One of the difficulties of trying to communicate 
something like the distinction between law and gospel is that it is notoriously hard to pin down. Like my supervisor says, if knowing German made you a theologian, then it would be a simple matter. Likewise, knowing (or even acknowledging) the difference between Law and Gospel (indicative vs. imperative, promise vs. accusation, cashmere vs. merino) is simply the first step. In fact, it is just this little amount of knowledge that, without further and constant reflection, can be just as pastorally dangerous than ignorance of the two altogether. It doesn’t matter if you change the “application” section of a sermon to the 
“indicative;” what looks like the Law, walks like the Law, quacks like the Law—you get it.
What we are involved in here, to varying degrees of success, to be sure, is a virtual practicum of sorts, where this distinction is being worked out and applied across all manner of disciplines. Sometimes, it may seem that we trivialize the seriousness of God’s Law by equating its demands with speed limits or Gold’s Gym or Singapore, so I went to the Lutheran Horse’s Mouth: Jonathan Mumme, (pictured to the right) a good friend 
of mine who is currently living in Berlin and writing a PhD under the supervision of Oswald Bayer(!). His thoughts on this issue were too good not to share with you all. Enjoy, or else. (law or gospel?) I’ve turned our email conversation into a hypothetical interview—this is his answer.
Dear Jonathan,
I hope you are well. Thanks for “helping” me work through these questions. Although, as you know, I’m fully versed and completely capable of answering all questions on my own, I thought that I would double check with you to see if we agreed on how distinguishing the Law and Gospel was more an issue of pastoral discernment than systematic categorization. Could you explain?
Jady, 
An oversimplification of the distinction between Law and Gospel is something of a labeling method – a bit like if we were to run through the Bible with a red pen in one hand and a blue pen in the other, marking some things one color and some another. Words cut two ways, as two words. For example: “The Son of God died for your sins.” That is one sentence. Red or blue? One person may hear that God’s Son took upon himself the deadly burden that he has been bearing. Another will hear that they are guilty of the death of the Son of God. And the same person might hear both of those at different times. So too “Be perfect, for I the Lord your God am perfect.” Would tend to work in the way of the Law, but can it not cut the other way also?
Demand or God speaking someone into perfection, making them perfect by his saying so? Think here on “Let there be light”/”Be light!” or “Be healed!” or “Take up your bed and walk!” “Fear not!” This is more complex than a red pen and a blue pen; it is living people with living problems and/or lively attempts at self-justification. What they are hearing and what is going on with them is in need of our ears and our distinguishing, of the proper portion given at the proper time.
If
I may make a poor analogy, it is a bit like going to the gym: This game is for lack of a better way of putting it (the quantity works in the way of the Law and leads to the breakdown of the analogy) 90% about form and 10% about the weight you lift. Distinguishing Law and Gospel comes first and foremost in the listening, then and only then in the speaking. The text and the person in front of you are waiting for careful exegesis; when that goes on then we are faithful stewards meeting out proper portions to the proper persons at the proper time. But this is an art that you can find going on in Luther all over the place, though not all scholars may see it. “Command = Law, Promise = Gospel” and they may not get much further than that. But Luther can be found distinguishing these all the time without ever using the only terminology the most people would recognize. His “Von den Schlüsseln”, 1528, for example, (editors note: or in this sermon, here) is an absolute masterpiece, as is the Large Catechism on confession; but even many Lutheran scholars will not quite see what is going on there.
Perhaps we could sum our conversation about Luther yesterday up like this: There is a different dynamic between when Luther is talking about the Law and the Gospel and their proper distinction and between his applying that distinction without talking about it. A first step is to hear someone talk about it. In some ways it is a vocabulary lesson (“Law, Gospel, command, promise, accuse, free” etc.) A further step is hear it and see in being applied, or not, which in some ways begins with an expanded vocabulary lesson (for example the workings of the modal verbs and mathematics).
But the paradoxical pendulum keeps swinging further and further out, opening the distinction ever further, ever more (for example things operating by force or coercion, or not – and if not, how would we then talk about? What drives things when they aren’t being “driven”?). Going back to what we were talking about – we might posit that Luther is difficult to systematize precisely because the motor of his theological workings is to be found in the way in which he goes about things (for lack of a better term, applied theology, theo-logia applicanda). Others sometimes attempted the systematizing somewhat on his behalf. . .
