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

[fhansen]

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.

I guess the question comes down to whether or not a believer can sin, commit deeds of the flesh, oppose God's will deeply or seriously and persistently enough to alienate him from God all over again. Or can no sin do that anyway as long as one believes? Or is the believer really immune from engaging in that kind of sin?

 

[Teofrastus]

I guess the question comes down to whether or not a believer can sin, commit deeds of the flesh, oppose God's will deeply or seriously and persistently enough to alienate him from God all over again. Or can no sin do that anyway as long as one believes? Or is the believer really immune from engaging in that kind of sin?

It's plain to see that a believer who again and again falls to sin does not bring condemnation upon himself. He does not lose his salvation. But he who loses Christ loses eternal life. Breaking the "law of Christ" (Galatians 6:2) has worse consequences than breaking the law of Moses. After all, the latter only meant that you were executed without mercy. Of course, the law of Christ is not a 'law' in the Mosaic sense, because grace has replaced law (John 1:17). John speaks much about the 'commandment', which means to abide in Christ (1 John 3:24). We must cleave to Christ and hold fast to the cross. The point is that Christ is the fulfilment of the law. Jesus Christ isn't being righteous; he is righteousness itself. Also Matthew speaks about the obligations Christ places upon believers in the gospel (Matthew 28:20). The commandment is to have faith in Christ, in which case we have fulfilled the law, because Christ is its fulfillment. This is the only way to fulfil every iota of the law. But the follower of Mosaic law will bring condemnation upon himself, because he has repudiated faith in Christ as the only way of fulfilling the law.

A Christian must not think that if I do 'this' and 'that', show tolerance and magnanimity, then I am saved. In fact, to think so is a hindrance for salvation, as it displaces abandonment to Christ. In modern Judaism it suffices to fulfil the law partially, which means that it is today more of a culture than a religion. It is the same with Islam. I think that many a "cultural Christian" has a similar mindset, thinking that he is only required to follow the rules sufficiently well. No! These are the "lukewarm" Christians to whom Jesus says: "I never knew you; depart from me, you who practice lawlessness" (Matthew 7:23).

In a way, the Christian message is harsher than in any other religion. Although heaven and hell aren't physical places, our mind can remain in either heaven or hell. Neither science nor philosophy has come close to understanding the mystery of the conscious mind. In a dream forum a man posted a dream which had caused him much anxiety. He was in a gloomy featureless landscape that stretched to the horizon in all directions. There he sat on a huge pile of human corpses, munching on their flesh. This is a picture of hell. It could well be our end station. I don't know how one can rule this out, considering that we don't understand the mysteries of the mind. Hebrews 10:28-29 gives a fair warning.

 

[Light on the Hill]

Yes, but like I said, the NT does not follow Pauline theology, and especially not Matthew, which is a Judaizing document. I represent Pauline theology whereas you represent a theology inclined towards Judaism, which is perhaps the majority standpoint today. Matthew is a wonderful gospel, but theologically wrong.

So we are holding certain gospels above others now are we? So who had it correct in the early church then, was it the Ebionites with the Gospel of Matthew or Marcion with the Gospel of Luke?

We know today that Paul was close to being branded a heretic by the early Church, and this explains why the early Church Fathers Justin and Papias never mention him. However, the Church could not take this step, in view of the fact that his letters were already so popular. (Still today they are the most read and discussed documents of the NT.) They could not surrender Paul to the Marcionites and the Gnostics, as it would only give them grist to their mill. So, around 150 CE, the Acts of the Apostles was created, in order to canonize Paul and his letters. John Knox says that "[t]he book of Acts serves the double purpose of exalting and idealizing Paul and at the same time definitely subordinating him to the leaders at Jerusalem" (Marcion and the New Testament, p. 120). Words that really belong to Paul are put in Peter's mouth, although Peter was a Judaizer and theologically opposed to Paul. In this way, the Catholic Church created an unsteady compromise, which was bound to create confusion and later a tragic fracture.

