Puritan Sailor
Puritan Board Doctor
I found this great quote from C.S. Lewis yesterday.
From his introduction to On the Incarnation by St. Athanasius, pg. 8.
From his introduction to On the Incarnation by St. Athanasius, pg. 8.
C.S. Lewis on doctrinal vs. devotional books
- Thread starter Puritan Sailor
- Start date
- Status
Larry Hughes
Inactive User
Patrick,
I read that around 4 years ago and found it to be a great comfort to me. I was around a lot of emotionalism/experience driven works/pietism back then.
Lewis also said that there is one sure fire way to make a man NOT have a particular emotion. The thing: "Tell him to have the emotion/affection".
Think about the works that sets up in your mind! E.g., "I command you to have joy, you are commanded to be joyful." What happens next? The man goes to work trying to "have joy", in the process his working to "have joy" he can't get it right. The less right, in his mind it is, the more he sets himself to trying to obey, the more he tries to obey the less right and joy he actually has, the less rightness of it and joy he actually has, the more he works at it to get and etc... Pretty soon he loathes the joy he is seeking, but he really doesn't see the problem, so he keeps working and keeps growing, not in joy but in hatred of the object sought.
Lewis's point was only the true free and unconditional Gospel frees up to even set a man on the right track, ever so feeblly. If I don't "have to have joy" because Christ had it for me in my place perfectly and forever, then no command is upon me. Then that, only, sets forth the real joy and so forth - in the other direction. This is how the Gospel has the power that the Law can never give. This is what Luther meant when he said the true Christian in true faith never really "hears" command, yet since Christ fulfilled it once and for all, the believer then, by the Gospel, begins naturally toward being like Christ. The Law becomes a part of the believer's heart and he truly loves it. Ironically though, it is without the "command" itself but natural, like naturally living, no one commands us to live and then we set ourselves froth trying to live. Luther was no mystic, he understood the truth. Lewis's point is the same.
Blessings,
Larry
I read that around 4 years ago and found it to be a great comfort to me. I was around a lot of emotionalism/experience driven works/pietism back then.
Lewis also said that there is one sure fire way to make a man NOT have a particular emotion. The thing: "Tell him to have the emotion/affection".
Think about the works that sets up in your mind! E.g., "I command you to have joy, you are commanded to be joyful." What happens next? The man goes to work trying to "have joy", in the process his working to "have joy" he can't get it right. The less right, in his mind it is, the more he sets himself to trying to obey, the more he tries to obey the less right and joy he actually has, the less rightness of it and joy he actually has, the more he works at it to get and etc... Pretty soon he loathes the joy he is seeking, but he really doesn't see the problem, so he keeps working and keeps growing, not in joy but in hatred of the object sought.
Lewis's point was only the true free and unconditional Gospel frees up to even set a man on the right track, ever so feeblly. If I don't "have to have joy" because Christ had it for me in my place perfectly and forever, then no command is upon me. Then that, only, sets forth the real joy and so forth - in the other direction. This is how the Gospel has the power that the Law can never give. This is what Luther meant when he said the true Christian in true faith never really "hears" command, yet since Christ fulfilled it once and for all, the believer then, by the Gospel, begins naturally toward being like Christ. The Law becomes a part of the believer's heart and he truly loves it. Ironically though, it is without the "command" itself but natural, like naturally living, no one commands us to live and then we set ourselves froth trying to live. Luther was no mystic, he understood the truth. Lewis's point is the same.
Blessings,
Larry
VirginiaHuguenot
Puritanboard Librarian
Larry Hughes
Inactive User
Yep,
That's why Luther and Calvin and the continental reformers attached assurance to the objective Cross and not inwardly and subjectively. Because they knew how and where true fruit of the Spirit arises and where it doesn't and how it is stifled by the subjective.
