its kinda blowing me away. makes the confusion of the whole law vs gospel thing a lot clearer...
from the intro to the first lecture (emphasis mine):
Comparing Holy Scripture with other writings, we observe that no book is apparently so full of contradictions as the Bible, and that, not only in minor points, but in the principal matter, in the doctrine how we may come to God and be saved. In one place the Bible offers forgiveness to all sinners; in another place forgiveness of sins is withheld from all sinners. In one passage a free offer of life everlasting is made to all men; in another, men are directed to do something themselves towards being saved. This riddle is solved when we reflect that there are in the Scriptures two entirely different doctrines, the doctrine of the Law and the doctrine of the Gospel!from thesis I (emphases mine):
The point of difference between the Law and the Gospel is not this, that the Gospel is a divine and the Law a human doctrine, resting on the reason of man. Not at all; whatever of either doctrine is contained in the Scriptures is the Word of the living God Himself.
Nor is the difference, that only the Gospel is necessary, not the Law, as if the latter were a mere addition that could be dispensed with in a strait. No, both are equally necessary. Without the Law the Gospel is not understood; without the Gospel the Law benefits us nothing.
Nor can this naïve, yet quite current, distinction be admitted, that the Law is the teaching of the Old while the Gospel is the teaching of the New Testament. By no means; there are Gospel contents in the Old and Law contents in the New Testament. Moreover, in the New Testament the Lord has broken the seal of the Law by purging it from Jewish ordinances.
Nor do the Law and the Gospel differ as regards their final aim, as though the Gospel aimed at men’s salvation, the Law at men’s condemnation. No, both have for their final aim man’s salvation; only the Law, ever since the Fall, cannot lead us to salvation; it can only prepare us for the Gospel. Furthermore, it is through the Gospel that we obtain the ability to fulfil the Law to a certain extent.
Nor can we establish a difference by claiming that the Law and the Gospel contradict each other. There are no contradictions in Scripture. Each is distinct from the other, but both are in the most perfect harmony with one another.
Finally, the difference is not this, that only one of these doctrines is meant for Christians. Even for the Christian the Law still retains its significance. Indeed, when a person ceases to employ either of these two doctrines, he is no longer a true Christian.i've heard many of these used to explain what the difference is between the law and the gospel. but through listening to mass quantities of Fighting for the Faith, and now the God Whisperers, and some past Tim Keller insights thrown in for good measure, i'm seeing that:
the law says "do";
the gospel says "done".
or,
the law tells us the works we need to do for God;
the gospel tells us the works Christ did for us.
i get such a heavy when i hear preaching like, "Jesus did this for you, SO, now you must do this (a shopping list of life application points)." in other words, the final word is "DO". ...which is really a reversal of order. it's really, "this is what God expects of you, but guess what, you are a sinner and can't do it and are therefore condemned to hell; BUT, Jesus did this for you"... the final word being "DONE".
The Law tells us what we are to do. No such instruction is contained in the Gospel. On the contrary, the Gospel reveals to us only what God is doing. The Law is speaking concerning our works; the Gospel, concerning the great works of God. In the Law we hear the tenfold summons, “Thou shalt.” Beyond that the Law has nothing to say to us. The Gospel, on the other hand, makes no demands whatever.
But does not the Gospel demand faith? Yes; that, however, is just the same kind of command as when you say to a hungry person, “Come, sit down at my table and eat.” the hungry person will not reply: “Bosh! I will not take orders from you.” No, he will understand and accept your words as a kind invitation. That is what the Gospel is — a kind invitation to partake of heavenly blessings.a starving man needs no command to eat when food is placed in front of him.
What the Law promises is just as great a boon as what the Gospel promises, namely, everlasting life and salvation. But at this point we are confronted with a mighty difference: all promises of the Law are made on certain conditions, namely, on the condition that we fulfill the Law perfectly. Accordingly, the promises of the Law are the more disheartening, the greater they are. The Law offers us food, but does not hand it down to us where we can reach it. It offers us salvation in about the same manner as refreshments were offered to Tantalus in the hell of the pagan Greeks. It says to us indeed: “I will quench the thirst of your soul and appease your hunger.” But it is not able to accomplish this because it always adds: “All this you shall have if you do what I command.”
Over and against this note the lovely, sweet, and comforting language of the Gospel. It promises us the grace of God and salvation without any condition whatsoever. It is a promise of free grace. It asks nothing of us but this, “Take what I give, and you have it.” That is not a condition, but a kind invitation.so often i hear about the promises of God being conditional. under the law, yes. which feels like hopelessness. but under the gospel of grace, no. completely unconditional. WOW.
~lynnie
No comments:
Post a Comment