|
Search this Blog:
Subscribe to Blog:
This blog sponsored by:
The views represented on this blog are not necessarily those of Higher Things, nor does Higher Things necessarily endorse them.
|
|
|
|
Posted At: 2:25am by Sandra Ostapowich
|
|
I've had a number of what I call "blah" days over the last year or so. It's not a persistent thing, I've just got some things going on in my life that aren't much fun and bring me down from time to time.
When something new happens, some reminder that life is not what I expected or think it should be, it can really throw me for a loop. And before I know it, I'm a snowball tumbling down the mountain, becoming more packed in upon myself. All I can see are my problems.
"I can't believe this is happening to me. This isn't how my life was supposed to go. How in the world did I end up like this? How can it be this way? Nothing is ever going to go my way, everything is just so stacked against me" The litany can go on for hours.
So then I talk to my friend, Pr. Bloghardt, hoping to get some comfort and encouragement in the depths of my woe. I want to be told it's going to be OK...that things will get better soon - I just have to hold on a little bit longer. I want to hear that God didn't mean things to be this way for me, that I don't deserve it.
And what does he do?
He calls me faithless! ME. Faithless! Unbelieving. Idolatrous. He tells me I'm despising the Lord's gifts. And THEN (as if that wasn't enough) he has the gall to tell me to repent. How dare he? Doesn't he know how bad things are?
It's about at this point that I am ready to tear into him and tell him where he can go take a flying leap, where I'm about to call him every name I can think of...that the Holy Spirit always manages to get through to me with Law he's very pointedly hammered me with. I realize he's right.
(Of course, this just makes me mad. I HATE being wrong. Especially if my little..er...younger "brother", Bloghardt, is the one who was right. Fortunately, this is a pastoral thing and he doesn't tease me about being wrong. Usually.)
But he's right. As much as I don't like being on the receiving end of such a gift, I need to be chastised when I am sinning. Yes, sinning.
My "blah" days tempt me into despair, into unbelief, and idolatry. When life in this sinful world throws me for a loop, I take my eyes off Christ for me and get sucked into all my trials and tribulations. When things aren't going the way I want them to, I all too easily forget that I have a heavenly Father who loves me and has spared nothing for me - including His only-begotten Son. And all of this shows just how self-centered I truly am, to think that I am somehow the one really in control of my life, that everything should work together and end up the way I want, and I'm really the only one who knows what's really best for me.
So I repent and receive absolution. Sometimes I even feel better afterwards. Most times it's still a struggle, even just a few minutes later. But I have been reminded that I am baptized, my sins have been forgiven, I have a dear heavenly Father who only gives me gifts that are good for me...even when they sting...and even sometimes from voice of Pr. Bloghardt.
"Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter. Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us. For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Romans 8:35-39)
Edited on: October 03rd, 2005 4:02 am
|
Posted On: May 19th, 2005 at 9:26am by femlem2 |
If only this could be posted for everyone and their freakin mother could read it.
Thanks, Madre
|
Posted On: May 27th, 2005 at 4:10pm by john pawlitz |
law as gift? It's may not be nonsense, but it sure sounds like it. Whatever happened to Law as eternal punishment and condemnation? Dies Irae? It begs the question: what, if anything, is not a gift?
|
Posted On: June 09th, 2005 at 2:00am by Bloghardt |
Hmm... the Law can't be a gift for the Christian?
How can David talk about loving the Law? ("eternal condemnation?")
|
Posted On: June 09th, 2005 at 3:12am by Madre |
When did the Law itself become eternal punishment and condemnation? Those are the result of sin, which is transgression of the Law. The Law is good, it shows us what God requires of us, and our need for a Savior.
What is NOT ultimately a gift for the good of the Baptized?
|
Posted On: June 10th, 2005 at 5:17pm by john pawlitz |
I don't know -what's the point:
"All things are full of weariness; a man cannot utter it;
the eye is not satisfied with seeing,
nor the ear with hearing." (Eccl. 1:8)
I'll think about this law as gift thing some more-
maybe have something more useful to suggest than curiosity...
|
Posted On: June 14th, 2005 at 9:53am by john pawlitz |
Alright, let me clarify the chief reason why it "seems" like nonsense to me, because I am not detail-oriented and it should be easy to grasp:
Would you say that "theft" and "sinning" are gifts from God, for the good of Christians?
