Saturday, July 31, 2010
Saved
What can I say? The cross has been on mind as of late. I have been dwelling on Christ’s sacrifice and our unworthiness of it. He died for us when we were yet sinners. When we were yet SINNERS! We were damaged goods, totally depraved, since the fall of Adam. We cannot keep the commandments. We all fall short (Romans 3:23). Imagine sacrificing yourself for refuse, garbage, toilet paper. God would have been just to let us give Him glory in our eternal torment and damnation. A just God cannot and must not let unrighteousness go unpunished. So, judgment He decreed….on Himself in our stead! He looked on His and said, “Here let me take your filth and you can have my righteousness.” So, on the cross he WILLINGLY went. He gave His life, no one stole it. As I read Matthew 27, the account of the crucifixion, I am forced to realize, with eyes spiritually pried open, that I, in my sin, would not have been among those who weeped for Christ, but I would be among the scoffers, mockers, and abusers. Every time I fall short, every time the pride of life, lust of the eyes, and lust of the flesh fill me and I succumb to their impulses, I spit at His sacrifice. It is me who Christ was speaking about when he said, “Father, forgive them, they know not what they do.” And here is the kicker of it all, He knew how I would hurt Him from the foundations of the Earth and the beginnings of time itself and He still went willing to the cross to save me. All of His children’s sins were paid in full when he said, “It is finished” and gave up the ghost. I bring nothing to the table when it comes to my salvation expect my wretchedness. With this mindset, I can no longer say that “I gave my life to Christ.” as though it was mine to give, for this pride now stings me. I can only say, “Jesus SAVED me.” I am only just now understanding what it means to be, “saved.” Only now do I begin to grasp the concept of, “Jesus loves me.” I do not think the full extent of His love will be revealed to me on this side of eternity. It is just too deep for me to get, still having the flesh a part of me. All I can say is, “Thank you, Lord”
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Learning From God - Unchanging Love
From the Pastor: Dr. M. J. Seymour, Sr.
“Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? … For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.” (Rom. 8:38-39) “Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.” (Heb. 13:11) Nothing that has been created by God can separate us from His love, which is in Christ Jesus, be they physical or spiritual.
Most folks have a tendency to use the word “love” when they more properly ought to use the words “like or lust.” This misuse of words creates a confusion of thought and understanding on their part and others. Correct word usage would certainly clarify many misunderstandings. Many would not jump in and out of marriages if they would simply use proper wording as “I lust after you,” instead of “I love you.” There is definitely a difference between the two. Love is a lasting unconquerable commitment, while lust is simply a temporary passion that passes away when it is filled up, or turns to lust after some other objective. With God there is no questionable uncertainties, nor is He the author of any such confusion. God chooses His words very carefully, for they are set and committed for eternity. When God says He loves, it is a binding vow that cannot be torn asunder, though the gates of Hell will surely try.
We find in the Holy Scriptures these instructions: “Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another.” (I Jn 4:11) If our Father’s love is not as changeable as the wind, regardless of conditions and circumstances, then neither is the love that He has bestowed upon us to share with others. We are not perfect, yet He still loves us unwaveringly. We miserably fail so many times, but God never fails to continue loving us. His words are abundantly clear, there is absolutely no set of events, any person, or any spirit that will ever be able to separate us from His eternal love. When God loves it is unchangeable. Beloved, if this is the way of the Father and is His directives to us, ought not we also to love with an everlasting love? True love is not a conditional attribute. Godly love is unprovoked, unconditional, unselfish, and unchanging. Brethren, let us learn from our heavenly Father how to love.
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Unforgettable
As I write this I find myself still trying to process what I witnessed first hand, just last night. This date of June 12 2010, this night will and should be forever etched into my puny little mind.
Last night I began to help a gentleman who has taken on the task and ministry of opening up our church gym to the local youth in the nearby neighborhoods. He opens the gym and allows those who want to play basketball with one main objective, to give a devotion and short bible study. The basketball and the air conditioned gym is the bait that gets them in to here a message from God’s word. From what I gather from this kind and humble man of God of what to expect on these Monday nights, is a variety of age groups. The primary age group he said, should be from the ages of late teens to early 20’s. Well it was just as he said. That was the primary age group that showed up. On my first night of assisting Mr. Vic he informed me that he would have to leave early and would leave things with me. I thought ,o.k., what a crash course this will be. You see, I thought somehow this was just going to be a bunch of small children and preteens running around and having a good time in the gym, with a short bible story squished in at the half way point. And the squished in bible study would be led by Mr. Vic, since he has been doing this for a couple of years now.
Well here I am, no Mr. Vic and not many small children running around. The small children consisted of my son who is eight and his friend. There was a couple of preteens who attend our Wednesday night youth group who live in the same neighborhood as the young adults who were there last night. As Mr. Vic was leaving he came back in and said there were several young people walking across the parking lot of our church. So, we went outside to meet them before they came in. Mr. Vic did not recognize but just a couple of them who were in this group. He laid out the rules before they entered, if they did not want to attend the bible study they could not stay to shoot hoops. He introduced me to the group and then he was off. There was about 20 young men there that night. As I watched these young men play basketball, I wondered what it would be like when I whistled and called them all over to share with them. How would they react? How would they respond?
With nothing prepared to say and not knowing what they were accustomed to as a bible study or devotion from Mr. Vic, I knew that I was going to share the gospel of Jesus Christ. I figured in no way should this be a place where the name of Jesus Christ and His gospel is not loudly and gloriously proclaimed. No way should this be a Christianized Y.M.C.A. youth night. No way should this be a glorified Boys Club. No, the bait is basketball and the hook is Jesus Christ. So, I called them over and proclaimed the gospel with boldness and much Holy Spirit powered conviction. I know it is not how hard that I try to set the hook in the heart of these young African American men from the projects, no that job belongs to God Himself. What liberation we can feel from knowing this truth. Our job is to simply scatter the seed.
During the time I was sharing the gospel I asked one young man to assist me in illustrating a point I was trying to make his name was Mark.
After we prayed I let them return to playing basketball. Near the end of the night when it was time to go, Mark and another young man began to argue over something that happened as they were playing. I guess it may have been over a hard foul. The young man whose name I do not know began to threaten Mark. He was threatening Mark with promises of shooting him or busting a cap in his brain. I managed to get him to calm down. He quickly left. I thought, thank you God that nothing worse happened. I mean, here I am alone, what if his threats turn real? By Gods grace the angry young man left. On that note I thought it would be best to end the night right here. So, I turned out the lights and locked up the gym. The two young preteens who attend our Wednesday night youth meetings asked me for a ride home, I said yes. They lived in the same housing projects as did the older youth. The same neighborhood the young man Mark lives in I had just met forty five minutes earlier. I dropped them off in front of their door and noticed people walking and running about a hundred yards up the street in the direction I was to travel in order to leave the complex. By this time the older kids were now making it back to their neighborhood on foot. It appeared that the young man Mark had an altercation with earlier in the gym had already made it back to the neighborhood and was waiting for Mark’s return. There must have had some altercation. I didn’t see any physical fighting but what I did see I will not soon forget. I saw the the young man with whom Mark was arguing with, take off running down the side walk. Others began walking really fast or jogging away from where Mark was standing. I saw Mark lift up his arm about shoulder length. In his hand was a small revolver. He began to shoot down the sidewalk at the direction of the young man who was running away. He fired three shots. As I was witnessing this take place seated in my truck at a dead stop because the road was blocked by the people standing in the way, my eyes and Marks met just briefly before he turned and trotted off.