That's the irony that many don't get in the Christian faith and our old man troubles us concerning true sanctification. Thus, we set ourselves to working, even "by the Spirit". When the old man "hears" God's Law say do/don't do xyz, the very fact that it is God's and religious sets us to false working and false piety to "do the law", even under the guise of sanctification. But this is false sanctification. The irony is is when we are MOST fixed upon the Cross and Gospel, then in reality the real fruits arise or rather come at us quite naturally. If we seek fruits, then they are not fruits though outwardly the "deed" be the same. But when we don't seek fruits and are fixed upon Christ/Gospel, the fruits come naturally. The Gospel literally frees one from the bondage of works which is sin then it naturally sets forth to do real good works. Its livliness is natural. How? It stops naming and distinguishing and measuring them. In short it turns our eyes onto Christ. Thus, all things arise as good works. It's an awakening if you will, using a different term, that is to be born again. One moment your religious and false and the old man is working under the guise of "christian sanctification" and its all false. But you don't recognize it as false, you think your doing right, EVEN and ESPECIALLY as a Christian, post conversion. Under the Law, due to sin and the old man, one still is fooled by such things as works, you've just changed the label from "justifying oneself by works" explicitly to "living the Christian life or "sanctification". One says, "I do it in the power of the Holy Spirit." But that's the old man, the Pharisee, using "christian language".
But true growth and sanctification never leaves the cross. The awakening, so to speak, is suddenly a strong realization of "EVEN IF I don't change one wit before I die, Christ's blood will count for me at the judgment". That shock or death blow to the old man is life to the new man, the Gospel is heard and it is shocking. When that happens the heart cheered and suddenly good works are everywhere and joyfully, with the old man fighting to get back to religious law works, done. Suddenly "good works" are not the top three church yard piety duties missions, evangelism and fasting. But rather everywhere, care for family, garden, job, and etc... Love for neighbor is done in this way, but because you don't have to do them AND when you fail (daily), the Gospel continues to give the power to keep on doing them. Why? Because NOW you realize IT REALLY REALLY REALLY IS Christ ALONE FOR ME PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE - I WILL GO TO HEAVEN FOR Christ SAKE ALONE, EVEN IF I DO OR DON'T DO ______! Now my works are free of religious pretense, which was never really there, the old man just thought it was.
Thus, the old man dies and the new arises. Thus, if more preachers would just get this, is how Christians are grown. But they never will as long as they have a list, a short list of churchyard piety they thing their congregation should look like. And when they don't look like it they say, "Ah HA, We need more law and good deeds preaching." But Paul said, "The Gospel is the power...". "No, no" says the poor blind preacher, "he meant something else under justification..."
This is why Luther could say very confidently that most men will blow and speak much about faith and good works, yet not know a single thing about either one.
It's against the grain to say that if the Gospel really frees 100 percent from the Law true works to which the Law points to will arise, even if we don't see them for a while or even not at all in our perception. Too many today in pulpits really don't understand the Bible and that is sad.
Ldh
That's why Luther and Calvin and the continental reformers attached assurance to the objective Cross and not inwardly and subjectively. Because they knew how and where true fruit of the Spirit arises and where it doesn't and how it is stifled by the subjective.
That's the irony that many don't get in the Christian faith and our old man troubles us concerning true sanctification. Thus, we set ourselves to working, even "by the Spirit". When the old man "hears" God's Law say do/don't do xyz, the very fact that it is God's and religious sets us to false working and false piety to "do the law", even under the guise of sanctification. But this is false sanctification. The irony is is when we are MOST fixed upon the Cross and Gospel, then in reality the real fruits arise or rather come at us quite naturally. If we seek fruits, then they are not fruits though outwardly the "deed" be the same. But when we don't seek fruits and are fixed upon Christ/Gospel, the fruits come naturally. The Gospel literally frees one from the bondage of works which is sin then it naturally sets forth to do real good works. Its livliness is natural. How? It stops naming and distinguishing and measuring them. In short it turns our eyes onto Christ. Thus, all things arise as good works. It's an awakening if you will, using a different term, that is to be born again. One moment your religious and false and the old man is working under the guise of "christian sanctification" and its all false. But you don't recognize it as false, you think your doing right, EVEN and ESPECIALLY as a Christian, post conversion. Under the Law, due to sin and the old man, one still is fooled by such things as works, you've just changed the label from "justifying oneself by works" explicitly to "living the Christian life or "sanctification". One says, "I do it in the power of the Holy Spirit." But that's the old man, the Pharisee, using "christian language".