Ok, so those are just some thoughts from our “man on the straße”:) to add to the conversation. Law and Gospel are much, much more than conceptual placeholders for two ways of speaking; they are descriptions of two ways of existing—either by works or faith—that can turn any and every event into an opportunity for joyful witness or painful doubt. Our work here is to try to interpret the day-to-day life in light of the Law/Gospel; consequently, we are trusting that “by the renewing of our minds” we continue to learn what it means to have been Justified “by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit,” one movie review, NYTimes Article and YouTube clip at a time!
I’ll leave you with the Law (or is it the Gospel?), you decide:
Romans 7:7-8:
COMMENTS
24 responses to “Take a Theologian to Work Day”
Leave a Reply
Jady: at first glance i was like: omg this is long and didn't want to read it (is that law?); however, it was so great to read this email you received from your friend (man on the strasse)and am blessed by it greatly!!
Interestingly, i ran up against difficulties when i tried to force the l/g hermeneutic (or what I see to be the l/g hermeneutic) to fit into neat 1:1 ratios with the characters/events of the movie: "Monster's Inc" in a final paper for a class last semester. I had extreme unease in what I was doing because it felt like i was being too black and white and forced. Does that make sense?
Anyway, the above is probably way off what you were intending with your post and I don't want to distract or detour other readers, so I apologize in advance if I'm off topic.
Please know that this post was WAY timely and spoke to me in great ways. Thank you, many times over, for sharing (and thank your friend, too!)
grace and peace in Christ,
lauren
Dear Lauren,
Your comments are EXACTLY what this post is all about—we've all been on this Law/Gospel road for a while now, and it is nice to see that it is a function of pastoral discernment rather than systematization. Like Forde says, "Theology is for Proclamation," I think that we are most helpful with this distinction when it comes to dealing with ourselves and the people we are given to love.
Anyway, as you know, this will not stop us from trying to make a system, but it is always helpful to know that its a theology "of" the Cross rather than "about."
Much love to you and Monsters Inc.!
-Jady
Jady, this is a wonderful post and the ending re: iPad is inspired! Thank you. Funnily enough, Browder and I were discussing this exact question very recently, talking about how impossible it would be to try to code the Bible into its Law vs. Gospel expression (e.g., "red and blue pen" approach). He reminded me that Walther points out that the distinguishing between the two is the theologian's hardest job. I think we all have to deal with this question both personally and within all pastoral/relational settings. I am reminded also of my Grandmother's favorite quote: "As we change, the books change." Tell Raleigh hi from the Zahls (law or gospel? have to or get to?). bio, JZ
Jady, I think that I agree with Mumme completely, although my head hurts too bad to know for sure. I felt like I was reading a Germanic version of Derrida, to whom he is probably indebted. This is much to be preferred over the gospel/law pigeon-hole approach.
Michael,
I'm not sure that the LCMS allows for any reading of Derrida:) But I'm glad you liked the post!
much love,
Jady
Jady, this is a great post. Two forms of the single Word of God.
Again, there isn't anything I'd disagree with, but a question did come to mind: why must the pendulum swing at all? How does the application of the terms Law-and-Gospel necessitate the expansion of the language?
here is an example of how Luther does law and gospel without saying law and gospel.
Luther:
"But we cannot understand this article [the forgiveness of sins] that alone makes one a Christian, and not lose it, we must know something else as well.
We must know that there are two kinds of true or God pleasing righteousness or two powers. We must also then learn how to skillfully tell the difference between the two.
There is a righteousness that is here on earth. This righteousness is willed and ordered by God and is included in the second table of the ten commandments. This is called “man´s righteousness” or “the world´s righteousness”. The only purpose of this righteousness is to help us live together and enjoy the gifts God gives us."
Here Luther sliced and dices within the domain of two kinds of righteousness.
visible vs invisible
earthly vs heavenly
he never says law vs gospel anywhere.
maybe he is focussing here on the fruit of those two things? .. "the pendulum swinging further and further out…"??
Dr. Robert Kolb of Concordia Seminary St. Louis says in employing Law/Gospel each situation depends on its own particular context. For example:
A woman approaches you one Sunday after church and asks to meet with you. So the two of you set up a time to meet and the meeting takes place. During the meeting the woman asks you, "Can a Christian have an abortion?"
The pastoral response is, "Why do you ask?" If the woman says, "because I am thinking about having an abortion," you apply Law. If the woman has already had an abortion and her conscience is haunted by her sin, you apply Gospel.
Theology is definitely the art of making distinctions. Law/Gospel just may be the best example.
