Law/Gospel: A Staple in Reformation Theology

We’ve posted on this before, but it is something that needs to be said more than a few times: the law/gospel distinction is right there in the fabric of old-school Reformed theology.  Though some people don’t like it, won’t teach it, and think it is Lutheran, it is undeniable that a sharp law/gospel distinction is a classic Reformed teaching (Note: this is neither an OT/NT distinction nor a genre distinction, such as “law and prophets.”  This is an indicative/imperative distinction, a command/promise distinction.)  Here are a few examples.

Zacharius Ursinus (d.1583), one author of the Heidelberg Catechism, said the most basic division of the Catechism is “the Law, and the Gospel; in which we have comprehended the sum and substance of the sacred Scriptures” (p. 2 of his Commentary on the Catechism).  In fact, the Catechism is divided this way because Scripture is: “The law and gospel are the chief and general divisions of the holy scriptures, and comprise the entire doctrine comprehended therein” (ibid.).   Ursinus continues, discussing in four points how there is “a very great difference” between the law and gospel (pp 104-5).  Ursinus says it is the duty of the church and pastor to very clearly distinguish between the law and the gospel (p. 288 & 572).  This means, I might add, that a good Reformation theologian is not going to muddy the waters by saying the whole Bible is law and the whole Bible is gospel, or that the law is good news, or that the gospel is law.

Casper Olevian (d. 1587) – a co-author of the Catechism – sounded exactly the same.  In a catechism he wrote (A Firm Foundation), Q/A 10 is all about the law/gospel distinction.  “What is the difference between the law and the gospel?”  Olevian answers by stating the law is the commands of God that we must perfectly keep or be cursed forever; it demands but doesn’t give ability (p. 9).  In the gospel, however “God does not demand but rather offers and gives us the righteousness that the law requires” (p. 10).  In the gospel, God – by grace through faith and not by law/works – grants a person forgiveness and righteousness in Christ (see also Q/A 8-9).  Click here for something similar from a later Heidelberger.

Moving out of Heidelberg to another Reformed theologian, Francis Turretin (d. 1687) talks about the difference between law and gospel very clearly in his Institutes, II.12.iii.vi.  The law, he says, commands and demands but does not give; the gospel is about salvation by a free gift, not legal obedience (See also II.12.iii.xvii and II.12.vii.xv).  Click here for more from Turretin.

Puritan Matthew Poole (d. 1679) said the exact same things as the above.  The law, he wrote, “only showed man his duty…but gave no strength or help by which he should do them; only cursing man….”  The gospel, however, “is the revelation of the Divine will, as to grace and mercy, as to remission of sin, and eternal life” (Commentary on the Whole Bible, 2 Cor. 3.7-10).

Another Puritan, Thomas Watson (d. 1686), said the same: “the moral law requires obedience, but gives no strength… but the gospel gives strength; it bestows faith on the elect… (The Ten Commandments, 14).  The moral law “is a glass to show us our sins (ibid.). [Here is a fascinating law/gospel distinction by the Westminster Divines which had rightly to do with the covenant of works/grace discussion.]

The Canons of Dort (1618-19) also echo this use of the law (III/IV.5): “For man cannot obtain saving grace through the Decalogue, because, although it does expose the magnitude of his sin and increasingly convict him of his guilt, yet it does not offer a remedy or enable him to escape from his misery, and, indeed, weakened as it is by the flesh, leaves the offender under the curse.”  This is the Reformed confessional way to speak, following the HC “sin” section (LD 2-4).

On the German Reformed side of things, Otto Thelemann (19th century) echoes the above.  “The law teaches what we ought to be and what we should render to God; but it does not impart the strength to offer God what is due Him, nor does it indicate the way by which we might attain this ability.  On the other hand, the Gospel teaches in what way we may become such persons as the law demands.  … The law is a letter which killeth, and is a ministration of death.  The gospel is a ministration of life” (p. 60-61 in An Aid to the Heidelberg Catechism).

More could be added – many more.  One full Reformed book on this I need to read more of is John Colquhoun, A Treatise on the Law and Gospel.  In the Treatise, Colquhoun says what Ursinus said:

If then a man cannot distinguish aright between the law and the gospel, he cannot rightly understand so much as a single article of divine truth.  If he does not have spiritual and just apprehensions of the holy law, he cannot have spiritual and transforming discoveries of the glorious gospel; and, on the other hand, if his view of the gospel is erroneous, his notions of the law cannot be right.”

To sum it up, it needs to be clear that this use of the law – the pedagogical use – was stressed in both Reformed and Lutheran circles (i.e. the sharp law/gospel distinction had to do with justification sola fide).  Also, it is true that the Reformed also had a “normative” use of the law, as is evident in the third part of the Heidelberg, the guide for Christian gratitude (the law as guide had to do with sanctification).  One can even find Luther[ans] speaking of the normative use, though he/they didn’t stress it as much as the pedagogical.  [For a review on the Reformed scholastic three uses of the law, see an earlier post.]

