Is ther anyone who can and would be willing to discuss with me the "NORMATIVE" USE OF THE LAW ? Its a reformed baptist term taken out of the 1689 London Baptist Confession of faith and seems to me, the pivotal issue in much misunderstandings today. I'm sure its nothing new.

Here is an excerpt: "The third is the normative use. Muller defines it as the use that “pertains to believers in Christ who have been saved through faith apart from works. In the regenerate life, the law no longer functions to condemn, since it no longer stands elenctically over against man as the unreachable basis for salvation, but acts as a norm of conduct, freely accepted by those in whom the grace of God works the good.”[3] The LBCF of 1689 amplifies this use in 19:6 and indicates that while the law is no longer binding as a covenant of works, it “is of great use to them [believers] as well as to others” in that it functions as a “rule of life.” John Murray observed concerning this use, “It is symptomatic of a pattern of thought current in many evangelical circles that the idea of keeping the commandments of God is not consonant with the liberty and spontaneity of the Christian man, that keeping the law has its affinities with legalism and with the principle of works rather than with the principle of grace. It is strange indeed that this kind of antipathy to the notion of keeping commandments should be entertained by any believer who is a serious student of the New Testament. Did not our Lord say, ‘If ye love Me, ye will keep My commandments’ (John 14:15).” Written by Jim Butler, Pastor
Free Grace Baptist Church of Chilliwackquote.

I came from a reformed baptist church before leaving and attending New City - Coral Ridge later. I was enrolled in membership classes before moving to CO.
I was so incredibly releived and greatly enthused to hear Tullian preaching on these very issues. God was literaly addressing those very issues that caused me to leave the reformed baptist through the preaching of His Word at New City. I had also begus to listen to a great deal of Stuart Olyott, A London Reformed Baptist preacher, who was aslo a great heralder of the gospel much in the same way that Tullian, Mike Horton, and others are. Gospel focused.

Illnesses all have symtoms. So does biblical error.

Is the "NORMATIVE" application of the law simply a taskmaster to keep us in line or are there legitimate uses ?

“If they use the Scriptures against Christ, we will use Christ against the Scriptures.” – M. Luther

I believe M. Luther’s point is that the Scriptures (the written word of God) should be used for Christ (the living Word of God) rather than against Him. Using some interpretation of Scripture to cause division or to deny some aspect of who Christ is and what He has done would be examples of using the Scripture against Christ instead of for Him.

But what many of us are saying is that there is a Christ-centered pursuit of “holiness” that isn’t moralistic or based on law-keeping. The apostles, including Paul--the same apostle who contrasted law and gospel--say to pursue Christ, who is the reality of righteousness, holiness, godliness, faith, love, endurance, meekness, and all the fruits of the Spirit (Phil. 3:9-16; 1 Tim. 6:11; 2 Tim. 2:22; Heb. 12:14; 2 Pet. 1:3-11; Gal 5:15-26, cf. John 15:1-17).

I believe that this explodes the law=imperative/gospel=indicative framework. To “pursue” Christ who is our life and everything--which is related to abiding in Christ and walking by the Spirit--is not a pursuit of law-keeping in order to justify ourselves or earn love or assurance. Neither does it make ourselves increase and Christ decrease--if it did, the apostles of Christ would not have commended it! Rather, it is to have our appreciation, vision and experience of the crucified and resurrected Christ expand beyond our need to feel forgiven, assured and free from the law, to include His desire to live in us and with us so that He would increase and gain new ground in our being (Eph. 3:17; 4:15; Col. 2:19).

The mere fact that “pursuing” implies that we in some sense “do” something doesn’t make us Pharisees trying to ascend a religious ladder. The fact of the matter is that all that Christ has accomplished for us objectively implies our living in this reality in our daily lives by grace. For example, the fact that Christ died for our sins and has freed us from the law implies that we live in the realization of that forgiveness and that freedom, and yes, since we are in a spiritual battle this implies that we in some sense “do” something.

To use an illustration, Steve M believes that we need to feel assured of God’s love and our salvation so that we won’t try to earn it through law-keeping, and that we are in a battle over this because the devil wants to rip away our faith. Steve also believes that the external sacraments offer the benefits of assurance. Yet, presumably, God doesn’t supernaturally transport Steve to church every week, or send someone to abduct him and bring him to church, where he will receive the assurance bestowed in the sacraments. Steve is responsible for getting himself there somehow. He has to “do” something to get to church where he will receive the sacraments and thus receive assurance. Yet no one would accuse him of trying to earn or merit his assurance through his church-going.

Now maybe Steve’s record of church attendance is spotless, so for him the issue doesn’t not come up. But not everyone’s church attendance is as spotless as Steve’s. Some would rather take care of their business, watch football, or pray privately in their room. Maybe these ones are struggling with their faith, presently don’t see the benefits of coming to church, or are in need of encouragement. Is it “the law” to ask them to come to church that they may enjoy the benefits therein? In some cases it would depend upon the spirit with which it is asked; but in general, no, I don’t it would be “the law” just because the wording might be an imperative and that without coming to church they will miss its benefits.

And in the same way that not all automatically come to church, not all automatically pursue Christ, holiness, righteousness, etc. They are in need of encouragement, enlightenment and instruction from the word of God in this regard. In fact, we all are. Hence we find that the Scripture contains many such imperatives, even in the concluding words to passages or epistles that contrast the law and grace. Such imperatives are not according to the law but according to knowing Christ as grace.

Have it your way, John.

Good luck on your ascent.

Steve

Your period is misplaced. You fail to distinguish between what we are objectively in Christ and living this reaity out in our lives by the grace of God. It is to believers (those already holy in Christ) the Hebrew writer says,

Heb 12:14 (ESV)
Strive for peace with everyone, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord.

and Paul says

2Cor 7:1 (ESV)
Since we have these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from every defilement of body and spirit, bringing holiness to completion in the fear of God.

and Peter says

2Pet 3:11 (ESV)
Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of people ought you to be in lives of holiness and godliness,

But we are going round in circles now.

Mitchell

'As I understand this Jesus is showing the individual he can’t moralize his way to God'

Absolutely. I and I am sure others who think more along the salvation-history line that I do will agree without murmer. My view is the Law is the Mosaic Covenant: this do and live. That is it was a way to achieve life by self-righteousness (a futile way, but nevertheless a way). By extension anyone who seeks to gain life by self-righteousness is assuming the principle of law.