I reported the incident to the police. So many thoughts flooded into my mind. Where did the bullets that left his revolver end up? In the side of someone’s apartment? Inside of someone’s apartment? In someone’s back? Is this something I really want to continue to do? Is Mr. Vic naive? Does he really know what kind of environment these kids are growing up in? Do these basketball games cause arguments that lead or fuel greater violence later on? Do I know what I have gotten myself into, really? I do know this, I do not fear these kids. I see young men and women who battle poverty, gangs and violence, more properly defined SIN, unlike what our average church member has ever had to cope with. I see young men and women created in the image of God.
I see the gospel as the only means of setting captives free from the bondage of Satan and sin. Whatever happens next may it never, never, be about social ills and fixes. May it only be about Jesus Christ an exalting His Holy name to those held captive by Satan to do his will.
Last night I began to help a gentleman who has taken on the task and ministry of opening up our church gym to the local youth in the nearby neighborhoods. He opens the gym and allows those who want to play basketball with one main objective, to give a devotion and short bible study. The basketball and the air conditioned gym is the bait that gets them in to here a message from God’s word. From what I gather from this kind and humble man of God of what to expect on these Monday nights, is a variety of age groups. The primary age group he said, should be from the ages of late teens to early 20’s. Well it was just as he said. That was the primary age group that showed up. On my first night of assisting Mr. Vic he informed me that he would have to leave early and would leave things with me. I thought ,o.k., what a crash course this will be. You see, I thought somehow this was just going to be a bunch of small children and preteens running around and having a good time in the gym, with a short bible story squished in at the half way point. And the squished in bible study would be led by Mr. Vic, since he has been doing this for a couple of years now.
Well here I am, no Mr. Vic and not many small children running around. The small children consisted of my son who is eight and his friend. There was a couple of preteens who attend our Wednesday night youth group who live in the same neighborhood as the young adults who were there last night. As Mr. Vic was leaving he came back in and said there were several young people walking across the parking lot of our church. So, we went outside to meet them before they came in. Mr. Vic did not recognize but just a couple of them who were in this group. He laid out the rules before they entered, if they did not want to attend the bible study they could not stay to shoot hoops. He introduced me to the group and then he was off. There was about 20 young men there that night. As I watched these young men play basketball, I wondered what it would be like when I whistled and called them all over to share with them. How would they react? How would they respond?
With nothing prepared to say and not knowing what they were accustomed to as a bible study or devotion from Mr. Vic, I knew that I was going to share the gospel of Jesus Christ. I figured in no way should this be a place where the name of Jesus Christ and His gospel is not loudly and gloriously proclaimed. No way should this be a Christianized Y.M.C.A. youth night. No way should this be a glorified Boys Club. No, the bait is basketball and the hook is Jesus Christ. So, I called them over and proclaimed the gospel with boldness and much Holy Spirit powered conviction. I know it is not how hard that I try to set the hook in the heart of these young African American men from the projects, no that job belongs to God Himself. What liberation we can feel from knowing this truth. Our job is to simply scatter the seed.
During the time I was sharing the gospel I asked one young man to assist me in illustrating a point I was trying to make his name was Mark.
After we prayed I let them return to playing basketball. Near the end of the night when it was time to go, Mark and another young man began to argue over something that happened as they were playing. I guess it may have been over a hard foul. The young man whose name I do not know began to threaten Mark. He was threatening Mark with promises of shooting him or busting a cap in his brain. I managed to get him to calm down. He quickly left. I thought, thank you God that nothing worse happened. I mean, here I am alone, what if his threats turn real? By Gods grace the angry young man left. On that note I thought it would be best to end the night right here. So, I turned out the lights and locked up the gym. The two young preteens who attend our Wednesday night youth meetings asked me for a ride home, I said yes. They lived in the same housing projects as did the older youth. The same neighborhood the young man Mark lives in I had just met forty five minutes earlier. I dropped them off in front of their door and noticed people walking and running about a hundred yards up the street in the direction I was to travel in order to leave the complex. By this time the older kids were now making it back to their neighborhood on foot. It appeared that the young man Mark had an altercation with earlier in the gym had already made it back to the neighborhood and was waiting for Mark’s return. There must have had some altercation. I didn’t see any physical fighting but what I did see I will not soon forget. I saw the the young man with whom Mark was arguing with, take off running down the side walk. Others began walking really fast or jogging away from where Mark was standing. I saw Mark lift up his arm about shoulder length. In his hand was a small revolver. He began to shoot down the sidewalk at the direction of the young man who was running away. He fired three shots. As I was witnessing this take place seated in my truck at a dead stop because the road was blocked by the people standing in the way, my eyes and Marks met just briefly before he turned and trotted off.
I reported the incident to the police. So many thoughts flooded into my mind. Where did the bullets that left his revolver end up? In the side of someone’s apartment? Inside of someone’s apartment? In someone’s back? Is this something I really want to continue to do? Is Mr. Vic naive? Does he really know what kind of environment these kids are growing up in? Do these basketball games cause arguments that lead or fuel greater violence later on? Do I know what I have gotten myself into, really? I do know this, I do not fear these kids. I see young men and women who battle poverty, gangs and violence, more properly defined SIN, unlike what our average church member has ever had to cope with. I see young men and women created in the image of God.
I see the gospel as the only means of setting captives free from the bondage of Satan and sin. Whatever happens next may it never, never, be about social ills and fixes. May it only be about Jesus Christ an exalting His Holy name to those held captive by Satan to do his will.
Divine Dignity
From the Pastor: M. J. Seymour, Sr.
Somehow in the last few decades church folk have lost sight of the holy dignity due the everlasting living God of all creation. Many have transformed Him from an Eternal Sovereign into a “Slap Happy Pappy.” Pure thoughts of a holy dignified God have been replaced with vile graven imaginations of a “good ole buddy” that can be manipulated by worldly lusts. Cursed is everyone who is deceived by such gross ungodly perversions of His Majesty on High.