If this is the case, then why should we trust Paul if his legitimacy was questioned in the early church? Not sure if you have heard of the blog/channel Jesus' Words Only. I don't agree with everything the author presents, but your arguments are starting to make some of his criticisms more valid. People with views such as yourself are exactly why the man became an anti-Paulinian.

James is a Judaist, an opponent of Paul. I wish that Christians stopped fixating on 'lusts'. Without 'lust' we wouldn't get out of the bed in the morning, and how much good could we do then? Pride is the root of all sin, says Augustine.

So who do we listen to then? Everyone here agrees that Jesus is the ultimate authority, but then the question is who speaks best for Him? Is it Peter, the man who was considered one of Jesus' closest disciples while He was on earth and who He told had the authority to bind that on earth to heaven? His brother James who he grew up with, followed the law as a righteous and just man, and was given authority at the Jerusalem counsel? Or perhaps Paul who was given divine revelation by Christ Himself (if this is even true, I want to start a thread somewhere [if allowed anywhere] on the site to see if people think Paul's vision near Damascus was actually of Jesus, just not sure where would be appropriate).

 

[Teofrastus]

So we are holding certain gospels above others now are we? So who had it correct in the early church then, was it the Ebionites with the Gospel of Matthew or Marcion with the Gospel of Luke?

If this is the case, then why should we trust Paul if his legitimacy was questioned in the early church? Not sure if you have heard of the blog/channel Jesus' Words Only. I don't agree with everything the author presents, but your arguments are starting to make some of his criticisms more valid. People with views such as yourself are exactly why the man became an anti-Paulinian.

So who do we listen to then? Everyone here agrees that Jesus is the ultimate authority, but then the question is who speaks best for Him? Is it Peter, the man who was considered one of Jesus' closest disciples while He was on earth and who He told had the authority to bind that on earth to heaven? His brother James who he grew up with, followed the law as a righteous and just man, and was given authority at the Jerusalem counsel? Or perhaps Paul who was given divine revelation by Christ Himself (if this is even true, I want to start a thread somewhere [if allowed anywhere] on the site to see if people think Paul's vision near Damascus was actually of Jesus, just not sure where would be appropriate).

Klaus Nürnberger (Martin Luther's message for us today) explains that the doctrine of inerrancy has caused much damage:

Catholics claim authority, infallibility and perfection for the entire ecclesial tradition. The Scriptures are an early part of the tradition. Protestant Orthodoxy claims authority, infallibility and perfection only for the Scriptures themselves, not for the subsequent tradition. That is the only difference. (p. 98)​

Thus, Protestant theologians established Protestant fundamentalism:

...in its doctrines on the Scriptures, Protestant Orthodoxy is just as far removed from the insights of Luther as Catholicism is. Gone is the emphasis on the preached Word (viva vox Evangelii), the role of the Spirit to unlock the meaning of 'dead letters', the exclusive criterion of 'what promulgates Christ' (or the gospel of God's redeeming grace), the analysis of the meaning of particular texts, and the freedom and obligation to scrutinise the form and the contents of such texts.​

[...]​

Although Luther respected the authority of the Scriptures as source of God's Word, he had found an internal criterion of truth within the Scriptures, namely "what promulgates Christ", or the gospel of God's redeeming grace, in contradistinction to God's accusing and condemning law. He used this criterion of truth against all kinds of authority, including the Scriptures where applicable.​

For Luther the principles of the Reformation (by grace alone, by faith alone, the Scriptures alone, Christ alone) thus formed one integral package. The Scriptures were not an authority in their own right. Their validity depended on a fundamental theological criterion, the gospel of Christ.​

All this changed a few generations later when the school of 'Protestant Orthodoxy' tried to establish a dogmatic system that could hold its ground against its formidable Catholic counterpart. Protestant Orthodoxy countered Catholic fundamentalism, based on the infallibility of the tradition (including the Bible) with Protestant fundamentalism based on the infallibility of the Scriptures alone. In both cases, the rationale was the legitimation of ecclesial doctrine, rather than a careful exegesis of biblical texts. (pp. 98-99)​

