In my last post I began a series called Love and Some Verses in which I highlighted the Markan addition to the famous story of Jesus, the scribe, and the greatest commandment of the law. In that text there seems to be an implicit progression that I think becomes more explicit as the New Testament unfolds, especially if we follow the passages that speak about love of neighbor. The progression goes something like this:Jesus' ascension --> gift of the Spirit --> power for new obedience, specifically love of God and neighbor --> eternal reward.
Turning from Jesus to Paul, we read in Galatians 5-6:
You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.... For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love.... For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." ... But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh.... But the fruit of the Spirit is love.... the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life. (vv. 5:4, 6, 14, 16, 22; 6:8)
So according to Jesus, the understanding on the part of the scribe that love of God and neighbor trumps external obedience to the Mosaic law's sacrificial system placed him "not far from the kingdom of God." For Paul (whom we would expect to bolster and develop his Lord's teaching), what matters for justification is not circumcision but faith working through love, and that love only comes through the Spirit by whom the true intent of the law is fulfilled. The result of this walking in love and sowing to the Spirit is eternal life.
As I hope to show, this same progression runs right through the New Testament and is followed by every one of its principal authors.
Thoughts?
On those verses you quoted from Galatians, both Calvin and Luther pointed out that charity/love are actually part of the Law. Loving neighbor as ones self (Lev. 19:18) and loving God with all we are (Deut. 6:5). So we don't want to imply that loving earns salvation.
ReplyDeleteBut given your reference 5:14, are you leaning on the idea that the one who fulfills the Law in love is the one who is demonstrating their love for God, and thereby has eternal life? So that walking by the Spirit (in love) is linked to sanctification, and eternal life is the "finish line" of our purification?
JJS:
ReplyDeleteInteresting observations.
While doing a series on the Epistles of John last spring, I ran into the Two Great Commandments theme, as you'd guess. In that context, it stood out how the apostle underscores continuity with progression. For example, the law of love for God and neighbor taught now at the end of the ages from heavenly Zion to New Israel is the same law taught at the beginning of the ages to Cain and Abel and thereafter to Israel from Sinai. The "new" commandment taught by Jesus and the apostles is the "old" commandment of love as taught by Moses and the prophets, and the prophets taught the priority of obedience over sacrifice, as did Jesus.
Eddie,
ReplyDeleteOn those verses you quoted from Galatians, both Calvin and Luther pointed out that charity/love are actually part of the Law. Loving neighbor as ones self (Lev. 19:18) and loving God with all we are (Deut. 6:5). So we don't want to imply that loving earns salvation.
If you look at the actual context of Gal. 5, I don't think there is any way you can say that the command for love of neighbor is to be categorized as law. Paul says that those who want to be justified by the law (as evidenced by receiving circumcision) have fallen from grace. He then says that it is not circumcision that matters, but faith working by love (which he then goes on to explain by saying that love of neighbor fulfills the law). So love for Paul is not tantamount to justification by law, but rather is the antidote to it.
Insisting that love should be understood as law here has the same effect as insisting that Jesus was using the command of love against the scribe as first use, it just fails to make sense of the passage.
But given your reference 5:14, are you leaning on the idea that the one who fulfills the Law in love is the one who is demonstrating their love for God, and thereby has eternal life? So that walking by the Spirit (in love) is linked to sanctification, and eternal life is the "finish line" of our purification?
I think I can live with that, though there is more that can be said. I keep coming back to Romans 8, where Paul says that there is now no condemnation, for the law of the Spirit has set us free from the law of sin. God has done what the law of Moses could not, and has sent his Son so that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who walk after the Spirit.
Fowler,
ReplyDeleteYes, I love the way John makes an old command new by highlighting how the new age has dawned.
I guess my question is about consistency. If we grant that Jesus' teaching was reiterated and developed by the apostles, and if we grant that the strand of "love one another" can be traced from our Lord to every NT writer, then it would seem that there should be harmony on this teaching. If Jesus used the command to love as first use, pedagogical, and un-keepable, then that should be how we interpret it elsewhere in the NT. But John clearly expects that command to be obeyed, which demands we answer why we don't interpret the command the same when Jesus issues it, or Paul, or Peter, or James.
