Review of "Paul and the Law" (1987) by Heikki Räisänen

[Teofrastus]

I don’t see how any of that addresses my post, or changes anything. Yes, there’s a vivid contrast between Moses and Jesus, between the old and new covenants, and I outlined that contrast which is also consistent with the teachings of the ancient churches. There never was a problem with the way justification was taught prior to the Reformation; that was my intended meaning.

If James and Hebrews express irreconcilable views, then the way in which justification was taught prior to the Reformation wasn't without its problems. Paul sets justification by law, by works, against justification by grace through faith. The law is a works covenant, opposed to grace. The medievals never resolved this problem. It fell upon Luther to do the job. You pretend that the conflict of law and Gospel isn't a problem. But it's a dilemma in the Christian person's life, because it is tearing him in two directions.

 

[fhansen]

Do you mean to say then, that the Reformation didn't introduce anything new concerning Justification?

Yes they did, as in novel.

 

[fhansen]

If James and Hebrews express irreconcilable views, then the way in which justification was taught prior to the Reformation wasn't without its problems. Paul sets justification by law, by works, against justification by grace through faith. The law is a works covenant, opposed to grace. The medievals never resolved this problem. It fell upon Luther to do the job. You pretend that the conflict of law and Gospel isn't a problem. But it's a dilemma in the Christian person's life, because it is tearing him in two directions.

The problem was resolved way before medieval times. Luther only subverted or confused the issue. The new covenant was never intended to serve as a reprieve from the obligation of man to be personally righteous, to overcome the sin that separates him from God, but rather to finally be the very means to authentic righteousness, not by the law but by the Spirit, now in union with God.

 

[Mark Quayle]

The problem was resolved way before medieval times. Luther only subverted or confused the issue. The new covenant was never intended to serve as a reprieve from the obligation of man to be personally righteous, to overcome the sin that separates him from God, but rather to finally be the very means to authentic righteousness, not by the law but by the Spirit, now in union with God.

So you see Luther as disagreeing with that? How so? I don't see that in anything the Reformation brought about.

 

[fhansen]

So you see Luther as disagreeing with that? How so? I don't see that in anything the Reformation brought about.

Remember that Luther taught that justification is the crux of the reason for Reformation. I don't have time now to respond to posts adequately but will get back to you on it.

 

[Teofrastus]

The problem was resolved way before medieval times. Luther only subverted or confused the issue. The new covenant was never intended to serve as a reprieve from the obligation of man to be personally righteous, to overcome the sin that separates him from God, but rather to finally be the very means to authentic righteousness, not by the law but by the Spirit, now in union with God.

What is authentic righteousness? How can the believer know, when he cannot follow the rules of law, but must now follow the Spirit? We are only made righteous by Christ, who takes our sin upon himself: "God made him who had no sin to be sin for us" (2 Cor. 5:21). The medievals thought that they could climb a ladder to God by pious rituals, good deeds, suffering, and self-punishment. But there is no ladder to God. That's an obsolete Neoplatonic idea.

Augustine studied Neoplatonism after he left the Manichaeans. But he came to realize that the soul is not itself divine. Consequently, he joined the Christians, who taught that salvation lies in the downward movement of God, unlike in Neoplatonism, where the disciple strives upward to God (anabasis). Ingrained moral vice cannot be overcome by sheer will-power, but requires the downpouring grace of God.

Although the Neoplatonists knew the goal (returning to the One) they did not know the "way" to the goal: the humble Mediator, Jesus Christ. To have "the mind of Christ" reverses the ascending movement of Neoplatonic contemplation. Instead of us participating upward, it is God participating downward.

Augustine agrees with the moral precepts of Neoplatonism. However, since they do not know the "humble God", they all succumb to pride. In commenting on Psalm 31, he points out that those who do not teach the Incarnation (Neoplatonists, Epicureans, Stoics, Manichaeans) also do not teach humility. There is much that is sound and sensible in their teachings; but they miss the only route to God.

The person who believes he can be righteous by his own effort will succumb to pride. Pride will be his downfall.

Reference

Wallace Ruddy, D. (2001). 'A Christological approach to virtue: Augustine and humility'. Boston College. (here)

 

[fhansen]

God.

