Law Preaching
- Thread starter The Lamb
- Start date
- Status
smallbeans
Puritan Board Freshman
I wonder how wise it is to apply that hermeneutical move of first looking at any text to determine if it represents "law" or if it represents "gospel" - though not to question the greatness of Beza and Perkins, of course. I think it would be necessary to show how that principle arises from Scripture itself, and I don't know if it is all that clear. The whole bible is a covenant document for the covenant people. Scripture does not observe these neatly demarcated categories when it asks us to "obey the gospel." I think it is totally possible to maintain that lawkeeping does not merit salvation, that salvation is by grace alone, and yet still shy away from a strict law/gospel hermeneutics.
I also think coining a new word "neo-nomianism" is unnecessary. I would be interested to see you adduce an example from Chrisitian history of someone who held that we are "justified by law keeping." "Neo" implies that you are identifying a. an error that exists now, and b. that it is the resurrection of an earlier error from an earlier era. But I just can't really find anyone in church history who supports the idea of justification by law-keeping.
Obviously, there is our preferred, confessional, middle of the road view - Berkhof, Hodge, etc. that we are justified through the instrument of faith alone given by grace, that faith is not alone but brings with it works prepared in advance for us to do, and that there will be a final judgment according to works. Antinomians depart from this viewpoint by disagreeing that sanctification should be used as evidence for justification, and by concluding that there is no strict obligation to follow God's law for the saved (Zane Hodges, Ann Hutchinson, etc.) The ditch on the other side of the road is what? Those who believe that we follow the law in order to earn favor with God? I think there might be some of that in certain folk expressions of Christianity, but I haven't run across this being seriously taught anywhere in my studies. Isn't this "pronomian" (to keep with the antinomian nomenclature) sort of a theoretical ditch rather than one that can be observed in the wild?
I also think coining a new word "neo-nomianism" is unnecessary. I would be interested to see you adduce an example from Chrisitian history of someone who held that we are "justified by law keeping." "Neo" implies that you are identifying a. an error that exists now, and b. that it is the resurrection of an earlier error from an earlier era. But I just can't really find anyone in church history who supports the idea of justification by law-keeping.
Obviously, there is our preferred, confessional, middle of the road view - Berkhof, Hodge, etc. that we are justified through the instrument of faith alone given by grace, that faith is not alone but brings with it works prepared in advance for us to do, and that there will be a final judgment according to works. Antinomians depart from this viewpoint by disagreeing that sanctification should be used as evidence for justification, and by concluding that there is no strict obligation to follow God's law for the saved (Zane Hodges, Ann Hutchinson, etc.) The ditch on the other side of the road is what? Those who believe that we follow the law in order to earn favor with God? I think there might be some of that in certain folk expressions of Christianity, but I haven't run across this being seriously taught anywhere in my studies. Isn't this "pronomian" (to keep with the antinomian nomenclature) sort of a theoretical ditch rather than one that can be observed in the wild?
THe case of the RYR was to show the man how shallow his understanding was. The point I am making is this brother.
The Law does not point us to Christ, the Holy Spirit does. If what some are saying is true, that the Law converts us, the RYR is one example against this idea. For when presented with the Law, the RYR was happy thinking he kept it. Absolutely no conviction, but once Christ pointed to Himself, he went away sad.
crhoades
Puritan Board Graduate
Doesn't the Spirit work through the Word as opposed to without it? Can the Holy Spirit not work through the Law to convict and convert? I'm not wanting to separate Law from Gospel or Law from the Spirit either. With the RYR, God Sovereignly chose not to convert him. The law also can harden can't it?
Texas Aggie
Puritan Board Freshman
Joseph,
My bad, let me clarify.... "The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul..." Psalm 19:7. This can also mean restoring the soul.
Under the New Covenant, we are given the law (written in our hearts), resurrected life and the Holy Spirit. These are the three things I mentioned in an earlier reply concerning the items found in the Ark of the Covenant. I believe these are connected (visible/invisible). All three have a part in converting the soul, salvation, eternal life, so on.
As far as a New Testament example, I see law and grace going hand in hand. Both are integral to His kingdom. Jesus saves the adulteress from being stoned in John Ch. 8 (mercy & grace). He then tells her to sin no more in verse 11 (law). Anyway, just my thoughts. Cheers.