I know it must seem like a ridiculous thought, but such things occur whenever everything is a gift of God, including, I suppose, temptations to sin.
The Law is good. Why does it have to be a gift?
Concerning other details in my mind: were we "given" the Law or born under its sway? Does hearing the law give us anything we don't already have? Is there a difference between something being true and something being a gift?
I wouldn't go on about this, but it really does strike me as either novelty or invention. If novelty, I fear we can't pour this new wine in the old skins of Lutheran rhetoric. (Even though, to be sure, the Gospel is the biblical new wine.) I'd be curious (and probably silenced as well) if some good Lutheran authors could be brought to the table, or just more discussion on such matters.
|
Posted On: June 14th, 2005 at 10:12am by Madre |
Mr. Pawlitz,
I appreciate your point and the caution with which you are approaching this. Thanks for sticking with it!
Don't confuse the Law itself with transgression (or temptation to do so) of it. God gave us the Law so that we could know His will for us. Sinning is transgression of God's Law (1 John 3:4), theft is transgression of a particular Law.
The Purpose of the Law
The Law has a threefold purpose:
First, the Law checks to some extent the coarse outbursts of sin and thereby helps to keep order in the world (A curb) 1 Tim. 1:9, Rom. 2:14, 15
Secondly, the Law shows us our sins (A mirror) Rom. 3:20, Rom. 7:7
Thirdly, the Law teaches us Christians which works we must do to lead a God-pleasing life (A rule) Ps. 119:9, Ps. 119:105, Luke 10:27
These are all good things, ways that the Law gifts us. Even when the Law acts as a mirror to show us our sins, it also serves to lead us to Christ where our salvation is sure because of His perfect keeping of God's Law for us.
|
Posted On: June 15th, 2005 at 5:08am by john pawlitz |
Madre,
I agree that:
1) the Law is beneficial, and
2) cannot be denigrated as having side-effects,
But I do not infer from this that:
3) the Law, therefore, is a gift.
An important question here is: What are the qualifications for something being a gift? I say: It has to be given, i.e., free, and this must be good. We have so far established that the Law has benefits and cannot be affected with evil, so it seems. quite certainly, "good".
The only other question is does any good come from the Law that is free. The "uses of the Law" have benefits --if used. This makes them not "free". So in all cases where the Law is good, it is good by being used, the Law proves not "free".
So it all seems to add up -to me. In the Matrix, a man was born who could bend the rules that were taken for granted --what can Madre, or someone else, do with what I take for granted. I keep drawing the conclusion that the Law is not a gift, except it actually makes sense-thanks to Madre et al. -Unfortunately, that doesn't change the fact that, technically, I disagree.
|
Posted On: June 15th, 2005 at 10:37am by Madre |
Mr. Pawlitz,
Thank you for sticking with this! 
I still think you're confusing the Law and the giving of it by God for us so that we would know His will and how to live under Him as our God with the way it has been received by fallen man.
"Blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked or stand in the way of sinners or sit in the seat of mockers. But his delight is in the law of the Lord, and on his law he meditates day and night..." (Ps. 1)
You agree initially that the Law is good, the only part that troubles you now is whether the Law is free. We know it is freely given...freely obeyed is another story entirely.
Fallen man is so fallen that he can't not sin (yes, the double negative is intentional). We transgress the Law in thought, word and deed, by what we do and by what we don't do. We definitely do not keep God's Law for us, we come up with our own laws, justify and make excuses, and just plain reject any gift it may have been.
However, there is One, Jesus Christ, who freely and perfectly kept the Law. And what's even better, His doing so was for you and me precisely because, due to our fallen state, we cannot and are utterly hopeless apart from Him.
So the Law has been freely kept and used -- by Jesus, despite our failure to do so, and even His keeping it was a gift for us.