However, this does not make all commands law. Jesus commands his disciples to love but this is never a command to gain life. Love here is the expression of life already received. Therefore it is not law. Nor is it called law.

If through the gospel I desire holiness and pursue it (as I ought for it is the nature of the gospel to lead me to do so) then this is not legalistic but the fruit of the Spirit in my life. Indeed, if I keep in step with the Spirit at-all my greatest desire will be to pursue godliness and holiness.

John T.
I'm paraphrasing this exchange from Mark 10:17...

Rich young ruler: Good teacher...What must I do to inherit eternal life?
Jesus: Do the commandments... the moral law.
Rich young ruler: Oh... well I've done this since I was young.
Jesus: Go do one thing more. Sell everything you have and give it away to the poor and follow me.

As I understand this Jesus is showing the individual he can't moralize his way to God. You aren't keeping what you are commanded to by God. The young ruler has an inflated opinion of himself. An unbiblical view of what the law actually is saying. This is an example of the "Law" paradigm.

This is Paul's view of what the "Law" primarily "does"... even for the Christian who sees his own continuance in sin in Romans.

I'm going to regret this I know but I honestly can't understand what the hang-up is on this issue. Any other rendering to the Bible seems to end in a moralistic view of salvation. The moment I begin to understand this distinction the Gospel actually became "Good News."

Did we in our own strength confide, our striving would be losing;
were not the right man on our side, the man of God's own choosing:
Dost ask who that may be? Christ Jesus it is He;
Lord Sabaoth, His name , from age to age the same,
And He must win the battle.
"A mighty Fortress is Our God."

Steve
I think it is much more interesting and challenging to discuss theology with someone who does not agree with everything you say.

Nice work, Mitchell.

Get ready. Here comes 27 different Bible verses to prove you and Mr. Machen, wrong.

"If they use the Scriptures against Christ, we will use Christ against the Scriptures." - M. Luther

Mitchell

'Theodore Beza, The Christian Faith, 1558
“We divide this Word into two principal parts or kinds: the one is called the ‘Law,’ the other the ‘Gospel.’ For all the rest can be gathered under the one or other of these two headings…Ignorance of this distinction between Law and Gospel is one of the principal sources of the abuses which corrupted and still corrupt Christianity.”

Beza may do this but does Scripture? And even more importantly does it define 'law' and 'gospel' as you do and as Tullian does? This is the issue being debated. Like Brandon, it seems to me this law=imperative/gospel=indicative definition is more often assumed than proven.

Others have made the case for understanding law in a salvation-history sense. They have produced texts that define law, the law that Paul opposes, in terms of the OC and its priciple of 'this do and live'. These texts seem never to be addressed. Simply citing ancient writers won't do. Show me from Scripture.

Theodore Beza, The Christian Faith, 1558
"We divide this Word into two principal parts or kinds: the one is called the 'Law,' the other the 'Gospel.' For all the rest can be gathered under the one or other of these two headings...Ignorance of this distinction between Law and Gospel is one of the principal sources of the abuses which corrupted and still corrupt Christianity."

J. Gresham Machen, What Is Faith?, 1925
"A new and more powerful proclamation of law is perhaps the most pressing need of the hour; men would have little difficulty with the gospel if they had only learned the lesson of the law. As it is, they are turning aside from the Christian pathway; they are turning to the village of Morality, and to the house of Mr. Legality, who is reported to be very skillful in relieving men of their burdens... 'Making Christ Master' in the life, putting into practice 'the principles of Christ' by one's own efforts-these are merely new ways of earning salvation by one's obedience to God's commands."

John Thomson,

In religion, one pursues 'holiness'.

In the Christian faith, one is declared holy for Jesus' sake. Period.

John T.
Luke 10:25
Lawyer: Teacher what must I do to inherit eternal life?
Jesus: What is written in the Law? How do YOU read it?
Lawyer: Love the lord your God with all of your heart soul mind and strength and your neighbor as yourself.
Jesus: You have answered correctly. Go do this and you will live.

Love is the very area where we fail to measure up.

This very short devotional (can read it in 30 seconds)explains why it is that I am (and many others) a grace guy.

http://1minutedailyword.com/2012/03/30/romans-52/


Enjoy! (or not)

[...] [...]

Steve

The gospel exposes sin too, in fact more powerfully than the Law (the Mosaic Covenant). The cross is the most powerful expose of human sin.

I do not doubt the ability of the Law to expose sin. In fact the whole Word of God does this.

Heb 4:12-13 (ESV)
For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart. And no creature is hidden from his sight, but all are naked and exposed to the eyes of him to whom we must give account.

Indeed as believers walk in the light as God is in the light they become aware of sin (for light reveals) and they rejoice in the truth that the blood of Christ cleanses us from all sin.

However, in the age of the new covenant the unbelieving world is convicted of sin not primarily by the Law but by the Spirit (since Christ's incarnate witness is gone).

John 16:7-11 (ESV)
Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you. And when he comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment: concerning sin, because they do not believe in me; concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you will see me no longer; concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged.

Pre- Christ the work of the Law was to convict of sin point to righteousness and announce judgement but now with Christs ascension this is the work of the Spirit. The sin of which he convicts is refusing to believe in Christ (the cross declares human sin as nothing else... here is the heir lets kill him). Divine righteousness is seen not in the Law but in God's vindication of Christ in resurrection and ascension. And future judgement is announced in the judgement of Satan in the death, resurrection and ascension of Christ.

In other words the gospel convicts of sin, righteousness and judgement. Thus when Paul preaches at Athens to non-Jews he does not preach law to convict of sin but gospel.

Acts 17:30-31 (ESV)
The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.”

Paul St.,

I agree. It is interesting, and challenging. But at some point you begin to wonder when people will start to see that when they are defending 'the self' and 'what we do'...then they are making God into a much smaller god.

"I must decrease, He must increase."

John Dunn,

Right! Law has no power to kill sin. But it does have the power to expose it.

Spiritual warfare is about the world, the flesh, and the Devil...trying to lead us to despair in God's promises so that we will abandon our faith.

