gilham@csl.sri.com (Fred Gilham) (05/07/91)
There have been a few postings about this issue lately and I also read a couple of articles in Christianity Today about this. I found the articles in C.T. very disappointing; the authors, in my opinion, seemed not to have read Romans or Galatians. Here's the quotation from F.F. Bruce's book PAUL, APOSTLE OF THE HEART SET FREE, pg. 191-193, that I mentioned in my previous posting about this. I feel this puts things very well: ---------------------------------------- The traditional Lutheran doctrine of the threefold use of the law envisages it (i) as a means of preservation, (ii) as a summons to repentance, (iii) as guidance for the church. In so far as the first use involves the administration of the law by magistrates for the restraint of evil and the maintenance of good order, this is not an aspect of the gospel; what Paul has to say about this subject may be seen in Romans 13:1-7. The second use is recognized by Paul as a fact of experience -- ``through the law comes knowledge of sin'' (Romans 3:20) -- but not, it appears, as an aid to gospel preaching. It may be held, as a principle of pastoral theology, that confrontation with the law is a salutary means of leading the sinner to acknowledge his inability and cast himself on the mercy of God. But there is no evidence that Paul ever used the law in this way in his apostolic preaching. His hearers, whether Jews or Gentiles, were in bondage, as he saw it, and his message was one of liberation. In fact, when he urges his Gentile converts in the churches of Galatia not to ``submit again to a yoke of slavery'' (Galatians 5:1), he implies that by placing themselves under the yoke of the law they would be reverting to the same kind of bondage as they had endured in their pagan past. It appears, indeed that the angels through whom the law was ordained (Galatians 3:19) are equated with the ``elemental spirits of the world'' (Galatians 4:3, 8) which impose their yoke on the minds of men outside of Christ, whether they be Jews or Gentiles. As for the third use of the law, Paul's thoughts on the guidance of the church may sometimes be expressed by means of the term, ``law'', but when he speaks of ``the law of the Spirit'' or ``the law of Christ'' he uses ``law'' in a non-legal sense. In the reformed tradition derived from Geneva, it has frequently been said that, while the man in Christ is not under the law as a means of salvation, he remains under it as a rule of life (Calvin, Institutes II.7.12-15). In its own right, this distinction may be cogently maintained as a principle of Christian theology and ethics, but it should not be imagined that it has Pauline authority. According to Paul, the believer is NOT under law as a rule of life -- unless one thinks of the law of love, and that is a completely different kind of law, fulfilled not by obedience to a code but by the outworking of an inward power. When Paul says, ``sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace'' (Romans 6:14), it is the on-going course of Christian life that he has in view, not simply the initial justification by faith -- as is plain from the point of the antinomian retort which Paul immediately quotes: ``What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace?'' (Romans 6:15). Again, it is sometimes said that Christ is the end of the ceremonial law (including not only the sacrificial cultus but circumcision and the observance of the sacred calendar) but not of the moral law (Calvin, Institutes II.1.17). Once more, this is a perfectly valid, and to some extent an obvious, theological and ethical distinction; but it has no place in Pauline exegesis. It has to be read into Paul, for it is not a distinction that Paul himself makes. ---------------------------------------- -- -Fred Gilham gilham@csl.sri.com
wagner@karazm.math.uh.edu (David Wagner) (05/08/91)
In article <May.7.00.34.54.1991.14769@athos.rutgers.edu> gilham@csl.sri.com (Fred Gilham) writes: > >Here's the quotation from F.F. Bruce's book PAUL, APOSTLE OF THE HEART >SET FREE, pg. 191-193, that I mentioned in my previous posting about >this. I feel this puts things very well: > >The traditional Lutheran doctrine of the threefold use of the law >envisages it (i) as a means of preservation, (ii) as a summons to >repentance, (iii) as guidance for the church. Those interested in learning 'traditional Lutheran doctrine' might do better to read the Formula of Concord, particularly Article VI, 'Third Use of the Law'. The quotes from F. F. Bruce that were posted are not all that far off, given that he felt compelled to put things in his own words. The Epitome (formal summary) of the Formula puts the 'threefold use' this way: "The law has been given to men for three reasons: (1). To maintain external discipline against unruly and disobedient men, (2) to lead men to a knowledge of their sin, (3) after they are reborn, and although the flesh still inheres in them, to give them on that account a definite rule to which they should pattern and regulate their entire life. Note that the Formula applies the 'third use' to indiduals rather than the church as a whole. But perhaps this is nit-picking. The Formula gave substantial attention to the third use because their had been some confusion about this among Lutherans. Some Lutherans had become so concerned about works-righteousness that they started preaching that good works could be bad for you. The idea here is that the doer of good works might be tempted to trust in them for salvation. This had to be rejected. > In so far as the first >use involves the administration of the law by magistrates for the >restraint of evil and the maintenance of good order, this is not an >aspect of the gospel; what Paul has to say about this subject may be >seen in Romans 13:1-7. The second use is recognized by Paul as a fact >of experience -- ``through the law comes knowledge of sin'' (Romans >3:20) -- but not, it appears, as an aid to gospel preaching. It may >be