One more thing: the law/gospel distinction in Reformed theology has everything to do with the covenant of works/grace distinction.  Furthermore, this use of the law highlighted above has much to do with “saint and sinner at the same time.”  If one abandons the law/gospel distinction,  typically the doctrine of the covenants gets muddled and the “saint/sinner same time” teaching is weakened as well and everything becomes a sort of equivocal porridge.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

More Machen

The church today is facing something similar to what Machen faced less than 100 years ago: Jesus divorced from Scripture, history, and the church.  We saw it a few days back in Deepak Chopra’s “third Jesus.”  Deepak’s jesus used scented lotions and came so we could realize our inner potential, so we might find self-actualization and inner tranquility.  The Christ of Scripture, history, and the church is God in the flesh who came to save people from sinful self-actualization by becoming a bloody curse on the cross, by destroying death in his resurrection, and by ascending into glory where he now lives to protect his church.  This is the gospel truth that Machen so ably defended.

“I do not think that what the New Testament says about the cross of Christ is particularly intricate.  It is, indeed, profound, but it can be put in simple language.  We deserved eternal death; the Lord Jesus, because he loved us, died in our stead upon the cross.  It is a mystery, but it is not intricate.  What is really intricate and subtle is the manifold modern attempt to get rid of the simple doctrine of the cross of Christ in the interests of human pride.  Of course there are objections to the cross of Christ, and men in the pulpits of the present day pour out upon that blessed doctrine the vials of their scorn; but when a man has come under the consciousness of sin, then as he comes into the presence of the cross, he says with tears of gratitude and joy, ‘He loved me and gave himself for me.”

From “What the Bible Teaches ABout Jesus” in J. Gresham Machen, Selected Shorter Writings, edited by D. G. Hart (Phillipsburg: P&R, 2004), 30.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Luther on the Keys of the Kingdom

“Christ’s intention is to comfort us poor sinners in the most loving and effective manner.  His purpose is not to give the pope power over the angels in heaven nor over emperors on earth.  For our consolation all sins, none excepted, are subject to Peter and the keys.  All sins which he binds and looses shall be bound and loosed, despite the resistance of all devils, the whole world, and of all angels, and all despairing thoughts of our heart, even in the presence of death and evil omens.”

“ A simple, trusting heart can boldly rely on God’s action.  And in times of deep distress, with our consciences accusing us, we may say: Well then!  I have been absolved of my sins, however many and great they may be, by means of the key, on which I rely.  Let no one remind me of my sins any longer.  All are gone, forgiven, forgotten.  He who promises me Whatever you loose shall be loosed does not lie; this I know.  If my repentance is not sufficient, his Word is; if I am not worthy, his keys are: He is faithful and true.  My sins shall not make a liar of him.”

The Keys, wrote Luther, have everything to do with the law and the gospel.  “Any reasonable person must admit that in the text (Matt 16.19) the keys are not associated with the performance of any works.  They enjoin and command nothing, but threaten and promise.  Now, to threaten and to promise are not the same as to command….  The key which binds carries forward the work of the law…. The loosing key carries forward the work of the gospel.”

From Luther’s Works (American Edition), 40.373-5.  The treatise is simply called “The Keys.”

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Justin Martyr on the Resurrection of the Body

I’ve finished one section of my patristics reading, namely Justin Martyr.  Last week I posted a bit by him on worship in the early church.  This time, I’ll quote a bit of what he said concerning the resurrection of the body, which was a great read.  The piece (actually not the complete one) is called “Fragments of the Lost Work of Justin on the Resurrection” in ANF I.295.

To set the context, this was written in the early to mid 2nd Century AD.  Apparently, some then still said there was no resurrection of the body; others said that Christ never had a real body but “the appearance of flesh,” as Justin describes it.  He first contends with those heresies and then sets forth the biblical teaching on the resurrection of the body for believers.  He talks about the body’s relation to sin, saying that the body itself isn’t bad, as some philosophers suppose, but Christ loved his people in body and soul and came to save both.

“…He has even called the flesh to the resurrection, and promises to it everlasting life.  For where he promises to save man, there he gives the promise to the flesh.  For what is man but the reasonable animal composed of body and soul?  Is the soul by itself man?  No; but the soul of man.  Would the body be called man?  No, but it is called the body of man.  If then, neither of these is by itself man, but that which is made up of the two together is called man, and God has called man to life and resurrection, he has not called a part, but the whole, which is the soul and the body.  Since would it not be unquestionably absurd, if, while these two are in the same being and according to the same law, the one were saved and the other not?”