"If you look at the actual context of Gal. 5, I don't think there is any way you can say that the command for love of neighbor is to be categorized as law. Paul says that those who want to be justified by the law (as evidenced by receiving circumcision) have fallen from grace. He then says that it is not circumcision that matters, but faith working by love (which he then goes on to explain by saying that love of neighbor fulfills the law)."
ReplyDeleteIsn't that like saying, "The Law is *not* fulfilled by precisely what the Law requires?" That doesn't seem to work.
Now you go on to make the statement that it is the first use of the Law, but why not the third use in Gal. 5?
Here are the quotes I was referencing:
"In direct opposition to the scholastics Paul declares: “The law is not of faith.” What is this charity the scholastics talk so much about? Does not the Law command charity? The fact is the Law commands nothing but charity, as we may gather from the following Scripture passages: “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might” (Deut. 6:5). “Shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments” (Exodus 20:6). “On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets” (Matt. 22:40). If the law requires charity, charity is part of the Law and not of faith. Since Christ has displaced the Law which commands charity, it follows that charity has been abrogated with the Law as a factor in our justification, and only faith is left." - Luther, Commentary on Galatians 3:12
"With respect to the present passage, Paul enters into no dispute whether love cooperates with faith in justification; but, in order to avoid the appearance of representing Christians as idle and as resembling blocks of wood, he points out what are the true exercises of believers. When you are engaged in discussing the question of justification, beware of allowing any mention to be made of love or of works, but resolutely adhere to the exclusive particle. Paul does not here treat of justification, or assign any part of the praise of it to love. Had he done so, the same argument would prove that circumcision and ceremonies, at a former period, had some share in justifying a sinner. As in Christ Jesus he commends faith accompanied by love, so before the coming of Christ ceremonies were required. But this has nothing to do with obtaining righteousness, as the Papists themselves allow; and neither must it be supposed that love possesses any such influence." - Calvin, Commentary on Galatians 5:6
JJS:
ReplyDeleteYou said: If Jesus used the command to love as first use, pedagogical, and un-keepable, then that should be how we interpret it elsewhere in the NT. But John clearly expects that command to be obeyed, which demands we answer why we don't interpret the command the same when Jesus issues it, or Paul, or Peter, or James.
Well, but wait: who claims that Jesus only used the command to love for purposes of first-use? Why does that follow? Beyond that observation, isn't the difference because the audiences are different? Why doesn't that work in your view?
Eddie,
ReplyDeleteI wrote, "If you look at the actual context of Gal. 5, I don't think there is any way you can say that the command for love of neighbor is to be categorized as law….” And you responded:
Isn't that like saying, "The Law is *not* fulfilled by precisely what the Law requires?" That doesn't seem to work.
Let me clarify. I think it is not only inconsistent with, but the exact opposite of, Paul’s point to insist that (1) we are not justified by the law but by faith, and (2) since love is a command, therefore (3) love is to be understood as law, and is therefore to be seen as something that drives us to the cross for the forgiveness needed due to our failure to exhibit it.
On the contrary, Paul is saying that justification by faith working through love is the antidote to justification by law via circumcision. Does that make sense?
As for the quotes you cite, I fail to see how either of them is consistent with what Paul says in Gal. 5.
Fowler,
ReplyDeleteI said: “If Jesus used the command to love as first use, pedagogical, and un-keepable, then that should be how we interpret it elsewhere in the NT. But John clearly expects that command to be obeyed, which demands we answer why we don't interpret the command the same when Jesus issues it, or Paul, or Peter, or James.” And you responded:
Well, but wait: who claims that Jesus only used the command to love for purposes of first-use? Why does that follow? Beyond that observation, isn't the difference because the audiences are different? Why doesn't that work in your view?
OK, let me back up a bit. What I am saying is that the way I usually hear the Jesus/scribe exchange interpreted is to say that when Jesus gives the command to love, he is ratcheting up the demands of the law in order to show just how impossible it is to keep (the same goes for how I hear the sermon on the mount taught). My point is simply to say that Jesus’ command to love God and neighbor is not intended by him to communicate the impossibility of keeping it and thereby to drive his hearers to the cross for forgiveness. Rather, the dual command of love is intended to describe the nature of the new obedience that the new covenant actually makes possible by virtue of the power of the Spirit.