But true growth and sanctification never leaves the cross. The awakening, so to speak, is suddenly a strong realization of "EVEN IF I don't change one wit before I die, Christ's blood will count for me at the judgment". That shock or death blow to the old man is life to the new man, the Gospel is heard and it is shocking. When that happens the heart cheered and suddenly good works are everywhere and joyfully, with the old man fighting to get back to religious law works, done. Suddenly "good works" are not the top three church yard piety duties missions, evangelism and fasting. But rather everywhere, care for family, garden, job, and etc... Love for neighbor is done in this way, but because you don't have to do them AND when you fail (daily), the Gospel continues to give the power to keep on doing them. Why? Because NOW you realize IT REALLY REALLY REALLY IS Christ ALONE FOR ME PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE - I WILL GO TO HEAVEN FOR Christ SAKE ALONE, EVEN IF I DO OR DON'T DO ______! Now my works are free of religious pretense, which was never really there, the old man just thought it was.
Thus, the old man dies and the new arises. Thus, if more preachers would just get this, is how Christians are grown. But they never will as long as they have a list, a short list of churchyard piety they thing their congregation should look like. And when they don't look like it they say, "Ah HA, We need more law and good deeds preaching." But Paul said, "The Gospel is the power...". "No, no" says the poor blind preacher, "he meant something else under justification..."
This is why Luther could say very confidently that most men will blow and speak much about faith and good works, yet not know a single thing about either one.
It's against the grain to say that if the Gospel really frees 100 percent from the Law true works to which the Law points to will arise, even if we don't see them for a while or even not at all in our perception. Too many today in pulpits really don't understand the Bible and that is sad.
Ldh
Puritan Sailor
Puritan Board Doctor
Wow, Larry! All that from a C.S. Lewis qoute. 
Puritan Sailor
Puritan Board Doctor
You are correct Ruben. Lewis was not talking about Law vs. Gospel in this context. He was actually explaining the importance of reading the old books rather than the modern books, and how reading only modern books blinds you to your cultural presuppositions. Reading the old books helps you to get passed this blind spot and see the stream of "mere Christianity" throughout time. It was actually a very good point.
Larry Hughes
Inactive User
Actually his second quote not the one of this post was dealing with a Law/Gospel distinction. I apologize for not being clear there. It was that Patrick's quote that reminded me of that by the connection of it in my own life where "devotion" was pushed in the emotional sense rather than the doctrine working out sense. Lewis's point was not so much "old" books versus "new" books, but the type of books which just happen to fall into old versus new categories in his day. That's key to understanding what he was saying about devotion vs. doctrine. In Patrick's quote of Lewis, his primary point is that that devotion is driven by doctrine and not upside down (i.e. emotions driving the boat), because the books of his day, the new, where of the emotional "œdevotional" type versus the old doctrinal type of books (the old books).
That connected for me Lewis' other quote about commanding emotions. That's the connection, the emotions driving. Sorry about the confusion.
So, yes, Ruben, Lewis in the quote I connected was addressing that.
Ruben, as to your other question. How do you deal with the command to rejoice? It's actually very simple, yet not obvious to our natural legal mindset and our old man that gets in the way. It is the distinction of one living under the Law versus one living under the Gospel not just the functioning of the two. The former hears that command and functions much as Lewis points out ending in increased decreased joy, if you will or fools himself into thinking he´s doing it. The later, living under the Gospel, hears no command but gift STILL via the Gospel and increases in that joy. The one living under the Gospel, in reality, hears it not in a commanding way but a way in which it functions thus: The Law commands rejoice, Jesus fulfilled EVEN THIS FOR ME, alas this IS great rejoicing! See the Gospel which fulfills everything and leaves NOTHING unfulfilled, even after conversion if you will, still gives the power by what it gives. But note how easy it is to slip "œout of the Gospel" even as a Christian and fall back under the Law, divorcing one´s self from Christ while claiming to be doing it IN Christ. The claim is empty in this sense and one is trying to perfect one´s self by the flesh and works, EVEN though one is denying that and claiming "œI do it in the Spirit". The claim doesn´t mean anything. It is a matter of living under the Law/Letter Vs. the Gospel/Spirit.