Most basically, a gift is something given for our good, as opposed to a curse which is meant to harm - and how we often receive gifts we don't like or that don't appear to be good. But since we have a Heavenly Father who loves us in Christ so much more than we can ever imagine or comprehend, Who only does what is for our good, by faith we believe that all things for us from God are gifts. Even the Law. By it we learn what is God-pleasing, and even when we fail to keep it, we are saved by faith in Jesus's keeping of it, even unto death, for us.
|
Posted On: June 16th, 2005 at 11:50pm by john pawlitz |
Madre,
I am willing to allow the suggestion that I am confused about about how God gives something versus how men receive something he gives. But I am not sure that such a thing is blurring my judgment here: how does one "receive" the Law, which has ordained that if a man sins he shall die. He receives, perhaps, in some superfluous sense, because the Law is true whether he has any response to it or not. What is the reception by which we receive the Law?
|
Posted On: June 20th, 2005 at 11:31pm by john pawlitz |
Madre,
I apologize for expostulating. In lieu of such foolishness, I will point to the Formula of Concord, which I was not quick enough to remember:
"Accordingly, the two teachings of law and gospel dare not be mingled with the other and mixed together, and the characteristics of one dare not be ascribed to the other. When this happens, the merit and benefits of Christ are easily obscured, and the gospel is turned back into a teaching of law, as took place under the papacy" (last paragraph [27]of V: Law and Gospel, Solid Declaration [Kolb/Wengert])
The word "gift," if I am right, cannot be used merely because it is "characteristic" of the gospel, and not because my opinion is, at all, trustworthy. Nor am I an authoritative commentor on the perspicuity of their judgment, nor on the true nature of the distinction of law and gospel. I would rather hear what you have to say on these things than talk about them myself. Nevertheless, I am bound to believe it is a grave danger that we should want to call the law a gift. I have desisted from doing so, and this quote amply represents why I could conceivably disagree, even if I did not do so credibly.
Rather apologetically,
John Pawlitz
|
Posted On: June 21st, 2005 at 1:18pm by john pawlitz |
Madre,
Bear with me here as I plagiarize theologians, rather than just spout off. Pieper seems to have an appreciation both for what you are saying and for the austere regard for distinguishing law and gospel (which may seem paranoid in me).
This is from Christian Dogmatics v.2 pg. 545-6
"To teach the Christian doctrine of justificaion is to teach that justification is effected solely by the Gospel and that the Law is here so completely excluded as if there were no Law at all which makes moral demands on men and denounces the curse against the delinquents. Scripture demands this exclusion of the Law from the process of justification.
[this far seems to support alienating the law from the gospel, like refusing to say the Law is gift]
"True, the Law must do its work before a man can be justified. The knowledge of sin, the terrores conscientae, wrough by the Law (Rom 3:20), are a necessary praeparatio for the effective working of the Gospel -- a truth which must be upheld over against Anti-Nomianism.
[of course, this would support regarding the law with a certain favoritism]
"But the forgiveness of sins, or justification, can be found only in the Gospel and must therefore be sought from the gospel.
"The law must here be excluded altogether. Not the least bit of legal requrement dare be mixed into justificaiton. Gal. 5:9 'a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.' "
Hence, I am deriving a doctrine of exclusion i.e. that the honors and laurels of the Gospel are to be excluded from the Law, "Jacob I have loved." Whatever qualities can be said to be the benefits of the gospel cannot be granted to the Law as well. Truly, I don't understand these things, but I thought it would be good to research quality opinions in the Lutheran heritage. If you're not entirely interested, that's fine, I can do so on my own, but I thought I should share in case.
|
Posted On: June 21st, 2005 at 1:18pm by john pawlitz |
Madre,
Bear with me here as I plagiarize theologians, rather than just spout off. Pieper seems to have an appreciation both for what you are saying and for the austere regard for distinguishing law and gospel (which may seem paranoid in me).
This is from Christian Dogmatics v.2 pg. 545-6
"To teach the Christian doctrine of justificaion is to teach that justification is effected solely by the Gospel and that the Law is here so completely excluded as if there were no Law at all which makes moral demands on men and denounces the curse against the delinquents. Scripture demands this exclusion of the Law from the process of justification.
