On the Misuses of the Third Use of the Law

[No Other Name]

From the source:

Their def: "3rd use of the law - It [the law] has a guiding use since it acts as a rule of life for those who have been justified."

Then this portion of their section on NT ethics:

"The Third Use" Misused​

Having acknowledged the strengths in the Reformation's doctrine of the third use the law, we wish to examine the way it n and has been misused. The theological validity of a thesis does not necessarily imply that a Bible writer formed the same categories of thought. For example, the distinction between moral and ceremonial law may be useful, but this must not be imposed upon texts of Scripture not concerned with making that distinction. The same thing can be said about the third use of the law. Commentaries on Galatians which stand in the Reformed tradition often end by trying to protect Paul from misunderstanding. They impose nineteenth-century third-use-of-the-law thinking on the book of Galatians. But Paul is allowed to speak for himself in Galatians, he does not rescue the tarnished reputation of the law by a dissertation on its third use. The law is simply a paidagogos, a guardian for minors until the coming of Christ. There is no suggestion in Galatians that God's people need this paidagogos after Christ and justification have come. The problem in interpreting Galatians arises when the commentator thinks of the law as a principle or standard, knows intuitively that the standard which demands right conduct is not abolished, and so he reads this into Galatians. But when Paul speaks negatively of the law in Galatians, he means that infantile, rule-book system of ethics which the Mosaic administration imposed on Israel until the coming of Christ.

Because of the ambiguity which exists at this point, there is real danger that the reformed doctrine of the third use of the law will return the believer to what Paul calls being "under the law". Under the guise of respect for the law of God as a rule of life, we would again be burdened with an infantile, rulebook system of ethics from which the gospel was supposed to deliver us.

The Puritans, Arthur Pink, John Murray, Philip Hughes, the Banner of Truth Trust people and Seventh-day Adventists plausibly argue that only the ceremonial aspects of Moses' law have passed away, while the moral aspects are retained. (2) Thus, the law of Moses, shorn of Jewish ceremonies, becomes the Christian's rule of life.

Fine scholars such as Philip Hughes declare that the same law written on tables of stone is now written on the Christian's heart and exhibited in his life, not, of course, as a means of salvation, but as an evidence of salvation. (3) Does Hughes really mean that the letter of the Mosaic laws is imposed on the Christian's conscience?

No one should object to the proposition that the timeless ethical principles found in Moses are carried over into New Testament ethics. But in the Reformed-Puritan tradition, New Testament ethics is too readily confined to a Mosaic code of regulations. Thus, Puritanism developed into a kind of Christian Judaism. Such a rigorous rule-book system of ethics is not a reflection of the Christian existence portrayed in the New Testament.

Sabbatarianism Re-Examined - Chapter 13: New Testament Ethics

www.gospeloutreach.net

I have deep concerns and reservations about the bolded.

EDIT: This line of argumentation on Galatians seems related to lines of reasoning in NCT.​

 

[Deleted member 13126]

The theological validity of a thesis does not necessarily imply that a Bible writer formed the same categories of thought.

This unboldened bit would’ve concerned me much more, as it seems to be the source of the concerning bold bits. Human authors - penmen, really - of Holy Scripture can and did write better than they knew. Isaiah and Jeremiah studied their own prophecies. These things were preserved for our learning. We must absolutely read the OT in light of the NT, etc. This may not sound as nice as approaching a text without bias, but no one ever actually does that, anyway. We’re effectively incapable of that, in fact. Having the right bias (analogia fidei, etc.) is much more important.

 

[No Other Name]

This unboldened bit would’ve concerned me much more, as it seems to be the source of the concerning bold bits. Human authors - penmen, really - of Holy Scripture can and did write better than they knew. Isaiah and Jeremiah studied their own prophecies. These things were preserved for our learning. We must absolutely read the OT in light of the NT, etc. This may not sound as nice as approaching a text without bias, but no one ever actually does that, anyway. We’re effectively incapable of that, in fact. Having the right bias (analogia fidei, etc.) is much more important.

That's a good point. I remember thinking that quote doesn't bother me because of course, Paul is not thinking of the "three uses of the law" since that was not written in recorded history until much later. But you are right - if God has revealed over time deep theological concepts unknown to the human authors, it is not a devastating criticism to those concepts to point out the irrelevant fact that their human brains were not cogitating at that particular level.

Thank you.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

EDIT: The source is SDA about which I am not too familiar but this line of argumentation on Galatians seems related to lines of reasoning in NCT.

The page bottom has a button-link to an SDA page with additional material challenging SDA doctrines beyond the seventh-day Sabbath position.

The "gospeloutreach(dot)net" source is not SDA. I would not say the particular author (whose work supplies the outtake and is embedded on the site, one Robert D. Brinsmead) is by it self-evidently NCT. If he is, or if the site itself would be in support of NCT, yet this complete document does not appear to me to be a dedicated defense of NCT principles as such.

EDIT: In researching the author, he seems to be a theological maverick--begun attached to SDA, eventually abandoning it while adopting more conventional Protestant positions, later abandoning Sabbatarianism; still later abandoning belief in hell/eternal punishment, followed by justification-by-faith and the divinity of Christ; he seems to end up in universalism of some kind. All this data is from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Brinsmead (for convenience, not an endorsement of the scandalously unreliable Wikipedia). All that said, historically he cannot be said to participate in a later NCT movement at the time he wrote the linked document.

Lastly, after reviewing the whole site on which the page rests, it is apparent that one who runs the site fits with Brinsmead's earlier post-Adventist position, being a refugee from SDA (finding as he puts it: the true freedom in Christ through the gospel). SDA, in addition to coping with its origin in the teachings of false-prophetess Ellen G. White, places an unhealthy emphasis on law rather than grace.

