A while back, I was basically asked, 'put up or shut up,' when I asserted that Professors Marquardt and Scaer of Concordia Theological Seminary, Ft. Wayne, IN, had distinct approaches to their views to the Third Use of the Law. I provided a number examples (which can be found in previous posts) of these differences.
In some following posts I will try to give an answer to the responses that were raised. Although I am sure that to some people that , whatever answers I do give, will be insufficient or inadequate.
My initial comments about Scaer and Marquardt were given in response to my wife being called an antinomian (and by association me, because I did not disagree with her). This moniker 'antinomian' was given because of difference of opinion on the Third Use of the Law. But the true antinomian is one who opposes the law (whether first, second, or third use). So to call someone 'antinomian' because of difference of opinion on the Third Use of the Law reveals the ignorance of the name caller. [Yes, I mean ignorance]. I have found that those who so freely call others 'antinomians' are themselves 'legalists.'
So thus if I am an 'antinomian' based on my understanding of the Third Use of the Law, I guess I would have to consider the one who calls me that is a 'legalist.'
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I have been hunting some blogs I can regularly read, you would be one of a few of them. I am a new Lutheran (just a couple of years) and I am also examining the 3rd Use of The Law.
What prompted me to this is the way arguments are made for say the ordination of women. I am not for it but the argument from Scripture is clearly a 3rd Use in operation. My point is that if there is no 3rd Use - as a guide for the church, then I have no reason to appeal to it and hence, I can not support my position for non-ordination of women. I do not know if I am making sense, but I think you will sense my dilemma.
LP Cruz
Post a Comment