The Prophet Isaiah unveils for us a glimpse of God’s majesty: “I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple. Above it stood the seraphims: each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly. And one cried unto another, and said Holy, holy, holy, is the LORD of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory.” (Is. 6:1-3) Then Isaiah reveals what ought to be our proper response to such a glorious sight: “Woe is me! For I am undone;” (vs. 4) Notice with all the prophets, apostles, and saints of the Bible how they were instantly awed and bowed to the unveiled divine dignity of the Eternal Creator and the Lord Jesus Christ. Is there a lesson in this for all of us?
A true church of the Lord Jesus Christ, a body that has been purchased by His precious blood, has the inherent passion to hold the Father, the Son, and the Spirit in the highest degree of holy respect, honor and worthiness. Great care is taken by true believers not to trample under foot or to make mockery of the divine dignity due our Sovereign Eternal God, His blessed Son, and His Holy Spirit. When the saints enter the hallow halls of holy worship before the throne of grace and mercy, weighty considerations are given to the magnitude of preserving the dignity of Him that the seraphims are vigilant to proclaim as “Holy, holy, holy.” The assembling of saints was not designed to amuse and entertain the ungodly masses. We gather together to give authentic worship, praise, thanksgivings, sacrifices of ourselves, and to grow in the grace and knowledge of God and the Lord Jesus. All of this is to be accomplished without offending the divine dignity of the Almighty, Who uses the earth as His footstool. The Lord’s churches must exercise profound sensitivity to holy dignity as they assemble in the presence of God.
Somehow in the last few decades church folk have lost sight of the holy dignity due the everlasting living God of all creation. Many have transformed Him from an Eternal Sovereign into a “Slap Happy Pappy.” Pure thoughts of a holy dignified God have been replaced with vile graven imaginations of a “good ole buddy” that can be manipulated by worldly lusts. Cursed is everyone who is deceived by such gross ungodly perversions of His Majesty on High.
The Prophet Isaiah unveils for us a glimpse of God’s majesty: “I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple. Above it stood the seraphims: each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly. And one cried unto another, and said Holy, holy, holy, is the LORD of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory.” (Is. 6:1-3) Then Isaiah reveals what ought to be our proper response to such a glorious sight: “Woe is me! For I am undone;” (vs. 4) Notice with all the prophets, apostles, and saints of the Bible how they were instantly awed and bowed to the unveiled divine dignity of the Eternal Creator and the Lord Jesus Christ. Is there a lesson in this for all of us?
A true church of the Lord Jesus Christ, a body that has been purchased by His precious blood, has the inherent passion to hold the Father, the Son, and the Spirit in the highest degree of holy respect, honor and worthiness. Great care is taken by true believers not to trample under foot or to make mockery of the divine dignity due our Sovereign Eternal God, His blessed Son, and His Holy Spirit. When the saints enter the hallow halls of holy worship before the throne of grace and mercy, weighty considerations are given to the magnitude of preserving the dignity of Him that the seraphims are vigilant to proclaim as “Holy, holy, holy.” The assembling of saints was not designed to amuse and entertain the ungodly masses. We gather together to give authentic worship, praise, thanksgivings, sacrifices of ourselves, and to grow in the grace and knowledge of God and the Lord Jesus. All of this is to be accomplished without offending the divine dignity of the Almighty, Who uses the earth as His footstool. The Lord’s churches must exercise profound sensitivity to holy dignity as they assemble in the presence of God.
Saturday, July 10, 2010
Law and Gospel
By: John Frame
It has become increasingly common in Reformed circles, as it has long been in Lutheran circles, to say that the distinction between law and gospel is the key to sound theology, even to say that to differ with certain traditional formulations of this distinction is to deny the gospel itself.
Sometimes this argument employs Scripture passages like Rom. 3:21-31, emphasizing that we are saved by God’s grace, through faith alone, apart from the works of the law. In my judgment, however, none of the parties to the debate questions that justification is by grace alone, through faith alone, by the imputed righteousness of Christ alone. But it is one thing to distinguish between faith and works, a different thing to distinguish law and gospel.
1. The Traditional Distinction
The distinction between law and gospel is not a distinction between a false and a true way of salvation. Rather, it is a distinction between two messages, one that supposedly consists exclusively of commands, threats, and therefore terrors, the other that consists exclusively of promises and comforts. Although I believe that we are saved entirely by God’s grace and not by works, I do not believe that there are two entirely different messages of God in Scripture, one exclusively of command (“law”) and the other exclusively of promise (“gospel”). In Scripture itself, commands and promises are typically found together. With God’s promises come commands to repent of sin and believe the promise. The commands, typically, are not merely announcements of judgment, but God’s gracious opportunities to repent of sin and believe in him. As the Psalmist says, “be gracious to me through your law,” Psm. 119:29.
The view that I oppose, which sharply separates the two messages, comes mainly out of Lutheran theology, though similar statements can be found in Calvin and in other Reformed writers. [1] The Epitome of the Lutheran Formula of Concord, at V, 5, recognizes that gospel is used in different senses in Scripture, and it cites Mark 1:15 and Acts 20:21 as passages in which gospel preaching “correctly” includes a command to repent of sin. But in section 6, it does something really strange. It says,
But when the Law and the Gospel are compared together, as well as Moses himself, the teacher of the Law, and Christ the teacher of the Gospel, we believe, teach, and confess that the Gospel is not a preaching of repentance, convicting of sins, but that it is properly nothing else than a certain most joyful message and preaching full of consolation, not convicting or terrifying, inasmuch as it comforts the conscience against the terrors of the Law, and bids it look at the merit of Christ alone...
I say this is strange, because the Formula gives no biblical support at all for this distinction, and what it says here about the "gospel" flatly contradicts what it conceded earlier in section 5. What it describes as “correct” in section five contradicts what it calls “proper” in section 6. What section 6 does is to suggest something “improper” about what it admits to be the biblical description of the content of gospel, as in Mark 1:15 and Acts 14:15. [2] Mark 1:15 is correct, but not proper.
2. Law and Gospel in Scripture
I have been told that proper at this point in the Formula means, not “incorrect” or “wrong,” but simply “more common or usual.” I have, however, looked through the uses of the euaggel- terms in the NT, and I cannot find one instance in which the context excludes a demand for repentance (that is, a command of God, a law) as part of the gospel content. That is to say, I cannot find one instance of what the Formula calls the “proper” meaning of gospel, a message of pure comfort, without any suggestion of obligation. And there are important theological reasons why that use does not occur.
Essentially, the "gospel" in the NT is the good news that the kingdom of God has come in Jesus (Matt. 4:23, 9:35, Mark 1:14, Luke 4:43, Acts 20:24f). [3] "Kingdom" is (1) God's sovereign power, (2) his sovereign authority, and (3) his coming into history to defeat Satan and bring about salvation with all its consequences. [4] God's kingdom power includes all his mighty acts in history, especially including the Resurrection of Christ.