As far as differing audiences go, I don’t think the law of Christ is intended to function as first-use for unbelievers, but rather is given to the redeemed and presupposes union with Christ.
JJS:
ReplyDeleteWell, as seems to be a common experience for us, it looks to me we're talking past each other, at least in this medium.
Well, I would be interested in your take on the point I tried to make above. You seemed to zero in on my supposed insistence that some people teach that Jesus ONLY used the dual command of love as first use. Let's just set that aside, since that isn't even my point. Suffice it to say that the way I usually hear texts like this taught is in a first-use sense, and I am challenging that idea.
ReplyDeleteSo moving on, do you think Jesus, with the dual command of love and in the SOTM, is ratcheting up the law's demands to highlight the impossibility of keeping them? And if so, do you think that is consistent with how the command to love one's neighbor is taught by the apostles?
Pastor Stellman
ReplyDeletePreaching the law is going to drive the unconverted to understand the first use of the law, and the converted will primarily identify with the third use.
Pastorally would you emphasize the third use of the law to someone who you knew did not understand the first use of the law? What purpose would the third use serve if the were not converted?
But what is "law"? You're speaking about it as if it is some theological category without root in any covenant. I know of no such thing. I know about the law of Moses, whose purpose was to be a pedagogue until Christ came, and I know about natural law, and I know about the law of Christ, whose purpose is to intruct and empower Christians for holiness. In a word, the command to "reckon yourself dead to sin and alive to God" has no first, second, and third use. It just has a use.
ReplyDeleteI realize I'm being difficult, but it's only to highlight the problems I have with the traditional threefold use of the law language. Paul knows of no law-with-a-capital-L. He talks about the law of sin, the law of the Spirit, the law of works, and the law of faith. But for him, law is always attached to a specific covenant.
Jason,
ReplyDeleteCan you help clarify this statement:
"I think it is not only inconsistent with, but the exact opposite of, Paul’s point to insist that (1) we are not justified by the law but by faith,"
I don't know if you meant to have that many negatives in a short space, but are you saying that Paul does *not* teach Sola Fide?
And Calvin's quote on Gal. 5:6 directly addresses the issue of asserting love as necessary for justification. If love were necessary for justification, it destroy the distinction/antidote you're trying to assert. As Calvin said in the middle of the quote, "Paul does not here treat of justification, or assign any part of the praise of it to love. Had he done so, the same argument would prove that circumcision and ceremonies, at a former period, had some share in justifying a sinner."
Eddie,
ReplyDeleteYeah, the quotation of me sure sounds bad when you leave out points 2 and 3! It is the entire syllogism that I argued is inconsistent with Paul:
We are justified by faith not law
Love is commanded of us
Therefore love belongs on the side of law, and not gospel
I understand the Calvin quote, I just think it's wrong. Here's Calvin's reasoning: "Love cannot be spoken of in connection with our justification, because it is a work and therefore akin to saying that a work like circumcision could have justified us under Moses, which Paul denies."
My problem with that is that it directly contradicts what Paul actually says: "If you want to be justified by the law via circumcision, you have fallen from grace. It's not about circumcision, but about faith working through love." So what Paul sets in contrast, Calvin collapses.
Jason,
ReplyDeleteI think you will be hard pressed to find a single Reformed orthodox who would state that Calvin's understanding of love in relation to justification is wrong (Edwards, maybe). That does not establish it as right mind you, but it sounds like you are making an internal characteristic of the person (his or her own disposition) the instrument of justification, rather than faith only.
The way you have articulated it, it would seem that the Father would need to see spirit wrought sanctity in order for the person to be justified, rather than the Father seeing the sinner through Christ.
This is not to deny that love is in the person who is justified, indeed it is requisite embellishment, as a result of being given the Spirit, becoming a citizen of heaven, and entering the divine dance.
The Spirit is given through the declarative act, just like at Christ's vindication at His resurrection. The Divine Incarnate is given the Spirit in and through the Father declaring "You are my Son" - the dawn, or intrusion of the eschatological horizon.