Here’s how he closes this treatise.

“But if our physician Christ, God, having rescued us from our desires, regulates our flesh with his own wise and temperate rule, it is evident that he guards it from sins because it possesses a hope of salvation, as physicians do not suffer men whom they have hope to save to indulge in what pleasures they please.”

This treatise is not too lengthy (7-10 pages or so); it would make for a great and edifying study when thinking upon 1 Corinthians 15 or those confessional references to Christ’s resurrection and ours.  It was my favorite work of Justin, right up there with his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew.  Next on my patristics list: Novatian (I’m skipping around a bit).

As a side note, I just noticed the relatively new five volume IVP set, Ancient Christian Doctrine, which is an edited patristic commentary on the Nicene Creed (actually, the church fathers included go up to the mid-8th century AD).  Bray and Oden are involved; the set looks promising.  Feel free to comment if you know more about it.

shane lems

sunnyside, wa

Evangelism: Targets of Marketing

I’m about as Emergent as a dead caterpillar in a sun-dried cocoon, but I appreciated this little bit from Heather Kirk-Davidoff in her contribution to An Emergent Manifesto of Hope (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007).  It has to do with the “old school” way of evangelism.

“Even if your theology is great, even if your church is wonderful, even if your community is the best group of people on earth, as soon as you approach someone with the intention of recruiting them into your theology or church or community, you become a marketer and the other person is the target of your marketing.  While GenXers have had a wide range of experience with religion or church or community, we share the experience of being targets of marketing from our earliest days of watching cartoons with product tie-ins.  We can spot a sales pitch from a mile away, and we never confuse that with an offer of genuine relationship.”

“The 1999 movie The Big Kahuna made this point brilliantly.  Addressing a colleague who turned a sales convention into an opportunity to witness to his Christian faith, one of the characters says, “It doesn’t matter whether you’re selling Jesus or Buddha or civil rights or ‘How to Make Money in Real Estate with No Money Down.’ …Because as soon as you lay your hands on a conversation to steer it, it’s not a conversation anymore; it’s a pitch.  And you’re not a human being; you’re a marketing rep” (p. 37).

Granted, the rest of this essay is much less helpful, almost making relationship a sacrament.  Yet she’s dead-on in her critique of how we usually “do” evangelism.  That kind may not work anymore in a nation of spoiled consumers.  The Kirby will clean your carpets, Jesus will fix your marriage, and this house-alarm will keep the bad guys out.  This is what Barth (and Willimon following him) means by domesticating the gospel.

Side note: I liked Mike Horton’s contribution to The Church in an Emerging Culture: Five Perspectives (to name one of a few such books).

shane lems

sunnyside wa

The Privatization of Faith

Here in the U.S., we live in a culture (or cultures) where a person’s faith is OK as long as she keeps it private and is tolerant of other faiths.  Objective knowledge is public and for the textbook (i.e. the moon is around 384,000 km from the earth), while subjective values and beliefs are personal and private (i.e. Jesus is Lord).

Of course this type of reasoning – upon which much of the US’s political, cultural, moral, and economical structures are built – can be torn apart; the poor logic isn’t too hard to spot.  More on that at a later time (FYI: Newbigin is great when it comes to  “public” vs  “private” beliefs).  For now, I want to use one of Bavinck’s quotes to deal with this private v public when it comes to the church in the world.

“The more the Christian faith [or the church - spl] retreats from dealing with every possible question, restricting its content, and the more it applies itself to building a rigorous foundation, deducing all else logically from these fundamental principles, the more it will become inwardly weak and divided.” Herman Bavinck, Certainty of Faith (St. Catharines: Paideia Press, 1980), 9.

I love this quote, and it it indicts me.  History has proved Bavinck’s 100 year old words true.  The tough questions liberals and/or unbelievers have thrown at the church have often been answered poorly or simply avoided.  Instead of grappling with these questions publicly, the church has built trenches and walls around the fundamentals.  In Bavinck’s terms, she has buried her head in the sand (Ibid.).  She has focused her gaze within the trenches (privacy!), and “friendly” fire has resulted in a weak and divided church that can only give a blank stare to the world when it asks us tough questions.

In Newbigin’s terms, the gospel is public truth, not a belief we tuck away in our closets!

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Barth: Not A Sick Man

“Revelation culminates in the existence of Jesus of Nazareth.  He comes out of Israel, born of Mary the Virgin, and yet from above, and so in His glory the Revealer and Consummator of the covenant.  Israel is not a sick man who was allowed to recover, but One risen from the dead.  By His appearing, over against the verdict that man pronounced on himself God’s verdict comes into view, to remove all human self-contradiction.  God’s faithfulness triumphs in this sea of sin and misery.  He has mercy on man.  He shares with His inmost Being in this man.  He has never ceased to lead by cords of love this people which to His face has behaved like a whore.  It remains true that this man of Israel belongs to God and again and again, not by nature but by the miracle of grace, may belong anew to God, be rescued from death, be exalted to God’s right hand.”