Todd,
Always encouraging to "see you" here:)
Quick thoughts: I don't think that we should lose the Law/Gospel terminology at all (if this is where your question is heading). As we've seen (and thanks to Jake and Sean's http://www.thetwowords.com) the linguistic and conceptual necessity of framing the way God works in light of these two words is essential to "rightly dividing the word of Truth." So, in that sense, I think that the pendulum swinging, as far as I understand the analogy, is akin to how we have deepened our understanding of the way Law and Gospel operate in our lives here on this blog.
If you go back to the beginning, you will see a more basic representation of the Law/Gospel which, on its face, was not wrong, but did not have the depth of insight that more recent posts have had (IMHO). This is not a function of getting smarter or reading more books (although that doesn't hurt), but more to do with the fact that most of us have now been in the process of trying to apply this distinction to ourselves, our lives, sermons, papers, parishoners, families, etc. . .
From a pastoral perspective, it appears that the Law is fluid and mercurial, and this would be the seemingly post-modern stance–a big "whatever floats or sinks your boat"; however, this is where we come back to the necessity of holding onto this distinction.
We know that The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law.
1 Cor.15:56 ; consequently, the answer to "what shall I do to be saved," is not rightly ordering our lives by the Law, but dying to sin and rising to new life, and this can only happen when the Law/Gospel are rightly distinguished and preached.
It is this belief in the power of the Law to accuse and condemn and the necessity for its distinction that, in a seemingly paradoxical way, supports holding onto a more fluid/phenomenological understanding. What seems like a "liberal" (in a theological sense) interpretation actually supports the most "conservative" reading of Scripture. The Bible says what it says—God will not be mocked–and we're all in trouble outside of Christ!
Many people who ascribe to the most stringent and clear "letter of the Law" in regards to morality, and who often hold up the Holiness of God the most stridently, are often (but not always) people who have found ways of assuaging the demands of the law in some way–
What we are doing is trying to point out that it is only Christ who is the end of the law–and even if you have the 10 Commandments up on your courthouse lawn or you are the most radically inclusive person in the world, you're still going to be pursued and accused until the demands are fulfilled.
Anyway, more than you were hoping for, I'm sure:)
Jady,
Don't worry, your response was exactly what I was hoping for. It seems that the more one understands L/G (as opposed to simply knowing it), then the more effusively one will speak of the distinction. It has become our "unified field theory" for life and we see it everywhere.
Most interestingly, we live in a post-Billy Graham church that is increasingly dissatisfied with a simplistic "get saved" mentality. Others have resolved this problem through a rediscovery of discipleship (theosis!) or monasticism or the emergent polemics against compartmentalization. But we have found our answer in this L/G unified field theory- which (we hope) avoids both legalism and compartmentalization.
The inseparable connection between the law, sin, and death is the cornerstone to the expansion of L/G. The scope of accusation/death has no bounds!
Todd, regarding your first comment: Law and Gospel properly distinguished will necessitate everything, and will lift all necessity. As to the pendulum – it is not that the distinction of Law and Gospel makes more vocabulary some sort of a must, but rather you will find the distinction opening up for you ever more of what people around you say, what you read, what you hear, what you are tying to understand, into its light. C.F.W. Walther hazarded the statement, that the proper distinction between Law and Gospel is taught by the Holy Spirit in the school of experience, which is to say that you can’t really set about learning it, but rather that it gets given to you, all over the place, more and more. And in that sense the pendulum is paradoxical. Once the Holy Spirit sets this in motion its oscillations grow in breadth and scope rather than decline.
Frank: Thanks for the sermon! A great thing about Luther, and a difficulty (gift and burden, gift and burden . . .) is that he wrote so much. Were you to drop the Weimar edition out of second story window it would leave a crater in the street below. So the constant questions: (1) “What’s the reference?” and perhaps more importantly for us, (2) “When did he write/preach it?” Luther, a bit like us Mockingbird bloggers, didn’t reach Law-Gospel nirvana overnight. Things get rolling for him in the 15teens, by 1519/20 there is some major stuff going on, and by about 1524 he comes Zest-fully clean. Which Luther do you have there?
Staneck: Nice example! That would be what I mean by “exegeting” the person in front of you. There is a really good lesson in that example: Behind most Yes-or-No questions there are usually other, absolutely decisive questions. Sometimes the person you’re talking to will have that question right on the tip of their tongue; they may tell you straight off what they’re on about. Sometimes they may need your listening help to even get at what they want/need to ask. But watch out! Those Yes-or-No questions are Law-Gospel traps, not belligerently set, but ones you can fall into nonetheless. Here’s a little exercise: For a day, every time someone asks you a Yes-or-No question, ask them, “Well, why do you ask?” That will be an interesting day.