But to make love a cause of justification for the sinner, rather than flowing from it (not the state of being justified before the Father, mind you, but the Father's declaration rather), is simply to put the cart before the horse, as if the Spirit works before or without the Word.
Lastly, there is simply no warrant for separating love from law. (1) The Mosaic law is summarized as love. (2) Whether or not the case laws immediately signify a loving act, proper fulfillment involves fidelity: if you love me, you will do what I command. (3) I doubt there is hardly a single exegete (whether Protestant, Roman Catholic, or Eastern Orthodox) who would support such a bifurcation between love and law.
The revealed law is a reflection of the law of nature, which is to love God and neighbor. Israel's breaking of it expresses the plight of world under sin, an echo of the human race in Adam. I feel like I should be talking to the choir at this point, I am very surprised that you would take this position.
Brian,
ReplyDeleteI think you will be hard pressed to find a single Reformed orthodox who would state that Calvin's understanding of love in relation to justification is wrong (Edwards, maybe). That does not establish it as right mind you, but it sounds like you are making an internal characteristic of the person (his or her own disposition) the instrument of justification, rather than faith only.
Maybe, maybe not. I would be curious to hear men like Schreiner’s or Gathercole’s position on this, but I have not consulted them (nor do I know if they have even treated this text).
All I am saying is that Paul teaches in Galatians 5 that when it comes to justification, it is not circumcision that matters, but faith working through love. Do you deny that this is what the text says?
Lastly, there is simply no warrant for separating love from law. (1) The Mosaic law is summarized as love. (2) Whether or not the case laws immediately signify a loving act, proper fulfillment involves fidelity: if you love me, you will do what I command. (3) I doubt there is hardly a single exegete (whether Protestant, Roman Catholic, or Eastern Orthodox) who would support such a bifurcation between love and law.
I think you’re misunderstanding me. Here is what I am saying: Paul sets up an antithesis in Gal. 5 between justification-by-law-via-circumcision on the one hand (which he rejects), and justification-by-faith-working-through-love on the other (which he affirms). Ironically, the law which the Galatian agitators were promoting is fulfilled by love of neighbor, which is the fruit of the Spirit. So to echo Paul’s words elsewhere, God has done what the law of Moses could not, for through the Spirit of the risen Christ the demands of the law are fulfilled in us. Do you object to any of that?
The revealed law is a reflection of the law of nature, which is to love God and neighbor. Israel's breaking of it expresses the plight of world under sin, an echo of the human race in Adam. I feel like I should be talking to the choir at this point, I am very surprised that you would take this position.
I don’t disagree with anything you’ve said, so I am wondering what position you think I am taking.
Just so we’re clear: God commands all men to love him and others. God enshrined these demands in an incredibly elaborate way through the Sinaitic and Deuteronomic covenants, neither of which Israel kept. Then Jesus came and taught that the intent of the law all along—love—is fulfilled by means of the indwelling Spirit. So Paul tells the Galatians that to remain focused upon Moses and Sinai is to remain children, and that they should not be considering circumcision, but instead should be thinking in terms of faith working through love.
I do apologize if I have hastily answered you, as perhaps I have read you just the same. I don't like to respnd to blogposts often for that reason. And my radar is too high.
ReplyDeleteWhen you denied that love is a part of law above, I understood you to mean that broadly, without the context of how Paul means that when he states that we are no longer under the law. When you stated Calvin was wrong, I thought you meant that broadly theologically (as if you meant to imply that love is an aspect of our justification), not merely his specific application to the text.
Anyway, I'll keep quiet for a while...
I think I'm starting to see where all the disagreement is arising from. My understanding of the commentators that I've looked at, in regards to Gal. 5, is that what Paul is speaking of is sanctification and NOT justification. He has just transitioned from justification by faith alone and now is focusing on the exercise of that faith (thus the emphasis on freedom and living, which started back in 4:21-31). This is especially evident in ch. 6 (which I think your quoting does injustice towards).
ReplyDeleteSo when you start asserting that Paul hasn't changed topics in chapters 2 through 6, you start sounding like Rome (which is why all of us have piped up). You begin to assert that there are two aspects to justification, being declared, and being made holy.