Taken from Karl Barth, Dogmatics in Outline (New York: Harper & Row, 1959), 80.

Speaking of Barth, if anyone wants to sell (or knows of a seller) Barth’s Dogmatics (set) for a good price, let me know!  I hope to read them all sooner than later, but the price is a huge setback.  For now, I’ll finish the Ante-Nicene Fathers.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

The Gospel And Culture

If you’ve ever wrestled with how the gospel and culture relate, Lesslie Newbigin is a must read.  One thing he constantly discusses is the fact that everyone’s understanding of the gospel is quite cultural.  That is, my understanding of who Jesus is and what he’s done for his people is somewhat conditioned by my cultural upbringing and surroundings.  Of course, we can’t get away from it; it was part of Christ’s work to come to this earth in a certain place, time, and culture.  Furthermore, our doctrine of Scripture is one in which we must take culture into account (language, traditions, etc.).

The difficult thing, as Newbigin repeats, is to maintain a balance.  First, we don’t want the culture to overtake or domesticate the gospel.  In this paradigm, the gospel becomes just one more thing that people believe, along with other information.  The other – second – extreme we want to avoid is the “Christian ghetto” (in Newbigin’s great terms), where we isolate the gospel from other cultures and keep it wrapped up in ours, thinking ours to be superior.  Very roughly, the first extreme is somewhat the liberal way; the second is the fundamentalist way.

An example of the first is the social gospel or even “Christian America” where the gospel is a means to an end; the means is one among others (even if it is the “chief” means).  An example of the second is a church with their tradition X going into a totally foreign culture/place and making the people of this different culture change and adopt their tradition X along with the gospel (sometimes called “cookie cutter approach” to church planting).  Both are to be avoided.

I’ll put up a few Newbigin quotes on this later – I’m still pondering all this stuff, and it is quite stimulating.  (Note – the above ideas come in the last few sections of Lesslie Newbigin: Missionary Theologian, A Reader.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Conversations with Barth on Preaching

“Preaching is utterly dependent upon a God who raises the dead and who calls some people to tell about it.  If there is no God to make the preacher’s sermon ‘work,’ then the preacher is the greatest of fools.  The messenger is disposable by, dispensable to, and derivative of the message.  We have this treasure in earthen vessels.  The treasure is more interesting and powerful than the vessel.  Today’s preachers find themselves in a vulnerable, dangerous situation when a pleasing personality is more important to a congregation than a truthful one, when charm and wit, warmth and ‘love’ become more valued in a preacher than being a person who is willing to stand up and speak the truth as God has given it.  The truth that is communicated through personality (Phillips Brooks’s definition of preaching) is so much more important than the personality.”  [William Willimon, Conversations with Barth on Preaching (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2006), 243-4.]

Amen.  It is a “dangerous situation” for the preacher and his congregation: he may be tempted to preach what they want to hear and they may be tempted to judge him according to his personality rather than the message he brings.  Willimon knocks it out: the vessel is a bunch of dirty clay compared to the treasure that comes from his mouth.  Mess this up and the gospel gets shoved off to the side.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Christ in the OT

This book, The Unfolding Mystery, is a great and easy to read survey of a few key OT stories, and how they point to Jesus.  The stories include Adam/Eve, Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Joshua, Samson, Samuel, David, Solomon, and Elijah, along with a few more.

Here’s a section of Clowney’s discussion of Joshua.

“The role of Joshua as the military leader of the people of God prepares the way for the later judges and kings of Israel.  He anticipates, therefore, the role of Christ as the Lord’s Anointed, the Son of David, who is the Savior and deliverer of the people of God.  Jesus fulfills both sides of the covenant.  He is the Lord, the Divine Warrior, who comes for the salvation of his own.  He is also the Servant, the Lord’s Anointed, through whom the victory is won.  Joshua and his successors, the judges and kings of Israel, fight the battles of the Lord through the long centuries of warfare in the land.  Their struggles are recorded, not to describe their military genius, but to show how God used them to deliver Israel.  They all foreshadow a greater Deliverer and Savior to come.”

The book is full of great redemptive historical notes such as this one.  It does have a Scripture index in the back, which I’ve used quite a bit.  Not only would this book be a helpful one to study on your own, it would make a great Bible study book or discussion book on how to read the OT in light of the empty tomb.

Edmund Clowney, The Unfolding Mystery: Discovering Christ in the Old Testament (Phillipsburg: P&R, 1988), 135.

shane lems

sunnyside wa