So Protestant Orthodoxy aspired to the same kind of unshakable foundation as the Catholics, which only meant that they adopted a new kind of legalism. It runs counter to Luther's dialectical approach to biblical authority, which his followers were unable to maintain:

When the Spirit speaks to us, the Word of God becomes a very personal matter. It should not simply be identified with the words of Scripture, nor with the words of the preacher.​

[...]​

It is clear that, for Luther, the redeeming grace of God could never have been 'deposited' somewhere, whether in an ancient book, an ecclesial hierarchy, a body of doctrines, or the authority of the pope. It had to be disclosed by the Spirit here and now to concrete people in concrete situations. (p. 95)​

Biblicism is a tragic development of Christianity. We shouldn't look upon biblical texts as inerrant, as if they were perfect paragraphs in a law book. Rather, we should let the text speak to us and inspire us. Nothing is perfect, but everything in the world is corrupted by original sin. Who do we listen to then? According to Luther's criterion, it is the one who promulgates Christ. The Word of God is a very personal matter.

 

[Yekcidmij]

We have an evil inclination (yetzer hara) and a good inclination (yetzer tov), and the law of sin is the evil inclination, which is in accordance with Judaism and Christianity.

The concept in Judaism is a very similar, but a little different from Christian views, particularly when dealing with "original sin." On the Jewish view, the yetzer hara is not sinful in itself and is just part of how God made us. The impulse to sin can be turned around and used for good rather than givin in to it. It becomes sinful when the impulse leads to sinful behavior. Typically, on the Christian view the "yetzer hara" is part of man's nature due to the fall, and this is itself a sin.

While both agree that there is an impulse to sin (the yetzer hara), and that this impulse is inevitably acted on by everyone, there is usually a disagreement over its origin and nature. Usually.

 

[FireDragon76]

The problem is that we cannot know in advance what is godly and ungodly, righteous and unrighteous, because we can no longer rely on the Torah. It belongs to the first revelation, which is outdated. Today, we can only achieve this by acquiring the mind of Christ, by renouncing the egoic homo incurvatus in se, sinful man as curved in upon himself (Augustine and Luther). But, because we live in a fallen world, a Christian must remain simultaneously righteous and a sinner and can only hope to be close to Christ, not like him. We get guidance by the Holy Spirit, but only if we live in faith with a lack of pretension. That's why Jesus and Paul give us barely any rules to follow, other than being a decent citizen. In Galatians, Paul is outraged when Peter refuses to dine with the non-Jewish Christians. It goes against the only rule that Christians are expected to follow, namely being respectful to all. To this day, few Christians succeed in following this rule. Maybe you're right, maybe the few Christians who succeed in being humble have fulfilled the law and are blessed for eternity.

Anyway, the path to salvation is no longer to follow outward rules. Rather, it is a process of maturation in which we become excurvatus ex se, no longer curved in upon ourselves. To this end, the law of God becomes our torturer; but this is so only because we remain curved in upon ourselves. The first thing for a Christian to realize, is that we do not really know what is the law of God. We do not know in every situation what it means to be good. Only God knows, and that's why we need the guidance of the Holy Spirit.



Yes, but like I said, the NT does not follow Pauline theology, and especially not Matthew, which is a Judaizing document. I represent Pauline theology whereas you represent a theology inclined towards Judaism, which is perhaps the majority standpoint today. Matthew is a wonderful gospel, but theologically wrong.



In truth, our evil inclination is empowered by good, because evil is nihil. Luther explains in De Servo that God animates all in all, also in the ungodly man, who equally receives the divine light but then turns it into evil. It's like a carpenter cutting badly with a chipped and jagged axe. The ungodly man is lacking in wholeness; his axe is unsharp and little pieces are missing from its edge. This is the cause of evil will, enpowered by the good. Compare with the sun. The sun is good; but if the land cannot receive its rays and spawn vegetation, the earth is scorched and soon turns into desert.

