That quote...

Okay, okay, okay...you can stop harassing me. A few days ago (well, a couple of weeks and change) I put a quotation up, with the promise of revealing the author soon. And then silence ensued--part of that was due to the fact that I was busier than a one-legged man in a butt-kicking contest. Another part of it was due to the fact that I was intending on using it in the sermon I had to preach for class on 1/13, and I was reserving comment on it 'til I was done with that. (and another part is shear laziness, I'm sure).

Sorry Rusty, it was not Princess Di who wrote that. Nor was it little ol' me. And maybe using a Bible Code-type hermeneutic you could find a chicken curry recipe there, but I'm not sure. And as for Internet Lutherans...well, I'm sure the original author would deal with them in such a way as to make Steve Hays look like kitty cat. It was by the stalwart Robert L. Dabney, from the book Sacred Rhetoric. Currently published under the title Evangelical Eloquence by the Banner of Truth.

Here's the quotation w/a little context--Dabney is discussing the subjects of sermons--the type of sermon to be preached. Should they all be doctrinal? Should they all be practical? Dabney says no to both. Part of his argument for a balance between the two in preaching included that quotation. Here it is with the rest of the paragraph:

The practical definition of Christianity has been fully accepted by us. Its end and aim is holy living [author's footnote: "Eph. i.4; Titus ii.14, et passim"]. Of this holy life, the law of God is the rule. The believer justified in Christ does not, indeed, look to the law for his redeeming merit; but he receives it as his guide to the obedience of faith and love, as fully as though he were still under a covenant of works. He therefore needs practical instruction, as really as the unbeliever. It must stimulate and direct him in the Christian race, and make him a "peculiar person, zealous of good works." The exclusive preaching of doctrine to professed Christians tends to cultivate an Antinomian Spirit. The exclusive inculcation of duties fosters self-righteousness. The edification of the Church, then, demands the diligent intermixture of both kinds. This precept may be confirmed by the remark, that, as the motives and obligations of all duties are rooted in the doctrines, so the best illustrations of the doctrines are by their application to the duties. The two are inseparably connected as grounds and conclusions, as means and end; and their systematic separation in your instructions would leave your hearers incapable of a correct understanding of either.

The part that struck me is of course the part that struck the commenters: "...but he receives it as his guide to the obedience of faith and love, as fully as though he were still under a covenant of works." The words are jarring to our ears (and, I'm willing to bet Dabney's original audience). We instinctively recoil, "'Covenant of works? Oh, no, no, no. Even if you accept the outdated notion of a Covenant of Works, we know that under the New Covenant we have nothing to do with such a thing." Well, yeah, I do accept the covenant of works, and I'm not arguing that we should consider ourselves under it--nor does Dabney. I want to emphasize, Dabney is by no means arguing for moralism, if you didn't catch that in the above quotation. He later stresses, "It is only the morality of the Cross which the Christian pastor should teach."

But think of it this way: let's say, we were under a Covenant where our performance did decide our eternal state. Where our understanding, our adherence to a code of morality or a list of duties was the sole determining factor in whether we had life everlasting, or perpetual punishment. Now, given those conditions: how fully would we receive and embrace that code/list as our guide to obedience?

But, thank God, that is not the condition we are in. "The believer justified in Christ does not, indeed, look to the law for his redeeming merit" (or any other kind of merit). By God's free grace, we have been called, justified, adopted, and more. But in love we are to obey that same Lord, "If you love me, you will keep my commandments" (John 14:15); "If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. Whoever does not love me does not keep my words" (John 14:23,24). If we love Him, would we not therefore embrace this same code with more ardor, more fervor than we would out of fear of punishment/hope of reward? Especially when we remember, that "this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome." (1 John 5:3)

Okay, there are (some) of my thoughts on the quotation. Feel free to throw some back at me.

P. S. Before I forget, while I'm talking about Dabney's book on preaching. His comments on political preaching were worth the price of the book. Should probably get it printed in pamphlet form and mail copies to everyone who attends one of those "Justice Sunday" events. If someone kindly reminds me in a few days, I'll post parts of it.