-Jonathan
jonathanmumme
sorry to have not included a cite. this is the sermom referenced in The Formula of Concord article VI as a basis for what they say there.
http://www.godrules.net/library/luther/129luther_e13.htm
Luther there also explains WHY the law gospel distinction is so very critical: it is so we leave doing the law as a purely visible material earthly exercise only. we do not try to make it part of the invisible heavenly ALONE saving faith and the forgivness of sins.
Luther Excerpt:
The theme of this Gospel reading is a great and important article of faith.
This article is called “The Forgiveness of Sins”.
Internalizing this one article is the art that ALONE makes one a Christian. It is his most difficult, important and all consuming lifelong task. He will never have time to find something new, higher or better to learn. It will make a Christian honest and give him eternal life.
It is necessary then, to teach this article diligently and relentlessly in the Christian church, so we can learn to understand this article clearly, and distinguish it clearly from what it is not.
But we cannot understand this article that alone makes one a Christian, and not lose it, we must know something else as well.
We must know that there are two kinds of true or God pleasing righteousness or two powers. We must also then learn how to skillfully tell the difference between the two.
end of cite.
Every gift mentioned in the 1st article of the creed and 4th petition of the lords prayer in the lutheran catechisms are squeezed out indentically from christian and pagan old adams by visible righteousness.
So now you can understand that when the lutheran confessions say good works are necessary, they mean it! but not necessary to please God, rather because we need them. life would literally be impossible on earth without them.
This difference behind the word "necessary" is a huge one between calvinism and cranmer anglicans.
yet another law gospel nuance in this rich sermon. like looking at that same law/gospel prism or jewel from yet a another angle and fascet.
johnathanMumme
"Luther delivered it on Oct. 3d, 1529, while the Marburg Coloquium was in session. It appeared in print the following year under the title: “A sermon on Christian righteousness, or the forgiveness of sins, Preached at Marburg in Hesse, 1529, Martin Luther, Wittenberg, 1530.”
You asked rhetorically how luther got to maturity in his understanding of scriptures.
He said it was finally undertstanding the passage: "the just shall live by faith ". I could never really see how that was really.
I would appreciate your comment on the following idea:
I think now that that passage came to life only after his most important break from scholasticism and greeks who thought that the greek "sarkos" (flesh/body) meant only flesh as in "carnal, sexual, lust" .
Instead in romans 8 he saw that the word was a standin for everything earthly, including earthly righteousness.
Better, it was merely the logical "non-a" to the logical "a" of faith/spirit ALONE .
who but Luther could see that "flesh/body" includes true god-pleasing righteousness?
What do you guys make of all that?
yet ANOTHER law/gospel pendulum swing eh? courtesy of Dr Luther
Frank,
Thanks! But the reference in Formula of Concord, Article VI is eluding me. What paragraph please?
On a cursory examination, I find (only) a reference to postils of 1544 (Aland, Po. 289), which draws on sermons Luther preached on Eph. 4,22-28 in 1535, 1536 and 1537 (Aland, Pr. 1571, 1622, 1662); this in Formula of Concord – Solid Declaration, VI,9.
Please help!
-Jonathan
I think Jonathan's comments re: reading Luther in his context are very helpful here. It is true that Luther does speak about doing good works, and in some great detail. The formula being written by "the second Martin" Chemnitz hits home on the 3rd function of the law as well. 1st being natural law that even the pagan can keep, second the law as mirror, third the law as guide for the Christian.
Melancthon also goes into a lengthy discourse on love and fulfilling of the law at paragraph 122 of Apology IV. When the Lutherans were accused of antinomianism they responded by showing they do require good works. But the difference is in that the good works we do as Christians only reflect our civil, or horizontal, righteousness. Also the criticism the Lutherans reflected back on the Romans accusing them of antinomianism was that Rome taught works as part of salvation in order to lay a claim on God. Luther and the reformers of like minds would say "Amen" to the necessity of good works but they are not so one can lay a claim on God. In salvific terms God lays a claim on the sinner and brings forth righteousness passively, or vertically, and the sinner in turn responds with good works for the benefit of his/her neighbor and not him/herself. Our neighbor needs our good works not our God.
