So it's been about three years since I stopped posting here. Not sure anyone noticed, but if so, thanks, Anyway, a lot has changed in that time. Retired from one job, started another, moved to a different city, new church, new grandson, new everything. Well, not everything. Same wife, same kids, and the same faithful eternal Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
In that time I've had lots of thoughts about theology, doctrine, the church, the gospel, etc. With no outlet for those thoughts. And since I'm not currently engaged in a teaching ministry, I must have an outlet to share all this stuff in my head with everyone on the interwebz, of course. So, I'm going to start the Doulos Den back up. I welcome comments as to subjects you'd be interested in, etc. So...
8 comments:
Christ fulfilled the law.
That being said and looking at 2 Timothy 3:16, what parts of the OT law should be "followed" today?
Moral Laws? Yes
Civil Laws? Some?
Ceremonial Laws? No
The questions here could prompt a whole series of posts. Like an exposition of that passage, a discussion of the three divisions of the Law and the three uses of the Law, in what manner Christ fulfilled the Law, the moral law in the life of the Christian and legalism and antinomianism, etc.
I agree. Which is why I asked! I think a good starting point is 'what manner did Christ fulfill the law'.
Is it safe to say that by Christ fulfilling the law, we are not bound to any part of the OT law anymore because as believers, we are a new creatures (2 cor 17 - 18 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come. 18 All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation)?
The short answer to your question is no. Christians are bound by the Law under the New Covenant, but in a different manner. Let me think a bit and I’ll post something.
Christians are not under the law
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xR6l87FiR_8
Under the Law as a means of attaining righteousness- absolutely. But the law still has a claim on the life of the believer as a standard of conduct. It’s not that simple as saying we are not under the law. That path leads to antinomianism.
Mr. Awtry:
I would like for you to discuss the answer to following question:
During the Protestant Reformation, why caused the theology to arise to claim that man is saved by imputation only, instead of the historic belief that man is saved by both imputation and infusion?
Allow me to elaborate.
Both Catholics and Protestants believe they are saved by the righteousness of Christ, neither side would claim otherwise. In the case of Catholicism, the teaching is that the righteousness of Christ is participated in, and indwells in the believer when God declares the believer to be righteous. In the case of Catholicism, the teaching is that the righteousness of Christ remains alien to the believer when God declares the believer to be righteous.
In other words, in Catholicism when God declares man to be righteous, God's word is efficacious, and thereby MAKES the man righteous (albeit through the righteousness of Christ); whereas in Protestantism, when God declares man to be righteous, God's word is not efficacious as the man is still unrighteous as the righteousness of Christ is not infused in the man making him righteous, but only imputed to him, "cloaking" him with righteousness.
So, what specific verses did the reformers use as support of this doctrine of imputation alone? And to be honest, I think the battle cry of the reformation, "sola fide", is only a symptom of a deeper theological rift, that being infusion + imputation vs. imputation only.
Thank you.
Curtis, your comment opens a lot of questions for debate and such that I really don't want to enter into, especially in comments. At some point I might address a few of these topics, but there are many more and better resources than this blog to engage with. I will say that you are correct in that the major theological issue of the Reformation was underlying faith alone, and that is the means of justification. I don't see infused righteousness being the historic view of the church, but rather the Roman view. You can find imputation in the writings of Augustine in the 4th century, the Reformers essentially reclaimed it.
Anyway, thanks for the comment, I may come back to this sometime.
Post a Comment