My bad, let me clarify.... "The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul..." Psalm 19:7. This can also mean restoring the soul.
Under the New Covenant, we are given the law (written in our hearts), resurrected life and the Holy Spirit. These are the three things I mentioned in an earlier reply concerning the items found in the Ark of the Covenant. I believe these are connected (visible/invisible). All three have a part in converting the soul, salvation, eternal life, so on.
As far as a New Testament example, I see law and grace going hand in hand. Both are integral to His kingdom. Jesus saves the adulteress from being stoned in John Ch. 8 (mercy & grace). He then tells her to sin no more in verse 11 (law). Anyway, just my thoughts. Cheers.
With Saul/Paul.
kceaster
Puritan Board Junior
Joseph...
Thanks for answering my question, and I hope it will become clear why I asked that.
For one, you claim it is only the Holy Spirit convicting. How exactly does He do that? Does He whisper in our ears of our need for a savior? Musn't He first convince us of our sin and misery? How do we know we are miserable and poluted sinners?
Now, you must answer the question about how the Spirit convicts us normally. Does He use means? If He does, what are those means. How does He speak to us apart from the whole counsel of God?
As for an example of Christ's teaching, we can imply that His interaction with the woman at the well as a fine example. Why did He ask her to go and get her husband? Don't you think she immediately was reminded of the marriage laws when Christ spoke to her? She perceives He is a prophet. What was the message of the prophets? Turn from sin, and obey the Lord.
Part of your confusion stems from the fact that you are looking for something you're not likely to find. You want a normative preaching of the law in the NT, when that sort of preaching was, by and large, unnecessary. Most of the time, the apostles are preaching to people who were already familiar with the laws of the Jews.
Explain why Paul starts in Romans 1:18 with a clear exposition of the condition of man before a Holy God. Do you think law is nowhere to be found here in his preaching?
I think it would benefit you to understand what common presuppostion men come to the God of the Bible. In their heart of hearts, they know they stand condemned, but their presupposition is that they will be pardoned because God is a God of grace. After all, they are not so bad. This is where the law thunders back how unrighteous man really is, how far short he falls. How do I prove this presuppostion? There is a way that seemeth right to a man, but the way therein is death.
You need to realize that when the Holy Spirit convicts, He does so intelligently. It is not some mystical thing. He uses reason and logic. And, He doesn't speak anything of Himself, but of God and His Son, Jesus Christ.
So, I believe that the law is to be preached. It is not an alternate way of salvation. It is not legalism that we're speaking of. It is a balance between what man is to believe concerning God and the duty which God requires of man.
In Christ,
KC
Thanks for answering my question, and I hope it will become clear why I asked that.
For one, you claim it is only the Holy Spirit convicting. How exactly does He do that? Does He whisper in our ears of our need for a savior? Musn't He first convince us of our sin and misery? How do we know we are miserable and poluted sinners?
Now, you must answer the question about how the Spirit convicts us normally. Does He use means? If He does, what are those means. How does He speak to us apart from the whole counsel of God?
As for an example of Christ's teaching, we can imply that His interaction with the woman at the well as a fine example. Why did He ask her to go and get her husband? Don't you think she immediately was reminded of the marriage laws when Christ spoke to her? She perceives He is a prophet. What was the message of the prophets? Turn from sin, and obey the Lord.
Part of your confusion stems from the fact that you are looking for something you're not likely to find. You want a normative preaching of the law in the NT, when that sort of preaching was, by and large, unnecessary. Most of the time, the apostles are preaching to people who were already familiar with the laws of the Jews.
Explain why Paul starts in Romans 1:18 with a clear exposition of the condition of man before a Holy God. Do you think law is nowhere to be found here in his preaching?
I think it would benefit you to understand what common presuppostion men come to the God of the Bible. In their heart of hearts, they know they stand condemned, but their presupposition is that they will be pardoned because God is a God of grace. After all, they are not so bad. This is where the law thunders back how unrighteous man really is, how far short he falls. How do I prove this presuppostion? There is a way that seemeth right to a man, but the way therein is death.
You need to realize that when the Holy Spirit convicts, He does so intelligently. It is not some mystical thing. He uses reason and logic. And, He doesn't speak anything of Himself, but of God and His Son, Jesus Christ.