[this far seems to support alienating the law from the gospel, like refusing to say the Law is gift]
"True, the Law must do its work before a man can be justified. The knowledge of sin, the terrores conscientae, wrough by the Law (Rom 3:20), are a necessary praeparatio for the effective working of the Gospel -- a truth which must be upheld over against Anti-Nomianism.
[of course, this would support regarding the law with a certain favoritism]
"But the forgiveness of sins, or justification, can be found only in the Gospel and must therefore be sought from the gospel.
"The law must here be excluded altogether. Not the least bit of legal requrement dare be mixed into justificaiton. Gal. 5:9 'a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.' "
Hence, I am deriving a doctrine of exclusion i.e. that the honors and laurels of the Gospel are to be excluded from the Law, "Jacob I have loved." Whatever qualities can be said to be the benefits of the gospel cannot be granted to the Law as well. Truly, I don't understand these things, but I thought it would be good to research quality opinions in the Lutheran heritage. If this is getting to be an old discussion, that's fine too, I am definitely interested in finding out more myself though.
|
Posted On: June 24th, 2005 at 12:49pm by john pawlitz |
I was so utterly contemptuous of calling the Law a gift, that even though the rules of logic allowed it, I did not. If, in fact, in accordance with the rules of logic, I had, then I would have ceased to employ the term gift in descriptions of the things of the Gospel. For the rules of are thus: that the moment in which something becomes logically applicable to the Law, it is no longer a treasure of the grace of the Gospel.
Since the issue has comes to bear though--fine, it is necessary to realize the Law as a gift of God. I despise gifts then and the Law--I don't deny I have failed it, or that my failure to receive gifts properly is of consequence. I deny that is has any bearing on my new life in Christ, which I gained (I do not acknowledge someone who says he "gave" it to me) by his redemption on the cross.
The Gospel, however, is something greater than mere giftability, and all gifts, therefore, are to be despised, rather than received in faith. For we are to believe the light only of God's Gospel, not be comprehended by the darkness of a doctrine of gifts or receiving them or a Law, which only leads to the consequential nature of receptability.
Does it matter whether we "mean" that when we say the Law is a gift--precisely! We mean the Law is a gift, then the Gospel should not be recorded as pertaining to a gift. The gospel is what succeeds religiously, whereas the law is what fails. Before this had been distinguished by the fact that God gave his Son, who was more credible than man, of whom perfection had been expected but failed. If God "gave" the law, then what does it matter that he "gave" his Son--I'd rather have something he did not give...
All the logical conditions are present to call the Law a gift, but the desire to do so should not permeate our senses. That is why I had to quote as I did originally: "the ear is never full of hearing." If desire for that sensation motivates us, then it cannot be refused by means of logic, which is that sensation. However, the result of that desire will be a detruction of a crucial distinction and the exhaustion of our reason, despite our stuttering reasonability.
If this were a small problem for the LC-MS, or if I believed it, in faith, to be a small problem, then I wouldn't care very much. That's why I recommend avoiding calling the Law a gift. I really don't want to argue about it, because I am quite certain I would "lose," in trying to prove that the Law is not and cannot be a gift received. But at least by losing the notion of the gospel being a gift, the distinction remains between the treasures and infinite satisfaction of Christ and the attitude with which I ought to face the world.
|
Posted On: June 24th, 2005 at 6:03pm by Madre [ + ] |
"For the rules of are thus: that the moment in which something becomes logically applicable to the Law, it is no longer a treasure of the grace of the Gospel."
Where did you get this "rule"? Law and Gospel are not always at odds with one another such that something applicable to the Law cannot be applicable to the Gospel or that doing so somehow denigrates the other. The Law is not bad and the Gospel good. Both are given from God for us, so they MUST be good, because our heavenly Father only gives His beloved children good (in the sense that they are good for us, not necessarily things we think are good for us) gifts. Have you read the article preceding this one on the Cross as Gift? I think it might help you understand where I'm coming from a little better.