Eddie J,
ReplyDeleteSaying that someone is "sounding like Rome" is not an argument. It seems pretty clear to me that Paul is talking precisely about justification in Galatians 5.2-6. Do you find any evidence in the text itself that he's not?
best,
John
Eddie,
ReplyDeleteI think I'm starting to see where all the disagreement is arising from. My understanding of the commentators that I've looked at, in regards to Gal. 5, is that what Paul is speaking of is sanctification and NOT justification. He has just transitioned from justification by faith alone and now is focusing on the exercise of that faith (thus the emphasis on freedom and living, which started back in 4:21-31).
Paul opens chapter 5 by saying, “You are cut off from Christ, you who seek to be justified by the law.” He then says that circumcision is not the issue, but faith working through love. If you are going to maintain that Paul is NOT speaking about justification in a chapter that begins by mentioning justification, you are free to do that. But surely you’d agree that (1) you are insisting upon a pretty dubious position, and that (2) you bear the burden of proof for it.
This is especially evident in ch. 6 (which I think your quoting does injustice towards).
How did I do injustice towards ch. 6 when all I did was quote it? The progression I am trying to identify in the NT (Christ Spirit power for love of neighbor eternal reward) is pretty obvious in this pericope. The Spirit obviously produces faith, and his fruit is love. Paul quotes the “love your neighbor” command and says it fulfills the law. He then tells us to sow to the Spirit that we may reap eternal life. Sure, there’s more that can be said, but the general pattern is biblical, and in exact conformity with that displayed in Jesus’ interaction with the scribe that I talked about in my last post.
So when you start asserting that Paul hasn't changed topics in chapters 2 through 6, you start sounding like Rome (which is why all of us have piped up).
But I don’t do exegesis based upon whom I sound like. If Paul talks about justification in the beginning of ch. 5 of Galatians, then I am going to say that the other stuff he says in that immediate context has to do with justification (even if Calvin says that Paul can’t be doing that). We spend far too much time as Reformed people worrying about making sure we’re NOT resembling our enemies, and I don’t think that is healthy or productive.
He's speaking about Justification the whole book. From Ch3 on he shows how the necessary yet distinct truth of sanctification is being perverted to undermine and subtitute for justification. So in discussing sanct. hes doing so in the context of how its being used by Judaizers as a clever and subtle form of justification by sanctification.
ReplyDeleteAnd consequently shows as your previous post the other day re:nature of the law, that true sanctification and law keeping is post justification and as a result from it. guilt, grace ala gratitude.
ReplyDeleteJJS: I agree with your view that this progression runs through the entire NT and becomes more explicit in Paul. Question for you: If the Spirit is given to empower the new creatures (6:15) to love God and neighbor, what do you make of the warnings in 5:16-21, 6:7-9 that suggest if they do not sow to the Spirit, they will not inherit the kingdom? He says God is not mocked. What they sow, they will reap.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Mark
Mark,
ReplyDeleteI really like Fowler White's treatment of the warnings in Hebrews, which can be applied elsewhere. He basically says that when the knowledge of the writers is limited, and when the faith of the readers is provincial and undifferentiated, then warnings like the ones you mention are simply the way God brings about the perseverence of the elect.
Pastor Stellman,
ReplyDeleteI don't get it. You refuse to go along with Calvin in saying that Paul "can't" be talking about justification in Gal 5.6, because he clearly is. Right-ho. But then when it comes to the warning passages, it seems like we're back to saying what they "can't" be what they manifestly appear to be. They "can't" be real warnings, so they must be some kind of divine trick -- empty threats that bring about the perseverance of the elect? I haven't read White's treatment, so maybe I'm missing something. But like I said, I don't get it.
best,
John
John,
ReplyDeleteWell, we have to have some way to reconcile the warning passages with the comforting ones, don't we? How can an apostle say something like, "You are secure, nothing can snatch you out of God's hand, God will keep you til the end, he who is justified will be glorified, for you are already raised up and enthroned with Christ in heaven," and then turn around and say, "If you step out of line, you will go to hell"?