God’s kingdom authority is the reiteration of his commandments. When the kingdom appears in power, it is time for people to repent. They must obey (hupakouo) the gospel (2 Thess. 1:8, compare apeitheo in 1 Pet. 4:17). The gospel itself requires a certain kind of conduct (Acts 14:15, Gal. 2:14, Phil. 1:27; cf. Rom 2:16).
When God comes into history, he brings his power and authority to bear on his creatures. In kingdom power, he establishes peace. So NT writers frequently refer to the “gospel of peace” (Eph. 6:15; cf. Acts 10:36, Rom. 10:15), sometimes referring to the “mystery” of God bringing Gentiles and Jews together in one body (Rom. 16:25, Eph. 6:19).
It is this whole complex: God's power to save, the reiteration of God's commands, and his coming into history to execute his plan, that is the gospel. It is good news to know that God is bringing his good plans to fruition.
Consider Isa. 52:7, one of the most important background passages for the New Testament concept of gospel:
How beautiful upon the mountains
Are the feet of him who brings good news,
Who publishes peace, who brings good news of happiness,
Who publishes salvation,
Who says to Zion, “Your God reigns.” (ESV)
It is the reign of God that is good news, news that ensures peace and salvation.
Even the demand for repentance is good news, because in context it implies that God, though coming in power to claim his rights, is willing to forgive for Christ's sake.
So gospel includes law in an important sense: God’s kingdom authority, his demand to repent. Even on the view of those most committed to the law/gospel distinction, the gospel includes a command to believe. We tend to think of that command as in a different class from the commands of the decalogue. But that too is a command, after all. Generically it is law. And, like the decalogue, that law can be terrifying to someone who wants to trust only on his own resources, rather than resting on the mercy of another. And the demand of faith includes other requirements: the conduct becoming the gospel that I mentioned earlier. Faith itself works through love (Gal. 5:6) and is dead without good works (James 2:17).
Having faith does not merit salvation for anyone, any more than any other human act merits salvation. Thus we speak of faith, not as the ground of salvation, but as the instrument. Faith saves, not because it merits salvation, but because it reaches out to receive God’s grace in Christ. Nevertheless, faith is an obligation, and in that respect the command to believe is like other divine commands. So it is impossible to say that command, or law, is excluded from the message of the gospel.
It is also true that law includes gospel. God gives his law as part of a covenant, and that covenant is a gift of God’s grace. The decalogue begins, “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.” Only after proclaiming his saving grace does God then issue his commands to Israel. So the decalogue as a whole has the function of offering Israel a new way of life, conferred by grace (cf. Deut. 7:7-8, 9:4-6). Is the decalogue “law” or “gospel?” Surely it is both. Israel was terrified upon hearing it, to be sure (Ex. 20:18-21). But in fact it offers blessing (note verse 6) and promise (verse 12). Moses and the Prophets are sufficient to keep sinners from perishing in Hell (Matt. 16:31).
So the definitions that sharply separate law and gospel break down on careful analysis. In both law and gospel, then, God proclaims his saving work, and he demands that his people respond by obeying his commands. The terms “law” and “gospel” differ in emphasis, but they overlap and intersect. They present the whole Word of God from different perspectives. Indeed, we can say that our Bible as a whole is both law (because as a whole it speaks with divine authority and requires belief) and gospel (because as a whole it is good news to fallen creatures). Each concept is meaningless apart from the other. Each implies the other.
The law often brings terror, to be sure. Israel was frightened by the Sinai display of God’s wrath against sin (Ex. 20:18-21). But it also brings delight to the redeemed heart (Psm. 1:2; compare 119:34-36, 47, 92, 93, 97, 130, 131, Rom. 7:22). Similarly, the gospel brings comfort and joy; but (as less often noted in the theological literature) it also brings condemnation. Paul says that his gospel preaching is, to those who perish, “a fragrance from death to death” and, to those who believe, “a fragrance from life to life” (2 Cor. 2:15-16; compare 1 Cor. 1:18, 23, 27-29, 2 Cor. 4:3-4, Rom. 9:32). The gospel is good news to those who believe. But to those who are intent on saving themselves by their own righteousness, it is bad news. It is God’s condemnation upon them, a rock of offense.
3. Which Comes First?
In discussions of law and gospel, one commonly hears that it is important, not only to preach both law and gospel, but also to preach the law first and the gospel second. We are told that people must be frightened by the law before they can be driven to seek salvation in Christ. Certainly there is a great need to preach God’s standards, man’s disobedience, and God’s wrath against sin, especially in an age such as ours where people think God will let them behave as they like. And very often people have been driven to their knees in repentance when the Spirit has convicted them of their transgressions of law.
But as we have seen, it is really impossible truly to present law without gospel or gospel without law, though various relative emphases are possible. And among those relative emphases, the biblical pattern tends to put the gospel first. That is the pattern of the decalogue, as we have seen: God proclaims that he has redeemed his people (gospel), then asks them to behave as his covenant people (law). Since both gospel and law are aspects of God’s covenants, that pattern pervades Scripture.
Jesus reflects that pattern in his own evangelism. In John 4, Jesus tells the Samaritan woman that he can give her living water that will take away all thirst. Only after offering that gift does he proclaim the law to her, exposing her adultery. Some have cited Luke 18:18—30 as an example of the contrary order: Jesus expounds the commandments, and only afterward tells the rich ruler to follow him. But in this passage Jesus does not use the law alone to terrorize the man or to plunge him into despair. The man does go sadly away only after Jesus has called him to discipleship, which, though itself a command, is the gospel of this passage.
4. The “New Perspective” and Paul’s Gospel
Since the apostle Paul is most often in the forefront in discussions of the meaning of gospel, something should perhaps be said here about the “new perspective on Paul” in recent scholarship, based on writings of Krister Stendahl, E. P. Sanders, James D. G. Dunn, and others. In that perspective, the problem with Judaism, according to Paul, was not works righteousness, but its failure to accept God’s new covenant in Christ, which embraced Gentiles as well as Jews. On this perspective, Paul’s gospel is not an answer to the troubled conscience of someone who can’t meet God’s demands. Rather, it is the fulfillment of God’s promise to Abraham to bless all nations. The “works of the law” against which Paul contends are not man’s attempts to satisfy God’s moral law, but the distinctions between Jews and Gentiles such as circumcision, food laws, and cleansings.