So, I believe that the law is to be preached. It is not an alternate way of salvation. It is not legalism that we're speaking of. It is a balance between what man is to believe concerning God and the duty which God requires of man.
In Christ,
KC
Poimen
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Heidelberg Catechism
Q2: How many things are necessary for you to know, that in this comfort you may live and die happily?
A2: Three things:[1] First, the greatness of my sin and misery.[2] Second, how I am redeemed from all my sins and misery.[3] Third, how I am to be thankful to God for such redemption.[4]
1. Luke 24:46-47; I Cor. 6:11; Titus 3:3-7
2. John 9:41; 15:22
3. John 17:3
4. Eph. 5:8-11; I Peter 2:9-12; Rom. 6:11-14; 7:24-25; Gal. 3:13; Col.
3:17
Q3: From where do you know your misery?
A3: From the Law of God.[1]
1. Rom. 3:20; 7:7
Q4: What does the Law of God require of us?
A4: Christ teaches us in sum, Matthew 22: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.[1]
1. Luke 10:27; Deut. 6:5; Gal. 5:14
Q5: Can you keep all this perfectly?
A5: No,[1] for I am prone by nature to hate God and my neighbor.[2]
1. Rom. 3:10-12, 23; I John 1:8, 10
2. Rom. 8:7; Eph. 2:3
Q2: How many things are necessary for you to know, that in this comfort you may live and die happily?
A2: Three things:[1] First, the greatness of my sin and misery.[2] Second, how I am redeemed from all my sins and misery.[3] Third, how I am to be thankful to God for such redemption.[4]
1. Luke 24:46-47; I Cor. 6:11; Titus 3:3-7
2. John 9:41; 15:22
3. John 17:3
4. Eph. 5:8-11; I Peter 2:9-12; Rom. 6:11-14; 7:24-25; Gal. 3:13; Col.
3:17
Q3: From where do you know your misery?
A3: From the Law of God.[1]
1. Rom. 3:20; 7:7
Q4: What does the Law of God require of us?
A4: Christ teaches us in sum, Matthew 22: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.[1]
1. Luke 10:27; Deut. 6:5; Gal. 5:14
Q5: Can you keep all this perfectly?
A5: No,[1] for I am prone by nature to hate God and my neighbor.[2]
1. Rom. 3:10-12, 23; I John 1:8, 10
2. Rom. 8:7; Eph. 2:3
Conviction presupposes the knowledge of sin.
Paul states unequivocally that the knowledge of sin comes from the law:
"I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, "YOU SHALL NOT COVET." (Rom. 7:7)
Without the law, there is no knowledge of sin; without a knowledge of sin, there is no need for redemption; without the need for redemption; there is no coming to Christ.
There is no dichotomy between the law and the Spirit - the Spirit convicts (John 16:8) and the instrument he uses for that is the law.
That is why when Christ meets Saul, he begins not with Saul's need, or with a message of grace, but with "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?"
Texas Aggie
Puritan Board Freshman
Joseph,
"Perhaps the law has something to do with sanctification."
Bingo back to you brother. I believe God's law written in our hearts and in our mind is there for us to take heed. It is there for us to obey with all diligence and with the leadership of the Holy Spirit indwelling inside you, the temple of God. Sanctification is a process to make you holy. The law and the Spirit keep you on track. Keep in mind that your will is also involved with this process.... you may choose differently than the will of God and end up in left field.
"Perhaps the law has something to do with sanctification."
Bingo back to you brother. I believe God's law written in our hearts and in our mind is there for us to take heed. It is there for us to obey with all diligence and with the leadership of the Holy Spirit indwelling inside you, the temple of God. Sanctification is a process to make you holy. The law and the Spirit keep you on track. Keep in mind that your will is also involved with this process.... you may choose differently than the will of God and end up in left field.
Poimen
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Well stated Fred. And I think it's important to note that the Ten Commandments are the summary of the law, perhaps even the apogee of the law, but not the extent of the law. In other words, you do not need to find one of the ten to being quoted to find 'the Law.' Anything that convicts, anything that shows us our sin, is, properly speaking, the law.
Indeed I do believe that Christ's sermon on the Mount is a fuller explanation of the law and drives home the point that redemption, from it and because of it, is needed (perhaps even more than anything in the Old covenant legal script).