Stark light creates dark shadows. The brighter the shine the darker the human evil. More wealth leads to more corruption. The richer the society the more powerful the mafia. It is due to original sin, equal to human imperfection, equal to lack of wholeness. A deficit in our soul is what engenders evil will. According to the doctrine of original sin we are born imperfect, like jagged axes. We all cut badly, although some worse and some better.

So there are no independent dual powers, as in Manichaeism. There is only the power of good that feeds an evil hupostasis, parasitic on the good (Proclus). It means that any human person who manifests exalted goodness has also an infernal shadow, and the brighter he shines the darker becomes his shadow. That's why we must beware of do-gooders.

Sin is the shadow of God's law, just like Paul says. God's law causes both growth and deterioration, similar to the sun. But nobody would deny that the sun is good. There is no pre-defined evil inclination and no pre-defined good inclination, because we do not have recourse to a divine law which defines good and evil. We just cut with our jagged axes and think that we're doing good, even though we're doing evil. Stalin thought that he was doing good by executing dissidents, because it would lead to the Communist paradise. Hitler though that he was doing good by murdering Jews and thereby exterminating the corrupting power of evil from the glorious Aryan empire. The Muslims continue to murder infidels for the good cause of the Caliphate. They are all do-gooders.

In the US "be a decent person" is actually ridiculed by some Christians as the ethics of "liberals", but I think that just shows what a stumbling block the Gospel is.

 

[FireDragon76]

Less Luther more Bible.

Sin only has power when we commit it. It separates us from God within whom we have life.

And yet Paul says nothing separates us from the love of God in Christ. The issue isn't whether humanity can reach God through our obedience, but that God has taken hold of humanity. The bridge between humanity and God has been bridged by God himself, therefore the works we do are not to earn a place in heaven, but because loving our neighbor is the right thing to do in itself.

 

[HIM]

And yet Paul says nothing separates us from the love of God in Christ. The issue isn't whether humanity can reach God through our obedience, but that God has taken hold of humanity. The bridge between humanity and God has been bridged by God himself, therefore the works we do are not to earn a place in heaven, but because loving our neighbor is the right thing to do in itself.

Continuing in willful sin does

 

[fhansen]

Continuing in willful sin does

Yes, Romans 8 tells us that there’s no condemnation for those who’re in Christ. But we must read that whole chapter, that whole letter, to understand why. It’s because, through faith, we’ve been reconciled and translated into new creations, now able to walk with God, by the Spirit, under grace, doing His will as slaves to righteousness that results in life instead of to sin that causes death. To the extent that we truly remain in Him, we’ll live rightly.

 

[B Griffin]

Heikki Räisänen (Paul and the Law, 1987) is critical of Paul and what he sees as the many self-contradictions and ambiguities in Paul’s position.

Sounds like he questions the validity of the Bible.

Paul sets up the antithesis of faith and works and paradoxically claims that the law is overcome and yet remains valid.

Sounds like he doesn't understand the Bible.

Räisänen says that Paul “is torn into two directions, and he is incapable of resolving the tension in terms of theological thought” (p. 264).

Sounds like he is the one who is torn in two directions.

But this is the predicament of life! We are indeed torn into two directions.

I'm not torn in two directions. I died to the law that I may live to Christ. Paul was not torn in two directions. But anyone who tries to hold on to the law and the gospel at the same time are torn in two directions.

Luther’s theology of the cross builds on Paul’s radical dualism of law and Gospel, and he manages to make sense of Paul’s paradoxical theology. But Räisänen does not engage with Luther in this book.

Nor can the author make sense of Paul’s view that it is his own teaching that really ‘upholds’ the law.

