I sometimes hear that Christians should be doing the Gospel (i.e. the good news of Jesus' person and work). Best I can tell, the basic sentiment behind this is that the Gospel itself is our ethic. But is it proper to speak of the Gospel in this way? I don't think it is. Here's why:
(1) Our ethic is derived from God's character.
(2) God's character is unified.
(3) Therefore, there is one ethic.
And
(1) The Gospel is a post-Fall reality.
(2) Adam was ethical pre-Fall.
(3) Therefore, the Gospel cannot be our ethic.
So what is our ethic? Our ethic is God's moral law. Everyone has access to this ethic regardless of whether they've heard and/or accepted the Gospel. This is why everyone is condemnable (cf. Rom. 1:20).
But while our ethic is essentially unified, the Bible teaches two ways (i.e. kingdoms) in which Christ rules: (1) the civil kingdom and (2) the ecclesial kingdom. The ethic of these two kingdoms is essentially the same, but it gets worked out in two distinct ways with a further distinction in the ecclesial realm.
In the civil kingdom it is a rule by which God constrains evil (i.e. 1st use of the law). In the ecclesial kingdom it is a rule by which God convicts of sin and drives the faithful-repentant to Christ (i.e. 2nd use of the law) and uses as a positive rule to which the faithful-repentant might conform his life (i.e. the 3rd use of the law). Of course, the uses (i.e. applications) of the law in the post-fall ecclesial kingdom certainly have the Gospel in view, but the Gospel itself is not our ethic. It is an aspect of the sitz im leben in which our ethic gets worked out.
(1) Our ethic is derived from God's character.
(2) God's character is unified.
(3) Therefore, there is one ethic.
And
(1) The Gospel is a post-Fall reality.
(2) Adam was ethical pre-Fall.
(3) Therefore, the Gospel cannot be our ethic.
So what is our ethic? Our ethic is God's moral law. Everyone has access to this ethic regardless of whether they've heard and/or accepted the Gospel. This is why everyone is condemnable (cf. Rom. 1:20).
But while our ethic is essentially unified, the Bible teaches two ways (i.e. kingdoms) in which Christ rules: (1) the civil kingdom and (2) the ecclesial kingdom. The ethic of these two kingdoms is essentially the same, but it gets worked out in two distinct ways with a further distinction in the ecclesial realm.
In the civil kingdom it is a rule by which God constrains evil (i.e. 1st use of the law). In the ecclesial kingdom it is a rule by which God convicts of sin and drives the faithful-repentant to Christ (i.e. 2nd use of the law) and uses as a positive rule to which the faithful-repentant might conform his life (i.e. the 3rd use of the law). Of course, the uses (i.e. applications) of the law in the post-fall ecclesial kingdom certainly have the Gospel in view, but the Gospel itself is not our ethic. It is an aspect of the sitz im leben in which our ethic gets worked out.
7 comments:
Good points. "Doing the gospel" is an odd phrase since the gospel is literally "good news." How does one "do" good news?
Certainly the character of God constitutes our ethic, and the moral law displays this character. On this point, there should be no disagreement.
It seems to me, however, the gospel also displays something of the character of God. And so I wonder if it is too strong a statement to say "the gospel cannot be our ethic"?
At the very least, it seems to me that there is room for having the gospel "shape" our ethic, even if it cannot properly be called our ethic. Since the gospel comes to post-fall sinners, we cannot help but have our ethic framed by the gospel (e.g. Phil 1:27 and Eph 4:1).
What of God's character would you say the Gospel reveals that the moral law does not?
I find it very difficult to accept your equations, mainly because ethic cannot be oversimplified into if 1, then 2, and 1+2(or 1*2?)=3. I could construct a similar equation:
(1) God is omnipotent (ie all powerful, able to do anything)
(2) But, God is not able to make 2+2=5, for it is logically impossible
(3) Therefore, God is not all powerful, and thus he is not God, and thus there is no such thing as God.
You and I both agree that this equation is oversimplifying a deeply complex idea. Likewise, your equations seem to be oversimplifying a deeply complex idea.
You also define the Gospel as "the good news of Jesus' person and work." But does not Jesus live out the gospel, in other words, did not Jesus go throughout Galilee teaching, preaching, AND HEALING? (Matt. 4:23) So it seems that Christ does "do" good news...although I would not adopt that wording.
You claim that "Our ethic is derived from God's character." Although I would not wholly disagree with that statement, it seems incomplete. Christ is God, and Christ acted out his character and his acts were recorded in the Bible. Our ethic, therefore, is also derived from Christ's acts, which is his character in action( and his actions adhere perfectly to God's moral law, and thus he is our example).
Final thought...Although I hold Calvin in high regards, why are his thoughts and beliefs and rules the only perfect rule by which we seem to live? What of those who offer different, more contemporary, explanations? Is the work of Calvin immutable?
Anonymous,
You've charged me with oversimplification but failed to demonstrate evidence for it. Would you care to elaborate on specifically what aspect of my argument is oversimplified?
By the way, your syllogism regarding God's power is good. But unfortunately it suffers from a false definition of omnipotence in (1).
My false syllogism is the point. The equation I created was true if and only if everything stated was FULLY true. I do not mean to be disrespectful or cavil, but I merely sense a sort of simplicity in the equations. They may be true, but are they FULLY true? Take for instance your 2nd equation...
(1) The Gospel is a post-Fall reality.
(2) Adam was ethical pre-Fall.
(3) Therefore, the Gospel cannot be our ethic.
I find it very difficult to make claim #1. If the Gospel is a post- fall reality then what does that make the pre-fall? In other words, would we have the post-fall, if we didn't have the pre-fall? How can the two be distinguished in the all encompassing Gospel message? Adam's pre-fall, fall, and post-fall actions are all part of the same (ONE)Gospel message. How can there be a distinction?
#2. Adam may have been ethical pre-fall, but what of the NEW Adam? Was he not fully and truly ethical? In fact, it is through the NEW Adam that the Gospel is fulfilled, for as Christ himself said, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." Matt. 5:17. So, it is true that Adam was ethical pre-fall, but the NEW Adam was ethical post-fall, so that statement is not fully true.
And therefore, #3, the Gospel can be and IS our ethic, because of Christ's life, his word AND deed, which fully fulfill God's moral law.
Once again, I think your equations may be true, but are not fully true, lacking a completeness which is found in the whole Gospel.
How would you say the gospel was in effect in the life of Adam pre-fall?
Post a Comment