This is from Wed. night...and it's explains this problem and warfare that we are in:

http://theoldadam.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/the-2-most-dangerous-temptations.mp3



.

Mark,

I assume that you reject the idea that "sanctification by grace is by both grace and law," as you put it in your last paragraph. But how are you defining "law" there?

gh

Some theologians think that the “law-gospel antithesis" is removed once you are “united” to Christ and justified. They also say that justification is not by synergy, but that sanctification is by synergy.

p73, Gaffin, By Faith Not by Sight—”Here is what may be fairly called a synergy but it is not a 50/50 undertaking (not even 99.9% God and 0.1% ourselves). Involved here is the ‘mysterious math’ of the creator and his image-bearing creature, whereby 100% plus 100% =100%. Sanctification is 100% the work of God, and for that reason, is to engage the full 100% activity of the believer.”



The Holy Spirit’s work in us is read into Romans 6. Christ’s “break with sin” is read out of Romans 6. Justification is left out of “union”, and “sanctification” is put back into “union” and not seen as only a result.

So supposedly we have this “double grace”, and sanctification is by grace also. But also sanctification is a synergy, where works by grace are different than works by law, and thus sanctification by grace is by both grace and law.

amen. all thanks be to God for his inexpressible gifts to us! May our works be love and faith and service and patient endurance; the only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love; Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. Rev 2:19; Gal 5:6 Rom 13:10

'Law has no power to kill sin. Law can only enflame it '

I simply want to amen and underline this point and the other points made by John and Garrett. It's good to find others who share one's convictions.

It is a mistake of the so-called second use of the law that we return to the law to kill sin. The law does not kill sin it kills us (condemns us). The gospel however tells us we are already dead. Christians do not in the strictest sense put themselves to death but simply count this as true by faith, putting in the place of death by the Spirit what is sinful/fleshly/worldly/legal and walking (doing) in the Spirit, so putting on Christ,

Christ is a godliness far beyond the legal demands of law. Law could not demand that one law down his life for another. Law simply revealed the kind of love that has a legal claim (that a relationship rightly demands). The Father's love revealed in Christ goes way beyond this. It is love for the enemy and the one who has no rights or claim on our love. It is love that lays down its life.

Steve,

Our ongoing spiritual warfare is the process of becoming all that we already are *in Christ*. We are already raised to newness of life in Him and seated in the heavenly places (Eph 2:6). The Law is completely and finally dead to us (Eph 2:15, Col 2:14). It has nothing more to say to those who have Christ as Husband and Head (Rom 7:1-6). The Law is not laid down for the *just* but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners (1 Tim 1:9). In Christ, we are already accounted 100% *just* and righteous. By virtue of our faith-union to Him we are saints . . . no longer ungodly sinners, but washed, sanctified, and justified by the Spirit of our God (1 Cor 6:11).

As new covenant saints we must then continue to mortify the deeds of the body AND find our new life through the Spirit (Rom 8:10-13, John 16:8-11).

Law has no power to kill sin. Law can only enflame it (Rom 7:8). The only death that Law can issue is eternal condemnation and complete separation from God (2 Cor 3:6-8).

Live abundantly in the Spirit my friend!

Steve,

By "for righteousness sake" I assume you're talking about justification. However, Paul's discussion in Romans 6:1-14, and Romans 7:1-6 is not confined to justification, but deals primarily with regeneration and Christian living. Sin shall NOT have dominion over us (practical Christian living), because we are not under law but under grace (Romans 6:14). We were made to die to law and were married to another that we might bear fruit (practical Christian living) for God (Romans 7:4). We've been released from the law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we would serve (practical Christian living) in newness of the Spirit (Romans 7:5).

The texts simply don't support the idea that we are "not under law" and "dead to the law" only in terms of the righteousness of justification.

gh

Garrett,

For righteousness sake we are "dead to the law". But we go on breathing...and living...and sinning. And there is spiritual warfare. The world, the flesh (ourselves), and the Devil, want to rip faith away from us.

Law/gospel is not a one shot deal. it needs to happen each Sunday. Ot better yet, everyday. As we repent of our sin and flee once again to the cross and His great mercy.

We are in a battle.

Steve Martin,

How can the law "continually expose us" when we are dead to it (Romans 7:1-6)? The law can't say anything to us anymore; we are dead to it, and it is dead to us! Why try to rebuild what's already been torn down (Galatians 2:17-21)? You make it sound as if the Christian continually goes back and forth from being "under law" to being "under grace," when Paul is adamant that the change from "law" to "grace" is once-for-all and permanent (Romans 6:14).

gh

John Dunn,

It's not either or...but both and.

We live in repentance AND forgiveness. We need to be kept in faith. We are in a battle.(spiritual warfare) The law continually exposes us and brings us back to repentance...and forgiveness. And the gospel brings us new life...yet again.

And this happens over and over and over again...all throughout our lives.

“Whoever can distinguish the difference between Law and Gospel, him place at the head, and call him “doctor” of Holy Scripture.”

But . . .

Whoever can distinguish the redemptive historical difference between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant, he has been seated with the Head in the heavenly places and made a 'minister of the New Covenant' (2 Cor 3:6).

Moo, on Romans 8:4 in NICNT, p482— the always imperfect obedience of the law by Christians does not satisfy what is demanded by the logic of this text. The fulfilling of the “just decree of the law” must answer to that inability of the law with which Paul began this sentence. “What the law could not do” is to free people from “the law of sin and death”–to procure righteousness and life. And it could not do this because the “flesh” prevented people from obeying its precepts.

The removal of this barrier consists not in the actions of believers, for our obedience always falls short of that perfect obedience required by the law. As Calvin puts it, “the faithful, while they sojourn in this world, never make such a proficiency, as that the justification of the law becomes in them full or complete. This must be applied to forgiveness; for when the obedience of Christ is accepted for us, the law is satisfied, so that we are counted just.”

If then the inability of the law is to be overcome without an arbitrary cancellation of the law, it can only happen through a perfect obedience of the law’s demands.

In the last part of Romans 8:4, the participial clause modifying “us” is not instrumental—”the just decree of the law is fulfilled in us BY our walking not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit”–but descriptive, characterizing those in whom the just decree of the law as ‘those WHO walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.” Paul does not separate the “fulfillment” of the law from the lifestyle of Christians. But this does not mean that Christian behavior is how the law is fulfilled….”