It seems to me to make good sense to say that from God's perspective those whom he has chosen will persevere, but that only "the Lord knows those who are his." From my perspective there is every possibility that I will fall away, and if I do walk away, renounce Christ, and die in that state, I have every reason to believe I will be lost.
So if you were tasked with addressing a crowd of people like me, what would you say? For my part, I would comfort those who look to Jesus and warn those who don't, and leave the sorting up to God (which is what I think the NT writers do).
Pastor Stellman,
ReplyDeleteI don't know if I agree with every nuance of what you said, but that makes a whole lot more sense. Thanks!
John
Jason,
ReplyDeleteHow do you understand the working out of our salvation with fear and trembling? Is that justification or sanctification? (Or perhaps a 3rd way?)
If it is justification, is that not the very view Paul is correcting in Galatians?
If it is sanctification, is this not what Gal. 5 is dealing with? The working out of our salvation?
Now don't get me wrong; Paul is dealing with our justification in Galatians, but also with how our beliefs affect our actions (5:7-8). Thus the confrontation with Peter (2:11-21), the Galatians love of Paul (4:12-15), and now the Galatians behavior towards each other (ch. 5-6). This we both agree upon.
The thing is, I believe Paul makes a distinction between justification and its fruits in our sanctification. The difference between our salvation and adoption by faith (3:2), and our continuation in the Spirit and sanctification (3:3).
Paul is addressing Christian Judaizers who have said, "We believe in Jesus, but we also believe you need the Law." Paul was accused of making the Gospel "too easy" where all you needed to do was believe, and NOT fulfill the Law (ch. 1). Thus the charge of being a people pleaser (1:10).
So where does chapter five fit in? Well, right where it started. Freedom. Christ has set us free, so we do not submit to a yoke of slavery (v.1). Freedom to run well (v. 7) Freedom to love and obey God, and not the flesh (v.13). Freedom from the flesh (5:16-26) to live lives pleasing to God in the Spirit. So we walk by the Spirit (v. 16, 25), are led by the spirit (v. 18), and live by the Spirit (v. 25) that we received when we first believed and were justified and adopted (3:2) and continue in as we live out in the sanctified Christian life (3:3).
You mentioned before that you had Romans 8 in mind, but note the difference between the mind hostile to God and the Christian mind (Rom 8:1-11). The *already regenerated mind* is a Spirit led one. The person who is a believer is already saved and has eternal life. There is no earning it by faith working through love. Rather the faith that has already obtained eternal life then works in love.
This is why Paul repeatedly calls the Galatians "brothers" and those who do not believe but hold to a false gospel "false brothers" in 2:4. These are already church members who believe in Jesus Christ, are adopted into Christ's family (3:29, 4:7), and have the Holy Spirit (see previous references). There is no "working in love" that they still need to do in order to inherit eternal life, it is already theirs!
Where you really get into trouble is not in ch. 5, but reading ch. 6:7-8 backwards. In 6:8, Paul is essentially making the same point he makes back in 5:21. It is the same point Jesus makes by knowing a tree by its fruit (a reference every commentator I've looked at has made). As Sproul puts in his Reformation Study Bible comment on 5:6, "The one who believes in Jesus Christ, and demonstrates the reality of his belief through a sanctified life is saved." He cross references his statement on Faith and Works in James 2:24.
Not to mention that the immediate context of 6:8 is the supporting of a pastor (6:6) and caring for sinning brothers (6:1-5). So if we are to take your interpretation of 'sowing' literally, Paul is saying that the one who provides for his pastor will *by that deed* reap eternal life? So also will the one who is loving ("spiritual" 6:1) reap eternal life *by* bearing his brother's burden and fulfilling the law of Christ? To assert this is to undermine *everything* Paul has labored to point out in the rest of the book. You've undermined Sola Fide, even if you didn't mean to.
This is basically what I've gleaned from Calvin, Luther, Hendriksen, Ryken, and Sproul as I worked my way through this book. I don't think the burden of proof lies on me, it lies with the one who made the original (blog) assertion.
Jason,
ReplyDeleteWhat is your view of Tullian Tchividian? He seems similar to Horton. SOme accuse him of downplaying sanctification ala a Lutheran law/gospel hermenuetic.