Another way to look at it is humility. If you break the Law down true humility is where it goes. Yet, one cannot "œdo" humility. The more I try the less humble I am and in fact the more aggrandizing I become. The trying, by virtue of trying to BE humble, the effort, the work is exactly the opposite. The Law says "œbe humble" (broken down). Yet, if I don´t then I´m obviously not humble (the rank open sinner) and if I try then I´m worse and not even moving in the direction of humble but in the very opposing direction (the false saint, the false saint is under the umbrella of those professing in the faith). How can I do this? The answer is you cannot! And the more you try the worse you will be. This is exactly what the Pharisees could not see and the pietist of our time, the deluded religious Christian. This is our old man that plagues us. How is one humbled, God must operate on you, this is to suffer, under Divine operation, passively. In fact the first move and all successive moves towards humility is the realization that I cannot humble myself, not even by the command of God to humble myself, in fact the command makes me worse. Not due to the command but sin in me.
Thus, the command to rejoice is STILL driven by the Gospel and not command. The rejoicing IS over the Gospel which IS what says, "œeven Christ has done THIS for you."
Thus, Calvin said that we be grateful for even our gratitude is unacceptable to God. You really have to ponder what Calvin is saying there for it is EXACTLY the same thing Lewis was saying and EXACTLY the same thing Luther was saying.
I hope that helps.
Meg, I have not read or heard of those books are they any good?
Ldh
That connected for me Lewis' other quote about commanding emotions. That's the connection, the emotions driving. Sorry about the confusion.
So, yes, Ruben, Lewis in the quote I connected was addressing that.
Ruben, as to your other question. How do you deal with the command to rejoice? It's actually very simple, yet not obvious to our natural legal mindset and our old man that gets in the way. It is the distinction of one living under the Law versus one living under the Gospel not just the functioning of the two. The former hears that command and functions much as Lewis points out ending in increased decreased joy, if you will or fools himself into thinking he´s doing it. The later, living under the Gospel, hears no command but gift STILL via the Gospel and increases in that joy. The one living under the Gospel, in reality, hears it not in a commanding way but a way in which it functions thus: The Law commands rejoice, Jesus fulfilled EVEN THIS FOR ME, alas this IS great rejoicing! See the Gospel which fulfills everything and leaves NOTHING unfulfilled, even after conversion if you will, still gives the power by what it gives. But note how easy it is to slip "œout of the Gospel" even as a Christian and fall back under the Law, divorcing one´s self from Christ while claiming to be doing it IN Christ. The claim is empty in this sense and one is trying to perfect one´s self by the flesh and works, EVEN though one is denying that and claiming "œI do it in the Spirit". The claim doesn´t mean anything. It is a matter of living under the Law/Letter Vs. the Gospel/Spirit.
Another way to look at it is humility. If you break the Law down true humility is where it goes. Yet, one cannot "œdo" humility. The more I try the less humble I am and in fact the more aggrandizing I become. The trying, by virtue of trying to BE humble, the effort, the work is exactly the opposite. The Law says "œbe humble" (broken down). Yet, if I don´t then I´m obviously not humble (the rank open sinner) and if I try then I´m worse and not even moving in the direction of humble but in the very opposing direction (the false saint, the false saint is under the umbrella of those professing in the faith). How can I do this? The answer is you cannot! And the more you try the worse you will be. This is exactly what the Pharisees could not see and the pietist of our time, the deluded religious Christian. This is our old man that plagues us. How is one humbled, God must operate on you, this is to suffer, under Divine operation, passively. In fact the first move and all successive moves towards humility is the realization that I cannot humble myself, not even by the command of God to humble myself, in fact the command makes me worse. Not due to the command but sin in me.
Thus, the command to rejoice is STILL driven by the Gospel and not command. The rejoicing IS over the Gospel which IS what says, "œeven Christ has done THIS for you."
Thus, Calvin said that we be grateful for even our gratitude is unacceptable to God. You really have to ponder what Calvin is saying there for it is EXACTLY the same thing Lewis was saying and EXACTLY the same thing Luther was saying.
I hope that helps.
Meg, I have not read or heard of those books are they any good?
Ldh
Puritan Sailor
Puritan Board Doctor
That is a great book by the way
Larry Hughes
Inactive User
Meg and Patrick,
Thanks a bunch I'm going to print this one off to read.
Yours,
Larry
Ruben,
In short, no, the Gospel does. That's the point. You don't hear the command as command. On the earthly level: If I give you, or rather someone credible like Bill Gates gives you 1 billion dollars, then says "be joyful", that's not a "command" though it comes in the form of "command" but rather it is fulfilled in the gift.
