of the sinful character of inclinations to
    sin, that can cause confusion here. If I have to consult the 10 Commandments to see if
    it's OK for me to steal or commit adultery then the law is going to accuse me of the
    desire to do these things which is in itself sin.

            Having said this, I would not deny that the law - & torah specifically - is
    useful to Christians in discerning the mind of Christ. Jesus doesn't say much if
    anything about environmental responsibility, but the principles embodied in Leviticus 25
    tell us that care for the land together with social justice is part of our calling. But
    we don't have to exercise care for the land by letting it lie fallow every 7 years. On
    the other hand, some regulations of torah are just irrelevant while others are, I think,
    simply out of bounds for those who try to follow the pattern of Christ - e.g., taking
    your mouthy teenager out to the village square & having him stoned to death. The law,
    in other words, has a purely ministerial role. It is subject to our understanding of
    the mind of Christ & to our reason & experience of the world. We have better ways of
    treating skin diseases than those set out in Leviticus.

                                                            Shalom,
                                                            George

    George L. Murphy
    gmurphy@raex.com
    http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Jul 20 2003 - 15:35:54 EDT