The whole of the Christian life is summed up in law, gospel, law. The Heidelberg Catechism is formed around this experiential and theological framework: sin, salvation, service or guilt, grace and gratitude. I hardly think that this can be improved upon!
Kevin. The Law should be preached. But I believe it can be over emphaisized as was done by many puritan piety practicing preachers. This inevitabaly leads to a works righteousness. ANd in some reformed circles today ,the Law is still spoken of more than Christ, the remedy. TO thunder the law 90% of the time to regenerate elect, and just touch on Christ will drive people to a legalistic minset of their faith.
My confusion lies in the understanding that the Law is the ONLY was to convict a sinner, and this must be done prior to salvation.
Again, the Gentiles did not have the Law but they still were condemned. Why is this? Because all are left without excuse whether they have the tablets or not.
Again I emphasize the law has its place. But it is dead. and like the second helvitic states."In complete contrast with the Gospel."
kceaster
Puritan Board Junior
Joseph....
My pastor preached through Deuteronomy a few years back, and I can tell you that for me, I gained a deeper appreciation for grace because of it. And even now, when I look at the law, I find myself trusting the Lord Jesus Christ even more for my salvation. Dr. Richard Gamble told a group of us a couple of weeks ago at an RSI luncheon that he reads through the Larger Catechism questions on the law every year. He does so to see just how far short he falls and how much he depends upon Christ for his salvation.
I know what you're saying and I can sympathize, but I think it is a false dichotomy. There has to be balance, and I think if you truly understood the Puritans, you would see that they struck that balance. It does not seem so in our times because there are so few who can sit under this type of preaching. But Lord willing, let us go on to perfection so that we can eat of this luxurious fare.
In Christ,
KC
My pastor preached through Deuteronomy a few years back, and I can tell you that for me, I gained a deeper appreciation for grace because of it. And even now, when I look at the law, I find myself trusting the Lord Jesus Christ even more for my salvation. Dr. Richard Gamble told a group of us a couple of weeks ago at an RSI luncheon that he reads through the Larger Catechism questions on the law every year. He does so to see just how far short he falls and how much he depends upon Christ for his salvation.
I know what you're saying and I can sympathize, but I think it is a false dichotomy. There has to be balance, and I think if you truly understood the Puritans, you would see that they struck that balance. It does not seem so in our times because there are so few who can sit under this type of preaching. But Lord willing, let us go on to perfection so that we can eat of this luxurious fare.
In Christ,
KC
smallbeans
Puritan Board Freshman
Wayne - yes, this in chapter CHAPTER XXXIII of the Westminster Confession where the judgment is based on thoughts, words, deeds. It is also covered in pp 728-734 in Berkhof and he goes into what the judgment is and what it isn't pretty clearly.
Well I do nto see it as one. And all I am saying is there has to be more grace than Law preached. Like I said, the Law is dead. And some puritans did have the balance, but others did not. They stressed the Law so much it drove people insane. IT almost became a requirement for salvation.
I read the Law also Kevin and know I am a sinner saved by the rightoeusness of Christ period. But to say that the Gospel sends us back to the law is not a NT concept.
Christ is our focus and not the Law.
smallbeans
Puritan Board Freshman
Joseph - it still sounds like you are dividing grace and law as to almost make them rivals. There is a gracious way of preaching the law and there are legalistic ways of preaching the law. I guess our ideal is that gracious exhortation and preaching of the law.
Poimen
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
I highly recommend "The Pearl of Christian Comfort" by Petrus Dathenus: "for the instruction and consolation of all troubled hearts who are not properly able to distinguish between the law and the gospel."
http://www.heritagebooks.org/item.asp?bookId=452
Dathenus (1531-1588) was a Reformed pastor in the Netherlands who began the tradition of preaching through the Heidelberg Catechism for our continental kerken. Unlike our modern adherents to the Reformed faith, Dathenus had not yet been purged from this Lutheran plague that yet still threatens to destroy our churches.
http://www.heritagebooks.org/item.asp?bookId=452
Dathenus (1531-1588) was a Reformed pastor in the Netherlands who began the tradition of preaching through the Heidelberg Catechism for our continental kerken. Unlike our modern adherents to the Reformed faith, Dathenus had not yet been purged from this Lutheran plague that yet still threatens to destroy our churches.
