The Third Use of the Law (Formula of Concord Article VI)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 22 ส.ค. 2024
- Our website: www.justandsinn...
This video is the sixth part of our series on the Formula of Concord in which I discuss the third use of the law, both in its historic context, and in current debate among Lutherans.
Hello Dr. Cooper, I just wanted to take advantage of my earliness to thank you.
Your online resources were absolutely crucial to my decision to pursue confessional lutheranism over eastern orthodoxy. You helped Me dodge such a big bullet.
Have you ever considered doing an interview with Rev. Joshua schooping? He was an EO priest who walked the Wittenberg trail and is now an LCMS pastor.
Wow, I didn’t realize Joshua Schooping became Lutheran! Thanks for bringing this to my attention. His de-conversion story from Eastern Orthodoxy definitely served as a warning to me when I was considering Orthodoxy for a time. I second this notion, he’d make a great guest for this channel!
I fully agree. In Christ's summary of the decalogue in two; love the Lord our God with our entire being and love neighbor as self, we see this third use of the law since love is the keeping of the law and flows naturally and joyfully from being reconciled, from being justified by the Holy One through faith; Romans 3:31, we uphold the law!
Great video! The three uses of the Law are just a summary of the different ways Scripture teaches on it. For example, St. Paul in his epistles frequently exhorts Christians to do good works and avoid sin (3rd Use). Once regenerated, the believer loves the Law of God (Psalm 119), and earnestly desires to please God by his obedience. To eliminate the third use of the Law is to essentially fall into the error of Antinomianism.
I was raised by a Protes’tant Lutheran pastor (Hans W. Koch 1898-1994) who was kicked out of the Wisconsin Synod (1928) by the rest of the Protes’tants due to several issues. But Koch was not in agreement with the third use. Exegesis led them to see throughout the OT that God always called His people by way of reminding them of His goodness. There’s a lot to say about that and boy do I wish I could.
But this video was very helpful to me. Thanks a lot for this. -Matthew
What I take away from the video is that the law is teaching you what you should do. It can even motivate you to do or not do some things out of fear or guilt.
However, our new man will spontaneously do good works because we’ve already been taught the law and we know even subconsciously what is the right thing to do, yes? The best motivator is the gospel.
Because the law was the topic of this video and gospel motivation wasn’t, I anticipate some folks may go off the rails.
Please let me know if I’m not thinking about something correctly. Thanks!
34:06 Jordan Cooper out of context
will we have an RZ watchparty in the New Heavens and New Earth, if so where are we meeting up?
Thank you. This was very helpful. I have been given lots of really bad teaching on the law at various times in my life. Most often, it was the idea that obeying the law was itself legalism. A lot of this was in the 60s and 70s, when people were trying to change the acceptance of many kinds of behaviors. It wasn’t even that you couldn’t earn your salvation. It was straight out, if you follow what the law teaches, it is legalism. Even in seminary, there was a lot of emphasis on Torah not referring to law, but to that general instruction that you mentioned. To my shame, I may also have taught that at times.
Aren't we being pedantic? Doesn't the 2nd 'mirror use' of the Law also guide you? If the Law shows me that my robes are dirty, doesn't it at the same time guide me? If it shows me that my robes are dirty from lying, am I not at the same time guided by the Law not to lie as this is the cause of my dirty robes? For me, the Law acts as a mirror and guide simultaneously.
I love listening to these on Apple podcasts, but I had to come here to ask a question on one of the points you made in this episode, that I struggle with (probably because I’ve heard diverse views among Lutherans): Should we regard Psalm 119 (and perhaps also Psalm 1 and the second half of Psalm 19) as referring only to the Law in the strict sense, i.e., commandments and things we must do, basically the Ten Commandments?
I have been working with the understanding that these Psalms could be thought of as referring to God’s Word generally, which would include both Law and Gospel. But if you don’t think that is a tenable position, I’d like to know it, and would appreciate if you could elaborate on this point. Thank you for your consideration.
Excellent overview of the 3rd use of the Law, I wish it were more prevalent and properly understood.
What is your view of Lutheran pietism? You seem more favourably disposed to it than most conservative Lutheran pastors i am familiar with.
