Timely post, Jared. I'm teaching the Sermon on the mount for the next week or two in the GAP class (our curriculum had us hitting it all in one week - heck, I barely made it through the Beatitudes and Similitudes in the first Sunday, so we'll be on it for a few more weeks).

I agree - I have not been able to buy into the "the law's sole purpose is to show you that you can't follow the law". Especially after reading the sermon on the mount - you're right, Jesus both affirms the law ("not one jot or tittle") and makes it harder.

Still working out these conundrums . . .

Also, in looking at some of the discussion over at CGO, I see a familiar refrain. Some (esp. Reformed) want to say we are so depraved and our efforts at righteousness even after justification are so tainted by sin that anything that falls short of absolute perfection is still filthy rags to God.

I don't see it that way.

Now it's true in the sense that even our Spirit-wrought deeds are never enough to earn favor with God. However, there is also a strong current in scripture affirming that the righteous (i.e., justified) man can do good works (e.g. Eph. 2:10). These are works that God finds pleasing because they are done in the power of the Spirit through our life-giving connection to Christ, and God (for the sake of Christ) passes over the imperfections in them as a father passes over the flaws in his son's crayon scribbles.

I think you're right, and I think it's probably inadvertent. But it's right there on the surface of what Justin says:

He wasn’t explaining the ethical code for his followers; he was freaking people out so they would know their need for a savior.

And then he says this:

The law tells us our problem but it doesn’t fix our problem. The law cannot generate what it commands.

Well, of course not. The law is a map. It shows you when you are lost, and it shows you (theoretically) how to get from St. Augustine to New Zealand. But it doesn't provide you with a means to get there. That's not its job.

I think what Justin's trying to do is junk the traditional "third use of the law" in favor of an emphasis on the workings of the Spirit:

the law shows us the will of God but can't motivate us to fulfill it or generate what it demands. So, when talking about sanctification, I'd prefer to talk about the ministry of the Holy Spirit and the fruit of the Spirit where many talk about the use of the law.

I think this is pretty badly misguided. The law is a tool the Spirit uses to make us more holy. It teaches us about God's holiness and helps us keep our feet on the right path by telling us where to place our steps. Giving us feet that don't slip and eyes to see the path illuminated by the word are jobs for the Spirit.

Gross overstatement here, but . . . I think a lot of the problems in (the Reformed wing of) the church involve pitting the Spirit of God against the means he has given us. There's no reason to pit the Holy Spirit against the law or the influence of other Christians in sanctification, or the Spirit against preaching in conversion, etc.

Why?

#7

I suppose I am just very sensitive of it. The same statement from a 'Mormon' such as myself is often misrepresented/misunderstood. In other inter-faith dialogues, most have discounted it to a 'Saved by Works' type doctrine; which of course I reject.

I'll Let Alan argue his own statement: whether it represents salvation by works or not.

And I don't disagree with you Jared on a very fundamental level (about any/all of Christ's teachings or life--that they are meant to be an example of perfection by which to measure our imperfection), but there must be more to it that simply a list of all our sins.

I would say, however, that these good works we do are the results of salvation. The means of salvation were accomplished by Jesus.

I don't dispute the fact, but I don't believe we are saved the same way that, say, rocks are saved--i.e. passively; since we are in posession of at least a meager measure of free will. Are we not to open, or to come, or to follow. What are we to open up to, come unto, or follow after if we have no example or standard.

I agree, the works are not ours, but even though we move mountains in the name of the Lord (i.e. not our own works), we still have a choice do we not?

I'll Let Alan argue his own statement: whether it represents salvation by works or not.

It pretty obviously doesn't represent salvation by works. It wasn't my statement; it was a quotation from a classic protestant catechism.

As for the rest of what you wrote-- for example, when you say:

Reason (as in God’s reasoning with Isaiah) teaches us precious gospel truths (which may be condensed into neat aphorisms of principle or law). Revelation, on the other hand, sanctifies our efforts for our good—not because they merit sanctification, but because of the condescension of God which is embodied by His love. As for me, I personally see no need to pit one against the other. It is like a never-ending helix in which reasoned obedience leads to spiritual strength through revelation of the testimony of Christ through the Holy Spirit. The joy and longing produced by revelation prepares us for the higher reason (Laws) and afterwards; the receipt of spiritual fortitude against error and sin (which is why Christ cited the Law during his Temptations in the Wilderness). The Sermon on the Mount wasn’t preached to show us our sinfulness, (for there are infinite permutations on that theme), but were presented to show us what we may become: perfect like our Father in Heaven.