Yes, but what do you mean by the statement? We can read what these documents say, but what do you think they mean?
Do our works justify us (make us righteous before God) in the end? Or do they prove that we are already justified children of God as a result of being imputed by Christ's righteousness? Is our justification a legal declaration in time(the future judgment of the world brought near to the now in our individual lives), or is it not final until we hear that we are just at the great judgment at Christ's 2nd advent? Do our works justify us in relation to God, or do they justify us in the view of others that we were already, permanently, and eternally justified from the moment we first had saving faith in Christ and his imputed righteousness? I assume you mean it as Berkhof has explained it?
Since this phrase has been a big point of discussion in the NPP debate, it would be wise to clarify what is meant by this when used so as not to confuse others, and because the NPP supporters and non-NPP supporters appeal to that section of the confession, but apply different meanings.
Also, if the law/gospel hermeneutic may not be a correct one, what would we use to replace it? How would we distinguish the two? Are the categories of indicative and imperative artificially read into the text, or are they inherent to the language/grammar we use? How do we preach the law and gospel rightly if this hermenuetic is removed? How do we maintain a proper view of salvation without these two categories in our preaching?
Just wanting some clarity on your post. Thanks.
Jonathan:
Not only does it sound like I am saying that, I am saying it. The two are in complete contrast with each other. To say otherwise is to lessen Grace.
Of course the Law must be preached, but to what extent and for what reason is my concern. The unregenerate are not convicted by it alone and it brings no power unto salvation like the Gospel.
I have no issue with the law. It is Holy And right. It is Gods Law. Now it is written on our hearts and not on the stones.
Christ fulfilled the Law for His sheep. He suffered the curse of the Law in our stead. To point us to the Law more than is scripturally warranted istaking Christ away.
Puritanhead
Puritan Board Professor
Which is exactly why I said the just shall live by faith... I hardly purport the need to preach the law without grace. Did I say that? The Bible is very much about anthropology (the doctrine of man, his sinfulness and his need for savior) as well as theology (the doctrine of God, his holiness and perfect standards).
R. Scott Clark
Puritan Board Senior
1. Neonomian is not a new term. It was used in the 17th century during the neonomian controversy between the Reformed orthodox and those influenced by Baxter. See Herman Witsius' _Animadversions_.
2. The view propounded by Beza and Perkins became the confessional view. It s the view of the Heidelberg, the Belgic and the Westminster Standards. It is the view of Louis Berkhof. On this see
http://www.wscal.edu/resources/Justification.htm
http://www.wscal.edu/resources/Justification_Faculty_Symposium.htm
3. As to NT examples. See the entire book of Romans. It is structured by Guilt, Grace (Law and Gospel) and Gratitude.
4. Whoever appealed to Jesus re the rich young ruler is quite correct.
5. Re justification, law and gospel are rivals. They are different words. There are similarities (as Wollebius, for example, discusses in his Compendium). They both have promises. They both offer rewards. They both come from God. In him they are not opposed. To sinners, however, they are opposed. They both have commands: believe or do.
The CONDITIONS of the law and gospel are different however. The condition of the gospel is to believe on Christ the lawkeeper. The condition of the law is "perfect" and "personal" obedience. The gospel is premised on a Mediator. The law is not.
6. Relative to justification there is no such thing as gracious law preaching. It was the Reformation who repudiated that very notion. The Medieval church taught that Scripture is composed of one word, Old Law and New Law, the new law being more gracious and therefore easier to keep. That is why the medieval church taught justification through cooperation with grace. That very hermeneutic and theological conclusion is was precisely rejected by the Reformation, brought back by the Remonstrants and rejected again at Dort and Westminster.
rsc
[Edited on 5-13-2005 by R. Scott Clark]
2. The view propounded by Beza and Perkins became the confessional view. It s the view of the Heidelberg, the Belgic and the Westminster Standards. It is the view of Louis Berkhof. On this see
http://www.wscal.edu/resources/Justification.htm
http://www.wscal.edu/resources/Justification_Faculty_Symposium.htm
3. As to NT examples. See the entire book of Romans. It is structured by Guilt, Grace (Law and Gospel) and Gratitude.
4. Whoever appealed to Jesus re the rich young ruler is quite correct.
5. Re justification, law and gospel are rivals. They are different words. There are similarities (as Wollebius, for example, discusses in his Compendium). They both have promises. They both offer rewards. They both come from God. In him they are not opposed. To sinners, however, they are opposed. They both have commands: believe or do.