Smeaton, Apostles Doctrine of the Atonement, p178–”Romans 8:4–That the righteousness of the law would be fulfilled in us. That is so like another expression of the same apostle, that the two passages might fitly be compared for mutual elucidation (II Cor 5:21). This expression cannot be referred to any inward work of renovation; for no work or attainment of ours can with any propriety of language be designated a “fulfillment of the righteousness of the law”. The words, “the righteousness of the law,” are descriptive of Christ’s obedience as the work of one for many (Romans 5:18).

To be fundy about it, there are two kinds of people in the world -those whose works will be accepted because they were not working to get God’s blessing, and those whose works (and persons) will be condemned because their “good deeds” are wicked attempts to establish their own righteousness.

Those who thought they could do God some service also thought that killing Christ was a “good deed”. John 16:1-3. If you think you can begin, help or complete your righteousness by the deeds you do "by the Spirit", then you are as bad off as those who killed Christ.

“Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law?” (3:2)

We receive the Spirit by the “hearing of faith”. We do not receive the Spirit by believing a lie. When we are told that works by the Spirit can solve the problem of works of the law, then we not being told about what Christ did to satisfy the law for the elect.

Ephesians 1:12: “in Him, you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation…” (see also Romans 6:17, I Thess 2:12-13, II Thess 2:12-13; I Peter 1:22-23; James 1:18).

To judge by the flesh is to judge by something other than the gospel. The true Spirit of God convinces the elect that God requires a righteousness that we cannot produce. John 16:8-13. It is this Spirit who takes away our confidence in the flesh so that we have NO confidence that we ever did or ever will do anything (even with the Holy Spirit) to make ourselves different. Phil 3:3.


Unless we are called by the Spirit, we will consider Christ crucified to be an incomplete answer and rely also on our "works by the Spirit"

The righteousness of Christ is a free gift. The righteousness of Christ was obtained by Christ's death as satisfaction of God's law. If we say that the accepting of the free gift is something different from the free gift, and that this accepting depends on our continuing walking by the Spirit, then we look away from Christ crucified.

Well said John D., John T., Garrett.

Something that bothers me about the law= imperative & gospel = indicative hermeneutic is how little attempt, it often seems, is made to support it from Scripture, that is, to show that is actually in the revelation taught by the apostles. It’s like some interpretation of a creedal confession or a passage in Luther is being made into some unquestioned starting point of truth.

I freely accept that the distinction between law and gospel is essential for seeing the truth concerning justification by grace through faith, as this is seen in the epistles, especially Romans and Galatians. Although the truth concerning justification continues to be of great importance today, it was especially pressing at the time of the reformation, which contextualizes Martin Luther’s statement that “whoever knows well this art of distinguishing between Law and Gospel, him place at the head and call him a doctor of Holy Scripture.”

The problem I see when “the law” is then further defined as every imperative and “gospel” every indicative (especially judicial proclamations) and then treated as if this is the unique theme of Scripture.

But the apostle Paul contrasted the principle of the law not simply with the forgiveness of sins but with the principle of walking by the Spirit--what we might call grace-filled imperatives. I think this is perfectly evident from how many imperatives are contained in, say, the last two chapters of Galatians, which largely describes the walk of God’s children. Surely the apostle Paul is not preaching more "law" after his masterful contrast between law and grace, concluding his epistle by putting believers back under the law after having declaring that they have died to it.

'“The Ten Commandments were published only for the purpose of bringing out in bold outline the dulled script of the original Law written in men’s hearts” (Walther, 8).'

Now I agree that the Ten Commandments do this (or at least nine do). But in fact they do much more. The word 'only' is misleading.

1. They promise life (which conscience doesn't do) to the one who keeps them.

2. They create more than a 'bold outline'. They make disobedience a positive transgression.

3. They intensify and reveal the power of sin...

Rom 7:7-8 (ESV)
What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.” But sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. For apart from the law, sin lies dead.

However, the real mistake is identifying the Law merely with the Ten Commandments. It is not. It is the whole Sinaic Covenant.

'Yet it is different with the Gospel. The Gospel can never be known from the conscience. It is not a word from within the heart; it comes from outside. It comes from Christ alone'

Of course, I understand what the writer means here yet in a sense the exact opposite is true. At least it is the exactly opposite point Paul makes about the two covenants in 2 Cor 3; the Law is a mere letter written on tablets of stone (outside) while the gospel is written on the fleshly tables of the heart (inside).

I suppose the problem is in part the limitations of a blog post for adequately exploring a topic.

Rom 8:13 (ESV)
For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit YOU put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.

If I put to death the deeds of the body by the Spirit (not the Law, note) is this action gospel or law?

I've been arguing for the both-and, both the distinction between covenants of redemptive history and also the demand of God for perfection which means that our only hope is the gospel. To conclude, 1. Nobody is now under the Mosaic law associated with the Mosaic economy. 2. The justified elect are not "under the law" to gain the blessings which were obtained for them by Christ's death for them "under the law".

Christ was not under grace. Christ was under the law for the elect. The law killed him.

This does not mean that the justified elect are not "in-lawed to Christ. This does not mean that they don't have any new covenant standards. This does not mean that they should ignore the law of Christ. But it DOES mean that the justified elect do not obey in order to gain assurance or any other blessing.

[...] (typeof(addthis_share) == "undefined"){ addthis_share = [];}In his article Law and Gospel: Part 2, Tullian Tchividjian gave a reminder that every parent need to hear. He [...]

[...] Steps Down from TGC Council ? The Gospel Coalition BlogLaw and Gospel: Part 2 ? Tullian TchividjianBET Celebration of Gospel Airs This Sunday | Praise 1300?? | ?? | ?? | ??Copyright [...]

As a contribution to this discussion I recommend John Dunn's article which is related to this discussion.

http://christmycovenant.com/wordpress/?p=2115

Dunn's article and other articles on this site are well worth reading.

Dan Fuller is a person in our day who has persuaded many to confuse law and gospel for the sake of "the history of salvation" approach. In The Unity of the Bible (1992, Zondervan), he writes p181: “In commenting on Genesis 2:17 -do not eat from that tree–Calvin said, `These words are so far from establishing faith that they do nothing but shake it.’

