I’ve not had jaw surgery and I’ve got Sunday, Christmas Eve, and Christmas day messages lurking, so I really do not have time to engage this discussion, but a couple of quick thoughts on a couple of the texts you mentioned I just did not have time to engage all of them.

Ephesians 6 (don’t have time to exegete it thoroughly) – I will just say you cannot ignore the phrase ‘in the lord’ and also ask is it true that all obedient children are in fact given long life and prosperity in the land? Was that true of Abel was it true of the perfectly obedient Christ? Or dare we ask that ‘in the lord’ is tied to the true land and in the lord has everything to do with being in the land. Also each of the relationships in the immediate context is marked by language that establishes the duties contemplated on the ground of union with Christ: “wives be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord” (5:22); “slaves, be obedient to your masters … as slaves of Christ”

Lk 6:38 – no where in the context is this stated as motivation – it is a general principle on how the world Works. Context of text: Loving our enemies. Warning of judging others by a standard we can’t even meet. The context is verse 36 which is to be merciful as the Father is merciful (How do we know the Father’s mercy – gospel) Mercy must always moderate – yes the mercy that has already been given us – gospel. The text is saying if you use the law as your standard you are in trouble – you can’t meet the standard of the law. The text actually supports the gospel as the motivation and is actually warning us of what befalls those who wish to be judged by the standard and measurement of the law. No one really wants personally to me measured by the standard of justice. We want mercy. A mercy that is rooted in Christ’s love for us.

The danger of our day is we tend to have a pragmatic view of life. I’m concerned you may be saying the cross is not enough. You mention you can’t understand the cross or grace enough so God gave you the law with some quid pro quo. I can’t go there nor does any biblical preaching go there because if I give you the law then I give you to yourself. That is why it is imperative that every pulpit that says it stands for the gospel must preach Christ. Jesus is my congregation’s only hope not some pragmatic ethic for changing personal behavior. We cry out for something practical so we can get from point A to point B – work it out for me. Make it programmable so we can run it on the computer. I passionately believe I have nothing to give my people but Christ because Scripture gives me nothing but Christ! (all the promised of God are yes in Christ!) Where do I point my congregation to get and find the strength to measure and judge rightly? Where do children get the strength to obey their parents? Is it in them? Romans 1:16 – tells us the power is in the gospel. The good news is The One with no specks in his eyes has taken all of my specks so that I may see more clearly.

I also would tell you that if you are a child of God you already have every possible spiritual blessing in Christ (Eph). You don’t need to earn or get more of God’s blessing. You have it all in Christ in whom you are hidden and are all the treasures of wisdom – the truth truly has set us free.

I again urge you to read the suggestion’s bryce has listed knowing that discussion is a paradigm discussion that will not be resolved by proof texting. Also answering his questions related to the gospel may be helpful.

With much grace!

brad

I think it’s great that your using the extra time you have to think about these things. Here are a couple articles that you might enjoy reading:
Tim Keller on The Centrality of the Gospel
Tim Keller on Preaching in a Post-Modern City
Mike Horton on Preaching Christ Alone

Bryce, thinking about what you said in part I of God’s Law, and about the preaching in various churches, I found what you said really interesting (in a good way). Today, I was trying to test what you said a good sermon should be like against how Jesus preached. Using the sermon on the mount as an example, I find that Jesus at various points seems to be preaching a bit like the preachers you mentioned. (Good thing I’m in Australia; it makes it harder to stone me from over there!) Eg. In regard to murder and anger (Mt 5:21-26), he talks about resolving differences with people but doesn’t point to an underlying sin or how the gospel helps me avoid anger against my brother. In regard to adultery (Mt 5:27-30), he recommends gouging out the eye. There is no appeal to God’s grace and goodness in helping us to avoid the sin. The same applies for other topics covered, like divorce, oaths, treasures, etc. Not to say that the gospel not applicable, just that sometimes not everything is preached on a given topic in a given sermon. Certainly, Jesus also does point to God’s grace in the sermon, eg. in regard to loving our enemies (Mt 5:44-45), worrying (Mt 6:25-30) and asking (Mt 7:11).

Also, in the parable of the sower (Mt 13:3-9, 18-23), Jesus doesn’t explain to his disciples how the gospel helps us have good soil to receive his Word. He’s essentially explaining spritual mechanics, it seems.

While all this preaching was done before his death and resurrection, a similar style is used when Jesus addresses the churches in Revelations. Eg. In his message to the church in Ephesus(Rev 2:1-7), Jesus says to “Remember the height from which you have fallen! Repent and do the things you did at first…” (Rev 2:5, NIV). In his message to the church in Thyatira, (Rev 2:18-29) he admonishes them, even saying he “will repay each of you according to your deeds.” (Rev 2:23, NIV). He doesn’t go through the gospel again, or even the applicable part of the gospel, that I can tell, in addressing the issues. He sounds a bit like a fire and brimstone preacher. (BTW, I heard someone say recently that it’s fine to preach about hell and damnation, as long as you can do it with tears in your eyes, which I thought was very insightful).