I appreciate these longform videos on the Formula of Concord Dr. Cooper. In your video on Article I you talked about possibly adding a discussion about Article IX and the Descent into Hell onto one of the other Articles. Whatever you choose to do, could you please discuss the use of the word “Hell” in this article. I think the reason a lot of people disagree with the Descent into Hell (coming from a Reformed background) is because people read Hell and think “Jesus never went to the place of eternal damnation, the lake of fire, etc.” I think it’s a failure to distinguish Sheol/Hades and Gehenna. I know the Latin of Article IX uses the word inferos (lower places). The Catechism of the Catholic Church #633 specifically says Jesus went to Sheol/Hades, and not to the hell of damnation (not that this is authoritative, just adds perspective). I think it’s indisputable from Scripture that Jesus went to Sheol/Hades/ inferos/ the underworld/ the belly of the earth (Matthew 12:40).
I've heard a thousand discussions of this topic, I've never heard any reflection on Galatians 6:2 in that context.
But I have seen a lot of phariseism.
Thinking about Galatians 6:2 has produced far better behavior and compassion in me.
Interesting.
Does the third use of the law overlap with the moral law that can be known through natural revelation?
I think it does. For example, Aquinas says that by nature we strive to stay “in being.” Therefore to kill another, or steal what another needs to stay alive, would be against natural law, and it also maps onto the 10 Commandments.
Is it accurate to say the third use is the first and second use for the Christian or do we need to say it is a guide as well?
Research the Protes’tants of the Wisconsin Synod.
Spontaneously and naturally doing good works? Then why all the warnings of falling away and/or having a dead faith?
Any books or articles to recommend about tue subject?
About spontaneus works, Ethics by Bonhoeffer follow that, rigth?
To me it seems denying the 3rd use of the law is plain and simple watering down all the law and its purpose in our lives. I.e, denying the instruction of the law makes people ignorant of the law’s boundaries, relativizing the 1st use and leaving room for man-make laws inspired only by our sinful nature (it doesn’t matter if it’s well-intended). Similarly people stop knowing what they’re saved from and the extent of their sinful nature. Then church becomes a social gathering and the only gospel left is the social gospel as people don’t have the complete understanding of sin that comes from God only, not ourselves as the fall story in Genesis tells us. So it’s not about the 3rd use, it’s about all uses of the law.
Amen!
18:20 Amen..Irving Ca.🕳️
If I want to be a doctor, I will be told to go to medical school, but that doesn't mean I can get in to a medical school.
That has nothing to do with law
@@marilynmelzian7370 Without it you break the law.
Getting down on the Church volubility,which Has been in this very issue LCMS..today humor,of sort..boo if need be,Lutherans meet with Francis..time stands still...?
... What?
The real issue here is that if works are necessary, and they do not spring naturally from the baptized but require effort and application of the law, Lutheranism is made to contradict its own solas.
Fides et acta
Reference min 27.
He makes my point at 27:00@@KO_WI88
"But sir, if you do not give your heart to Jesus, you cannot be saved."
"You are right, my boy. And it is just as true that, if you think you are saved because you give Jesus your heart, you will not be saved. You see, my boy, it is one thing to choose Jesus as one's Lord and Savior, to give him one's heart and commit oneself to him, and that he now accepts one into his little flock; it is a very different thing to believe on him as a Redeemer of sinners, of whom one is chief. One does not choose a Redeemer for oneself, you understand, nor give one's heart to him. The heart is a rusty old can on a junk heap. A fine birthday gift, indeed! But a wonderful Lord passes by, and has mercy on the wretched tin can, sticks his walking cane through it, and rescues it from the junk pile and takes it home with him. That is how it is."
Giving the heart is equivalent to relying upon works: a rusty old can. But when Christ has come and retrieved that can from the refuse pile that can becomes useful and can serve the purposes of the Lord. That is how it is.
Lutheranism explicitly chooses not to address conflicts or omissions found in the Bible, we leave the mystery to God. Committing to solve those logically always undermines part of God’s Word so we don’t do it and stand in Awe of God’s Wisdom instead.
@@KO_WI88 Minute 27 says what I'm saying.