 

[No Other Name]

The page bottom has a button-link to an SDA page with additional material challenging SDA doctrines beyond the seventh-day Sabbath position.

The "gospeloutreach(dot)net" source is not SDA.

Ah, thanks. I'll edit.

 

[Charles Johnson]

From the source:

Their def: "3rd use of the law - It [the law] has a guiding use since it acts as a rule of life for those who have been justified."

Then this portion of their section on NT ethics:

"The Third Use" Misused​

Having acknowledged the strengths in the Reformation's doctrine of the third use the law, we wish to examine the way it n and has been misused. The theological validity of a thesis does not necessarily imply that a Bible writer formed the same categories of thought. For example, the distinction between moral and ceremonial law may be useful, but this must not be imposed upon texts of Scripture not concerned with making that distinction. The same thing can be said about the third use of the law. Commentaries on Galatians which stand in the Reformed tradition often end by trying to protect Paul from misunderstanding. They impose nineteenth-century third-use-of-the-law thinking on the book of Galatians. But Paul is allowed to speak for himself in Galatians, he does not rescue the tarnished reputation of the law by a dissertation on its third use. The law is simply a paidagogos, a guardian for minors until the coming of Christ. There is no suggestion in Galatians that God's people need this paidagogos after Christ and justification have come. The problem in interpreting Galatians arises when the commentator thinks of the law as a principle or standard, knows intuitively that the standard which demands right conduct is not abolished, and so he reads this into Galatians. But when Paul speaks negatively of the law in Galatians, he means that infantile, rule-book system of ethics which the Mosaic administration imposed on Israel until the coming of Christ.

Because of the ambiguity which exists at this point, there is real danger that the reformed doctrine of the third use of the law will return the believer to what Paul calls being "under the law". Under the guise of respect for the law of God as a rule of life, we would again be burdened with an infantile, rulebook system of ethics from which the gospel was supposed to deliver us.

The Puritans, Arthur Pink, John Murray, Philip Hughes, the Banner of Truth Trust people and Seventh-day Adventists plausibly argue that only the ceremonial aspects of Moses' law have passed away, while the moral aspects are retained. (2) Thus, the law of Moses, shorn of Jewish ceremonies, becomes the Christian's rule of life.

Fine scholars such as Philip Hughes declare that the same law written on tables of stone is now written on the Christian's heart and exhibited in his life, not, of course, as a means of salvation, but as an evidence of salvation. (3) Does Hughes really mean that the letter of the Mosaic laws is imposed on the Christian's conscience?

No one should object to the proposition that the timeless ethical principles found in Moses are carried over into New Testament ethics. But in the Reformed-Puritan tradition, New Testament ethics is too readily confined to a Mosaic code of regulations. Thus, Puritanism developed into a kind of Christian Judaism. Such a rigorous rule-book system of ethics is not a reflection of the Christian existence portrayed in the New Testament.

Sabbatarianism Re-Examined - Chapter 13: New Testament Ethics

www.gospeloutreach.net

I have deep concerns and reservations about the bolded.

EDIT: This line of argumentation on Galatians seems related to lines of reasoning in NCT.​

So he thinks the third use of the law is from the nineteenth century?
Some men are not to be taken seriously, and refuting them is a "pearls to swine" situation.

 

[No Other Name]

So he thinks the third use of the law is from the nineteenth century?
Some men are not to be taken seriously, and refuting them is a "pearls to swine" situation.

This guy online I have not - and will never - engage. The leaders of my home church I have to engage. God grant me patience and wisdom

 

[Charles Johnson]

This guy online I have not - and will never - engage. The leaders of my home church I have to engage. God grant me patience and wisdom

What am I missing? Did they promote this article?

 

[No Other Name]

What am I missing? Did they promote this article?

They almost said verbatim what this article says about Paul and Galatians and that the Reformed insert an imaginary "third use" where Paul never intended and then quickly champion (in a frankly inappropriate manner) that we are not children like those Israelites but are free. One guy has gone ahead and said we are all free of the Ten Commandments, but quickly obfuscates every time he says it so that the "real meaning" of what he means is not saying he can have affairs or steal or murder. But he will almost gleefully claim freedom from the Sabbath without any perceived need for explanation or "treading softly" around others - as if that issue is as set in stone as the fact of the Resurrection.

There is still productive dialogue and many men seem like they are honestly working towards the real truth of the Bible. I appreciate all your comments and the prayers of many here.

 

[Charles Johnson]

They almost said verbatim what this article says about Paul and Galatians and that the Reformed insert an imaginary "third use" where Paul never intended and then quickly champion (in a frankly inappropriate manner) that we are not children like those Israelites but are free. One guy has gone ahead and said we are all free of the Ten Commandments, but quickly obfuscates every time he says it so that the "real meaning" of what he means is not saying he can have affairs or steal or murder. But he will almost gleefully claim freedom from the Sabbath without any perceived need for explanation or "treading softly" around others - as if that issue is as set in stone as the fact of the Resurrection.

There is still productive dialogue and many men seem like they are honestly working towards the real truth of the Bible. I appreciate all your comments and the prayers of many here.

Matthew 5:17-19 (and really the whole sermon on the mount) seem crystal clear that Christ didn't come to do away with the law.

 

[No Other Name]

Matthew 5:17-19 (and really the whole sermon on the mount) seem crystal clear that Christ didn't come to do away with the law.

I haven't read the book on NCT given me by the vocal leaders of this doctrine, but something tells me the Sermon on the Mount will be accounted for. My best guess is that this portion of Scripture will be tilted towards dispensationalism (if not outright embracing it at this point).

I have been updating as this scenario progresses.