I don’t want to diminish the value of the gospel at all, and I think your suggestion of a sermon structure (and Brad’s opinion on how to judge whether a sermon is good or not – ie one that makes us more in love with God) is great. But I’m just a bit hesitant about strictly applying a formula to all sermons / messages. A bit like the Lord’s prayer – I’m sure it provides a great structure for our prayers, but when Jesus prays in the garden of Gethsemane, his prayer is structured somewhat differently.

OK, I’m braced for the stones now.

As to Brad’s comments about law and grace, and exhortations to holy living(and I think this is somewhat of a different topic, so apologies if I’m a bit off tangent), I was thinking about that last night. Clearly, the motivations for holy living should always be based on God’s grace and love – 1 Cor 13:1-3. But taking up Brad’s challenge to look at NT writings on holy living, quite often there are other motivations cited. Eg. Lk 6:38 (give, and it will be given back with a good measure), Eph 6:2-3 (honor parents so we can enjoy a long life), and 1 Th 4:6-7 (the threat of punishment for wronging a brother, which seems quite legalistic). They’re hardly great motivations for righteous living, certainly not compared to that of love for God and others, a response to God’s grace. In fact, they sound quite lawful (excuse the pun) – do this, and this will (or won’t) happen. Giving so I can get back sounds a bit like a bank “giving” a loan.

But I think God put these in because he knows that, for people like me, my grasp of his grace is not quite that firm, and my love for him is not quite perfect (OK, a bit of an understatement…!). So in his grace, I think he gives us stepping stones; if I do things partly out of love, and partly because I want his blessings, then at least it’s a start. If I avoid sin because I know the consequences, then that’s a start too. Yes, I’d like to live entirely from love and my understanding of his grace, but I’m not there yet and God knows it.

I suppose it’s a bit like the fear of God being a good thing, even though perfect love casts out all fear. But that really is a tangent!

Anyway, when I first read the posts on the topic, I could see how beliefs/faith should drive practice/works – 1 Th 1:3, 2 Th 1:11, Mt 23:26. Putting a distinction between the two therefore seemed illogical. But I do like to challenge my own views, so I tried thinking about the other side of the coin.

I have to say, I don’t think it’s a one way flow from beliefs/faith into practice/works. Crucially, in Jas 2:22, the Bible says that Abraham’s faith “was made complete by what he did”. So faith begets works, but works complete faith (not my line, I read it somewhere). I think somehow, when we put things into practice, it cements our beliefs; God’s Word becomes more permanent in us – Jas 1:22-25. Otherwise, I suppose it might be like the seed falling on stony ground – received with joy but without root (Mt 13:20-21).

So I don’t disagree with what’s been said here, but I guess I’ve fine-tuned my own view.

As to law / gospel… Well, that’s another matter, huh? Lunch is calling.

I believe the law / gospel contrast to be a defining view of Scripture, thus important to maintain. Paul does not view the Law and Gospel as a continuum but a contrast. The Law and the Gospel are founded on antithetical principles. In Romans 4, he uses an analogy from every day life. The Law is like earning a wage that one deserves. The Gospel, on the other hand, is like receiving a gift that one does not deserve

Paul was a Christ-intoxicated teacher of grace. Paul was often accused of preaching grace as a license for sin – (see his anticipation of that argument in Romans 6), but he was actually very concerned to promote holy living. But he believed that holy living is not promoted by placing believers under the Law but by leading them to Christ in whose death they have died and in whose resurrection they have been raised to walk in the new life of the Spirit.

In fact, if you go to the New Testament writings and all of their exhortations to holy living – the writers never instruct or point to church to the law as the motivating factor for holy living or keeping from sin. I Cor 6 and the immoral brother is a classic example. The church is not instructed to flee immorality because the 7th commandment says so or because bad consequences will come to your marriage or life. No we don’t commit adultery because we should never desire to join Christ to a prostitute. Try a study on the books of the New Testament and see if the writers point us back to the law or do they point us to our union with Christ (gospel)?

As to thoughts on ‘living under duress’ – I can go there. One of the ways I like to speak of my growth in sanctification is to see if I’m growing in my desperation. Am I growing in my desperation and daily need of Christ? Do I understand more and more that NOTHING can satisfy me, but Jesus. See II Corinthians for an Apostle who ‘lived under duress’ and rejoiced because it put him at the feet of Christ.

Enough ramblings – good thoughts Bryce they are illuminating – In our current reformed climate –I take heart when it is suggested I’m sounding Lutheran .

Ashley, I’m not entirely persuaded–may I say I think “opportunity to serve” would be a better category than “duress”? and perhaps we’ll agree, or nearly–but I think your heading is sound, only do think of 1 Cor 7. Last word’s yours (whether that was it or you have more) on this one.

I did trackback, and will be posting more on Derrida in days to come. I welcome further interaction!

Cheers,
PGE