Don't forget that God gave the Law to Moses, and before that, He gave a simpler one to Adam regarding the Tree in Eden and to be fruitful and multiply.
The Law is a gift. And by gift, I mean the most basic sense of the word - it is something freely given without thought of compensation to the giver. God did not give us the Law in order to condemn us, but to show us how to live as His people. Instead of making us guess and feel around in the dark for what behavior pleases God, He tells us. However, that doesn't mean that we will succeed in keeping it.
Now, we sinners may look at the Law and think to ourselves, "Gee...some gift..." But that's because we're sinners. The Law shows us our sinfulness in our utter inability to keep it and make ourselves and our lives pleasing to God. That doesn't make the Law itself a curse, we are cursed to eternal death because of our transgression of the good Law.
By showing us our sinfulness and inability to keep God's Law, we also see that we are completely unable to even believe in Jesus Christ our Lord or come to Him.
Being shown our sinfulness is a GOOD thing, we're always forgetting about it. As sinners, we are continually thinking we know better than God, that our way is better, that God doesn't really notice those "little" sins we commit so He certainly doesn't pay attention to the ones we aren't even aware of, etc.
It is only when we realize the extent of our sin that we fall to our faces at the foot of the Cross in fear of eternal consequences and repentence for our transgressions.
Here, the Law comes into play again. The Law is not a curse in and of itself just because we are unable to keep it. Christ kept it perfectly for you, in thought, word, and deed...by what He did and left undone. A lot of Christians see this and apply it as even more Law, allowing Christ only to serve as an example of keeping the Law! But the key is not just that Christ kept God's Law but that He did so for you.
And not only did He obey the good Law for you, but He took upon Himself all your transgressing of it and gave you the gift of His righteousness before God because of His perfect obedience to the Law. And not only did Christ exchange righteousness for sinfulness with you, but He took the eternal consequences of your sinfulness upon Himself and suffered the wrath that you deserve for your disobedience and faithless rejection of all God's gifts for you.
|
Posted On: June 24th, 2005 at 7:27pm by Stan [ + ] |
John,
I don't want to over simplify the matter... but maybe it would help to restate the premise and all, that hasn't been done in its simplicity on this thread for a bit.
The law is inherently good. This is simply by its origin, the law is God's, and God is good. What the Confessions speak to is that in our fallen state we receive the Law as a bad thing. This does not mean that it is bad. Now, by virtue of our Baptism we receive all things in Christ, and in Christ we have the GIFT of eternal life. It's all a bunch of gift-talk really.
The question then is, when sin happens, or the consequence of sin, what is the gift? In such terrible things, things that are evil and not good God finds ways to use them to strengthen us and preserve us - by this means he gives his gifts.
For example, today the Lord had me argue and debate with a friend from high school. I was rood and mean - I sinned toward this friend, and eventually I realized that. The law struck, and it was good because the gift I received was a lesson learn in patience and humility. Such is how things in Christ are received as gifts.
Receiving things as gifts does not inherently make them of themselves good, sin doesn't suddenly become sin anymore, but the Christian who has faith in His Lord knows that the Lord does provide despite such sin, so the question is, what is he providing? Ah, in the case of the theft maybe he is providing a lesson learned in pride, ie. the pridful person who was starting to trust in his material wealth and thus the Lord gave him the gift of humility and showed him his pride (which is a gift, because through such we are corrected and do good). Equally such the poor person who is beaten on the side of the road receives such through the grace of God. That one's hard to stomach, but this beaten and poverty stricken individual is then taken in at the Hospital and receives a meal, which they haven't had for several days - the Lord brought good and gave gifts through this individuals trouble. Plus, that individual who was admitted to the hospital may suddenly see numerous friends and family who care, such things too are gifts. Through such things we are strengthened, therein is the gift.
Now, what happens when nothing good appears to come out of such trouble? Such things are still gifts! This is the most dificult to stomach. When nothing good happens we are left with the sting of sin, and the law strikes. In such things though we can always rejoice that they will end and that we will be reunited with our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ - that is always a gift and is always present everytime sin strikes.
Hopefully that helps, and hopefully I have been clear and accurate, if not Madre will help me out I am sure. 
