5.06.2006

The law of God and its role in salvation. So in order to try and elaborate on some of the frustrations from my previous post, I'm going to try and expound on this topic. There are really three views of God's law within Christianity, and only one of which I believe is appropriate. Here they are, in order of most to least messed up. Legalism Legalism is the belief that that adherance to Mosaic law somehow attains or maintains justification for the believer. In a nutshell, this is a belief in a works-based salvation. Biblical warrant for this position is fabricated from passages such as John 14:15, which often relate a positive relationship with God to keeping his commandments. Other passages make it seem like christian perfection is something that is really obtainable in this life (Matt. 5:48, 1 John 3:9). However, we should not fail to remember the human condition, which is completely depraved before God. Our righteousness is nothing but filthy rags (Isaiah 64:6), we have all sinned and deserve death (Rom. 3:23 & 6:23), and if at any point we are guilty of breaking one command of the law, we are guilty for trespassing against all of it (James 2:10). Even as believers, granted a new nature by which we are able to do anything positive in the eyes of God, are sure to slip into sin (Rom. 7:14ff). The 1 John passage above is clarified by an earlier statement in that book, which shows that even believers should not claim sinlessness (1 John 1:8). Finally, we must remember the creature/creator distinction by which we know that no man may merit or obligate God to grant him anything. The only reason by which we are saved in this covenant of grace is God's faithfulness to his promise through the sacrifice of Christ. A perfect creature, even a sinless Adam, could not have demanded reward for his behavior apart from God's adherance to the system that he installed. God is under no obligation to give a "righteous" man anything, for even a "righteous" man is subordinate to a truly perfect God. The most a "righteous" man could ever do in the eyes of God is simply his duty. He has no right to any sonship apart from God's promise, grace, and faithfulness. Antinomianism Antinomianism is quite the opposite of legalism, and states that the law has absolutely no part in God's salvific plan, and that a believer has no obligation whatsoever to obey it. Now, we must be careful here, because this is a half truth that has been stretched beyond the biblical bounds. We are certainly saved by grace through faith, and not in our works (Eph. 2:8-9), and are described as "dead to the law" in Gal. 2:19. Other verses seem to give a hefty portion of liberty to believers (1 Cor. 10:23). This emphasis on grace over the law in scriptures is to be seen within the context of the Judaism of the day, which had been skewed to look like simple pelagianism. The entire book of Galatians was written to combat this works-salvation, and in that book it is clear that the law was intended as a schoolmaster to lead us to Christ (3:24). This schoolmaster, as we will soon see, is intended to lead us onto (after salvation) instruction in righteousness and good works (2 Tim. 3:14-17). This, however, does not give us warrant to completely ignore God's law in our lives. Such "free-gracers" that advocate this position state that one may be truly saved, and then continue perpetually in a state of unrepentant sin with no sign of remorse or guilt. This is in direct contravention of biblical texts that state that we are a new creation in Christ (2 Cor. 5:17) and that the believer will not continue in the path that he formerly walked (Eph. 4:22, 1 Pet. 1:14), thanks to the sanctifying grace of God (1 Thes. 5:23-24). Much of the "easy believism" that has pervaded the modern evangelical church is responsible for the perpetuation of this error. An overemphasis on evangelism to the detriment of discipleship will enevitably lead to a doctrine that treats a single moment of conversion with greater importance than the rest of the christian experience. Pronomianism A correct view of the law is that adherance to it is instrumental to our final salvation. God is the initatior of salvation, and the "worker" in us that leads to our sanctification, which produces in us works that will be required of us upon glorification. These works are certainly imperfect through us, but just as the Holy Spirit "translates" our imperfect prayers, so Christ transfers his perfect work to us, and transforms our works into something pleasing to God. Faith without works is dead faith (James 2:17). There are dozens of admonitions to first century christians to proceed in good works (Heb. 10:24, Tit. 2:14, Eph. 2:10. We are called to know brothers by their fruits (Matt. 7:16), and to discipline one who calls himself a brother who is unrepentant in sin (1 Cor. 5:11-13) Romans provides the most complete elaboration about the role of the law in the life of the believer: 1. The law supplies a knowledge of sin, and is not intended to save. (3:20) 2. The believer's status of "dead to the law" is not a license to sin. (6:15) 3. The law is holy and useful, and the believer will delight in it. (7:12, 22) 4. The law was fulfilled by Christ, and is the end of the law for all that believer. We were redeemed from sin to walk in the works of the Spirit. (8:3-5, 10:4)
Comments:
Omer, this looks really good. Thanks for your organization and supply of references. I agree with your categories, and I wholeheartedly affirm that "adherance to the law is instrumental to our final salvation," though it will doubtlessly make some people nervous. Of course, most things in the Bible make some people nervous. But it's both biblically/theologically correct and edifying, precisely because our good works on the last day will give testimony to the death of Christ on our behalf, and serve to trumpet His glory before the bar of divine judgment, rather than our own. God crowns his own graces.