Dan Fuller: "I argue, however, that there is much reason for regarding these words as well suited to strengthen Adam and Eve’s faith…In Calvin’s thinking, the promise made in Genesis 2:17 could never encourage faith, for its conditionality could encourage only meritorious works. `Faith seeks life that is not found in commandments.’ Consequently, the gospel by which we are saved is an unconditional covenant of grace, made such by Christ having merited it for us by his perfect fulfillment of the covenant of works."

Dan Fuller responds to Calvin: “I have yet to find anywhere in Scripture a gospel promise that is unconditional.”

Fuller (p310): “If Abraham was not declared forgiven until ten years later, was he still a guilty sinner when he responded positively to God’s promises in Genesis 12:2-3 and also during the following years up until 15:6?”

“Calvin gave a meaning to the use by James of the word justification which is not supported by the text…He argued that for James, `justify’ meant the `declaration’ rather than the `imputation’ of righteousness.”

Calvin (3:17:12): “Either James inverted faith and obedience–unlawful even to imagine–or he did not mean to call him justified, as if Abraham deserved to be reckoned righteous. What then? Surely, it is clear that he himself is speaking of the declaration, not the imputation, of righteousness.”

Back to Fuller (p313): “Paul would have agreed with James that Abraham’s work of preparing to sacrifice Isaac was an obedience of faith. He would have disagreed strongly with Calvin, who saw obedience and works as only accompanying genuine faith…The concern in James 2:14-26 was to urge a faith that saves a person, not simply to tell a person how they could demonstrate their saving faith…Calvin should have taught that justification depends on a persevering faith, since he regarded Abraham as already justified before Genesis 15:6.”

And then Daniel Fuller quotes Jonathan Edwards: “We are really saved by perseverance…the perseverance which belongs to faith is one thing that is really a fundamental ground of the congruity that faith gives to salvation…For, though a sinner is justified in his first act of faith, yet even then, in that act of justification, God has respect to perseverance as being implied in the first act.”

Tullian,

Hey friend!

Thanks so much for taking John Pless' book and running! I really enjoyed the message that you gave to that pastors conference recently. Any time the Law and Gospel are focused on like that, I can't get enough. I watched it on Vimeo last night.

It's my understanding that my dad put Pless' book in your hands shortly after the Liberate Conference we attended at your beautiful church. (Thanks to you and your congregation for the enriching weekend!) I am so amazed how the Spirit seems to move and work in so many ways!

Martin Luther coined so many great phrases, but here are a few of my paraphrased favorites:

"A man receiving faith is as great a miracle as if God were to created Heaven and Earth all over again."

All of Luther's insight on and referring to, comparing a "theology of glory" and a "Theology of the Cross".

"Whoever can distinguish the difference between Law and Gospel, him place at the head, and call him "doctor" of Holy Scripture."

I don't know about you, but I believe that a huge part of hoping to be a "Theologian of the Cross" begins with wrestling with and understanding Law and Gospel in the Scriptures.

The sleeping giant is waking up, hopefully?! Glad to see you are part of the giant!

So excited!!

NT

Steve,
The problem with seeing yourself always against the backdrop of the Law is that you never properly see yourself as delivered from the Law. You always see yourself as a sinner . . . never obedient and always needing to kill off self. Hear the Gospel . . . the Law covenant with all its legal demands has been completely crucified for you on the cross (Eph 2:15, Col 2:14). In Christ, you are now completely dead to the old man (Rom 6:6-8). You are a new creation (2 Cor 5:17). The old has passed away, behold the new has come! Christ has begun a new covenant work of faith-transformation in you by His Spirit.

You are now comlpletely alive to Christ. Your old covenantal husband, the Law, is completely dead to you (Rom 7:1-6). You are now married to Christ. He is your new covenant Husband, and we are his redeemed Bride. You are released from the Law, having died to that taskmaster which held you captive, so that you serve (obey) in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code (Rom 7:6). Your new Gospel obedience is only accomplished by the Spirit's life and power in you. As the new covenant seal of Christ's betrothal (Eph 4:30), the Spirit gives you a new living identity (saint) and powerful resurrection life to begin producing His fruit . . . the chief of which is love (Gal 5:22), the true eschatological fulfillment of the Law's dim shadow (Rom 13:8-10, Gal 5:14, Jas 2:8). Therefore, do not grovel any longer under the dark shadow of Sinai. Rather, walk in the liberty of Zion's glorious freedom, being empowered to serve Christ in the new way of the Spirit.

These few short paragraphs take less than a minute to read (hence...'1 Minute Daily Word'):

http://1minutedailyword.com/2012/03/28/romans-320/

This fits in perfectly to some of the comments here.

As if repentance is a work that we do. It is not.

The Lord leads us to repentance by His kindly heart. And what of it? You have once again turned to the Lord, are sorry for your sinfulness and are brought home...again. Obedience? Come on...there's not a one of us here who is obedient. Not for a day. Often not for an hour.

The law is to kill us off to self. And the gospel raises us again.

But we will curve it all back in on ourselves and become good little Pharisees...glorying in 'our repentance' and 'our obedience'.


How's this?..."You are declared righteous for Jesus' sake. Period.

No if's...no and's...and no 'yeah buts'.

Dear Friends,

I frequently hear phrases like the following within the group of churches I belong to: "Jesus purchased for you on the cross all the grace you need do...(whatever particular obedience is being referred to at the time)."

I refer to this as "grace-empowered obedience". But in light of this discussion on differentiating Law and Gospel this "grace-empowered obedience" appears to be a confusion of the two which actually turns the Gospel into a law.

I have read 'Handling the Word of Truth' by John Pless and have found the book to clarify for me a number of questions I've had about the two Words from God and recommend it highly.

Any comments about this would be very helpful! God Bless.

Tullian,
Thanks so much and many blessings!

FirstRP

'While the covenant is unconditional (God alone walked through the cut up animals) the personal enjoyment of that covenant required true obedience to the law of God'

I may be reading you you wrongly here but are you suggesting that the Sinaic Covenant was unconditional? If so, I disagree. He did not walk alone through the cut-up animals in this covenant.

