That man is against God is important and must be taken seriously. But what is far more important and must be taken more seriously is that in Jesus Christ God is for man. And it is only in the light of the second fact that the importance and seriousness of the first can be seen.
Church Dogmatics II/2, 154.
Often we evangelicals are quick to say that you cannot understand the light of grace unless you first understand the darkness of sin, and often we also catch ourselves describing grace primarily as the solution to sin; grace is a reaction from God to our selfish ambition. But here Karl reverses this order. Sin is not understood unless grace is first grasped. If there is a priority within the economy of salvation then it falls on God's graciousness.
The importance of this was drilled home to me recently on college mission. When door-knocking in outer suburban Sydney I met one woman who wanted nothing to do with the church. Why? "All I was told as a youngster was how much of a sinner I was. I want nothing to do with the church now." Hmmmm ... while we do want to affirm human sinfulness, we must affirm it in a way which acknowledges the priority of grace. Grace has come first, and so that is the first part of our message. This is what Calvin meant when he described 'evangelical repentance'; we repent not in order to recieve God's grace, but in order to respond to it. God makes the first move, and it's a move of grace. While we were still sinners, Christ died for us (Rom 5.8).
10 points for the location of this statue
7 comments:
An old bloke at church yesterday told me that he wasn't driven to Christ because of his own sinfulness rather because of the 'beauty of the Lord Jesus' and then proceeded to quote John's gospel to me. "3Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent."
And yet, can we deny the weight of Paul's logic in the book of Romans? Perhaps we cannot understand the full magnitude of either 'sin' or 'grace' if were not for the other.
I SO agree with this. Ever since someone told me "you guys from Moore always start with sin and then add grace as an answer to it, whereas the gospel is the other way around" I have noticed people doing it in sermons and articles everywhere. It is the basis of our anthropology - instead of saying 'we are worthwhile because of grace' we say 'we are not worth anything because of sin, just as well God is gracious...' and so on. It's pretty awful actually. And unbiblical...
hi martin, i dont know you, so feel a little odd commenting on your blog, but here goes...
do you think you could clarify a bit on why sin is not understood unless grace is grasped? - i feel im not totally up to speed on the things written and commented.
i have a few thoughts - but overall, are you pointing to salvation being about God & not so much about us?
ie. God doesnt act primarily because of our sin, but that he is God and is by nature gracious & also unchanging - Gods grace (shown as love) has been there all along, but in our sin this grace is highlighted therefore and our sin exposed even more...
but surely sin can also be understood without grace - we rebel against God, he doesnt have to forgive us. the weight of it may not though, if you dont know who God is and how much love he has.
hmm i havent had time to think this through fully, feel free to sharpen my thinking.
Hey sam...
I think the other sam (newyhilton) has a point in that both grace and sin define each other in a way, but my point is that grace preceeds sin both logically and chronologically. This means that we start with grace and then speak of sin, not the other way around. So the horror of sin is exposed when we realise what it is that we reject and the hights from which we have fallen. And yes, the reverse is also true; the wonder of God's continuing grace is realised when we recognise the horror of sin (and as Sam-newyhilton has pointed out, this is made clear in Romans).
So I think you are right when you suggest that salvation is about God first. We would do well to avoid a view of salvation which doesn't move beyond a mere 'sin-management' kind of understanding. In the end its all for God's glory.
As for understanding sin apart from grace ... how then would you know that sin is wrong? Something needs to be in place first. That thing is God and his grace-filled character.
John 3:16-21 does my head in.
Love & Forgiveness first. Verdict second.
I've wrestled with friends over how to present the logic of this passage. It seems backwards to say: I love you and forgive you. Here is the offense.
Thanks for your blog and photos, Marty. I'm getting a vicarious European holiday.
I think one of the great blessings and curses of being a 'mere' mortal is that all too often my head can hurt from spending (too?) many hours thinking about these things...
Something that I have been thinking about over the last year (since writing a series of studies Romans for the Credo students) is the way that grace and sin meld together. But I'm wondering if possibly the wrong word is being used here? What happens when we substitute 'grace' with 'Holiness'?
Romans clearly shows us the immensity of the gap between God's Holiness and our sinfulness - light to dark - and so, like moths, we are drawn. You see it too often in evangelism where (perhaps like the woman that you met Marty?) people start a relationship with God because the fear of their sinfulness, in light of God's holiness, is motivating them - never a good basis for a relationship.
And as Michael said - it's unbiblical. Didn't God create, and offer a way to restore, the glorious nature of the relationship that we can have with Him...?
I hear you're back on study camp - looking forward to seeing what you have to say this time round!
I've been thinking about this some more. It's not that preaching sin and consequent judgment is a bad thing, cause it's quite legitimate to turn to Jesus once you see his holiness (as you put it Jod). The issue i guess is when its sin and judgment and the removal of that judgment is seen as the sum of the gospel's logic and content, and not as a part within a larger content and logic.
My hope is that which ever way you turn to Jesus you end up getting the full picture. And my hunch is that too often we aim at those who need reminding of sin instead of those who need reminding of grace, thereby missing the mark with a whole bunch of people.
Post a Comment