That is a strange thing to say about an inspired work. Even I can understand Romans 3:31 -- The law is solid. It cannot be broken. Everyone who breaks it is gonna die and go to hell forever. Period. But wait a minute. There is Jesus. He died with all our iniquities laid upon Him. Trust Him and you will be taken out from under the law and be put under grace. This does not represent a "radical dualism of law and gospel".

Arguably, it is rhetorical. Paul thinks that it is not good enough if one upholds 80% of the 613 Mosaic regulations (provided that law is defined simply as Torah). If we’re going to follow the law, 100% is required. But because “all are under sin”, nobody can manage this, and the only way out is to turn to the Gospel. Thus, Paul makes sense, after all. The demonic power of the law forces people into the fold of the Gospel. This is also how Luther sees it.

Good for Luther. But it is not rhetorical.

The author thinks that Paul gives his readers a distorted picture of Judaic religion, i.e., as anthropocentric legalism in which the law is an end in itself.

It is obvious that the author has a distorted view of the Bible.

Thus, he agrees with the modern critique of the legalistic picture of ancient Judaism. Indeed, according to Judaic theology this is completely wrong. But it is a different thing on the level of everyday life. We know how hypocritical people are, how they project themselves as righteous and upstanding citizens in order to secure a high status in society. It is part of original sin, and that’s why Paul associates the law with sin. He probably had good reasons to think that the law encourages hypocrisy, falsity and a tendency of being judgmental towards others. We must also analyze the effects of theology on human psychology.

Räisänen explains that, elsewhere in the NT, “faith comes in as a complement to obedience to the law, making good the lack of perfection as regards the latter” (p. 195). It would mean that there is no essential conflict between law and Gospel.

The author obviously does not understand that the call to godly living is not a call to submit to the law.

The conclusion is that Paul is alone in early Christianity with his law/Gospel dualism.

That's rediculous.

The author is probably right in this, and that’s why we are so lucky to have Paul’s letters. I’m impressed by the author’s scholarly knowledge but not by his understanding of Paul, which is shallow.

Not only shallow, but completely wrong. A person can not hold on to the law and grace at the same time. That's why the author is confused.

I give the book three stars.

Why?

 

[FireDragon76]

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 best they had was "Do what is in you". But supposed you are one of the numerous "have nots" of society, that's hardly good news...

 

[FireDragon76]

Yes, Romans 8 tells us that there’s no condemnation for those who’re in Christ. But we must read that whole chapter, that whole letter, to understand why. It’s because, through faith, we’ve been reconciled and translated into new creations, now able to walk with God, by the Spirit, under grace, doing His will as slaves to righteousness that results in life instead of to sin that causes death. To the extent that we truly remain in Him, we’ll live rightly.

We are not in him by our own doing, but by the free gift of God in Christ. There are certain sacramental acts that confirm this grace, but they are not in themselves meritorious deeds or good works, rewards.

 

[fhansen]

We are not in him by our own doing, but by the free gift of God in Christ. There are certain sacramental acts that confirm this grace, but they are not in themselves meritorious deeds or good works, rewards.

We’re free to leave Him.

 

[Mark Quayle]

We’re free to leave Him.

"We're free to leave Him"? We're cheap to leave Him. (Which is why who is saved, and how they are saved, all depends on HIM, and not on us.)

 

[fhansen]

"We're free to leave Him"? We're cheap to leave Him. (Which is why who is saved, and how they are saved, all depends on HIM, and not on us.)

Nope, its both/and, since the beginning of Christianity. Anything else is a novel invention or misunderstanding of Scripture.

 

[FireDragon76]

James is a Judaist, an opponent of Paul. I wish that Christians stopped fixating on 'lusts'. Without 'lust' we wouldn't get out of the bed in the morning, and how much good could we do then? Pride is the root of all sin, says Augustine.

