"While Christians must never preach morality as a means of salvation, morality is certainly a public concern of Christians."
“In other words, we cannot preach the gospel without preaching morality. People cannot receive the good news without first believing the bad news, and that bad news is that they are lawbreakers and rebels. They must understand that morality is not an arbitrary convention, but that it stands over them in judgment and that it is a matter of divine imposition. The gospel is not that God loves us and has a wonderful plan for our lives. The gospel is that God has done something about our sins.” Nick of Time
Note, the link above is only good until the next Nick of Time posts at centralseminary.edu. There will probably be a more permanent link at Religious Affections eventually.
I much appreciate the post. For some time I’ve felt strongly that it didn’t make sense to suppose mutual exclusivity between upholding the gospel and also preaching against sin/striving for moral conduct in the general population. Kevin puts his finger on one of the major reasons these are not really in tension… probably the biggest reason. I think there are others, though.
Edit: I’ve been informed that the date on the upper right of the Nick posts at Central is always a permalink. So… the main post now has a permanent link.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Dr. Bauder has addressed the role of the moral law in the life of a person prior to conversion, however, what is the role played by the moral law after conversion?
formerly known as Coach C
Personally, I wrestle with this post - maybe more than I should.
Mainly, I really struggle with the idea that non-Christians should behave just like Christians should, “becuase it’s the right thing to do.” And really, I think sometimes we say people should act like us because it makes us uncomfortable when people don’t, but that’s another subject.
But if we say that it’s only by the grace of God given to us that we have eyes to see the morally right and wrong - not subjectively moral but truly moral as God has laid out, because He is good and has declared these things as good - why do we expect people who openly admit to having no knowledge of or experience with God to act like they know God? Aren’t we acting like God removing a heart of stone and giving us a heart of flesh is just a formality, a cute illustration? Aren’t we in effect saying we saw our need for God and dragged ourselves to him, so that he would fix the dirt we see?
But…dead people don’t see that they’re dead. Seeing, they do not see. And so while I think it is the law and the wrath of God that does show us a need, when that happens it isn’t because the people have seen their guilt and realized they needed help, it’s because the Spirit is at work first.
Maybe I don’t understand fully what Nick is trying to say - to me “The Gospel” contains the news that we’re sinners, hopelessly lost in our sin against a perfect God; and I can’t honestly imagine a Gospel message without that. I guess if he’s talking about just preaching “Jesus loves me, this I know…” messages - yes and amen, we need to see our need. But when I think of “morality” I think of teaching a list of rules and laws of how we “should act,” and I think we’re the Gospel gets lost in a checklist of do’s and don’ts. When we preach the Gospel, I believe it will invariably change the hearts, lives, and behaviors of those who have come to a genuine knowledge of Christ. But I don’t think we’ll ever get to Christ by teaching behavior modification.
There were a few comments in the article I’m chewing on, too. “The good news is only as good as the bad news is bad.” Isn’t the good news better?! Do they equal out? I don’t know, I’m still working on it…but it seems weak to say two are a weird form of dualism; strong opposing forces, cancelling out.
“We cannot preach the Gospel without preaching morality.” Jesus did. Paul did. And these were the strongest advocates for Holy living ever. But Jesus said in Matthew 15, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said: This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.”
I wrestle with this because, as a “older brother” type, moralism is my default position. But the Lord has been absolutely disciplining me over the past several years that while we want everyone to act like we do, the Gospel deals with the heart long before it deals with the actions.
Some sins should be preached against - I like to imagine that had I been in Germany in 1939, Bonhoffer and I would have been friends and allies. But I think we need to weigh carefully whether we’re asking people to act like what we say they’re not capable of acting like.
Sorry, rant over :) Thank you for posting this, Nick, and hopefully for opening up some good conversation. If I’m wrong, I’m eager to learn :)
I don’t think Kevin is saying they must live the law, but show them from the law, ex; the last 6 commandments that they are transgressing the law/falling short of God’s standards. As I read it this sounds similar to Ray Comforts/Living Waters approach. Allow the law to demonstrate they are falling short of God;s standards and are in need of a Savior.
The law—as in the moral law—is supposed to be lived by all. Without that idea, it is no law at all. The reason we need saving is (a) we inherit the sin and guilt of Adam who violated the moral law and (b) we violate the moral law.
The point of sanctification is to graciously turn us into people who obey the moral law. This is the argument of Romans 6-8 (that the Spirit indwelling the believer changes the believer’s “walk” so that he “walks in newness of life”).
If “obey the law” is causing confusion, just substitute “do right rather than wrong.” If this is not required of all men, there is no basis for condemning them (us), and no need to save us.
An objection: but what about grace?
The essay deals in part (it’s part 1 of a series) with that objection. Grace does not say “Rejoice; you now have no obligations.” Rather, it says “Rejoice! What you could not do has been credited to you and the ability you lacked has now been given to you. Grow in grace!” So the whole point of the gospel is to produce people who are righteous.
Eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Discussion