The person who believes he can be righteous by his own effort will succumb to pride. Pride will be his downfall.

Of course. Pride was the downfall of Adam (pride is to believe we can be righteous on our own, to become our own “god”, IOW), and became the downfall of his progeny as well. That pride is the essence of man’s alienation from God, and alienation from God is the essence of the state known as “original sin”.

We have to understand that man was not created to be a sinner, and so God was completely right, of course, in giving fallen man the Law. But the law didn’t correct the problem; it only highlighted the problem, so that we might be able to learn a particular truth. We need something more than rules in order to become law-abiders, in order to refrain from the sin that we were never meant to commit. We don’t have within ourselves what it takes to be righteous, to be who we were created to be, because…we were created to be united with God. The unjust alienation from God must be rectified first, then righteousness begins to ”happen”, without our knowing how or why, as the Spirit leads us.

We already know right from wrong; we were created with that, but, as Augustine put it, “God wrote on tablets of stone that which man failed to read in his heart”. Our failure to read the law is directly porportional to our distance from God, a distance we prefer until we begin to see the light, as He draws us back to it, back to Him, the God whom Adam foolishly dismissed as his God.

So Augustine understood, emphasized enormously in his battle against Pelagianism, that man cannot turn himself to God or pull himself up by his own bootstraps in order to achieve the righteousness/holiness that he is created to have, and without which he’s separated from God as sin separates us from God by its nature. Faith is to come to know and accept God as our God again. Because He’s the only one who can justify man, not ourselves. So an “authentic righteousness” must exist for man, because, again, the alternative is that he was created to be a sinner. And, again, that “righteousness that comes from God” (Phil 3:9), the righteousness that the law and the prophets testify to but cannot accomplish (Rom 3:21, 8:4), is available to all who believe in Christ.

“For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!” Rom 5:17

“But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life.” Rom 6:22

The “gift of righteousness”, that comes from God, alone, is the reason that there’s now no condemnation for those who are in Christ, as long as we remain in Him, as man was created to be in the first place. Jesus brings forgiveness of sin and He takes them away, and He empowers us to “go, and sin no more” even as He knows that we’ll continue to struggle against the sin that nonetheless can and must be overcome, and will ultimately be overcome by those who persevere, with Him. The NC, simple as this sounds, is all about being with, in communion with, God.
“Apart from Me you can do nothing” (John 15:5).

Jesus didn't come so that we would remain in our sins but to free us from the slavery of sin, so that justice is finally restored, not suddenly ignored.

 

[Teofrastus]

[...]

I don't see how we can think of the divine law as existing as an abstraction. What's the point of speaking of unwritten law, a lex aeterna, which we don't know? Evidently, we don't mean Mosaic law, anymore, when speaking about the law; or else we have to execute children who are stubborn or lazy (Deut. 21:18–21; Exod. 21:15, 17; Lev. 20:9). Strictly speaking, only when written on paper it is called 'law', like the Mosaic law, civil law, or the laws of nature. Arguably, we should forget about the lex aeterna, because "whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent" (Wittgenstein).

Yet, there is a spirit that accuses us and oppresses us, makes us feel bad and unfulfilled, and this is the law. Luther himself emphasized the concrete working of the law upon sinners. He says: "18. Whatever shows sin, wrath, and death exercises the office of the law, be it in the Old or in the New Testament" (Solus Decalogus). The law is not an abstraction to him, as he defines the law as synonymous with its oppressive effect upon sinners. It cannot be the question, anymore, of observing the paragraphs in a law book, because we don't know this law book. Says Luther: "When we speak of the law, we speak about the law's proper effect, which it can have or perform in this corrupt nature" (Antinomian Disputations), and that's why we "are not concerned about the word 'law,' but about the thing itself" (WA 39I:416).

 

[fhansen]

I don't see how we can think of the divine law as existing as an abstraction. What's the point of speaking of unwritten law, a lex aeterna, which we don't know? Evidently, we don't mean Mosaic law, anymore, when speaking about the law; or else we have to execute children who are stubborn or lazy (Deut. 21:18–21; Exod. 21:15, 17; Lev. 20:9). Strictly speaking, only when written on paper it is called 'law', like the Mosaic law, civil law, or the laws of nature. Arguably, we should forget about the lex aeterna, because "whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent" (Wittgenstein).