Pax,
- Stan
|
Posted On: June 28th, 2005 at 3:29pm by john pawlitz |
Long weekend for me, but now I have a moment to respond. There are reasons the law seems like a gift:
1) potentiality to impart good
2) showing our sins
The (1) does not exist unless we obey it, if we do not obey it, it is not a gift. Simple enough--perhaps wrong, but straightforward.
The (2) doesn't confer anything whatsoever, unless it can be said to increase the "audibility" of the gospel. Really though, we ought to give thanks to God for the gospel, not for our ability to hear it.
The property of existence is in the scope of this discussion: God gave us the Law is incredulous because we did not exist apart from the Law, we were born under law. We had life under law, and since we sinned according to the law, we did not have life under law. A gift has to be conferred to something pre-existent, we came into existence under law, as Madre pointed out, from the earliest, God gave man commands.
I really better get back to work...these are my immediate thoughts, even though I would have liked to have addressed everything thoroughly,
JP
|
Posted On: June 28th, 2005 at 5:33pm by john pawlitz |
I feel like a few hundred more arguments can be raised to defend my side; I am constantly wasting my time erasing them.
It is clear that for many good things I could say, you would have good counter points, as you have had.
What is the real issue here?
Following the "cross as gift" reference, it is apparently that we should take up our cross without complaining about our suffering and recognizing the gift of it, and I agree that this is true.
I doubt that it deserves to be preached that way, unless it serves to more loudly proclaim what the cross is...something better than suffering, a gift, indeed. It will still involve suffering...so...why are we so eager to snuff out the thought that suffering occurs--just to draw out how merciful God really is, despite having us suffer?--Okay, these are all good and noteworthy conclusions, but now the manner is wrong, though the material is right.
I do not object to people saying that being a Christian means suffering under the law. I do not think that we should teach them that the Law is a gift. Rather, I think that we should teach them that they ought to obey the Law, whether they like it or not.
I still care about everything that has been said, but this was the only conclusion I made.
Peace,
JP
|
Posted On: July 01st, 2005 at 1:32am by Bloghardt |
John,
Is the Law good?
What does it mean that it is good?
Does the Lord give the Law?
Why does He give it? Does He give the Law 'cause He hates us? Does He give the Law 'cause He loves us?
If the Law curbs sins, can that be a blessing? If the Law shows us our sins, can that be a blessing? If the Law guides us to how to live as Christians, can that be a blessing too?
Can something be given as a gift and received as a curse due to our own disobedience?
|
Posted On: July 01st, 2005 at 10:18am by john pawlitz |
George et al.,
1) The Law is good.
2) What is the correct answer to this one? I was never taught an answer to it and the answer is not obvious to me like. My judgment, for what it is worth, is that paying attention to the Law is beneficial. (I do not, however, merely intend to leave room to ask, What does it mean for paying attention to something to be beneficial?)
3) The Lord gave the Law. Or perhaps I should say He established it (so that it doesn't so easily seem to match the word 'gift'). He does not give the Law to us 'cause he hates us. And I do not believe he gives the Law because he loves us either. (Although love is the fulfillment of the Law) I am not sure how love or hate have anything to do with the Law existing. Maybe that is where I err.
4) If [the Law is used according to any of the three uses of the Law] can it be a blessing? This is a good question. I don't suppose so, even though it is good. Why? None of them seem like much of a blessing. Now, if the gospel is preached that is a blessing. But I don't suppose any of the following to be blessing: the ability to do what is right according to the Law, the ability to accuse people in courts, or the ability to feel the weight of our guilt. In short, it can be a necessity, but I don't know that a harsh reality that is necessary can be considered a blessing to us.
5) Which brings us to five, if something given as a gift can be received as a curse. I suppose so, since if we do not obey the Law, then it has nothing good to offer us.
|
Comment on entry entitled "(Even) The Law as Gift Received"
You may use BBCode within your posts, a reference is available here.
|
|
|
|
![I Fought the Law: The Best of the Bobby Fuller Four [Del-Fi]](http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00005B1FS.01.THUMBZZZ.jpg)