Comments on: The Proper Place of the Law: What of Antinomianism?

By: Tony Stoutenburg

Tony Stoutenburg — Wed, 16 Jun 2010 20:15:32 +0000

I am not sure that that is fair to Benne over all (I know it is not fair to Nestingen) but I do agree that that is the general tone of some of what has been written, probably by both. Good dialogue. Thanks

Blessings. TS

By: restenergy

restenergy — Wed, 16 Jun 2010 18:10:20 +0000

The either/or you previously accused me of was a matter of paying attention to one but dismissing the other. But when we look to the cure we receive in Christ, it is, and must be, a cure for our sin (singular). Nothing more is required. Nothing less will do. The portion you quote above is making a distinction about where Christ’s healing cure is directed. When the disease (our sin) is cured it also clears up the symptoms (our sins). If the disease is cured and healed, there is no need to also cure the patient of the symptoms. It is, I think, vitally important to keep this distinction.
In the context of my main post, the primary importance of this that a misconstrual of the law results also in a misdirection of, and even a deficiency in, the gospel in which the symptoms are treated but the disease itself at least under treated if not left untreated. The biggest problem in the theology that Robert Benne and others put forth is a problem of how the law is treated. That law reductionism narrows the scope and purpose of the law, and consequently ends up reducing the gospel to not quite so good news.

By: Tony Stoutenburg

Tony Stoutenburg — Wed, 16 Jun 2010 17:10:37 +0000

Actually, you did offer an either or framework; From your original post:

“But that is a means, not an end; a means to showing us the need for Christ because of our sinfulness. The point is not about sins but sin. For it is the power of sin that the gospel of Christ addresses. We are saved from our sin, not our sins, for the former is our illness and the later its symptoms.”

As you have said in your response, we are saved from both.

I really like your response. I have little to disagree with in it, except where it defends the original post. Are there two of you?

As I read between the lines, the real question between us is what is sin and who defines it.

That is a disagreement neither of us are likely to sway the other on.

Blessings TS

By: restenergy

restenergy — Wed, 16 Jun 2010 01:03:34 +0000

I did not argue that sins were unimportant or should be ignored, nor have I offered an either/or framework. But I also don’t think it is a simple both/and situation, either.

The disease is sin (singular). Sins (plural) are the symptoms. Treatment needs to concentrate on the disease. We cannot alleviate the symptoms and declare victory over the disease. Paying too much attention to treating the symptoms runs the risk of not sufficiently treating the disease. It might also lead to the false conclusion that alleviating symptoms is taking care of the disease itself as well. It behooves us to be clear about the disease and to be clear that we are treating that first and foremost. Far too many, in the name of tradition, put too much emphasis on the symptoms that addressing the disease gets lost. Some will say, “Jesus takes care of those symptoms,” but the message becomes hollow, leaving the disease intact or only marginally addressed. Worse yet, others will say “Don’t cough, but be assured, Jesus will help you.” But what doctor would insist that his or her patient simply must not cough rather than treat the illness that causes it. We know the disease. God in Christ graciously offers a cure for it (even if we that disease remains with us the whole of our lives here and now). We obscure and diminish that great and wonderful gift when we do not make it clear that it cures the disease and thus it takes care of the symptoms. But that doesn’t mean we ignore sins, either. Sins are important because they are the key to understanding we have the disease. And sins are important to pay attention because as they are the concrete ways we hurt our neighbors and ourselves. But keeping the disease in proper focus, and being sure that the treatment targets the disease, the reasons that specific sins are important becomes clearer as well.
The suggestion that I have failed to recognize the “simul” of two kingdoms is quite simply misplaced. That kingdom on the left is the place where the first use of the law has sway. It is the realm of authorities, institutions, and laws which provide order to our society on God’s behalf. The first use of the law is not only for the sinner, but needed by all if we are to live together in human community. It is as applicable to Christians under the grace of Christ as it is to any and all held in the bondage of sin. This is as Article VI, Antitheseis 1 of the Formula of Concord maintains.
In Galatians I see Paul arguing that freedom from bondage to the law for righteousness is not an occasion for ongoing sin. But note that Paul speaks of the fruit of the Spirit, being guided by the Spirit, living by the Spirit. It is not a law, new or old. It is the Spirit. These come not from a coercive command, but freely from the Spirit and the gifts of grace, love, and mercy. That is, they are not imposed upon us but flow as natural consequence of faith, as we read in Luther’s The Freedom of a Christian.

By: Tony Stoutenburg

Tony Stoutenburg — Fri, 21 May 2010 14:03:09 +0000

While you are correct that we cannot rank sins, you err here:

“The point is not about sins but sin. For it is the power of sin that the gospel of Christ addresses. We are saved from our sin, not our sins, for the former is our illness and the later its symptoms.”

You want it to be an either or. It is a both-and. Ps 25:18, Mat 9:6, Mark 2:10, Luke 5:24 are just 5 of the 11 occurrences a quick Bibleworks search of “forgive” and “Sins” comes up with. And the Lord’s prayer speaks not of sin, but of forgiveness for sins. That is not to downplay our sinfulness as condition, but you want to go to the other extreme.

The second problem I detect is that you fail to recognize the simul. We live simultaneously in two kingdoms. In the kingdom at God’s right hand, the Gospel does have control and we are the saints of God. In the kingdom at God’s left had we are sinners under the Law. Not the Law of Israel, but the Decalogue and the admonition that Love does no harm. It is because we need such in our sinful, already/not yet state.

In his great Treatise on the Christian Freedom, the Letter to the Galatians, Paul makes all the arguments that we are free from the Law … and then pens chapter 5, admonishing against the works of the flesh. And he write this to those he has just declared free from the Law. Even as we are fully free from the Law in Christ, we are in need of it. Hence, FC VI, Antithesis 1.

Blessings TS

By: Tim

Tim — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 02:30:49 +0000

Clear writing, thoughtful analysis. Helps me a lot. Thanks!

By: Brant Clements

Brant Clements — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 20:14:23 +0000

Excellent post. Thank you. I think that many of the dissidents within the ELCA have made precisely the mistakes you outline in their application of the Law. They confuse ethics and morality. They want a black and white list of acceptable and unacceptable behaviors. The Law does its work not by finger-wagging in a malfeasant’s face but by conviction in a sinner’s heart.

By: Jim

Jim — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 17:53:28 +0000

Thank you for your insights.

Though I identify with many conservative and traditionalist concerns, I have been troubled by the theology of the law articulated by many in ELCA. Lex semper accusat, the Law’s “second use”, is not activated by having correct information about what is or isn’t a sin, it too is an active word of God, facing sin and sinner with the consequences of life lived under the law.