What really shocked me was reading Hebrews in a Bible study and really realizing "OK, I really can't relate to this". Hebrews is a seemingly unending laundry list of warnings about losing your salvation, constantly beating that drum. Frankly, I thought at times the tone bordered on abusive - here's a community that's probably under enormous pressure, and alot of fear is being pushed on them about how they don't want to be like their ancestors who perished in the desert. Unless I am missing something, that's not much of a pep talk...

Alot of the later pseudoepgraphic epistles are obsessed with keeping Christians, especially women, in line, and conforming to Greco-Roman cultural norms. They also tend to harken back alot to Old Testament imagery more than Paul, who seems to have a much more unique theology of Christ.

 

[FireDragon76]

Soyeong, do you purify a house suffering from 'leprosy' (meaning that it has "greenish or reddish depressions that appear to be deeper than the surface of the wall") with a bird's blood? (Leviticus 14:52). No? Then you're a breaker of the law! Have you ever sat where a menstruating woman has sat and not undergone a cleaning ritual? (Leviticus 15:19-21). No? Then you're a breaker of the law! You ought to suffer the same fate as the king of Ai, then!

There are so many stupid laws, and so many cruel laws, in the OT. Homosexuality is a capital crime, and sexual intercourse with a woman who was known to be menstruating is also a capital crime. But this has nothing to do with the Gospel of Jesus. How can one argue that Jesus wanted us to fulfil such perverse laws? It is unrealistic to think so, considering the content of Jesus's mission. Jesus and Paul had nothing else than the OT to build on, but we have! Arguably, the OT should be uncanonized and declared apocryphal, because it is incompatible with the Gospel message. It has again and again caused Christians to regress to a legalistic mindset inspired by Bronze Age laws. It is idiocy to believe that Joshua could command the sun and the moon to stand still (Joshua 10:13), and that a she-ass could speak (Numbers 22:28). Such nonsense is a burden for Christians. But from an uncanonical OT we could lift out freely what we find valuable, and reject the rest.

Adolph von Harnack thinks that Paul involves himself in difficulties, because "of the inadequacy of the means by which [he] thought that he could maintain the canonical recognition of the Old Testament" (Marcion, p. 133). After all, the law pervades the entire OT. On the other hand, he argues that the church did right in preserving it as a canonical document, despite the fact that it brought Christianity into a tragic conflict. But "still to preserve it in Protestantism as a canonical document since the nineteenth century is the consequence of a religious and ecclesiastical crippling" (p. 134).

Jesus says that "the sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath" (Mark 2:27). Thus, the law was made for man, and not man for the law. But the law-mongers throughout history have reasoned as if man was made in order to fulfil the law. This is a false view, according to Jesus; but it is exactly how Stalin reasoned. The only purpose in the life of a citizen is to keep the Communist society going. No! Society and its laws exist to serve the citizens. Thus, if the laws have played out their role, they shall be abolished. Von Harnack says:

Through the Reformation, biblicism, which even earlier was growing, received extraordinary strengthening, and this benefited the Old Testament, too. It is true that in the Lutheran territories its dubious effects were less strongly felt, but they were all the more powerful in the Anabaptist churches, in those churches formed by a mixture of Anabaptism and the Reformation, among which were the Calvinist churches. Here the Old Testament that was placed on a fully equal footing with the New Testament had an unhealthy effect on dogmatics, on piety, and on the practice of the Christian life. In some groups it even produced an Islamic zeal, while in others it called forth a new kind of Judaism and promoted everywhere a legalistic entity.​

​

[Churches] have been fearful about a break with tradition, while they do not see, or else they wrongly estimate, the far more fateful consequences that will continue to develop more and more from the maintenance of the Old Testament as a sacred and therefore infallible document. Yet the greatest number of objections that "the people" raise against Christianity and against the truthfulness of the church arise out of the recognition that the church still accords to the Old Testament. To clear the table here and to give the place of honor in confession and instruction—that is the great deed that is being demanded today, already almost too late, of Protestantism. (pp. 136-37)​

Jesus explains that from this point all knowledge of God would come through him (John 14:6-7; Matthew 11:27; Ephesians 2:18, etc.). It means that all the scholarly knowledge about the pre-history of Christianity, and all the expertise on the Mosaic law, constitute not a religious perspective but a secular one (cf. p. 138).