The CONDITIONS of the law and gospel are different however. The condition of the gospel is to believe on Christ the lawkeeper. The condition of the law is "perfect" and "personal" obedience. The gospel is premised on a Mediator. The law is not.
6. Relative to justification there is no such thing as gracious law preaching. It was the Reformation who repudiated that very notion. The Medieval church taught that Scripture is composed of one word, Old Law and New Law, the new law being more gracious and therefore easier to keep. That is why the medieval church taught justification through cooperation with grace. That very hermeneutic and theological conclusion is was precisely rejected by the Reformation, brought back by the Remonstrants and rejected again at Dort and Westminster.
rsc
[Edited on 5-13-2005 by R. Scott Clark]
Texas Aggie
Puritan Board Freshman
What a great thread.
Actually, I do not believe you can have one without the other. Law and grace are buddies. Why some get hung-up on the law while others grace is beyond me. I think this is a real simple issue.
1. God's law defines sin.
2. Unregenerate man has no means or will to obey the law... he simply can not.
3. A regenerated man, has been given God's law as well as the equipment to obey... the Holy Spirit.
4. A regenerated man has aligned his will with the will of God... but he still has a choice to disobey.
5. Jesus Christ has paid the penalty of the law which is death (second death for us).
6. We are justified in the sight of God through the shedding of Christ's blood (the demand of the law has been satisfied).
7. We now belong to our Lord Jesus Christ. He is the King of a kingdom in which we are His saved (by His grace). This kingdom also has law.
Hurray! Lets all go party it up, because Christ has paid it all!! No, grace and law are best friends.
Actually, I do not believe you can have one without the other. Law and grace are buddies. Why some get hung-up on the law while others grace is beyond me. I think this is a real simple issue.
1. God's law defines sin.
2. Unregenerate man has no means or will to obey the law... he simply can not.
3. A regenerated man, has been given God's law as well as the equipment to obey... the Holy Spirit.
4. A regenerated man has aligned his will with the will of God... but he still has a choice to disobey.
5. Jesus Christ has paid the penalty of the law which is death (second death for us).
6. We are justified in the sight of God through the shedding of Christ's blood (the demand of the law has been satisfied).
7. We now belong to our Lord Jesus Christ. He is the King of a kingdom in which we are His saved (by His grace). This kingdom also has law.
Hurray! Lets all go party it up, because Christ has paid it all!! No, grace and law are best friends.
kceaster
Puritan Board Junior
Joseph....
Wait a moment. Do you realize that by saying this you are claiming that part of the Bible is of no use to the unregenerate? Actually, no part of the Bible is of use to the unregenerate, they can't understand it, nor can they respond to it. They are dead in trespasses and sins.
However, you are also claiming that we should not preach the whole counsel of God if we believe that unregenerate are in our midst. If this is the case, we can't preach it any time, because in every church, there are unregenerate persons present.
Further, you are also claiming that the Holy Spirit's conviction is only done by the correct parts of Scripture. Tell me, what sort of expository preaching was done prior to the canonization of the NT?
All Scripture is profitable, remember?
In Christ,
KC
Wait a moment. Do you realize that by saying this you are claiming that part of the Bible is of no use to the unregenerate? Actually, no part of the Bible is of use to the unregenerate, they can't understand it, nor can they respond to it. They are dead in trespasses and sins.
However, you are also claiming that we should not preach the whole counsel of God if we believe that unregenerate are in our midst. If this is the case, we can't preach it any time, because in every church, there are unregenerate persons present.
Further, you are also claiming that the Holy Spirit's conviction is only done by the correct parts of Scripture. Tell me, what sort of expository preaching was done prior to the canonization of the NT?
All Scripture is profitable, remember?
In Christ,
KC
R. Scott Clark
Puritan Board Senior
The danger in the way the law is often handled in our times (and this is not unique to our time) is threefold:
1. It is often confused for the gospel. Confusion here is pandemic. It is frequently said in Reformed circles that to make such a distinction is "Lutheran," - which is technically true since all our theologians agreed with the Lutherans on this! The implication, however, is that the Reformed didn't or should not make such distinction. If we follow this view, we shall in turn forfeit the Reformation. As I was just telling the Medieval-Reformation class that this was among the more important issues raised by the Arminian controversy and addressed by the Synod of Dort.