Luther's great galatians commentary delves into the two kinds of righteousness idea explicitly. And as far as the Formula goes, although there is reaction against Rome, I'm pretty sure that is more reaction against the anabaptists and sacramentarians. Some "reformers" completely eliminated works from any equation and the Lutherans responded by showing how our works are indeed necessary but within the right context.
Here at Concordia St. Louis the systematics department is all about this "two kinds of righteousness" idea which encompasses our passive righteousness given vertically by God and how we as Christians then respond in the world with our civic righteousness horizontally to our neighbor. They also tie it into an understanding of anthropology and what it means to be human. Very interesting stuff to be sure.
Wow. Coming late to the party, I have this to offer:
Even attempting to categorize/split Law-Gospel statements in the Word, inevitably leads to, well, 'Law-ing.'
I think even Jesus would vote for a PURPLE pen in the red/blue mix:
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." Matt. 5:16
Lest we miss the point – again – -The Word/Good News/Gospel IS the Law. . .with love, joy and relationship. . .fulfilled.
Oops – Matt. 5:17!!!!
M. Staneck,
Thank you for the lay of the land in St. Louis!
Regarding “Regarding the third use of the law”, Formula of Concord VI: The title quotes easily. Approaching the article itself asking the question, “What does the third use, as defined here, do that the first two do not?” where do you come out?
Two kinds of righteousness (Luther sometimes had three) – one vertical and passive, one horizontal and active: Where does Christ fit? In which of these two planes?
-Jonathan
Jonathan:
I should let it be known that I am but a first year seminarian so I don't know a whole heck of a lot about this stuff yet as I am still wrestling with all the ins and outs so I will try to answer your question to the best of my ability.
As we students have been told here the "two kinds of righteousness" is another tool in the belt for Lutheran paradigms in theology. It is true that Luther, again most notably in his great galatians commentary, talks about two or three or several kinds of righteousness. The idea there is a passive righteousness and many active righteousnesses, if you will, in the world. The rule of law in the world is well…the law. What makes the 3rd use or function distinct from the other two is the 3rd use of the law is a guide for the Christian. It has no bearing on the Christian's actual salvation, that is accomplished passively through Christ.
The best example I have heard for how this all shakes out is this:
A pastor gives a sermon and during the sermon the pastor suggests to men sitting in the pews that they do something nice for their wives, whatever that may be, this afternoon instead of watching football. One man hearing this just goes to church because his wife wants him to. It’s his way of getting away with watching football on Sundays and not doing anything else. He is not a Christian, but his wife is so he gives in to her requests that he attend church with her. He here’s this and thinks to himself, “hey that’s not a bad idea, I usually am just lazy on Sundays, maybe I’ll make dinner tonight.” The law to this non Christian is presented in the “curb” usage or 1st function. This is the natural law, if you will. Another man in the pew behind the first hears this and it really pierces him. He is absolutely “convicted” to the core. He realizes he largely neglects the part of his vocation called husband to watch football and drink on Sundays. He never helps out around the house. It took the pastor holding up the mirror to his face to see this for himself. For this man the law hits him in its 2nd function, the most common one we use/hear of. This function will bring a man to his knees in repentance. Yet still another man behind that pew hears this message and as a Christian man he just thinks to himself that what the pastor suggests is a good idea. He’ll give up a Sunday to do something nice for his wife. The law hit him in its 3rd function here.
Not a perfect example by any means but I think it does a great job showing the different ways the law will hit people. If I need some guidance to practicing good stewardship I’m not in need of repenting anything just the law as guidance. Some/many call this the “gospel motivation.” My professors here are arguing that if we are actually doing the doing part, carrying out the Gospel aspect, it becomes law bc it is something we do. Whether Jesus does it through us or not we still do. If we’re to stay consistent that the Gospel is free, not on account of our own doing, then we do not rightly call 3rd function as Gospel motivation even if it is ultimately the fact we live in the Gospel that we are Christians doing this. It gets confusing for sure. But the faculty here seems to think it’s practical implications are very widespread. Are we looking to convict and make those who don’t practice good stewardship repent? Or are we looking to guide them into being a good steward?