Yet, there is a spirit that accuses us and oppresses us, makes us feel bad and unfulfilled, and this is the law. Luther himself emphasized the concrete working of the law upon sinners. He says: "18. Whatever shows sin, wrath, and death exercises the office of the law, be it in the Old or in the New Testament" (Solus Decalogus). The law is not an abstraction to him, as he defines the law as synonymous with its oppressive effect upon sinners. It cannot be the question, anymore, of observing the paragraphs in a law book, because we don't know this law book. Says Luther: "When we speak of the law, we speak about the law's proper effect, which it can have or perform in this corrupt nature" (Antinomian Disputations), and that's why we "are not concerned about the word 'law,' but about the thing itself" (WA 39I:416).

Again, we do know right from wrong already, which is why people can experience healthy guilt after doing something wrong, without regard to the law. And we can feel accused and oppressed, making us feel bad and unfulfilled, anytime, about anything, and that is not healthy guilt but unhealthy, simply listening to the wrong voice, not God’s. And we can experience the sense of unfulfillment due to concupiscence, disordered desire, alone.

The law, being right and good as Paul tells us in Rom 7, was never the problem; we are, and the law reveals that by contrasting ourselves against it. Again, the law is a teacher. It reveals God’s way for man. You were not created to murder, lust, steal, covet, or fail to love and worship God above all else. And God’s plan never involved ignoring injustice/unrighteousness, but to finally make man right, as He created man to be, over time, not without struggle. God did not give man laws that he could not possibly obey. And, I believe, Calvinists also understand this, that holiness is not only possible with God, but necessary, in order to enter heaven, to see Him.

And Paul, himself, along with Jesus made a distinction between which laws matter and which don’t, singling out the Ten Commandments as right, holy, and good and the churches followed this model by upholding them as obligatory which even many Protestant denominations retained. Paul didn’t denounce the law, itself, but was denouncing legalism, the concept that mere “works of the law” could actually make one holy. That is false holiness, done outside of faith.

We cannot directly comprehend the lex aeterna because we cannot comprehend God. But we can comprehend that which He reveals to us which is the lex divina which is reflected in the lex naturalis which is “the rational creature’s participation in the eternal law”, as Aquinas put it. The more a man desires and submits himself to God, the more the natural law is freed to express itself in man, becoming a “slave to righteousness”. It would be absurd to say that righteousness is unknowable.

 

[Teofrastus]

[...]

No, we do not know right from wrong already. We have only a dim vision, and we mostly follow the natural law that has evolved in our species. Original sin has made our will corrupt, explains Augustine, and we cannot follow God's will anymore. Nevertheless, despite being almost blind we can find our way, provided that we give up the idea that we know right from wrong and allow ourselves to be guided by the Holy Spirit.

Paul mistakenly thought that his parishes would be guided by the Holy Spirit, and that's why there were no priests and bishops during his time. But, as evident from his letters, that didn't work so well. This explains why we find him preaching the Decalogue in Romans. He is not as radical anymore, as he was in Galatians. The problem is, namely, that the Holy Spirit comes to individuals, not the whole community at once. The early Christians thought so, because they had been brought up in the Old Covenant, which centered around the salvation of the collective.

The law is for the collective, the Holy Spirit for the individual. Thus, Paul found it necessary to speak to the collective as well as the individual, which is why he seems to contradict himself. But the individual emancipated by the Holy Spirit need not listen to law preaching, because it is baby talk.

Only the latter can do good works, explains Luther. Good works are done only "without the law". Thus, where the Spirit is, there is "delight in the law". However, it can only occur where the law is absent (WA 39:373), whereas the law rules where Christ is absent (WA 39I:454). Says Luther: "38. In sum: The law is neither useful nor necessary for justification or for any good works, let alone salvation" (Antinomian Disputations).