Discussions of this new perspective are very complex, entering into details about the nature of Palestinian Judaism at the time of Paul, Paul’s own history, and the exegesis of crucial texts. I cannot enter this controversy in a short paper. I do agree with those who believe that Sanders and others have been too selective in their references to Palestinian Judaism, and I believe that the new perspective fails to deal adequately with a number of Pauline passages, such as Rom. 4:4-5, 11:6, Eph. 2:8-10, Phil. 3:9, which make plain that Paul rejects, not only legal barriers between Jew and Gentile, but also all attempts of people to save themselves by their works. Luther’s doctrines of sola gratia and sola fide are fully scriptural and fully Pauline. [5]
But the new perspective legitimately warns us against reducing Paul’s gospel to soteric justification by faith. Paul’s confrontation with the Jews was on several fronts. And his gospel deals with a number of different issues, as my earlier discussion also implies.
5. Legitimate Use of the Traditional Distinction
Now if people want to define gospel more narrowly for a specific theological purpose, I won't object too strongly. Scripture does not give us a glossary of English usage. A number of technical theological terms don’t mean exactly what similar terms sometimes mean in the Bible. Regeneration and election are examples, as is covenant. [6] We can define our English terms pretty much as we like, as long as those definitions don’t create confusion in our readers.
Over the years, we have come to think of gospel as correlative with faith and law as correlative with works. In this usage, law is what condemns and gospel is what saves. Although this distinction differs from the biblical uses of the terms, it does become useful in some contexts. For example, we all know a type of preaching that merely expounds moral obligations (as we usually think of them: don’t kill, don’t steal) and does not give its hearers the knowledge of Christ they need to have in order to be saved. That kind of preaching (especially when it is not balanced by other preaching emphases) we often describe as a preaching of mere law, legalism, or moralism. There is no good news in it. So, we are inclined to say, it is not preaching of the gospel. So in this general way we come to distinguish the preaching of law from the preaching of gospel. That is, I think, the main concern of the Formula: to remind us that we need to do both things.
We should be reminded of course that there is also an opposite extreme: preaching “gospel” in such a way as to suggest that Christ makes no demands on one’s life. We call that “cheap grace” or “easy believism.” We might also call it preaching “gospel without law.” Taken to an extreme, it is antinomianism, the rejection of God’s law. The traditional law/gospel distinction is not itself antinomian, but those who hold it tend to be more sensitive to the dangers of legalism than to the dangers of antinomianism.
Such considerations may lead us to distinguish in a rough-and-ready way between preaching of the law and preaching of the gospel. Of course, even in making that distinction, our intention ought to be to bring these together. None of these considerations requires us to posit a sharp distinction. And certainly, this rough-and-ready distinction should never be used to cast doubt on the integration of command and promise that pervades the Scriptures themselves.
It should be evident that “legalist” preaching as described above is not true preaching of law, any more than it is true preaching of the gospel. For as I indicated earlier, law itself in Scripture comes to us wrapped in grace.
6. Law/Gospel and the Christian Life
The Formula’s distinction between law and gospel has unfortunate consequences for the Christian life. The document does warrant preaching of the law to the regenerate, [7] but only as threat and terror, to drive them to Christ Epitome, VI, 4. There is nothing here about the law as the delight of the redeemed heart (Psm. 1:2; compare 119:34-36, 47, 92, 93, 97, 130, 131, Rom. 7:22).
The Formula then goes on to say that believers do conform to the law under the influence of the Spirit, but only as follows:
Fruits of the Spirit, however, are the works which the Spirit of God who dwells in believers works through the regenerate, and which are done by believers so far as they are regenerate [spontaneously and freely], as though they knew of no command, threat, or reward; for in this manner the children of God live in the Law and walk according to the Law of God, which [mode of living] St. Paul in his epistles calls the Law of Christ and the Law of the mind, Rom. 7, 25; 8, 7; Rom. 8, 2; Gal. 6, 2. (Epitome, VI, 5).
So the law may threaten us to drive us to Christ. But truly good works are never motivated by any command, threat or reward.
In my view, this teaching is simply unbiblical. It suggests that when you do something in obedience to a divine command, threat, or promise of reward, it is to that extent tainted, unrighteous, something less than a truly good work. I agree that our best works are tainted by sin, but certainly not for this reason. When Scripture presents us with a command, obedience to that command is a righteous action. Indeed, our righteousness is measured by our obedience to God’s commands. When God threatens punishment, and we turn from wickedness to do what he asks, that is not a sin, but a righteous response. When God promises reward, it is a good thing for us to embrace that reward.
The notion that we should conduct our lives completely apart from the admonitions of God’s word is a terrible notion. To ignore God’s revelation of his righteousness is, indeed, essentially sinful. To read Scripture, but refuse to allow its commands to influence one’s conduct, is the essence of sin.
And what, then, does motivate good works, if not the commands, threats, and promises of reward in Scripture? The Formula doesn’t say. What it suggests is that the Spirit simply brings about obedience from within us. I believe the Spirit does exactly that. But the Formula seems to assume that the Spirit works that way without any decision on our part to act according to the commands of God. That I think is wrong. “Quietism” is the view that Christians should be entirely passive, waiting for the Spirit of God to act in them. This view of the Christian life is unbiblical. The Christian life is a battle, a race. It requires decision and effort. I am not saying that the Formula is quietist (Lutheranism rejected quietism after some controversy in its ranks), but as we read the position of the Formula, it does seem that quietism lies around the corner from it.
7. The Objective and the Subjective
Part of the motivation for this view of the Christian life, I believe, is the thought that one’s life should be based on something objective, rather than something subjective. On this view, our life is built on what Christ has done for us, objectively in history, not on anything arising from our own subjectivity or inwardness. So in this view, gospel is a recitation of what God has done for us, not a command to provoke our subjective response.
This understanding focuses on justification: God regards us as objectively righteous for Christ’s sake, apart from anything in us. But it tends to neglect regeneration and sanctification: that God does work real subjective changes in the justified.
I have no quarrel with this understanding of justification. But in Scripture, though justification is based on the work of Christ external to us, it is embraced by faith, which is subjective. And faith, in turn, is the result of the Spirit’s subjective work of regeneration (John 3:3). [8] So nobody is objectively justified who has not been subjectively changed by God’s grace.
So the Westminster Confession of Faith 18.2, even in speaking of assurance of salvation, refers not only to the truth of God’s promises (objective), but also to the “inward evidence of those graces” and “the testimony of the Spirit of adoption,” which are in some measure subjective.
In fact, we cannot separate the objective and the subjective. Objective truths are subjectively apprehended. We cannot have objective knowledge, confidence, or assurance, unless we are subjectively enabled to perceive what God has objectively given us.
8. The Two Kingdoms
We should also note the “two kingdoms” view of Christ and culture, that draws on the sharp distinction between law and gospel. [9] In general, that view states that there are two kingdoms of God, one, as Luther put it, the kingdom of God’s left hand, the other the kingdom of his right hand. The former is secular, the latter sacred. In the former, God rules by law, in the latter, by his word and Spirit.