2. The specter of classic dispensationalism, which unduly divided Scripture and tended to set the Old Testament against the New, has provoked a reaction among many Reformed folk to so emphasize the unity of the testaments as to resist any distinction between Moses and Christ. This leads to difficulties with 2 Cor 3 and most of Hebrews. The New Covenant is superior to Moses. Reaction to dispensationalism has also made it more difficult for some modern Reformed folk to acknowledge that the Mosaic covenant was temporary and typical (i.e., a giant sermon illustration pointing to Christ).
3. The antinomianism rampant among American evangelicalism at the end of the 20th century has also produced a reaction. This is clearly what animates Daniel Fuller, Norm Shepherd and the Auburn Avenue folk. They see baptized Christians living, as my grandmother used to say, "like the Dickens." This is quite similar to the situation faced by the Westminster Assembly. There were antinomians (though they are not as easy to identify as some scholars seem to think) who were understood to suggest that, since we're justified from eternity Christian living is of no consequence. This view of the Christian life terrified folks such as Baxter who reacted by making our obedience a part of our justification (here I respectfully disagree with J I Packer, who defends Baxter as essentially orthodox on justification).
It is a natural thing to turn to the law and use it as a hammer, not to drive sinners to Christ, but either to soften it, by taking away the sting (this is more or less what Rome and the Remonstrants did) or to use it as a way to get Christians to "straighten up," and sanctify themselves.
Of course such a tack is bound to fail. The law does not have the power to justify or sanctify any sinner. The Gospel is the message which God uses to justify his elect and it is the power of sanctification. Here I agree with Walter Marshall and many others in our tradition, especially Boston and the orthodox against the neonomians in the 18th century.
Belgic Confession 24 is perfectly clear. Only good trees produce good fruit. Good fruit is a life which strives to conform to God's moral law. Trees are not made good by the law, strictly speaking, but by the gospel, which the Spirit uses to create faith in Christ. Our Christian life flows out of our union with Christ and the gratitude produced by the Spirit working with the Word. The Christian now no longer lives under compulsion ("You must do or else...") but under gratitude, "What can I do for my Savior"?
Therefore, the law must be preached, because believers want and need to know how they ought to live in Christ, but it must be preached carefully. The minister must be clear whether the congregation is being addressed under the first or third use. It is not helpful to read the law, announce the declaration of pardon (the absolution --"All who have trusted in Christ are forgiven and righteous before God...") to believers, and then turn around in the sermon and contradict the absolution by implying that "God is not very happy with some of you people today. You need to do x or y...".
Such is not law preaching, it is moralism.
In its first use, the law must be preached clearly and forcefully. It is not good advice it is the holy law of God demanding utter perfection.
In the third use, the law must be preached in the light of the gospel to sinners struggling daily to die to sin and to live to Christ. Even then, as Heidelberg QQ 114 et seq teach, the law reminds us of our sin and our need for a Savior and drives us back to Christ.
If we observe these distinctions I think our congregations would benefit enormously. Over the years I have noticed that those congregations exposed to the classic Reformed approach to the law, rather than to either the antinomian or the moralist approach to the law, tend to be much more pleasant places to be. If people know that by faith in Christ their sins are freely forgiven and Christ's obedience is imputed to them, would they not live better? Its a paradox. The way to get Christ's little ones to live that way is to preach the Gospel and the Christian life structured by the law flowing from that. It is counter-intuitive, but its the biblical pattern. Isn't that how all of Paul's epistles are structured? The incarnation is counter-intuitive. The Trinity is counter-intuitive. That is why Paul speak of the "foolishness of the gospel." Moralism might "make sense," but it isn't Christian, but rationalism.