Or are you saying the Abrahamic and Sinaic are essentially one covenant? If so I again disagree. They are different in kind; the Abrahamic is a covenant of grace/promise while the Sinaic is an interim covenant of works. This is the basis of Paul's argument in Gals 3.

FirstRP,

Good observation. Thanks. I went back and read it and it was not clear. I've gone back and edited it. Hopefully it's clearer now.

Blessings,
Tullian

The illustration of the laws limits in the discipline of your daughter was very helpful.
I would have to challenge the 2nd point of distinction of the law and Gospel when it is stated-
'The Gospel contains no demand, only the gift of God’s grace and truth in Christ.'
Repentance is the first word of the gospel and Jesus demanded it and preached the gospel saying 'repent!' I think this is an overstatement by Pless that is not true according to the scriptures.

In much of the ongoing discussion regarding Law/Gospel distinctions is a conspicuous lack of discussion regarding the function and role of the Holy Spirit. It seems as though some are content to look for Law under every NT stone, whitewashing all the new covenant imperatives/ethical commands as law. From a redemptive historical vantage point, this over-simplification confuses apples with oranges. Part of the problem lies in the fact that covenant theology fails to recognize the key typological and eschatological distinctions between the Old Covenant community and the New Covenant community (Gal 4:21-31).

In a nutshell, the Old Covenant and all its fleshly historic paradigms (Exodus/Passover, Law, Temple, Priesthood, Sacrifice, Israel, King) was a type of the true eschatological Substance . . . Jesus Christ (Col 2:17). That which the Old Covenant typified and represented in a fleshly external manner is now fulfilled and transcended in the Christocentric realities of the New.

This typological representation/correspondence is no less true of the Law than all the other OT types. The fleshly and external function of the Law was to fleshly Israel what the “law of the Spirit of life” (Rom 8:2) is to the Church, the true Israel of God after the spirit (Gal 6:16). Law, as an external impetus of death and condemnation, has been fulfilled in Christ and his poured out Spirit, as the internal impetus of life and righteousness (2 Cor 3:1-10). Therefore, the New Covenant community is no longer under OC Law. Period. Rather, we are to be filled with the Spirit, walk by the Spirit, pray in the Spirit, and produce the Spirit’s heavenly (Christ-like) fruit, against such things there is no Law (Gal 5:23). As we abide in the Vine, we produce His fruit via the Spirit’s work within us. The fruit we produce is characterized, not by legal codes of “do’s and don’ts”, but by a spiritual transformation of character . . . love, joy, peace, patience, etc. With this understanding we should never equate NT commands and ethics as Law. Rather, they are life-giving commands (new creation fiat) by which the Spirit of God produces within Christ’s Body/Temple an internal living impetus for (imperfect grace-covered) obedience of faith . . . which is a real transformational obedience into the image of Christ, from one degree of glory to another (2 Cor 3:18).

With this clear distinction between the Old Covenant vs New Covenant, the artificial dichotomy of Law/Gospel is dissolved. The Law commands “ do or die” and provides no living impetus for obedience. The Gospel commands “Lazarus come forth!”, and by the Spirit we are raised to new resurrection life in Christ in which He has provided all. If we live by the Spirit, let us also keep in step with the Spirit (Gal 5:25) and thereby produce all His heavenly fruit.

Tullian,
I'm not sure you read/respond to comments, but I'll throw this out there anyway. If you want to defer my question to a later post, please do.
In the example of your children you say you can send your daughter to her room and take away privileges. Then you conclude "But neither the rule nor the enforcement has the power to make her sorry for what she's done. At best, it can only produce "legal repentance." You define this "legal repentance" as an external sorrow motivated by self-preservation.
This seems narrow to me. How does this statement measure up with the way in which God both enforced his law upon his people and took away privileges when they transgressed? While the covenant is unconditional (God alone walked through the cut up animals) the personal enjoyment of that covenant required true obedience to the law of God. When God took the enjoyment away via temporal punishments and discipline, this was used, in part, to bring the people to true godly sorrow and repentance (Lamentations is a perfect example of this!). Their repentance was motivated by looking into the perfect and good law, seeing their sin, and pleading that the Lord would turn them again. This wasn't a "legal-repentance" motivated by self-preservation, was it?

[...] Walther’s six ways in which the law and the gospel are different. I’ve already highlighted the first three. Below are the second three. Recovering this distinction is THE answer to the church rediscovering [...]

Thank you John T. for your insights. This is a complex issue and unfortunately, there are not many pastors who clearly make law / gospel distinctions as Pastor Tullian and Mike Horton do. This Law observance = sanctification, as apposed to gospel sanctification difference is huge and I dont think that most understand the implications. This is not a mere matter of semantics and having the upper hand in theological discussion. You wrote: "They believe in Christ for salvation but much of the teaching they receive puts them effectively back under the OC and so legalism destroys their joy in Christ. It is a great tragedy." I have witnessed this first hand and this is just the tip of the iceberg. This type of legalistic 'focus' engenders self righteous pride and literaly chases people away from the gospel.

[...] Walther’s six ways in which the law and the gospel are different. I’ve already highlighted the first three. Below are the second three. Recovering this distinction is THE answer to the church rediscovering [...]

[...] six ways in which the law and the gospel are different. I’ve already highlighted the first three. Below are the second three. Recovering this distinction is THE answer to the church rediscovering [...]

"whoever says he abides in him ought to walk in the same way in which he walked."

Good luck.

Good response John T. I think we can agree on more than just music sometimes.

Hi Mitchell

I understand the Christian life (life for those justified and right with God) as a fight or warfare against the world, the flesh, and the devil. We still have the fallen nature (Adamic nature) within but we also have new life (a new nature) from God, the life of Christ, and we have the empowering holy Spirit. There is a warfare between these two principles/powers... the Spirit wars against the flesh (Gals 5).

In this warfare I am called by faith (through the Spirit working in the new life) to place the 'flesh' where God has already placed it - in the place of death and love 'towards God' depending at every point on the same Spirit.

Rom 6:11-14 (ESV)
So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus. Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, to make you obey its passions. Do not present your members to sin as instruments for unrighteousness, but present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments for righteousness. For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.