The problem is that the two-kingdom doctrine claims a duality, not only between law and gospel as such, but also in God’s standards, his norms. There are secular values and religious values, secular norms and religious norms. Secular society is responsible only to natural laws, the morality found in nature. So, Gene Veith says, “morality is not a matter of religion.” [10] The church is subject primarily to the gospel, but in a secondary sense (as we have seen above) subject to both law and gospel, the whole content of the word of God. Therefore, although the Christian can participate in the general culture, he should not seek to Christianize it, to turn it into a Christian culture. There is no such thing as a Christian culture; there is only secular culture, and a Christian church. Nor, of course, should he try to bring secular standards into the church: secular music, for instance. [11]
It is true that we should not try to force unregenerate people to become Christians through civil power. The church does not have the power of the sword. Nevertheless, there are not two sets of divine norms for civil society, only one. And those norms are in the Bible. Morality is most emphatically a matter of religion. The unregenerate have some knowledge of God’s law through natural revelation (Rom. 1:32), but believers see that law more clearly through the spectacles of Scripture. The biblical view of civil government does not require us to force unbelievers to behave as Christians in every way, but it does call upon us to restrain their (and our!) sin in certain areas. We should be active in society to promote those godly standards. [12]
Concluding Observation
The sharp distinction between law and gospel is becoming popular in Reformed, as well as Lutheran circles. It is the view of Westminster Seminary California, Modern Reformation magazine, and the White Horse Inn radio broadcast. The leaders of these organizations are very insistent that theirs is the only biblical view of the matter. One has recently claimed that people who hold a different view repudiate the Reformation and even deny the gospel itself. On that view, we must use the term gospel only in what the Formula calls the “proper” sense, not in the biblical sense. I believe that we should stand with the Scriptures against this tradition.
It has become increasingly common in Reformed circles, as it has long been in Lutheran circles, to say that the distinction between law and gospel is the key to sound theology, even to say that to differ with certain traditional formulations of this distinction is to deny the gospel itself.
Sometimes this argument employs Scripture passages like Rom. 3:21-31, emphasizing that we are saved by God’s grace, through faith alone, apart from the works of the law. In my judgment, however, none of the parties to the debate questions that justification is by grace alone, through faith alone, by the imputed righteousness of Christ alone. But it is one thing to distinguish between faith and works, a different thing to distinguish law and gospel.
1. The Traditional Distinction
The distinction between law and gospel is not a distinction between a false and a true way of salvation. Rather, it is a distinction between two messages, one that supposedly consists exclusively of commands, threats, and therefore terrors, the other that consists exclusively of promises and comforts. Although I believe that we are saved entirely by God’s grace and not by works, I do not believe that there are two entirely different messages of God in Scripture, one exclusively of command (“law”) and the other exclusively of promise (“gospel”). In Scripture itself, commands and promises are typically found together. With God’s promises come commands to repent of sin and believe the promise. The commands, typically, are not merely announcements of judgment, but God’s gracious opportunities to repent of sin and believe in him. As the Psalmist says, “be gracious to me through your law,” Psm. 119:29.
The view that I oppose, which sharply separates the two messages, comes mainly out of Lutheran theology, though similar statements can be found in Calvin and in other Reformed writers. [1] The Epitome of the Lutheran Formula of Concord, at V, 5, recognizes that gospel is used in different senses in Scripture, and it cites Mark 1:15 and Acts 20:21 as passages in which gospel preaching “correctly” includes a command to repent of sin. But in section 6, it does something really strange. It says,
But when the Law and the Gospel are compared together, as well as Moses himself, the teacher of the Law, and Christ the teacher of the Gospel, we believe, teach, and confess that the Gospel is not a preaching of repentance, convicting of sins, but that it is properly nothing else than a certain most joyful message and preaching full of consolation, not convicting or terrifying, inasmuch as it comforts the conscience against the terrors of the Law, and bids it look at the merit of Christ alone...
I say this is strange, because the Formula gives no biblical support at all for this distinction, and what it says here about the "gospel" flatly contradicts what it conceded earlier in section 5. What it describes as “correct” in section five contradicts what it calls “proper” in section 6. What section 6 does is to suggest something “improper” about what it admits to be the biblical description of the content of gospel, as in Mark 1:15 and Acts 14:15. [2] Mark 1:15 is correct, but not proper.
2. Law and Gospel in Scripture
I have been told that proper at this point in the Formula means, not “incorrect” or “wrong,” but simply “more common or usual.” I have, however, looked through the uses of the euaggel- terms in the NT, and I cannot find one instance in which the context excludes a demand for repentance (that is, a command of God, a law) as part of the gospel content. That is to say, I cannot find one instance of what the Formula calls the “proper” meaning of gospel, a message of pure comfort, without any suggestion of obligation. And there are important theological reasons why that use does not occur.
Essentially, the "gospel" in the NT is the good news that the kingdom of God has come in Jesus (Matt. 4:23, 9:35, Mark 1:14, Luke 4:43, Acts 20:24f). [3] "Kingdom" is (1) God's sovereign power, (2) his sovereign authority, and (3) his coming into history to defeat Satan and bring about salvation with all its consequences. [4] God's kingdom power includes all his mighty acts in history, especially including the Resurrection of Christ.
God’s kingdom authority is the reiteration of his commandments. When the kingdom appears in power, it is time for people to repent. They must obey (hupakouo) the gospel (2 Thess. 1:8, compare apeitheo in 1 Pet. 4:17). The gospel itself requires a certain kind of conduct (Acts 14:15, Gal. 2:14, Phil. 1:27; cf. Rom 2:16).
When God comes into history, he brings his power and authority to bear on his creatures. In kingdom power, he establishes peace. So NT writers frequently refer to the “gospel of peace” (Eph. 6:15; cf. Acts 10:36, Rom. 10:15), sometimes referring to the “mystery” of God bringing Gentiles and Jews together in one body (Rom. 16:25, Eph. 6:19).
It is this whole complex: God's power to save, the reiteration of God's commands, and his coming into history to execute his plan, that is the gospel. It is good news to know that God is bringing his good plans to fruition.
Consider Isa. 52:7, one of the most important background passages for the New Testament concept of gospel:
How beautiful upon the mountains
Are the feet of him who brings good news,
Who publishes peace, who brings good news of happiness,
Who publishes salvation,
Who says to Zion, “Your God reigns.” (ESV)
It is the reign of God that is good news, news that ensures peace and salvation.
Even the demand for repentance is good news, because in context it implies that God, though coming in power to claim his rights, is willing to forgive for Christ's sake.
So gospel includes law in an important sense: God’s kingdom authority, his demand to repent. Even on the view of those most committed to the law/gospel distinction, the gospel includes a command to believe. We tend to think of that command as in a different class from the commands of the decalogue. But that too is a command, after all. Generically it is law. And, like the decalogue, that law can be terrifying to someone who wants to trust only on his own resources, rather than resting on the mercy of another. And the demand of faith includes other requirements: the conduct becoming the gospel that I mentioned earlier. Faith itself works through love (Gal. 5:6) and is dead without good works (James 2:17).