The Gospel changes. In a sense the Gospel changes the Law for you. That's the point, you can't just summarily "amen" the Gospel and brush it off in order to move quickly back to some form of the Law. That's to miss the Gospel and for that matter the Law altogether. It really shows how little we think of the Gospel and its very real power and how little we really and truly think of the Law.
There is also, of course, the practical, dare I say, of thinking wrongly that "œcommanding emotions or affections" will cause them. It should be sufficient enough that Paul, that is the Holy Spirit in reality, says that the Law, in any form, never gives the power it commands but that the Gospel is the power. That should silence anything. But on the practical "œdown to earth" side there is the also the obvious, the painfully obvious practical part. If someone thinks that by hearing the command "œbe joyful" as a command or law that they themselves are joyful by obedience to this they are woefully deluded. Because one who has to "œbe told" to "œbe joyful" via a command or law principle is manifestly not being joyful. If you have to be told to "œdo it" then you manifestly cannot do it from the heart and are not doing so from the heart. If it is truly from the heart, then one does what the command points to without the command pointing. Reverse example: You don´t have to be told to do or commit your favorite sin struggle that you have (insert your biggest struggle), no, rather, you don´t it quite nicely without a command (a law if you will) telling you "œDo <fill in your sin>". What does this mean from the reverse negative side? It means sin is such a part of your heart that your heart loves it and does it sans command to do it. From the negative or evil side, you love your sin from the heart and no "œ10 Commandments to Sin" are necessary. Flip that back the other way and you begin to see just how God wants us to love Him and His Law, not in the sense that I must be commanded to do it, but freely from the renewed heart. That is to TRULY love God´s law, but in really loving God´s Law the "œcommand to do it" disappears if you will, that´s where the love arises in truth and reality. AND that can only happen and begin if the Gospel frees us from the "œcommand to do", then we, in this life ever so feebly, begin to really love the Law of God freely from a naturally flowing heart that is now flesh instead of stone and dead letter. Another earthy example, "œDo you love the speed limit law?" Then why do you need speed limit signs and policeman to keep you under control. Why do you slow down suddenly when you see the State police suddenly on the side of the road or in your review mirror? Because you really don´t "œlove" the speed limit law from your heart. But do you love from your heart to speed at your chosen pace? Of course you do. That´s why you do it without a command to do it. This analogy is limited in that affections are a bit different but it has similar qualities that help us see the issue at hand.
Thus, if one attempts to "œobey" "œbe joyful" in that sense, he´s not joyful at all just fooling himself. One cannot feign joyfulness by obedience to a command. For if it is legal joy, Law, command driven, then it must be perfect in quality and quantity and frequency and endurance and not a sporadic kind of thing that one can kind of legally fake and work up inwardly. It´s quite earthy here.
The first question I would ask such a person is, "œAre YOU being joyful as commanded and as you seem to foist upon another using the Scripture wrongly?" He or she will have to answer "œyes" or "œno" because this is not a "œgray area" question. If "œno" then the point is made and we are done. Or you could press it a little and say, "œWhy not, you must do the command you tell others to do or you are a rank hypocrite?" If "œyes", then comes the next question, "œAre you yesterday, today and tomorrow perfectly joyful? In perfection, which the command contains, I mean is the quality of it without the least mingling or dilution. In perfection, which the command contains, I mean is the quantity without diminishment in the least. In perfection, which the command contains, I mean is the frequency such that there is no distinguishing of times other than one continuous unbroken line of joyfulness. In perfection, which the command contains, I mean is the endurance of this joy without fading, without vanishing, without departure and without dissertation. If someone answers "œyes" to this we could just conclude on the obviousness of it that they are lying and completely deluded for no Christian aware of his sin and flesh could or would ever say that, an unbeliever, though, would. Or we could go to some place like 1 John where if one says he is without sin the truth is not in him or where Solomon says "˜what man can say of his heart that it is clean.´
The reality is that even the "˜command´ to be joyful is only going to be fulfilled by Christ on the Cross and His righteousness for NOTHING is left undone by Him. If such a person dare say otherwise the question is very simple then, "œWhat is it that Christ left undone and did not accomplish in His perfect life of righteousness and bloody death on the Cross and wrath bearing for me?" Then demand they fill in the blank if they dare call Christ a liar when He said "œIt is finished". But the Gospel gives what even this command "œto be joyful" commands, Christ even gives what it points to and fulfills it for us. The believer or "œtruster" or new man is in the tension of the "œnot yet" but "œalready certain anyway", that is the very nature of saving faith, expecting certainly what is not yet seen or realized. And thus, resting in Christ for even this command to be joyful, the believer begins and IS joyful. And, yes, his heart is gladdened for in that death and resurrection of Christ´s to which he is in and baptized into, that "œChrist did all FOR ME" without anything left undone, arises the real Christ-like-ness. It is in the Gospel which the Christ-like-ness lies. The very joy commanded is given, and the Gospel is how it is both GIVEN and arises. Now it need not be commanded but is natural, the dead letter, stone tablet, the Law and stony heart is done away with. And in its place, via the Gospel which is the ONLY power, is the Spirit, the living epistle, the Good News and the heart of flesh.