If I had quibble about anything in the post, it would have to do with your aversion to "merit" (as you would probably expect from me). :) Perhaps you are protecting something (?) theologically that I don't see. If so, please help. My own thought process runs as follows. If God created an image bearer who is capable of being perfectly holy (as Adam was), and if that image bearer is perfectly holy, then do you think God could send that perfectly holy image bearer to hell and remain just in so doing? If you say "yes," then what is divine "justice" if it's not approbation of holiness? If you say "no," then you concede that an image bearer who is perfectly holy merits (legally obligates) non-condemnation from God.
 
Good thoughts, Tom. Thanks for your reply.

As to merit, I maintain through the creator/creature distinction that it is impossible for even a perfectly holy image bearer to require any sort of reward for that behavior. This is, of course, outside of any covenantal scheme set up by God. WCF 7.1 states that [t]he distance between God and the creature is so great, that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience to him as their Creator, yet they could never have any fruition of him as their blessedness and reward, but by some voluntary condescension on God's part, which he has been pleased to express by way of covenant. My answer to your first question would then be, "no."

To your second, which attempts to define "justice" as "approbation of holiness," I think I take issue. I would say that there is no way for the creature to attain the holiness of God of his own work. To maintain so is scarily pelagian, and borders on some sort of mormon-esque doctrine of attainment of godhood. The entire idea of 'approbation' is that there is a trial period set up with certain rules and regulations set up with defined rewards and punishments. To discuss 'approbation' is to necessarily speak covenantally, which implies a system set up by God in volentary condescension. If we are to speak of it outside of some covenantal system, then man will surely fail, lest he attain the holiness of God on his own.

I'm still working on this, so feel free to dig some more. I've created a thread at dwebb of the same title. We can take more extensive arguments there.
 
Omer, I think you've read far too much into my question, gotten into issues beyond its scope, and avoided the main issue.

May our holy God, according to His own character, justly condemn to eternal torment an image bearer who is perfectly holy?
 
Also, I never defined justice, but only insisted that it includes the approbation of what is holy. On a Calvinist system this is hardly Pelagian and its a bit offensive for you to suggest that it even could be.

God effectually determinitively works holiness in those image bearers who are holy, and because compatibilism is true, God's determination of that holiness is compatible with that holiness being "morally responsible," and "morally praiseworthy."

The question then could be refined to ask, "If God causes an image bearer to be holy, then isn't God obligated not to condemn eternally, the one who He Himself has made to be holy, but to find the holy image bearer to be "responsible for his holiness" and hence "morally praiseworthy?" This just seems like good Calvinistic compatiblism to me.
 
I'm sorry if my post came across as offensive, Tom. I didn't intend it as such. I'll try to address your issues soon. If something I say comes across as incorrect, as I said, I'm still working this out, so don't take this as set in stone.

In Christ,
 
Tom, after pondering your question a bit, I think that I did answer your question, but didn't communicate it well. For one, I misunderstood the definition of "approbation." I had only heard the term in context, and related it to the root word "probation," by which I got my comments above.

I think that we are still going to have a quibble about "holiness," for you maintain that it was possible for Adam to attain perfect holiness. I certainly believe that Adam was able to meet the requirements of the covenant placed before him by God, but I do not believe that he was able to attain ultimate Godly perfection. No creature may do this, as my excerpt from the WCF shows. Even attempting to put this power in the hands of God is questionable: can God create one co-equal with himself?

For me to discuss this any further, you're going to have to make it more clear whether or not you're speaking within covenant terms or not.

More later.

Grace and Peace,
 
I'm probably missing something. Who is this perfect image bearer that God is going to send to hell? Haven't all sinned? There is none righteous, no not one?

The law was made to show us our sin. The sacrificial system was established by God to point us to Jesus. Jesus fulfills the law and is the final, once for all sacrifice. The law is now written on our hearts. There is therefore no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.

I guess I don't get the controversy. It seems obvious enough to me.

Simply,
MOM
 
Oh yes, everything you have said is quite correct.

The controversy lies in the description of the Adamic covenant and its parallels with the New covenant with those in Christ. Christ was called the "new Adam," so this discussion is seeking to discover the exact nature of the Adamic covenant in order to relate it to our new covenant status in Christ.

The whole thing is a bit of a tangent to my post. If you want, we talk more about this entire issue, including it's practical ramifications for Christians in this thread.

Love,
 
Aggghhhh! You want me to post in Theology!!!!

I don't think so!


MOM
 
Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]





<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Subscribe to Posts [Atom]