Where does Christ fit? Not sure how to answer that because I don’t necessarily want to box up Christ but I would say vertically in that God passively makes us righteous through Christ but then as Christians we engage the world actively living out our own righteousness because that is how the world will see us/judge us. This all stems from a belief that a First Article understanding of the creed is right way forward for Christianity. How do we interpret the 2nd and 3rd articles in light of the 1st? Stuff seems to matter to God. God’s redemptive story follows a creation/redemption of creation pattern. The meek shall inherit the earth. What does this mean? The faculty here sees the two kinds of righteousness/1st article focus understanding as a way to answer our anthropologically obsessed culture. What does it mean to be human? It also places the right focus back for Christians as well. What does it mean to be a creature of God? Heaven is the interim. Heaven is not our home. Many Christians believe the end result is floating bodiless in heaven forever. We seemed to have lost an understanding of the restoration of creation which includes the resurrection. We can recapture that by identifying our humanity, and the stuff of a 1st article nature that God seems so interested in.
Anyway that was long winded and in fact may not answer any questions at all. You can clearly see I’m a first year seminarian still working this stuff out!
-Matt
M. Staneck,
All 4th year seminarians were once first year seminarians, professors too, and most pastors. You’re in a good place, and I am sure that all the readers and posters are happy to have you playing along. Thank you for these contributions! – you elucidate much.
In an effort to “listen” better, I will take your paragraphs from Feb. 1 in order:
¶2 & 3 (first post): I had posed the question in my previous post, that if one were to read the content of Formula of Concord VI, “Regarding the third use of the Law”, with the question in mind: “What is there about the 3rd use of the Law that we do not find in the 1st and the 2nd?” (or something to that order). You have come at that question with helpful explanation and a fine example, not however from FC VI. A heading that says that something is being discussed, does not yet tell us what that thing is, or is not, and what the one or those writing would have us think of it. Were we, for example, simply to read the title of Luther’s treatise “Regarding the private mass and the consecration of mass sacrificing priests” (1533) and simply to appropriate the title, then we could well make the argument that Luther supported private masses and the consecration of priests who existed but to carry them out, all on their own. But your example of one “suggestion” hitting people in different ways does the same trick, and is probably much more engaging for the esteemed readers of the Mockingbird Blog! My question is (and we could run it back to the FC VI), what is different between what hits the pagan and the third man? (We may also note that the pagan could have reacted as the 2nd man did. More likely if the pastor gets around to talking about his life and what he does or doesn’t do in ways other than “suggestions”.)
¶1 (2nd post): Your rhetorical question about whether we are looking to convict those who do not practice good stewardship (of sin) toward repentance or to guide them to be good stewards is extremely telling. But here I am doubly confused. First, are we not to practice “stewardship”, as we now call it (I assume to speak of tithing in one form or another)? If this is indeed commanded by God and I am not doing it, am I not sinning? And if I have sinned, would I not be helped by hearing that I have sinned – by being led to repent, which would then end with being forgiven and absolved? Secondly, your example in ¶2 (first post) seemed to suggest that the law was something that we could not get control of. A “suggestion” gets sent out there and bounces as it bounces. Yet hear, by implication, we somehow have the law under our control, i.e., we can use it in a way that would get people to behave better, in a way that does not convict them. Which is it?
¶2 (2nd post): An unboxed-up Christ is a good Christ to have. One could read the Gospels as a series of encounters in which Jesus bursts all the boxes set for him. As you go on, it seems to be Jesus on the vertical plane, and then us on the horizontal. A good deal of Christological history has been written on the basis of those happy to have Jesus in the vertical, so long as he does not busy himself in the horizontal (Gnostics, Marcion, Nestorius, . . .). A further question along these lines – summarizing what I have read here, I would put it as follows: “God/Jesus does the horizontal job; he is responsible for my relationship with him, for my salvation; I am entirely passive; this falls under the rubric of ‘the Gospel’. I do the horizontal job; I am responsible for righteous interaction with my fellow man and God’s created world; this has nothing to do with my salvation; I am active; this falls under the rubric of ‘the Law’ (as you say above, if it is something we do, it is the Law [¶1, 2nd post]). But if that’s true, we all just became James Bond, didn’t we? A license to kill? I can cheat my company and short Uncle Sam, ignore my wife and kids, and spend the majority of my weekends at the track coasting on cubans and four-roses whiskey. Make all the “suggestions” you want. I may take a few, may leave most, but I know, that me and God are square, because I believe, I pray and I go to church. Everything else is just horizontal, and does not effect my salvation.
Now it would appear that something in our mutual line of discourse has led us to less than happy ends. What now?
Thanks for the posts! This is good stuff!
-Jonathan
p.s. I’ll be away from the computer for a while, but can pick up again in mid-February.
Now my head REALLY hurts.
finals week all next week here, I'll try and get back to this discussion afterward. This is an important one to have!