Having faith does not merit salvation for anyone, any more than any other human act merits salvation. Thus we speak of faith, not as the ground of salvation, but as the instrument. Faith saves, not because it merits salvation, but because it reaches out to receive God’s grace in Christ. Nevertheless, faith is an obligation, and in that respect the command to believe is like other divine commands. So it is impossible to say that command, or law, is excluded from the message of the gospel.
It is also true that law includes gospel. God gives his law as part of a covenant, and that covenant is a gift of God’s grace. The decalogue begins, “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.” Only after proclaiming his saving grace does God then issue his commands to Israel. So the decalogue as a whole has the function of offering Israel a new way of life, conferred by grace (cf. Deut. 7:7-8, 9:4-6). Is the decalogue “law” or “gospel?” Surely it is both. Israel was terrified upon hearing it, to be sure (Ex. 20:18-21). But in fact it offers blessing (note verse 6) and promise (verse 12). Moses and the Prophets are sufficient to keep sinners from perishing in Hell (Matt. 16:31).
So the definitions that sharply separate law and gospel break down on careful analysis. In both law and gospel, then, God proclaims his saving work, and he demands that his people respond by obeying his commands. The terms “law” and “gospel” differ in emphasis, but they overlap and intersect. They present the whole Word of God from different perspectives. Indeed, we can say that our Bible as a whole is both law (because as a whole it speaks with divine authority and requires belief) and gospel (because as a whole it is good news to fallen creatures). Each concept is meaningless apart from the other. Each implies the other.
The law often brings terror, to be sure. Israel was frightened by the Sinai display of God’s wrath against sin (Ex. 20:18-21). But it also brings delight to the redeemed heart (Psm. 1:2; compare 119:34-36, 47, 92, 93, 97, 130, 131, Rom. 7:22). Similarly, the gospel brings comfort and joy; but (as less often noted in the theological literature) it also brings condemnation. Paul says that his gospel preaching is, to those who perish, “a fragrance from death to death” and, to those who believe, “a fragrance from life to life” (2 Cor. 2:15-16; compare 1 Cor. 1:18, 23, 27-29, 2 Cor. 4:3-4, Rom. 9:32). The gospel is good news to those who believe. But to those who are intent on saving themselves by their own righteousness, it is bad news. It is God’s condemnation upon them, a rock of offense.
3. Which Comes First?
In discussions of law and gospel, one commonly hears that it is important, not only to preach both law and gospel, but also to preach the law first and the gospel second. We are told that people must be frightened by the law before they can be driven to seek salvation in Christ. Certainly there is a great need to preach God’s standards, man’s disobedience, and God’s wrath against sin, especially in an age such as ours where people think God will let them behave as they like. And very often people have been driven to their knees in repentance when the Spirit has convicted them of their transgressions of law.
But as we have seen, it is really impossible truly to present law without gospel or gospel without law, though various relative emphases are possible. And among those relative emphases, the biblical pattern tends to put the gospel first. That is the pattern of the decalogue, as we have seen: God proclaims that he has redeemed his people (gospel), then asks them to behave as his covenant people (law). Since both gospel and law are aspects of God’s covenants, that pattern pervades Scripture.
Jesus reflects that pattern in his own evangelism. In John 4, Jesus tells the Samaritan woman that he can give her living water that will take away all thirst. Only after offering that gift does he proclaim the law to her, exposing her adultery. Some have cited Luke 18:18—30 as an example of the contrary order: Jesus expounds the commandments, and only afterward tells the rich ruler to follow him. But in this passage Jesus does not use the law alone to terrorize the man or to plunge him into despair. The man does go sadly away only after Jesus has called him to discipleship, which, though itself a command, is the gospel of this passage.
4. The “New Perspective” and Paul’s Gospel
Since the apostle Paul is most often in the forefront in discussions of the meaning of gospel, something should perhaps be said here about the “new perspective on Paul” in recent scholarship, based on writings of Krister Stendahl, E. P. Sanders, James D. G. Dunn, and others. In that perspective, the problem with Judaism, according to Paul, was not works righteousness, but its failure to accept God’s new covenant in Christ, which embraced Gentiles as well as Jews. On this perspective, Paul’s gospel is not an answer to the troubled conscience of someone who can’t meet God’s demands. Rather, it is the fulfillment of God’s promise to Abraham to bless all nations. The “works of the law” against which Paul contends are not man’s attempts to satisfy God’s moral law, but the distinctions between Jews and Gentiles such as circumcision, food laws, and cleansings.
Discussions of this new perspective are very complex, entering into details about the nature of Palestinian Judaism at the time of Paul, Paul’s own history, and the exegesis of crucial texts. I cannot enter this controversy in a short paper. I do agree with those who believe that Sanders and others have been too selective in their references to Palestinian Judaism, and I believe that the new perspective fails to deal adequately with a number of Pauline passages, such as Rom. 4:4-5, 11:6, Eph. 2:8-10, Phil. 3:9, which make plain that Paul rejects, not only legal barriers between Jew and Gentile, but also all attempts of people to save themselves by their works. Luther’s doctrines of sola gratia and sola fide are fully scriptural and fully Pauline. [5]
But the new perspective legitimately warns us against reducing Paul’s gospel to soteric justification by faith. Paul’s confrontation with the Jews was on several fronts. And his gospel deals with a number of different issues, as my earlier discussion also implies.
5. Legitimate Use of the Traditional Distinction
Now if people want to define gospel more narrowly for a specific theological purpose, I won't object too strongly. Scripture does not give us a glossary of English usage. A number of technical theological terms don’t mean exactly what similar terms sometimes mean in the Bible. Regeneration and election are examples, as is covenant. [6] We can define our English terms pretty much as we like, as long as those definitions don’t create confusion in our readers.
Over the years, we have come to think of gospel as correlative with faith and law as correlative with works. In this usage, law is what condemns and gospel is what saves. Although this distinction differs from the biblical uses of the terms, it does become useful in some contexts. For example, we all know a type of preaching that merely expounds moral obligations (as we usually think of them: don’t kill, don’t steal) and does not give its hearers the knowledge of Christ they need to have in order to be saved. That kind of preaching (especially when it is not balanced by other preaching emphases) we often describe as a preaching of mere law, legalism, or moralism. There is no good news in it. So, we are inclined to say, it is not preaching of the gospel. So in this general way we come to distinguish the preaching of law from the preaching of gospel. That is, I think, the main concern of the Formula: to remind us that we need to do both things.
