Monday, 21st July 2008
Part IV of V
continued from Part 3
[2] This is what you wrote about God's Laws:
What I had reservations about: That the Law can be preached and understood in such a way as to promote soul-destroying guilt and deeper condemnation is certainly true. Prince is to be commended for eloquently highlighting this biblical warning about the danger of the Law, and stressing the wonderful grace of God that forgives us all through Christ. But while there are many who need this message of God’s grace-filled forgiveness to save them from their guilt and despair over sin, there are many others who need the message of God’s grace-filled discipline and rebuke to save them from presumption and indifference to sin. Prince’s emphasis on free and full forgiveness is very good at helping the former, but not so good for the latter. Does Prince believe that guilt is the only problem people have because of sin? If so, that would present an incomplete picture. Sin does not only imprison us in guilt; it also lulls us into indifference and presumption. The Bible addresses both these effects of sin. The book appears to suggest that there is no way of preaching the Law in a graceful manner in order to set us free from our sinful indifference and presumption.
Similarly, Prince is correct to stress that the Law cannot save or justify, but his writings give the impression that the Law has no other positive function except to prove that we cannot be saved by it. But the Law in the Bible is also presented as a positive expression of God’s grace in telling us what God desires. But because Prince contrasts Law and Grace in this manner, he gives the impression of implying that the Law has only the negative value of telling people that they cannot be saved by their attempts at obedience to the Law. The Law certainly does perform that valuable function, but it does much more as well. It helps us know what is good in God’s eyes. The book is weak on emphasising the ongoing value of the Law for both Christians and unbelievers.
To be fair to this book, there are certain parts of the Bible that also speak in similarly strong negative tones against the Law (e.g. most of Galatians and parts of the books of Romans and Hebrews). But this negative view is balanced out in other parts of the Bible that are very positive about the Law (e.g. Jesus in Matt 5:19-20; James 1:25; Psalm 119 etc.). In other words, the Law as a means of salvation is spoken of very negatively in the Bible, but the Law as a means of showing us God’s pleasure or desire for our lives is spoken of very positively. The book seems to emphasise only the negative picture of the Law. Doing so would fail to do justice to the biblical balance which speaks also of the ongoing positive value of the Law for Christians. Paul, himself, could sum up the Law very positively as teaching us to love one another (Gal 5:14; Rom 13:8,10).
Once again, I used to hold these views like yourself too. After all, we Methodists are known to be "balanced", always safely sticking to the middle ground. On the one hand, we are not so strict like some denominations that insist that only the King James Version of the Bible is the correct on, for example. On the other hand, we also do not swing to the other extreme like those "crazy charismatics" who are only interested in speaking in tongues and casting out demons.
Like I mentioned earlier, I was very uncomfortable when I heard sermons about the Law no longer being relevant to us Christians. I felt more comfortable in striking a balance between Law and Grace. However, the more I read the Scriptures, the more I realise that this is one area that we *CANNOT* have a balance.
In most of Paul's epistles, he would emphasise the need for unity in the Body of Christ. Yet we read of him apparently contradicting himself in the book of Galatians. In Gal 2:11, we see him putting aside niceties to tell off in no uncertain terms the apostle Peter, who was 1 of the 3 privileged to be in Jesus' inner circle while He was on earth. Note that by mentioning this in the letter written to the churches in Galatia, and by it being included as part of the canon, the consequences are that hundreds of millions of people down through the centuries are being made aware of his disagreement with Peter. This would pale in comparison to the mere thousands who read my blog about my disagreement with law-based people, but who's counting :-0
In this same book, Paul talks in chapter 5 verses 22 and 23 about the fruit of the spirit, being love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Would he not be considered a hypocrite if he told the Galatians to be gentle and kind, and yet in the same book in chapter 3 verse 1 call them "foolish"? Would he not been practising what he preached if he told the Galatians to be patient and self-controlled, and yet in chapter 2 verse 11, oppose Peter to his face?
Why the extreme behaviour then? Because if there is one thing that cannot be balanced, it is Law and Grace. In fact, Paul calls such a mixture a "different" gospel (Gal 1:6), and a "distortion or perversion" of the gospel (Gal 1:7), and pronounces a double curse on those who preach such a mixture (Gal 1:8-9). In chapter 4, he likens Law and Grace to Hagar/Ishmael and Sarah/Isaac and tells us in verse 30 that we have to "cast out the bondwoman and her son".
Now that Abraham has got Sarah and Isaac in the home, I am sure we are not asking him to take back Hagar and Ishmael, so to speak, are we? That would be akin to committing spiritual adultery, like what I have blogged below:
Can Grace be Over-Emphasised?
One Leg Step Two Boats
I recall also that when young, I was told that we should not be lukewarm Christians because Jesus will spit us out. This was used to encourage us to be passionate in serving the Lord. But if this is the correct interpretation, why did Jesus say that He preferred that we are "hot or cold" (Rev 3:15)? If this was about being passionate, then wouldn't a "lukewarm" Christian be better off than a "cold" one?
The interpretation of lukewarm as being in a state of accepting a mixture of Law and Grace seems to make more sense to me. A person who is either hot or cold is better off because if he is totally under Grace, He operates under the New Covenant and enjoys the benefits thereof. If he is totally under Law, he will be brought to the end of himself because he cannot keep it, and that will then lead him to Jesus. Having said that, if you do have a better interpretation of lukewarmness, please let me know.
to be continued in part 5
No comments:
Post a Comment