Thanks Alastair.

Hope no-one thinks it “bad form” (read: wildly egotistical) to comment on my own guest post, but in a spirit of “calling my own violations” I have to point out, before anyone else does, that my chosen text does not actually comply with Alastair’s stipulations about “prior to the Triumphal Entry”.

Two attempted excuses coming up:

1. I thought he meant the “Triumphal Entry” into heaven, i.e. the Ascension.

OK, if that one doesn’t persuade you, then how about this:

2. Many biblical scholars have suggested that statements from Jesus’ earthly ministry were in fact read back into the accounts from the experience of the post-Easter church. My contention is therefore that these words were read forward from the experience of the pre-Easter church.

I’ll get me coat…

By John H on 03.07.07 5:29 pm

[...] My guest post for Alastair’s Lent series is now available: Won and distributed, “for us”, based on Luke 24:45-47 (which I mentioned in a recent post). Sharp-eyed readers will spot some very significant family news tucked away at the end. [...]

By Confessing Evangelical » Blog Archive » Thus it is written… on 03.07.07 5:33 pm

I’m curious what the new Lutheran thinks of this article (http://www.chalcedon.edu/articles/0201/020104frame.php) about law and gospel. IOW, how law and gospel are one in a similar way to gospel and sacrament.

By Pete Scholtens on 03.08.07 2:42 am

Well, law and gospel are “one” in the sense that they are both spoken by the one God. And the distinction between law and gospel sometimes does get twisted into a view that says “law bad, gospel good”.

And I don’t think Lutherans would deny that the interplay between law and gospel in the Bible is a complex one, not at all simplistic (hence CFW Walther’s assertion that the distinction between law and gospel can only be “taught … by the Holy Spirit in the school of experience”). It’s not a case of going through the Scriptures with two colours of highlighter pen and deciding which chapters or verses are law and which are gospel.

And the problem with saying that law and gospel cannot in fact be distinguished - that the gospel includes law and condemnation, and the law includes gospel - is that it undermines the proclamation of the gospel itself. It introduces conditions into the gospel, conditions that we can never be sure of having met. In practical terms, it makes it impossible for the pastor to make unconditional declarations of the promises of God to his congregation. It introduces a constant, nagging “Yes, but…” to our proclamation of the gospel.

Frame also seems to think the Lutheran confessions exclude the third use of the law, which is simply not true.

By John H on 03.08.07 10:11 am

The weakness inherent in many of the traditional debates about law and gospel, it seems to me, is that law and gospel are treated largely in abstraction from the biblical text. The Law/Gospel distinctions that Lutherans and Reformed try to make are often extremely important, but don’t quite capture the distinctions drawn by Scripture itself in this area.

In Scripture the relationship between Law and Gospel is worked out on a covenant historical timeline, rather than in the abstract and atemporal realm of theologi-space. This allows for a far more complex and nuanced relationship between the two to emerge. As subtle and balanced as many of the traditional formulations are, I believe that a more biblical angle of approach on the distinction would be able to satisfy the concerns of most parties of the debate, whilst enabling us to say a lot more.

I find the work of men such as Wright helpful here. I would like to see Lutherans and Reformed try to articulate their (biblically inspired) convictions about the Law/Gospel relationship more in terms of the biblical categories of Law and Gospel that Wright explores.

By Al on 03.08.07 12:06 pm

[...] John H has a twin pack of theology.  The first article compares CS Lewis’ approach of the use of reason with Martin Luther’s approach.  Reason can be a whore…but if she behaves and does not place herself about divine revelation, she can help you.  The second article is his guest post on a Reformed blog hosted by Alastair Roberts.  Alastair asked John to write an article for the Lenten season.  Take a look at John’s reflection on Luke 24.  [...]

By <bad carol!>Carol Rutz’s Annexe</bad carol!> » Blog Archive » Lutheran Carnival XLV: What The Frell Edition on 03.10.07 5:11 pm

[...] But that’s not to say we can only find saving faith in that way. This isn’t about setting a boundary, it’s about making a positive statement about what God has provided for us: not merely a message, but the means by which that message is proclaimed to us and applied to us. I wrote about this in more detail in my guest post on Alastair’s blog a few months back. [...]

By The Boar’s Head Tavern » on 05.20.07 12:47 pm

Thanks Alastair.