Eddie,
ReplyDeleteHow do you understand the working out of our salvation with fear and trembling? Is that justification or sanctification? (Or perhaps a 3rd way?)
That passage sounds to me like a description of the way the NC works. The NC promise is that God will take his law and internally inscribe it upon our hearts and minds. In Phil. 2, Paul says to work out your salvation by God’s power working in you. It also sounds like what he says elsewhere: “The love of God compels me, so I worked harder than anyone (but not me, but God’s grace working in me).” Or, “I have been crucified with Christ, yet I live (but not I, but Christ lives in me).” Why can’t these passages simply be describing the internal work of the Spirit that Jeremiah 31 promised and that the NC fulfills?
Paul is addressing Christian Judaizers who have said, "We believe in Jesus, but we also believe you need the Law." Paul was accused of making the Gospel "too easy" where all you needed to do was believe, and NOT fulfill the Law (ch. 1). Thus the charge of being a people pleaser (1:10).
But Paul does believe that we need to fulfill the law, which is why he talks about doing just that all over the place. What makes him different from the Judaizers is that they thought the law was fulfilled by circumcision and initiation into physical Israel, whereas Paul believed that the law was fulfilled by Spirit-wrought love of God and neighbor. That’s why he says, “You who seek justification by law through circumcision are missing the point, which is not outward circumcision but faith working through love, for loving your neighbor is how the law actually gets fulfilled.” As he says in Rom. 3, if justification were by works of the law, then God would be the God of the Jews only. The point of the mystery of the gospel is to “bring about the obedience of faith among all nations,” as he says in the first and last chapters of Romans.
So where does chapter five fit in? Well, right where it started. Freedom. Christ has set us free, so we do not submit to a yoke of slavery (v.1). Freedom to run well (v. 7) Freedom to love and obey God, and not the flesh (v.13). Freedom from the flesh (5:16-26) to live lives pleasing to God in the Spirit. So we walk by the Spirit (v. 16, 25), are led by the spirit (v. 18), and live by the Spirit (v. 25) that we received when we first believed and were justified and adopted (3:2) and continue in as we live out in the sanctified Christian life (3:3).
Yes, but Paul uses the “faith-working-through-love” formula as the antithesis of justification by law in Gal. 5, which I don’t think you have adequately addressed.
Cont'd below....
Cont'd from above....
ReplyDeleteYou mentioned before that you had Romans 8 in mind, but note the difference between the mind hostile to God and the Christian mind (Rom 8:1-11). The *already regenerated mind* is a Spirit led one. The person who is a believer is already saved and has eternal life. There is no earning it by faith working through love. Rather the faith that has already obtained eternal life then works in love.
No one said anything about “earning” anything. The opening verses of Rom. 8 are simply a Pauline version of the NC promises of Jer. 31. There is now no condemnation. Why? Because we are united to Christ and the law of the Spirit has set us free from Moses’ law through Jesus’ sacrifice. What’s the result? The righteous requirement of the law is fulfilled in us who walk after the Spirit.
This is why Paul repeatedly calls the Galatians "brothers" and those who do not believe but hold to a false gospel "false brothers" in 2:4. These are already church members who believe in Jesus Christ, are adopted into Christ's family (3:29, 4:7), and have the Holy Spirit (see previous references). There is no "working in love" that they still need to do in order to inherit eternal life, it is already theirs!
“If you sow to the Spirit, you will reap eternal life.” No one is denying that this springs from faith in Christ, but it seems to me that you are completely ignoring the connection between good works and our inheritance (which the NT everywhere teaches). In fact, if you look at I Cor. 7, Paul changes “it is not circumcision, but faith working through love” into this: “It is not circumcision, but keeping the commandments.”
Where you really get into trouble is not in ch. 5, but reading ch. 6:7-8 backwards. In 6:8, Paul is essentially making the same point he makes back in 5:21. It is the same point Jesus makes by knowing a tree by its fruit (a reference every commentator I've looked at has made). As Sproul puts in his Reformation Study Bible comment on 5:6, "The one who believes in Jesus Christ, and demonstrates the reality of his belief through a sanctified life is saved." He cross references his statement on Faith and Works in James 2:24.