There's alot of good stuff in the OT. You just have to sift out what is relevant, and what basically only made sense to the Israelites. But if we put the OT on too high a pedestal, we cannot read it critically and understand it's cultural context. It just becomes a magical book that religious people use to justify whatever they want, as it contains so many different themes and political theologies.

My favorite proverb is one that American Christians need to take to heart, Proverbs 19:17: "Whoever is kind to a poor man lends to the LORD, and he will repay him." I've never heard that one in church, I wonder why? What I find interesting about the parable is the directness of it, without making any comparison, and it fits with some Christian mysticism, because people like St. Francis or St. Martin found the Lord in the poor.

 

[FireDragon76]

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

Alesteir McGrath, a church historian, believes that it did. I also agree, the emphasis on sola fide was novel. But I think it was a necessary corrective. Unfortunately, what has happened in the later part of the Reformation is that the full implications of the Gospel haven't been realized, and we have been lost in pietism, the "last gasp of religion", as Dietrich Bonhoeffer put it. Pietism degenerated into resurrecting the medieval religious spirit under a new, Protestant guise, what Bonhoeffer dubbed "inwardness".

 

[FireDragon76]

You have adopted the minimalistic view, which implies, among other things, that faith in Christ makes up what is lacking in one's 'righteousness' so far. Although one can find evidence for this view in the NT, the epistles are overwhelmingly for the more radical view, namely that the law belongs to the old covenant and that "Jesus has become a surety of a better covenant" (Hebrews 7:22). The law belongs to a bygone era:

In that He says, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away. (Hebrews 8:13)​

For this reason, the author of Hebrews explains that we must now cease from the works of the law, because the law was only milk for babies. We must try and discern for ourselves what is right and wrong:

For everyone who partakes only of milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, for he is a babe. But solid food belongs to those who are of full age, that is, those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil. (Hebrews 5:13-14)​

Thanks to the Lord, we are capable of a judgment of our own:

"...I will put My laws into their hearts, and in their minds I will write them," then He adds, "Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more." (Hebrews 10:16-17)​

Therefore we must enter a rest from works of the law:

There remains therefore a rest for the people of God. For he who has entered His rest has himself also ceased from his works as God did from His. Let us therefore be diligent to enter that rest, lest anyone fall according to the same example of disobedience. (Hebrews 4:8-11)​

The law is definitely out of date:

For on the one hand there is an annulling of the former commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness, for the law made nothing perfect; on the other hand, there is the bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God. (Hebrews 7:18-19)​

I concede that the view in Hebrews isn't entirely unproblematic. After all, it is easy to fool oneself. People will think that the Lord has put his law into their heart, while, in reality, they only pursue their own egoistic interests. But, suppose that you have stopped before a red light and an ambulance needs to get by. You can only let it through by driving against red. What do you do? Only an amoral baby would refuse to break the law. The author of Hebrews makes much sense.

Perhaps Paul and Hebrews are trying to speak to virtue instead of legalism, but lack the conceptual framework (not being philosophers)? I have often wondered about that. It seems the only reasonable conclusion to me.

 

[Teofrastus]

[...] I also agree, the emphasis on sola fide was novel. But I think it was a necessary corrective [...]

A necessary return to the roots, you mean. Pope Clement I (late 1st century) adhered to sola fide:

CHAPTER 32 -- WE ARE JUSTIFIED NOT BY OUR OWN WORKS, BUT BY FAITH.​

​

[...] All these, therefore, were highly honoured, and made great, not for their own sake, or for their own works, or for the righteousness which they wrought, but through the operation of His will. And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen. (Clement I, First Epistle)​