Blessings,
Ldh
Larry
Thanks a bunch I'm going to print this one off to read.
Yours,
Larry
Ruben,
In short, no, the Gospel does. That's the point. You don't hear the command as command. On the earthly level: If I give you, or rather someone credible like Bill Gates gives you 1 billion dollars, then says "be joyful", that's not a "command" though it comes in the form of "command" but rather it is fulfilled in the gift.
The Gospel changes. In a sense the Gospel changes the Law for you. That's the point, you can't just summarily "amen" the Gospel and brush it off in order to move quickly back to some form of the Law. That's to miss the Gospel and for that matter the Law altogether. It really shows how little we think of the Gospel and its very real power and how little we really and truly think of the Law.
There is also, of course, the practical, dare I say, of thinking wrongly that "œcommanding emotions or affections" will cause them. It should be sufficient enough that Paul, that is the Holy Spirit in reality, says that the Law, in any form, never gives the power it commands but that the Gospel is the power. That should silence anything. But on the practical "œdown to earth" side there is the also the obvious, the painfully obvious practical part. If someone thinks that by hearing the command "œbe joyful" as a command or law that they themselves are joyful by obedience to this they are woefully deluded. Because one who has to "œbe told" to "œbe joyful" via a command or law principle is manifestly not being joyful. If you have to be told to "œdo it" then you manifestly cannot do it from the heart and are not doing so from the heart. If it is truly from the heart, then one does what the command points to without the command pointing. Reverse example: You don´t have to be told to do or commit your favorite sin struggle that you have (insert your biggest struggle), no, rather, you don´t it quite nicely without a command (a law if you will) telling you "œDo <fill in your sin>". What does this mean from the reverse negative side? It means sin is such a part of your heart that your heart loves it and does it sans command to do it. From the negative or evil side, you love your sin from the heart and no "œ10 Commandments to Sin" are necessary. Flip that back the other way and you begin to see just how God wants us to love Him and His Law, not in the sense that I must be commanded to do it, but freely from the renewed heart. That is to TRULY love God´s law, but in really loving God´s Law the "œcommand to do it" disappears if you will, that´s where the love arises in truth and reality. AND that can only happen and begin if the Gospel frees us from the "œcommand to do", then we, in this life ever so feebly, begin to really love the Law of God freely from a naturally flowing heart that is now flesh instead of stone and dead letter. Another earthy example, "œDo you love the speed limit law?" Then why do you need speed limit signs and policeman to keep you under control. Why do you slow down suddenly when you see the State police suddenly on the side of the road or in your review mirror? Because you really don´t "œlove" the speed limit law from your heart. But do you love from your heart to speed at your chosen pace? Of course you do. That´s why you do it without a command to do it. This analogy is limited in that affections are a bit different but it has similar qualities that help us see the issue at hand.
Thus, if one attempts to "œobey" "œbe joyful" in that sense, he´s not joyful at all just fooling himself. One cannot feign joyfulness by obedience to a command. For if it is legal joy, Law, command driven, then it must be perfect in quality and quantity and frequency and endurance and not a sporadic kind of thing that one can kind of legally fake and work up inwardly. It´s quite earthy here.