Luther declares a Christian to be wholly a sinner, as belonging to the human species, and in himself wholly a saint, through Christ Jesus. That's why he attacked the antinomian doctrine, because in this world the saints are still simultaneously sinners. The imputed righteousness of Christ is far from complete in this life.

 

[fhansen]

No, we do not know right from wrong already. We have only a dim vision, and we mostly follow the natural law that has evolved in our species. Original sin has made our will corrupt, explains Augustine, and we cannot follow God's will anymore. Nevertheless, despite being almost blind we can find our way, provided that we give up the idea that we know right from wrong and allow ourselves to be guided by the Holy Spirit.

Paul mistakenly thought that his parishes would be guided by the Holy Spirit, and that's why there were no priests and bishops during his time. But, as evident from his letters, that didn't work so well. This explains why we find him preaching the Decalogue in Romans. He is not as radical anymore, as he was in Galatians. The problem is, namely, that the Holy Spirit comes to individuals, not the whole community at once. The early Christians thought so, because they had been brought up in the Old Covenant, which centered around the salvation of the collective.

The law is for the collective, the Holy Spirit for the individual. Thus, Paul found it necessary to speak to the collective as well as the individual, which is why he seems to contradict himself. But the individual emancipated by the Holy Spirit need not listen to law preaching, because it is baby talk.

Only the latter can do good works, explains Luther. Good works are done only "without the law". Thus, where the Spirit is, there is "delight in the law". However, it can only occur where the law is absent (WA 39:373), whereas the law rules where Christ is absent (WA 39I:454). Says Luther: "38. In sum: The law is neither useful nor necessary for justification or for any good works, let alone salvation" (Antinomian Disputations).

Luther declares a Christian to be wholly a sinner, as belonging to the human species, and in himself wholly a saint, through Christ Jesus. That's why he attacked the antinomian doctrine, because in this world the saints are still simultaneously sinners. The imputed righteousness of Christ is far from complete in this life.

Luther wrote a lot of stuff and, depending on when it was written, perhaps, or what topic was being addressed, varying or conflicting concepts sometimes seem to come through. I'm not sure to be honest- but this was true of Augustine, for example. But Luther understood, I believe, that the law still has a role to play (besides helping to keep the masses docile) to the extent that we still sin, the role of convicting us of that sinfulness because sin proves that were not being fully or consistently led by the Spirit. There's a dynamic tension at play between having righteousness imputed to us, while knowing that we can and must grow in righteousness nonetheless. And if Catholicism might reject the concept of simul iustus et peccator, that concept works, IMO, as long as it doesn't imply antinomianism, or the idea that God is no longer concerned with sin/unrighteousness as long as one believes.

Anyway, there are many ways to put this but I think the Catholic position could be summed up, consistent, IMO, with much of your post here, thusly: To the extent that we're perfected in love, the law has no purpose. In that case, it wouldn't really matter if we were aware of the law or not. And yet that perfection presumably won't take place in this life, but fully completed by God only in the next. Again, the gospel message is not that we're hopelessly sinful-end of story- but that we're hopelessly sinful apart from God. To the extent that we're remaining in Him, and so being led by the Spirit, we're His children and sin is being overcome.

And Paul was a figure who could certainly seem confusing at times, alright. But I think the confusion is mainly an apparent one. He warned the Galatians that deeds of the flesh (sin/lawlessness), could exclude them from heaven. Again, his position is that legalism, the mere external show of holiness, is hypocrisy, as he had experienced the matter as a Pharisee, telling us in Phil 3 that such "righteousness" he now counted as garbage.

The desire to be righteous is good; the idea that we're already righteous, on our own, is bad, The latter is the product of pride, which is the fault of Adam and the essence of our division from God, and of a division, even, within ourselves. We must instead come to turn ourselves in humility to the only true source of righteousness, to God, who is righteousness/holiness, itself. Then He begins to do a work in us, of transforming us into His image, to a righteousness defined primarily, if not wholly, by love.

And even if dimmed, we do know right from wrong-we just aren't meant to determine right and wrong for ourselves. But that's exactly what fallen man does in his self-righteousness, ever since denying the authority of God's righteousness in Eden. That distance from God is the very source of human sinfulness.