But yes Mitchell, I am with you that there is much failure. Our experiential sanctification (growing in grace)is a lifelong battle. Israel in Canaan is a good example. Israel was in the land but to fully gain the land and hold it(possess their possessions)they had to fight battle after battle. If they fought in their own strength they lost but if they fought depending on the Lord they won. The principle is the same for us.

I know you fear unreality here Mitchell. You look on unbelievers and believers and often see little difference. I understand this. I think we all do. However, I also think we can look at unbelievers and believers and see significant differences. Unbelievers do not trust in God. They do not go out each day with the intention/aspiration to honour God in their lives. They have conscience that keeps their morality to some extent intact but there is no love for God, no longing to know him more, no desire to please him (other than perhaps a fear of judgement). I can think of many people who have gone through the deepest of personal trauma and it has been faith that has formed and fashioned their response. Faith has preserved many a rocky marriage. Faith has prevented many a potential infidelity. Faith has served brothers and sisters and loved them when they are not so loveable. And so on. Again and again I see the triumph of faith in people I know.

Yes, if I look I can also see failure and indwelling sin(and my own flesh is the clearest example). But God sees the cup of water given in his name... the brothers and sisters in need who have been fed out of family love for Christ... the sick brother and sister visited not out of natural affection but because they are the people of God. He delights to see this love for him expressed almost unconsciously and in grace will not let it go unrewarded.

Why delight in what he himself has willed and created in our lives... for all is God at work within. There is mystery here that we simply leave with him. We believe what is revealed and leave the unrevealed to God.

To walk as Jesus walked is always aspirational... baby steps in the steps of Christ. But he is the great example for faith to follow. He mapped out the life of faith in a way that the Ten Commandments never could. And so we fix our eyes on him seeking by grace to lay aside unnecessary weights and sin that clings so that we may run with perseverance the race before us (Hebs 12).

1John 2:6 (ESV)
whoever says he abides in him ought to walk in the same way in which he walked.

Dan (comment 3)

One important point I forgot to make. Why is it important to stress that we live under grace and not law (Roms 6)? Why do we stress we are not infants but adults? Why is it vital to keep a distinction btween law and Spirit? Why does the NT not try to mingle the two covenants but see one as fulfilling and so finishing the other?

Because it affects profoundly our relationship with God. Focussing only on the present.

If we put ourselves in any sense 'under law' (and we do this when we make it a rule of life we begin to relate to God like someone in the OT. God becomes a Law-Giver we fear rather than a Father we love. He becomes distant for Law always keeps God at a distance (In Sinai God was at the top of the mountain and hidden in thick darkness with the people terrified at the foot afraid to approach). The whole sense of intimacy and nearness is compromised. Obedience is not the response of a heart that loves but a mere law-keeping which inevitably has judgement and performance lurking in the background. Externals inevitably begin to replace internals. We look inside at ourselves instead of outside at Christ. And so on.

These are not merely abstract questions but have a profound influence on how we enjoy salvation and our liberty from guilt, sin and the world in everyday life. Many good godly Reformed folks I know have real problems with assurance of salvation and in my view all this flows from an inadequate understanding of the radical newness of the new covenant. They believe in Christ for salvation but much of the teaching they receive puts them effectively back under the OC and so legalism destroys their joy in Christ. It is a great tragedy.

Dan (comment continued)

Of course, my Reformed brother, will respond that he knows we are delivered from the Law as a means of justification but Christ sends us back to the law for our sanctification.

A number of points require to be made here.

1. The NT does not send us back to the Law for our sanctification. You will find the NT only rarely refers to the Law in ethical guidance and when it does it is not so much as an authority but as a back up for an apostolic instruction (...as even the law says). The conspicuous absence of the Law/Ten Commandments as an authority to be obeyed (plus the regular assertion we are not under law) needs to be carefully weighed. Again and again the model and shape of holiness of life is Christ ar some aspect of the gospel concerning Christ. Let this mind be in you which was in Christ Jesus... (Phil 2).

2. We simply don't have the right to pick and choose how we will submit to the authority of the law. If it is an authority in our life then it must be on the Law's terms and not ours. We cannot say, I will accept the law for sanctification but not justification, any more than we can say we will accept the authority of this law but not that law. If we accept the authority of law we accept it on its own terms. It is a covenant that says, this do and live. It is a covenant of works that simply does not give us permission to change its terms.

The Galatian believers did not intend to abandon Christ, they simply wanted to add law-keeping to Christ. Paul's opposition is based on his view that you can't do this without tacitly accepting the premise of law - keeping it is necessary for life. To accept law in any way is to accept it for justification and that, as Paul says, is to build up again what we have already pulled down and make ourselves transgressors (Gals 2)for as soon as we put ourselves under law we automatically become transgressors (law breakers).

Thus, if we make law a rule of life for sanctification then we must also make it a rule for justification otherwise we rob it of its authority. After all the very authority of the law was its right to curse or bless. If we try to draw its teeth and remove its rights to do this then we dishonour the law and deny its authority.

God will not allow his law to be dishonoured this way. He will not change or alter the Old Covenant. Instead he will make a new covenant where the righteousness the law (as an external code) demanded is fulfilled by the indwelling Spirit of God. It is this work of the Spirit in the hearts of God's people that is the way of godliness yet it frightens many because they cannot believe the Holy Spirit within is the true safeguard against ungodliness. They must have the safety of an external code. They must be treated as infants not adults (Gals 3,4).

3. Yet God doesn't address his NC people as children (and fleshly). He treats them as adults (and spiritual). He does not simply give us a whole series of rules to curb our behaviour as we may give children. Instead he entrusts us to his Spirit. The authority of Christ in his marriage to his people is maintained by his Spirit not by a legal code, for that is what the Law is (Gals 3,4; Roms 8).

How does the Holy Spirit lead us into holiness? He brings all the moral implications of the truth of the gospel to bear on our lives. He sets our affections on things above (not the Ten Commandments) and not on things on the earth. He shows us the moral glory of Jesus and says... walk as he walked... he develops in our lives the kind of self-sacrificial living that goes beyond what law could ever demand.

Remember the law demanded love, the kind of love that relationships rightly claim of us. But there is a love that goes beyond what relationships claim. The love of God in Christ is a love for enemies and a love that will do what the law never demanded not could, that we do good to those who abuse us and lay down our lives for others. This is God's heart revealed in grace, the grace and truth that is only revealed in Jesus Christ.