The first question I would ask such a person is, "œAre YOU being joyful as commanded and as you seem to foist upon another using the Scripture wrongly?" He or she will have to answer "œyes" or "œno" because this is not a "œgray area" question. If "œno" then the point is made and we are done. Or you could press it a little and say, "œWhy not, you must do the command you tell others to do or you are a rank hypocrite?" If "œyes", then comes the next question, "œAre you yesterday, today and tomorrow perfectly joyful? In perfection, which the command contains, I mean is the quality of it without the least mingling or dilution. In perfection, which the command contains, I mean is the quantity without diminishment in the least. In perfection, which the command contains, I mean is the frequency such that there is no distinguishing of times other than one continuous unbroken line of joyfulness. In perfection, which the command contains, I mean is the endurance of this joy without fading, without vanishing, without departure and without dissertation. If someone answers "œyes" to this we could just conclude on the obviousness of it that they are lying and completely deluded for no Christian aware of his sin and flesh could or would ever say that, an unbeliever, though, would. Or we could go to some place like 1 John where if one says he is without sin the truth is not in him or where Solomon says "˜what man can say of his heart that it is clean.´
The reality is that even the "˜command´ to be joyful is only going to be fulfilled by Christ on the Cross and His righteousness for NOTHING is left undone by Him. If such a person dare say otherwise the question is very simple then, "œWhat is it that Christ left undone and did not accomplish in His perfect life of righteousness and bloody death on the Cross and wrath bearing for me?" Then demand they fill in the blank if they dare call Christ a liar when He said "œIt is finished". But the Gospel gives what even this command "œto be joyful" commands, Christ even gives what it points to and fulfills it for us. The believer or "œtruster" or new man is in the tension of the "œnot yet" but "œalready certain anyway", that is the very nature of saving faith, expecting certainly what is not yet seen or realized. And thus, resting in Christ for even this command to be joyful, the believer begins and IS joyful. And, yes, his heart is gladdened for in that death and resurrection of Christ´s to which he is in and baptized into, that "œChrist did all FOR ME" without anything left undone, arises the real Christ-like-ness. It is in the Gospel which the Christ-like-ness lies. The very joy commanded is given, and the Gospel is how it is both GIVEN and arises. Now it need not be commanded but is natural, the dead letter, stone tablet, the Law and stony heart is done away with. And in its place, via the Gospel which is the ONLY power, is the Spirit, the living epistle, the Good News and the heart of flesh.
Blessings,
Ldh
Larry
Larry Hughes
Inactive User
Meg,
Looks like I better buy some ink!
L
Looks like I better buy some ink!
L
Larry, thank you. I believe I am understanding your point of view a little better. I would like some clarification on a further point, if you have time.
Do we obey the commands because they are commands?
Obeying out of love, do the commands have any function?
Does love automatically give us the knowledge of what to do?
I am not attacking you --I am seeking to discover the ramifications of your point of view for the authority of God and the attitude of the Christian.
I will say that I do not expect to keep the commands perfectly --it is my joy and peace that Christ is all my righteousness.
Do we obey the commands because they are commands?
Obeying out of love, do the commands have any function?
Does love automatically give us the knowledge of what to do?
I am not attacking you --I am seeking to discover the ramifications of your point of view for the authority of God and the attitude of the Christian.
I will say that I do not expect to keep the commands perfectly --it is my joy and peace that Christ is all my righteousness.
Larry Hughes
Inactive User
Ruben,
Likewise brother.
Let take a look at your great Qs and get back to you. I've had a pretty tiring day today and am just going to chill out tonight.
Blessings In Our Lord,
Ldh
Likewise brother.
Let take a look at your great Qs and get back to you. I've had a pretty tiring day today and am just going to chill out tonight.
Blessings In Our Lord,
Ldh
VirginiaHuguenot
Puritanboard Librarian
bookslover
Puritan Board Doctor
And, of course, from the same source (Lewis's introduction to Athanasius's "On the Incarnation" [published in 1944]), there's this little gem:
"It is a good rule, after reading a new book, never to allow yourself another new one till you have read an old one in between. If that is too much for you, you should at least read one old one to every three new ones."
"It is a good rule, after reading a new book, never to allow yourself another new one till you have read an old one in between. If that is too much for you, you should at least read one old one to every three new ones."
- Status