We should be reminded of course that there is also an opposite extreme: preaching “gospel” in such a way as to suggest that Christ makes no demands on one’s life. We call that “cheap grace” or “easy believism.” We might also call it preaching “gospel without law.” Taken to an extreme, it is antinomianism, the rejection of God’s law. The traditional law/gospel distinction is not itself antinomian, but those who hold it tend to be more sensitive to the dangers of legalism than to the dangers of antinomianism.
Such considerations may lead us to distinguish in a rough-and-ready way between preaching of the law and preaching of the gospel. Of course, even in making that distinction, our intention ought to be to bring these together. None of these considerations requires us to posit a sharp distinction. And certainly, this rough-and-ready distinction should never be used to cast doubt on the integration of command and promise that pervades the Scriptures themselves.
It should be evident that “legalist” preaching as described above is not true preaching of law, any more than it is true preaching of the gospel. For as I indicated earlier, law itself in Scripture comes to us wrapped in grace.
6. Law/Gospel and the Christian Life
The Formula’s distinction between law and gospel has unfortunate consequences for the Christian life. The document does warrant preaching of the law to the regenerate, [7] but only as threat and terror, to drive them to Christ Epitome, VI, 4. There is nothing here about the law as the delight of the redeemed heart (Psm. 1:2; compare 119:34-36, 47, 92, 93, 97, 130, 131, Rom. 7:22).
The Formula then goes on to say that believers do conform to the law under the influence of the Spirit, but only as follows:
Fruits of the Spirit, however, are the works which the Spirit of God who dwells in believers works through the regenerate, and which are done by believers so far as they are regenerate [spontaneously and freely], as though they knew of no command, threat, or reward; for in this manner the children of God live in the Law and walk according to the Law of God, which [mode of living] St. Paul in his epistles calls the Law of Christ and the Law of the mind, Rom. 7, 25; 8, 7; Rom. 8, 2; Gal. 6, 2. (Epitome, VI, 5).
So the law may threaten us to drive us to Christ. But truly good works are never motivated by any command, threat or reward.
In my view, this teaching is simply unbiblical. It suggests that when you do something in obedience to a divine command, threat, or promise of reward, it is to that extent tainted, unrighteous, something less than a truly good work. I agree that our best works are tainted by sin, but certainly not for this reason. When Scripture presents us with a command, obedience to that command is a righteous action. Indeed, our righteousness is measured by our obedience to God’s commands. When God threatens punishment, and we turn from wickedness to do what he asks, that is not a sin, but a righteous response. When God promises reward, it is a good thing for us to embrace that reward.
The notion that we should conduct our lives completely apart from the admonitions of God’s word is a terrible notion. To ignore God’s revelation of his righteousness is, indeed, essentially sinful. To read Scripture, but refuse to allow its commands to influence one’s conduct, is the essence of sin.
And what, then, does motivate good works, if not the commands, threats, and promises of reward in Scripture? The Formula doesn’t say. What it suggests is that the Spirit simply brings about obedience from within us. I believe the Spirit does exactly that. But the Formula seems to assume that the Spirit works that way without any decision on our part to act according to the commands of God. That I think is wrong. “Quietism” is the view that Christians should be entirely passive, waiting for the Spirit of God to act in them. This view of the Christian life is unbiblical. The Christian life is a battle, a race. It requires decision and effort. I am not saying that the Formula is quietist (Lutheranism rejected quietism after some controversy in its ranks), but as we read the position of the Formula, it does seem that quietism lies around the corner from it.
7. The Objective and the Subjective
Part of the motivation for this view of the Christian life, I believe, is the thought that one’s life should be based on something objective, rather than something subjective. On this view, our life is built on what Christ has done for us, objectively in history, not on anything arising from our own subjectivity or inwardness. So in this view, gospel is a recitation of what God has done for us, not a command to provoke our subjective response.
This understanding focuses on justification: God regards us as objectively righteous for Christ’s sake, apart from anything in us. But it tends to neglect regeneration and sanctification: that God does work real subjective changes in the justified.
I have no quarrel with this understanding of justification. But in Scripture, though justification is based on the work of Christ external to us, it is embraced by faith, which is subjective. And faith, in turn, is the result of the Spirit’s subjective work of regeneration (John 3:3). [8] So nobody is objectively justified who has not been subjectively changed by God’s grace.
So the Westminster Confession of Faith 18.2, even in speaking of assurance of salvation, refers not only to the truth of God’s promises (objective), but also to the “inward evidence of those graces” and “the testimony of the Spirit of adoption,” which are in some measure subjective.
In fact, we cannot separate the objective and the subjective. Objective truths are subjectively apprehended. We cannot have objective knowledge, confidence, or assurance, unless we are subjectively enabled to perceive what God has objectively given us.
8. The Two Kingdoms
We should also note the “two kingdoms” view of Christ and culture, that draws on the sharp distinction between law and gospel. [9] In general, that view states that there are two kingdoms of God, one, as Luther put it, the kingdom of God’s left hand, the other the kingdom of his right hand. The former is secular, the latter sacred. In the former, God rules by law, in the latter, by his word and Spirit.
The problem is that the two-kingdom doctrine claims a duality, not only between law and gospel as such, but also in God’s standards, his norms. There are secular values and religious values, secular norms and religious norms. Secular society is responsible only to natural laws, the morality found in nature. So, Gene Veith says, “morality is not a matter of religion.” [10] The church is subject primarily to the gospel, but in a secondary sense (as we have seen above) subject to both law and gospel, the whole content of the word of God. Therefore, although the Christian can participate in the general culture, he should not seek to Christianize it, to turn it into a Christian culture. There is no such thing as a Christian culture; there is only secular culture, and a Christian church. Nor, of course, should he try to bring secular standards into the church: secular music, for instance. [11]
It is true that we should not try to force unregenerate people to become Christians through civil power. The church does not have the power of the sword. Nevertheless, there are not two sets of divine norms for civil society, only one. And those norms are in the Bible. Morality is most emphatically a matter of religion. The unregenerate have some knowledge of God’s law through natural revelation (Rom. 1:32), but believers see that law more clearly through the spectacles of Scripture. The biblical view of civil government does not require us to force unbelievers to behave as Christians in every way, but it does call upon us to restrain their (and our!) sin in certain areas. We should be active in society to promote those godly standards. [12]
Concluding Observation
The sharp distinction between law and gospel is becoming popular in Reformed, as well as Lutheran circles. It is the view of Westminster Seminary California, Modern Reformation magazine, and the White Horse Inn radio broadcast. The leaders of these organizations are very insistent that theirs is the only biblical view of the matter. One has recently claimed that people who hold a different view repudiate the Reformation and even deny the gospel itself. On that view, we must use the term gospel only in what the Formula calls the “proper” sense, not in the biblical sense. I believe that we should stand with the Scriptures against this tradition.
Monday, July 5, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)