Do these distinctions solve all problems? No. Only the return of Christ or sudden death will bring glory, but observing these distinctions does give hope and peace to God's people and a solid motivation for Godly living, not grounded in fear of judgment, but in heartfelt gratitude.
rsc
1. It is often confused for the gospel. Confusion here is pandemic. It is frequently said in Reformed circles that to make such a distinction is "Lutheran," - which is technically true since all our theologians agreed with the Lutherans on this! The implication, however, is that the Reformed didn't or should not make such distinction. If we follow this view, we shall in turn forfeit the Reformation. As I was just telling the Medieval-Reformation class that this was among the more important issues raised by the Arminian controversy and addressed by the Synod of Dort.
2. The specter of classic dispensationalism, which unduly divided Scripture and tended to set the Old Testament against the New, has provoked a reaction among many Reformed folk to so emphasize the unity of the testaments as to resist any distinction between Moses and Christ. This leads to difficulties with 2 Cor 3 and most of Hebrews. The New Covenant is superior to Moses. Reaction to dispensationalism has also made it more difficult for some modern Reformed folk to acknowledge that the Mosaic covenant was temporary and typical (i.e., a giant sermon illustration pointing to Christ).
3. The antinomianism rampant among American evangelicalism at the end of the 20th century has also produced a reaction. This is clearly what animates Daniel Fuller, Norm Shepherd and the Auburn Avenue folk. They see baptized Christians living, as my grandmother used to say, "like the Dickens." This is quite similar to the situation faced by the Westminster Assembly. There were antinomians (though they are not as easy to identify as some scholars seem to think) who were understood to suggest that, since we're justified from eternity Christian living is of no consequence. This view of the Christian life terrified folks such as Baxter who reacted by making our obedience a part of our justification (here I respectfully disagree with J I Packer, who defends Baxter as essentially orthodox on justification).
It is a natural thing to turn to the law and use it as a hammer, not to drive sinners to Christ, but either to soften it, by taking away the sting (this is more or less what Rome and the Remonstrants did) or to use it as a way to get Christians to "straighten up," and sanctify themselves.
Of course such a tack is bound to fail. The law does not have the power to justify or sanctify any sinner. The Gospel is the message which God uses to justify his elect and it is the power of sanctification. Here I agree with Walter Marshall and many others in our tradition, especially Boston and the orthodox against the neonomians in the 18th century.
Belgic Confession 24 is perfectly clear. Only good trees produce good fruit. Good fruit is a life which strives to conform to God's moral law. Trees are not made good by the law, strictly speaking, but by the gospel, which the Spirit uses to create faith in Christ. Our Christian life flows out of our union with Christ and the gratitude produced by the Spirit working with the Word. The Christian now no longer lives under compulsion ("You must do or else...") but under gratitude, "What can I do for my Savior"?
Therefore, the law must be preached, because believers want and need to know how they ought to live in Christ, but it must be preached carefully. The minister must be clear whether the congregation is being addressed under the first or third use. It is not helpful to read the law, announce the declaration of pardon (the absolution --"All who have trusted in Christ are forgiven and righteous before God...") to believers, and then turn around in the sermon and contradict the absolution by implying that "God is not very happy with some of you people today. You need to do x or y...".
Such is not law preaching, it is moralism.
In its first use, the law must be preached clearly and forcefully. It is not good advice it is the holy law of God demanding utter perfection.
In the third use, the law must be preached in the light of the gospel to sinners struggling daily to die to sin and to live to Christ. Even then, as Heidelberg QQ 114 et seq teach, the law reminds us of our sin and our need for a Savior and drives us back to Christ.
If we observe these distinctions I think our congregations would benefit enormously. Over the years I have noticed that those congregations exposed to the classic Reformed approach to the law, rather than to either the antinomian or the moralist approach to the law, tend to be much more pleasant places to be. If people know that by faith in Christ their sins are freely forgiven and Christ's obedience is imputed to them, would they not live better? Its a paradox. The way to get Christ's little ones to live that way is to preach the Gospel and the Christian life structured by the law flowing from that. It is counter-intuitive, but its the biblical pattern. Isn't that how all of Paul's epistles are structured? The incarnation is counter-intuitive. The Trinity is counter-intuitive. That is why Paul speak of the "foolishness of the gospel." Moralism might "make sense," but it isn't Christian, but rationalism.
Do these distinctions solve all problems? No. Only the return of Christ or sudden death will bring glory, but observing these distinctions does give hope and peace to God's people and a solid motivation for Godly living, not grounded in fear of judgment, but in heartfelt gratitude.
rsc
- Status