I don't see you using these terms in the same way that Jared and I would use them. I can't even remotely recognize what you say as anything approaching something I would hear from a Christian. I'm sure you're a nice enough guy, but this just illustrates to me how big a gap there is between us on fundamental issues of faith.

Let me be a little more specific.

When you say "reason" as in God "reasoning" with Isaiah, and say that this "reason . . . teaches us precious gospel truths," I see that as an equivocation. When God says "come, let us reason," Isaiah is proclaiming his message that the people need to repent and be forgiven or die in their sins. Reasoning is what God does in the passage; it's not a faculty or anything that can be reified.

And I suppose that you could say the message to repent and be forgiven, or die in your sins, is an aphorism or a principle. But that too is very foreign to how we as Christians would see it. It's not a fundamental law of reality-- it's a covenant that God willingly has made to redeem us through his son.

Then when you continue to say revelation "sanctifies our efforts," this again doesn't fit anything that resembles Christian doctrine. Revelation is God's communication to us, not a thing that colors efforts that we supply.

So I can see why the charge of salvation by works comes your way quite often. What we see as God's free offer to redeem us, you take as a "principle or law" that you can apply to produce "reasoned obedience." The gospel is not about an opportunity to become, through our obedience, perfect. It is about how we can be rescued from a complete inability to please God unto an eternity of serving him.

Which is why the section of the Catechism I quoted, which discusses the law of God, is under the heading of "Gratitude."

Isaiah is proclaiming his message that the people need to repent and be forgiven or die in their sins.

A precious gospel truth, engraven into the fleshy tablets of my heart by the Holy Spirit. I really don’t care if it is called reasoning, law-giving, covenanting, or anything else; what is important to me is the saving effect on my soul.

The message to repent and be forgiven. . . [is] not a fundamental law of reality-- it's a covenant that God willingly has made to redeem us through his son.

The covenant between God and His people is a fundamental reality in my life; as is His message to repent and be forgiven. I have personally felt the effects of forgiveness; they are real, fundamental, and a truth by which I live my life. I don’t care if that is foreign to Christendom; all I care about is the fact that God loves His Children.

Revelation is God's communication to us, not a thing that colors efforts that we supply.

Sorry, for me it does. I try to live by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God. Perhaps I don’t need to in order to be saved, but out of my love of God, I try to submit to every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God. That is the highest law, principle, fundamental reality in my life—trying to attune my will to His according to His word. Everything else is secondary.

The gospel is not about an opportunity to become, through our obedience, perfect.

Not something I would ever say. Sorry if that’s your impression. Strike out “not” and “through our obedience” and that is a fair representation of my words. You may also substitute pure, sinless, without spot, holy, sanctified, etc. for the word perfect. You may add precision to the statement by adding “through Christ” if you choose thereby rendering it thusly “The gospel is about an opportunity to become sinless or perfect through Christ.”

So I can see why the charge of salvation by works comes your way quite often.

I do everything I can to deny that satanic doctrine, but I am still tarred and feathered by it. That doesn’t really matter, however, since I know that God loves His children.

What we see as God's free offer to redeem us, you take as a "principle or law" that you can apply to produce "reasoned obedience."

I don’t obey for salvation’s sake. I obey because I love God and I know He loves me. I am happy to obey. It gives me great joy! I also hope I never take God’s gifts for granted, even those free ones which I would never be worthy of ever! I feel very humbled by God’s grace, and condescension to me, and realize his condescension to offer free gifts, for which I am infinitely unworthy, does not entitle me to them.

It is about how we can be rescued from a complete inability to please God unto an eternity of serving him.

May I be so blessed!

Now, I must get back to my nephrology studies--cares of the world.

Perhaps you would be suprised if you happen to show up here for thanksgiving. Also, if you ever go to Kerrville First Presbyterian, don't tell my Grandmother Taylor that our theological agreements are skin-deep; she would be shocked, as would all my relatives who have attended Trinity University.

They have been kind enough to welcome their Samaritan dog at the table of their fellowship notwithstanding my rejection of the creeds of men. I understand, however; I know when I am not welcome at the table.