And.. he enables us to read the history of salvation in the word and discern in the OT how these apply to believers in the NT and so trains us in righteousness.

Much more can and should be said, however this must do for now. Thank you to Tullian for being patient with long comments (with which he may not fully agree).

Dan

I'LL make a few initial comments and hopefully others may fill out more fully what I say.

Let me say, firstly, that over the years I have read many writers who uphold Calvin's 'third use of the law' including Calvin himself. As a younger man I read all the writings of John Murray and worked through Berkof's systematics to name but two. I gained a great deal from both. Clearly the LBCF of 1689 and the WCF both uphold the view that the Law is a rule of life (though the 1689 Baptist confession seems to me to be more explicitly Reformed than earlier version, however, I'm on shaky ground at this point since I am writing from a hazy memory and only a rough knowledge of these confessions anyway). Thus Reformed folks (who are not Lutheran in inclination)tend to treat the law as a rule of life.

However, here things get complicated because when Calvin speaks of the law as a rule of life he means specifically the Sinaic Covenant. Some modern Reformed/Lutherans speak of 'law' as simply every biblical imperative without regard for historical-salvation distinctions but that is not what is meant by the normative use of the law, its third use, as a rule of life, here the reference is to the Law, that is the OC, and specifically to the Ten Commandments. Many, however, would wish to say that the whole idea of Christians living by 'law' is to miss the reality of the New Covenant which is 'life in the Spirit'.

With this we come to Scripture where I feel more confident and sure of my ground.

It is specifically seeing the OC as a 'rule of life' that creates problems for people like me. I believe that NC believers can learn from every area of Scripture. It is all God's word and is instructive for us. It can all be helpful for 'training in righteousnes'. However, this is only so as we understand it in its salvation-history setting. We cannot simply look at any command in the OT and say that believers must obey it.

For example, when God commands Abraham to take his son and offer him as a sacrifice no-one would suggest we do this today. We all agree this must be understood in a salvation-history context. Exactly the same applies to 'the Law'.

When we say the law is 'a rule of life' we mean it is binding on us as it stands. We are under its authority and answerable to it. Thus, to take the question of the Sabbath, those who see the law as normative and as a rule of life will insist we keep the Sabbath and that our Sabbath is the Lord's Day. Now apart from the fact that we have absolutely no right to change the Sabbath from a Saturday to a Sunday the premise for Sabbath-keeping is that the Sinaic Covenant is binding on NC believers. They fail to recognise that the Law just as much as God's command to Abraham must be interpreted through Christ and cannot simply be imposed as a rule of life on believers.

In fact, if believers are under law as a rule of life then it must be the whole law. We divide the law into moral, civil, and ceremonial for convenience. And these distinctions are helpful in some ways. However, the law itself does not make these distinctions. The covenant is a whole. It must be kept as a whole. No-one under the law had liberty to say, I will keep this part but not that part. The person who broke one part had broken the covenant.

In the NT, the writers do not carve the law up and say believers must keep some parts (the so-called moral law) and not others. There is never the suggestion that we must make the Ten Commandments our rule of life but not the other civil and ceremonial laws. Instead, the Law is viewed as it really is, as a covenant, to which we are either completely obligated or are not obligated in any way.

The NT teaching is that believers are not obligated in any way. We have died to the Law (Roms 7:1-6). We were once under its authority as if it were our husband but death (our death in Christ) broke this relationship ENTIRELY. The law has no authority in any way in the life of a believer. It belongs in a world in which the believer is considered no longer to live. We are no more obligated to the Ten Commandments than we are to the other commands of the law. In Romans 7 when Paul says we are dead to the law the one commandment he cites as an example is 'coveting'. If any law was binding on the conscience surely it is this. It is take from the Ten Commandments and it is one of the most internal of these commands. Yet Romans 7 says we have died to the authority of this command. It has no rights over us as believers. If we try to produce fruit for God by the law as our authority/husband/rule of life we will produce only death.

I hope to develop this further in another comment but for the moment, the point I simply want to underline is that which I made earlier: can we learn from the law? Yes we can as from all Scripture. Is the Law itself, including the Ten Commandments binding instruction on our conscience? No it isn't. It is a covenant from which we have been freed in the death of Jesus (our death too) so that we may in new life be married to another authority - Christ himself (Roms 7:1-6).

Revision to my previous statement:
Whether one sees the apostolic command to “persevere till the end” or “stand fast in the faith” as a LAW DISTINCTION...

The Law of God, rightly understood, will always create a mortal wound only healed by the Gospel of Christ. Whether one sees the apostolic command to "persevere till the end" or "stand fast in the faith" we inevitably find ourselves in the midst of "not doing" these things at some point. Law and Gospel. Without this distinction we are destined to inflate our own abilities to do what God commands of us.
The Gospel of Christ... God's work alone... pursues us and brings us back to Himself for He (Christ) will not lose one whom the Father has given (John 17). Just as Christ told Peter when he was "restored" after his denial to continue in the charge given to him Christ strengthens us as we are restored day after day and week after week. This is where I find the most use of "Word and Sacrament." That God actually works within what we can perceive through our senses coupled with the power of His Word (hearing)so that we can rely on Him and what He instituted for our benefit rather than our inward manufacturing of "feelings" and imperfect obedience that we tend to want to exaggerate.

John T,
You sound as if you are speaking of a radical grace empowered obedience. "Walk as Jesus walked?" You see yourself actually walking the walk. 'You need less and less grace with each passing day' is the ultimate conclusion I have to make according to what you're saying. Please don't read hostility into my comment but it seems this is the conclusion to be made. Am I misunderstanding you? I'm with you in places and then you lose me. Just trying to get a grasp on your "internalization" of the faith. This subjective internalizing is what has driven me out of American Evangelicalism. Not that there isn't a subjective aspect to believing but you along with Evangelicalism seem to over-emphasize it. Thanks.

@Brandon E.
thanks for your comment it helped me sort through the discussion which tends to get too deep to fathom (for me)(I hope we get to the bottom )I hope it's not like the Mariana trench.

@Mitchel
excellent comment, I especially like the part about how we are in danger of "inflating our own abilities to do what God commands of us."
good perspective all around thanks for sharing.