Law and Gospel Vs. Republication
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 6 сен 2024
- My website: www.jordanbcoop...
Patreon: / justandsinner
Publishing: www.jspublishin...
Twitter: / justandsinner
In this video, I address the question of the republication of the covenant of works and its relationship to a Lutheran understanding of law and gospel.
Thank you, always a blessing. Thank you for sharing your knowledge with us. God's peace be with you always
This is really interesting. I think a lot of it depends on your definition of grace.
Like you reject Dr. Horton's definition of grace, but I'm not sure us Reformed would deny that creation was gracious in the sense you mean.
I have heard that sort of idea brought up a few times, in Ligon Duncan's Covenant Theology series and I think Vos might mention it as well, but then they usually are quite strict about reserving "grace" for the context of sin, otherwise you can confuse things.
For instance, if you hold that God gave the Covenant of Works to Adam in order that he might merit eternal life, you would probably say that like the rest of creation that was a gracious act. The Law itself is a good thing given to us by God by His own free choice.
However, God giving law to Adam that he might obey it and merit eternal life is not "grace" in the same sense that Jesus obeying in our place is.
I think such a broad definition could well be used to confuse people either accidentally or maliciously and lead to a mingling of Law and Gospel.
I guess that is more of an issue for us because we talk about the CoW more, but imagine if someone started arguing that the Law of Moses was grace because God was gracious in choosing to give Israel the Law. Like you can see what they mean, but it's just horribly confusing.
I don't think you are meaning that at all, and I could be misunderstanding a lot of things here, but I hope that explains a bit better why we are so reluctant to talk about "grace" pre-fall.
You do have the best beard of any Lutheran I have ever seen. Do you think the 3rd use of the Law is legitimate however as Lutherans we don't intentionally set out to preach the 3rd use but rather simply preach the law from the selected text and let the Spirit use it in people's life as He wills?
The Reformed always seem to be debating this and that, so idle things on which the Bible is silent. The problem with them is that they don't have a one and unique confession to subscribe to, and on the other hand, all this nonsense brings in money too.
Isaiah 40:8-10,18,25,28-31 ASV
The grass withereth, the flower fadeth; but the word of our God shall stand forever. [9] O thou that tellest good tidings to Zion, get thee up on a high mountain; O thou that tellest good tidings to Jerusalem, lift up thy voice with strength; lift it up, be not afraid; say unto the cities of Judah, Behold, your God! [10] Behold, the Lord Jehovah will come as a mighty one, and his arm will rule for him: Behold, his reward is with him, and his recompense before him. [18] To whom then will ye liken God? or what likeness will ye compare unto him? [25] To whom then will ye liken me, that I should be equal to him? saith the Holy One. [28] Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard? The everlasting God, Jehovah, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary; there is no searching of his understanding. [29] He giveth power to the faint; and to him that hath no might he increaseth strength. [30] Even the youths shall faint and be weary, and the young men shall utterly fall: [31] but they that wait for Jehovah shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary; they shall walk, and not faint.
John Barclay’s “Paul and the Gift” exhaustively differentiates Luther from Calvin on the way they define the perfection of grace. Calvin’s legalism on the third use of the law is thoroughly exploded here, as well as the legitimacy of Martin Luther’s view of pistis Christou and the gospel as total remedy, unlike the hybrid legalism of Calvinism.
Keep” The Coffee Thing” going!!
I do not see why it is an either or distinction. Law and Gospel and Covenant Theology both serve as good lenses for understanding scripture.
This honestly felt very unsatisfactory
I like dr cooper a lot but this seems like the difference is in reformed focus on covenant which cooper doesn't refute instead he just finds it complicated
A lot of the difference seems like just emphasis but not really an actual distinction between Lutherans and the reformed
I think you should come back to the reformed side. Ask yourself why else are you consistantly coming back to comparison to reformed. Transubstantiation is very dangerous thinking that physically the wine and bread turns to Jesus's real blood and body. If Jesus wanted his real blood and body to be given on the last supper, he would not have used bread and body! He was using bread and wine as a symbolism for us to remember him.
I talk about it only because that's what I'm most often asked about.
Boy. You still keep saying uuuuhhhhh. With practice you can break that habit. And don't be so touchy. Wow. Uuhhhhh
Funny, because Jesus doesn't say "This 'represents' my body."
Also, it's funny that the early church (and I mean within a generation of the apostles) believed in sacrimental efficacy.
Why is the idea of the bread and wine also having the body and blood of Christ so frightening? Because Catholics believe it? We have issues with Catholicism, yes, but Catholicism also upholds the Trinity, the deity of Christ, and other core Christian documents.
And I would add that the Reformed are not monolithic in the use and belief of the sacraments. Baptist Calvinists see the sacraments different than Presbyterian or Anglican Calvinists do. When will they resolve their discrepancies?
@@DrJordanBCooper Where exactly did you come out of? I was a Confessional Presbyterian, went to a Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America and a Covenant Presbyterian Church, who used to be a Calvinistic Southern Baptist.
To quote FLAME: "I used to think like that."