held, as a principle of pastoral theology, that confrontation with >the law is a salutary means of leading the sinner to acknowledge his >inability and cast himself on the mercy of God. But there is no >evidence that Paul ever used the law in this way in his apostolic >preaching. I think if your read Romans 1:18 to 3:30, and look at how it fits into the rest of Paul's message in Romans, you will see that he is leading his reader to the conclusion that he is unable to save himself and needs something else --namely Christ. That is precisely the second use of the Law. Of course Paul is not the only human author of scripture. We also have James: "Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says. Anyone who listens to the word but does not do what it says is like a man who looks at his face in a mirror and, after looking at himself, goes away and immediately forgets what he looks like. But the man who looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues to do this, not forgetting what he has heard, but doing it--he will be blessed in what he does." --James 1:22-25. I realize that Bruce was writing about Paul, and not the Scriptures as a whole. But this passage from James is particularly helpful with its description of the Law as a mirror. There is also a problem in that James seems to confuse Law and Gospel here, but it is true that the Law is a mirror that shows us our sins. I don't find the 'mirror' picture particularly helpful in the way James tries to use it here, namely concerning the third use, as a guide to doing good. In James 2:10,11 James also gives a good picture of the Law: "For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. For he who said, 'Do not commit adultery,' also said, 'Do not commit murder,' If you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker." One can get another good picture of the Law by mixing James' metaphors. Imagine that God has given us a nice, new, shiny mirror, that he calls his Law, and he asks us to 'keep it.' Can we break it in just one place? (That is, without glass cutters! :-) ) Mostly I tend to think of James' pictures of the Law with regard to the second use of the Law. They are good for showing us our sin, and convincing us that we need Christ. I think the weakness in James is that he does not supply the motivation that comes from the Gospel, (i.e., the message of forgiveness and redemption). The Law is useful as a guide only by telling us what we ought to do. It cannot motivate us to do good, however. Only the gospel can do that. As Paul wrote: "I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes, first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: 'The righteous will live by faith.' " >As for the third use of the law, Paul's thoughts on the guidance of >the church may sometimes be expressed by means of the term, ``law'', >but when he speaks of ``the law of the Spirit'' or ``the law of >Christ'' he uses ``law'' in a non-legal sense. A good example of the third use of the law is found in Christ's words in the sermon on the mount: "You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden. Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven." David H. Wagner a confessional Lutheran "Let us ever walk with Jesus, Follow His example pure, Flee the world, which would deceive us And to sin our souls allure. Ever in His footsteps treading, Body here, yet soul above, Full of faith and hope and love, Let us do the Father's bidding, Faithful Lord, abide with me; Savior lead, I follow Thee." --"Let Us Ever Walk With Jesus." --Sigisimund von Birken, 1653 --from "The Lutheran Hymnal" #409. My opinions and beliefs on this matter are disclaimed by The University of Houston.
hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) (05/11/91)
In article <May.8.04.17.34.1991.11285@athos.rutgers.edu> wagner@karazm.math.uh.edu (David Wagner) writes: > >Of course Paul is not the only human author of scripture. We also have >James: > >"Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what >it says. Anyone who listens to the word but does not do what it says is >like a man who looks at his face in a mirror and, after looking at himself, >goes away and immediately forgets what he looks like. But the man who >looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues to >do this, not forgetting what he has heard, but doing it--he will be blessed >in what he does." >--James 1:22-25. > >I realize that Bruce was writing about Paul, and not the Scriptures as a whole. >But this passage from James is particularly helpful with its description >of the Law as a mirror. There is also a problem in that James seems >to confuse Law and Gospel here, but it is true that the Law is a mirror >that shows us our sins. I don't find the 'mirror' picture particularly >helpful in the way James tries to use it here, namely concerning the third >use, as a guide to doing good. I don't think it is that James confuses the law with the gospel. Ithink it is a matter of termonology. James, a Jew, writing to Jews, uses different termonology than Paul. The "law of liberty" does not, I do not believe, refer to the law of Moses. it is interesting to look at the use of the word "law" in James. After studying James, i was reassured that though they used different termonology, and had different perspectives, Paul and James taught the same doctrine. I think the law of liberty refers to the grace that we are now under, the name "law of liberty" seems to be an oxymoron. But the word "law" probably had a special meaning to the Jews who had followed the law of Moses all their lives. In james 2, James' use of the "law of liberty seems to be contrsted with the Old Law of Moses. I don't have a Bible with me now, but I think the phrase is used in 2:13, "SO speak ye, ad so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty." I would also like to point out that Jews should be free to keep the law even today, since they could back then. Even Paul once sacrificed in the temple. Link Hudson.