 

[fhansen]

The imputed righteousness of Christ is far from complete in this life.

This statement is curious to me. Some maintain that said righteousness is complete, and completely satisfactory for God's requirements, in this life. How can an imputed righteousness not be complete if it's only a declared righteousness or forensic acquittal to begin with? Are you saying that Christ's imputed righteousness is to be increasingly ours in actuality, as a matter of sanctification, presumably?

 

[Teofrastus]

This statement is curious to me. Some maintain that said righteousness is complete, and completely satisfactory for God's requirements, in this life. How can an imputed righteousness not be complete if it's only a declared righteousness or forensic acquittal to begin with? Are you saying that Christ's imputed righteousness is to be increasingly ours in actuality, as a matter of sanctification, presumably?

I suppose it has to do with justification and sanctification. The former is complete in this world and the latter is only complete in the afterlife.

 

[Hawkins]

It is a matter of perspectives. For example, when a famous bridge is built in the US, one can say that,

- The bridge is built by the Americans
- The bridge is built by the construction workers
- The bridge is built by a group of famous architects who are French, it is built by this group of Frenchians

Words are said in the different perspectives, they are not contradictions.

Similarly, Law is good but it can be a curse to humans when humans started to walk further and further away from God.

More importantly,

Romans 5:20-21:
The law was brought in so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

 

[fhansen]

I suppose it has to do with justification and sanctification. The former is complete in this world and the latter is only complete in the afterlife.

And yet justification is said to involve imputed righteousness only as I understand it with the doctrine of Sola Fide. This is one area where Protestantism and Catholicism divide, because Catholicism maintains that more than an imputed righteousness occurs at justification, that we're truly made right or just by God: His seed, His life, now implanted into us which is meant to grow into greater and greater holiness. Justification and sanctification are sort of part and parcel of the same thing, IOW.

 

[Teofrastus]

And yet justification is said to involve imputed righteousness only as I understand it with the doctrine of Sola Fide. This is one area where Protestantism and Catholicism divide, because Catholicism maintains that more than an imputed righteousness occurs at justification, that we're truly made right or just by God: His seed, His life, now implanted into us which is meant to grow into greater and greater holiness. Justification and sanctification are sort of part and parcel of the same thing, IOW.

Luther also connects the two. His view is that justification and sanctification are related like cause and effect, and from the presence of the effect we may conclude that the cause is at work (Sermon; 1 John 3). Thus, we remain sinners, but without an impending doom weighing down on us. Justification is a pronouncement, sanctification a process. We grow in Christ-likeness, whatever that means. Says Luther:

[A]lthough we cannot get rid of sin altogether in this life and some of it always remains, even in the most saintly, yet believers have the comfort that these sins are covered for them through the forgiveness of Christ and are not put to their account for condemnation as long as they continue to believe in Christ. (WA 46, 39)​

The Catholic view is older and more metaphysical in that we are somehow transformed into the very substance of Christ. From a more modern Lutheran perspective, the change occurs in how we function, for instance, in the thoughts we have. It corresponds to the different views of the Eucharist. In Catholicism, the transubstantiation is metaphysical.

 

[Teofrastus]

[...] Romans 5:20-21:
The law was brought in so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

This is key to understanding Luther's view of the law. It condemns the subject so that, in the end, he has no other choice than to turn to faith as only solution.

 

[fhansen]

This is key to understanding Luther's view of the law. It condemns the subject so that, in the end, he has no other choice than to turn to faith as only solution.

In the Catholic view the righteousness spoken of in Rom 5:17 speaks of a real righteousness imparted. We turn to faith, we turn to God, IOW, to receive the authentic righteousness that the law could never provide, rather than receiving a carte blanc reprieve from the penalty for unrighteousness. We're given faith, hope, and love, life by the Spirit, grace, as now God indwells us. There's no condemnation in Christ because sin can now be overcome for those who are sons of God, and remain so. Rom 8:1-4,12-14

 

[fhansen]

Luther also connects the two. His view is that justification and sanctification are related like cause and effect, and from the presence of the effect we may conclude that the cause is at work (Sermon; 1 John 3). Thus, we remain sinners, but without an impending doom weighing down on us. Justification is a pronouncement, sanctification a process. We grow in Christ-likeness, whatever that means. Says Luther:

[A]lthough we cannot get rid of sin altogether in this life and some of it always remains, even in the most saintly, yet believers have the comfort that these sins are covered for them through the forgiveness of Christ and are not put to their account for condemnation as long as they continue to believe in Christ. (WA 46, 39)​

The Catholic view is older and more metaphysical in that we are somehow transformed into the very substance of Christ. From a more modern Lutheran perspective, the change occurs in how we function, for instance, in the thoughts we have. It corresponds to the different views of the Eucharist. In Catholicism, the transubstantiation is metaphysical.

The Catholic view is that we're now reconciled and in communion with God, which is how man was created to be. We live in a state of injustice to the extent that we're alienated or apart from Him. Sin can be overcome now-with Him- and yet sinless perfection is not expected or required in this life. But if we're persistently and unrepentantly engaged is such serious sins as outlined in Gal 5 and Rev 22, as examples, then we've already broken that communion, that state of justice; we've turned back away from God. He's given us the means to overcome sin, and that's the road we're to be on, and progressing on. We know His mercy and forgiveness but we're mocking all that, taking it for granted, if we remain embroiled in sin since we've now been freed from its slavery. So even though we know that He forgives, we can never use that as an excuse to feel free to sin, or to bask in the knowledge that we're automatically forgiven as long as we profess faith. If we remain in our sins, then nothing has changed; Christ died for nought.

Perhaps you can comment on how justification should be the cause of sanctification, and whether or not sanctification is 1) necessary in order to enter heaven, and 2) guaranteed to those who have been justified.

 

[Teofrastus]

Perhaps you can comment on how justification should be the cause of sanctification, and whether or not sanctification is 1) necessary in order to enter heaven, and 2) guaranteed to those who have been justified.

In Luther, as God justifies man, God also sanctifies man. The Christian has been freed from the necessity to merit salvation. It means that he no longer has an eye to self-salvation or self-sanctification, but is freed for the opportunity to exteriorize his love and overcome his incurved nature. Because man cannot sanctify himself, it must be the work of the Holy Spirit, apart from human activity. Our corrupt will makes us incapable of doing good. In fact, we don't really know what "doing good" means, only the Holy Spirit knows. But sanctification equips the believer for Christian service, makes us free, and gives us power to do good.

Sanctification means the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in man. As a result of daily faith, the Spirit is operative in the believer's life. Faith means the trust and confidence of the heart whereby Christ is apprehended. Christ is present in faith itself and forgives our sins daily. He "dwells in our hearts by such faith and purifies us daily by His own proper work" (WE 10). It's important to understand that justification means that man possesses "a righteousness not his own", which is the righteousness of Christ.

Thus, sanctification purifies the believer. But this does not mean that the battle against sin abates. Rather, "the more godly a man is, the more does he feel that battle" (Commentary on Galatians). Although a man's sin is forgiven, he does not cease to be a sinner. We mustn't strive after sinless perfection; we are only required to keep our animal nature on a leash: "I do not require of you that you should utterly put off the flesh or kill it, but that you shall bridle and subdue it" (ibid.). Personally, I am perplexed by the difficulties that Christians have with the call to control their lustful nature. We don't need to overeat or go to any excesses. I have no problem with it. As a rule, animals have no problem with it, either. Animals don't overindulge in anything but tend to be quite levelheaded. We should learn from the animals, such as the cat species.

The real problem, of course, is the sins of the soul, the many forms of evil will. Although a Christian is always a sinner, he is righteous in respect to the Holy Spirit. The battle in the soul never abates; but the Christ always comes out victorious. Our sins are repeatedly forgiven, and again and again we are justified in faith. It ensures our place in heaven. Sanctification is the work of the Holy Spirit, and thus we needn't worry about it. We only need to live in faith while our souls are being purified from the many forms of evil will. The process of sanctification leads to the healing of the soul from original sin. Accordingly, we more and more approximate wholeness, and in the process we come closer to God. But we can never acquire perfect wholeness in this life. We are saved anyway, thanks to Jesus Christ.