Hope no-one thinks it “bad form” (read: wildly egotistical) to comment on my own guest post, but in a spirit of “calling my own violations” I have to point out, before anyone else does, that my chosen text does not actually comply with Alastair’s stipulations about “prior to the Triumphal Entry”.

Two attempted excuses coming up:

1. I thought he meant the “Triumphal Entry” into heaven, i.e. the Ascension.

OK, if that one doesn’t persuade you, then how about this:

2. Many biblical scholars have suggested that statements from Jesus’ earthly ministry were in fact read back into the accounts from the experience of the post-Easter church. My contention is therefore that these words were read forward from the experience of the pre-Easter church.

I’ll get me coat…

By John H on 03.07.07 5:29 pm

[...] My guest post for Alastair’s Lent series is now available: Won and distributed, “for us”, based on Luke 24:45-47 (which I mentioned in a recent post). Sharp-eyed readers will spot some very significant family news tucked away at the end. [...]

By Confessing Evangelical » Blog Archive » Thus it is written… on 03.07.07 5:33 pm

I’m curious what the new Lutheran thinks of this article (http://www.chalcedon.edu/articles/0201/020104frame.php) about law and gospel. IOW, how law and gospel are one in a similar way to gospel and sacrament.

By Pete Scholtens on 03.08.07 2:42 am

Well, law and gospel are “one” in the sense that they are both spoken by the one God. And the distinction between law and gospel sometimes does get twisted into a view that says “law bad, gospel good”.

And I don’t think Lutherans would deny that the interplay between law and gospel in the Bible is a complex one, not at all simplistic (hence CFW Walther’s assertion that the distinction between law and gospel can only be “taught … by the Holy Spirit in the school of experience”). It’s not a case of going through the Scriptures with two colours of highlighter pen and deciding which chapters or verses are law and which are gospel.

And the problem with saying that law and gospel cannot in fact be distinguished - that the gospel includes law and condemnation, and the law includes gospel - is that it undermines the proclamation of the gospel itself. It introduces conditions into the gospel, conditions that we can never be sure of having met. In practical terms, it makes it impossible for the pastor to make unconditional declarations of the promises of God to his congregation. It introduces a constant, nagging “Yes, but…” to our proclamation of the gospel.

Frame also seems to think the Lutheran confessions exclude the third use of the law, which is simply not true.

By John H on 03.08.07 10:11 am

The weakness inherent in many of the traditional debates about law and gospel, it seems to me, is that law and gospel are treated largely in abstraction from the biblical text. The Law/Gospel distinctions that Lutherans and Reformed try to make are often extremely important, but don’t quite capture the distinctions drawn by Scripture itself in this area.

In Scripture the relationship between Law and Gospel is worked out on a covenant historical timeline, rather than in the abstract and atemporal realm of theologi-space. This allows for a far more complex and nuanced relationship between the two to emerge. As subtle and balanced as many of the traditional formulations are, I believe that a more biblical angle of approach on the distinction would be able to satisfy the concerns of most parties of the debate, whilst enabling us to say a lot more.

I find the work of men such as Wright helpful here. I would like to see Lutherans and Reformed try to articulate their (biblically inspired) convictions about the Law/Gospel relationship more in terms of the biblical categories of Law and Gospel that Wright explores.

By Al on 03.08.07 12:06 pm

[...] John H has a twin pack of theology.  The first article compares CS Lewis’ approach of the use of reason with Martin Luther’s approach.  Reason can be a whore…but if she behaves and does not place herself about divine revelation, she can help you.  The second article is his guest post on a Reformed blog hosted by Alastair Roberts.  Alastair asked John to write an article for the Lenten season.  Take a look at John’s reflection on Luke 24.  [...]

By <bad carol!>Carol Rutz’s Annexe</bad carol!> » Blog Archive » Lutheran Carnival XLV: What The Frell Edition on 03.10.07 5:11 pm

[...] But that’s not to say we can only find saving faith in that way. This isn’t about setting a boundary, it’s about making a positive statement about what God has provided for us: not merely a message, but the means by which that message is proclaimed to us and applied to us. I wrote about this in more detail in my guest post on Alastair’s blog a few months back. [...]

By The Boar’s Head Tavern » on 05.20.07 12:47 pm