Auburn Avenue and Union

AuburnAve. Union With Christ.MP3

Alan Strange on “Relational vs Legal”

<a href=”Alan Strange.Relational VS Legal

Alan Strange

Alan Strange (2^nd Lecture, time: 15 minsff)

Strange says there is a natural tension b/t the legal nature and filial relationship of God and man. He says the FV guys are trying to drive a wedge b/t the two besides. They say, “Let’s be relational at the expense of the legal!” The FV-ers don’t get the Fall and how it has affected man. Strange says FV-ers don’t get the Fall b/c guys like Wilkins flatten out the covenant. That is, there is only one, true, eternal covenant which is both historical (Cov’t of Grace) and a-historical (Trinitarian). The covenant believers find themselves in today is that same covenant wherein Adam found himself (but subsequently lost). But Strange cannot allow for this since there is no condition placed upon the Trinitarian cov’t. But is the Adamic cov’t different in nature than those which follow?

2)

(Time: 28 mins)Contra Norman Shepherd. Strange has a hard time with the language of Christ’s faith imputed to us. But is this really in opposition to saying “active obedience”? Is Christ’s faith not active? Does his faith not necessitate obedience? Was it not his righteous living imputed to us? Am I not called to faith? Am I not called to trust and obey and f.r.o.g. ? Yes, but I have failed. I do not faith. That is why I need Jesus. To say that Jesus’ faith is given to us says nothing less than that his obedient acts are reckoned to our account.

3)

(Time: 32 mins) Quoting Lusk, Christ did not have to earn God’s love or favor. True, Strange says, but we do. True, says Strange, but we can’t. And so we need Christ. Christ earns for us what we could not ourselves. But this is adumbrated. “Earn” is so works laden that it is not good language. When my oldest son (then 6) sat before the session of our 2^nd to last church (no we don’t church hop), he was taken to task in this regard (I had brought him for approval for communion). An elder said to him, “Now, Harry, you know that it is nothing that you do that earns your love from God. You can’t work for heaven.” And I sat there aghast!! Who in his right mind would talk to a child about works salvation? Why even bring it up? I did not teach my child that anything he does affects his relationship with God and he certainly is too young to be Arminian. My son had no clue what to say probably b/c he had no clue what was just said to him. He looked at me as if to say, “These aren’t the catechism questions we’ve gone over, Dad. Get me outta here!”To say that Christ earned our salvation is wrong. I’m sorry but the Standards are wrong (at least) here. Christ is the 2^nd Adam. He came to do what the first Adam did not: remain faithful. Adam had nothing to earn. Indeed, Adam could not earn anything from God. God was already his Father and he had no need of salvation. What Adam was required to do was “faith.” Adam was required to live before God in all holiness, righteousness, and truth. In so doing, Adam would have been further and finally glorified. He would have matured and procured for him and all his posterity what we all long for now: Life. In this same way, Jesus was God’s Son, yea, God’s Truer Son. He had no need of salvation. He was the righteous one. He had no need to earn God’s love. He had the Father’s benediction from the start. In the substitutionary atonement, God the Father removed our guilt, and then considered us faithful through the righteousness of his son. Merit is so-medieval.

4)

(Time: 37 mins)Contra Lusk. Strange quotes Lusk as accusing the Standards of being too Pelagian pre-lapsarian. The idea of the cov’t of works has with it the idea of earning something from God. But Strange missed the forest for the trees. What Lusk means is that even the idea of works merited pre-fall is Pelagian. Earning anything from God is a misnomer. (Time:46 mins)Contra Schlissel. Strange explains that the key evangelical question is not (really), “What must I do to be saved?” Rather, the question ought be, “What does God require?” If we look pre-lapsarian, God required perfect, personal, and perpetual obedience. If we look post-lapsarian, God requires…well, what does God require “that we might escape his wrath do to us for sin?” You see, Mr. Strange, even the Confession does not say that fallen man must render to God perfect obedience b/c all are guilty and there is no on righteous. That is to say, all men since Adam (Christ excepted) are unable to obey and further break God’s commands daily in thought, word, and deed. So what is it that God requires? God requires perfect….no. God requires—that we might escape his wrath due to us for sin—repentance unto life, faith in Jesus Christ as he is offered to us in the Gospel (and “How is he offered to us in the Gospel?” Christ is offered to us in the Gospel as the object of faith in his whole person as he officiates as our Prophet to whom we must listen, as our Priest who has offered himself a sacrifice to remove offence and make us children of God and continually praying in our stead, and as our King to whom we must submit and ally ourselves with as his people.”), and the diligent use of the outward means whereby Christ and all the benefits of the NC are communicated to us. Why is Schlissel’s question more appropriate than Strange’s? It is so for this reason. Prior to the fall perfect obedience is required. After the fall, as Strange ejaculates in his lecture, “we can’t do it!! We can’t keep the law!” That’s the answer Strange. Fallen man cannot be expected to obey perfectly because he is already guilty. So your question is wrong (per se. It’s not really, but you brought it up). Well, yes, the Philippian jailer asked the question but he asked it with Schlissel’s in mind. B/c just like Peter’s audience, they heard that God was angry with them and they needed a way out. The jailer and my neighbor need to hear what God has done for them, not what he demands of them.

5)

(Time: 51.48)Strange defines righteousness ala WCF: Christ’s perfect sacrifice and obedience that wholly satisfies God’s justice. Strange argues poorly against Leithart who says that God’s righteousness is not that which obeys or satisfies the law but rather reflects his faithful character to his covenant people. That is, God’s righteousness is more relational and covenantal as he deals with his people (which I think has reciprocity for us as we relate to him in faithfulness by endeavouring to walk in newness of life). Strange says that Leithart does not truncate the term but acknowledges it fullness noting that there are nuances to righteousness, “whatever that means.” That last statement made by Strange is peculiar. He doesn’t qualify it; he doesn’t defend it. He just says, “this is an idiotic statement…uh huh, huh, huh.” Strange says that righteousness is perfect law keeping: as is for Adam, so is for Christ. He says, “To say that righteousness then is God’s covenant faithfulness to his people (acknowledging a nuance for righteousness) but then to say that it is law keeping for man, is God then unjust if he does not punish the reprobate?” This is a non sequitor. Can you not read that? Read it again and hear Strange’s abnormal use of logic. He is grasping for “something.” Rather it does follow that God’s punishment of the wicked is covenant faithfulness, it actually is righteousness. He says to reduce righteousness to covenant faithfulness is to do injustice to the term but he minutes earlier acquitted Leithart of such a charge. But when one reads Wright or the FV-ers, one gets the sense of a both-and rather that an either-or.