Use of the law in the early church

[JesusIsLord]

Guys, I saw this article on my FB fee posted by a NCT page. It'seems to be about how the use of the law in catechism only came about around the 12th century and how believers before that were apathetic towards the law. I don't know the person who wrote the article but it seems to be a NCT leaning source. Any thoughts?

https://matthewtuininga.wordpress.c...ten-commandments-until-the-late-medieval-era/

 

[Contra_Mundum]

1Tim.1:8-11

8 But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;
9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
11 According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.
​

How early-church do we need to check?

The term "righteous man" in v9 is not synonymous with "Christian" or "justified" person; but in this context refers to an ideal man. Christians (as Paul knows himself) are frequently "disobedient." If they are truly "lawless," of course, they aren't converted.


It should be noted that in place of a full, biblical summary of the moral law, the church early on began viewing the gospel and the NT as a "new law." That's far more problematic than missing out the convenience of the 10C in catechesis. The early church did not for centuries retain a "looking unto Jesus" model (versus a Christian-ethic model) for the Way.


I don't believe the author of the article is NCT, though he is quite foolish to pit (as he does elsewhere) Jesus against the Decalogue as if the former demonstrated moral excellence in an intrinsically superior way. Christ is to God's moral law as a hand is to a glove. Christ embodies what the law defines; there is no contradiction.

He writes this elsewhere on his blog:

None of this, then, has any bearing on whether or not Christians ought to obey God’s moral law. We always ought to do so, which is why Paul says that those who love their neighbors will not kill, steal, commit adultery, etc. But that’s not the issue here. The issue is whether or not believers remain bound to the law as a covenant. The Ten Commandments are in play not because most (though not all!) of what they include happens to be part of the moral law, but because in scripture the Ten Commandments serve as short hand, or as representative, of the Mosaic Covenant as a whole.
https://matthewtuininga.wordpress.c...about-the-law-the-way-the-new-testament-does/
​

We should not agree with him entirely, because he is not completely accurate (for reasons other than a NCT might also disagree with him). But he is less antinomian-sounding, when more of his commentary is absorbed.

 

[RamistThomist]

When is the cut-off date for "early church?" Depends on who is using the term. Generally most would say St John of Damascus. And when we say "early church," do we mean East or West? Eastern Fathers generally didn't develop systematic treatises on the Law. Western fathers did move in that direction, as seen in Gregory of Rome.