I don’t see how I am reading it backwards (and I’m not sure what you mean). Of course, I don’t deny Sproul’s point at all (but it is interesting that James uses the term “justification” to describe what Sproul refers to as “living a sanctified life to be saved”).
Not to mention that the immediate context of 6:8 is the supporting of a pastor (6:6) and caring for sinning brothers (6:1-5). So if we are to take your interpretation of 'sowing' literally, Paul is saying that the one who provides for his pastor will *by that deed* reap eternal life? So also will the one who is loving ("spiritual" 6:1) reap eternal life *by* bearing his brother's burden and fulfilling the law of Christ? To assert this is to undermine *everything* Paul has labored to point out in the rest of the book. You've undermined Sola Fide, even if you didn't mean to.
Paul’s sowing/reaping statement is a general principle, sort of like “God will judge each man according to his works.” Do you deny that the one who hears Jesus’ sayings and does them will be like the wise man who builds his house on the rock? Do you deny the hearer and doer of the word will be blessed? Do you deny that sowing to the Spirit will result in reaping eternal life? Those are all Bible verses, you know!
I don't think the burden of proof lies on me, it lies with the one who made the original (blog) assertion.
No, when it comes to denying that Gal. 5:1-6 has anything to do with justification, the burden is completely yours. And you haven’t really tried to bear it at all.
Bob,
ReplyDeleteWhat is your view of Tullian Tchividian? He seems similar to Horton. SOme accuse him of downplaying sanctification ala a Lutheran law/gospel hermenuetic.
I have never read anything by him that I can remember. Sorry!
Jason,
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure how productive continuing this discussion via this means will be. You start your response by avoiding my question, and end with an assertion that I never made. Your assertion in the 2nd paragraph is explicitly denied by Paul in 3:10-14. You contradict yourself by saying, "No one is 'earning anything" and then following it in the next pp with, "you are completely ignoring the connection between good works and our inheritance" when works are found in our justification.
The difference between us is not whether or not there is a reward for good works. The difference is where these good works are found. We agree that good works flow from faith, as empowered by the Holy Spirit. I'm just saying that if you insist on placing those good works as a part of justification, you haven't "flowed" all that far, and are undermining Sola Fide by saying the same exact thing Rome does.
In essence, WLC #77. It is in sanctification we find the exercise of faith, not in justification. Yet sanctification is "inseparably joined with justification," which is where our discussion about Gal. 5-6 fits in.
I have never read anything by him that I can remember. Sorry!
ReplyDeleteNo worries. He's been on the White Horse Inn a few times and on Office Hours and Horton's taught at his church a few times. Seems like a good gospel advocate in the PCA.
Pastor Stellman,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your response, but I'm wrestling deeply with this still. You say that from your perspective it is possible you will fall away. If justified people cannot fall away, then you are saying it's possible you are not justified. In Gal's 3:2 Paul seems to clearly imply that at least some of the Galatians have received the Spirit and know they have it. If they've received the Spirit, they are justified. In 3:27 he says if you've been baptized into Christ, you have put on Christ. Presumably the readers know whether or not they've been baptized into Christ. In 4:6-7 he says they are sons and heirs. In 4:9 he says they are known by God. 4:28: They are sons of promise like Isaac. So then why tell people they are justified if they cannot know that they are? Or, if they can know, why warn them that they might fall away?
God bless you this Advent season.
Mark
Mark,
ReplyDeleteYes, but we have to understand that Paul was not claiming special revelation or access to the Book of Life, so when he says, "You are justified," he is making that claim based upon the objective data he has (like they were baptized and have professed faith in Christ).
When it comes to my own assurance, that's what I appeal to as well. But plenty of baptized people who once professed faith have fallen away, and I believe the NT wants me to fear that this could possibly describe me, too, if I stop looking to Christ. Hebrews says, "Let us fear, lest we fail to enter into God's rest like the Israelites in the wilderness."
So yes, we can stipulate saving truths about ourselves and all baptized believers in Jesus, but we must also recognize the limited nature of our knowledge and the deceitfulness of our hearts.