Last week, Jen Wilkin wrote a very helpful article on TGC entitled “Failure is not a Virtue.” The purpose of her article was to push back against those who advocate what she calls “celebratory failurism.” She says, “Celebratory failurism asserts that all our attempts to obey will fail, thereby making us the recipients of greater grace. But God does not exhort us to obey just to teach us that we cannot hope to obey.”
Put differently, Jen was concerned about those who view the law only negatively (as a means of exposing failure), and rarely discuss how Christians are empowered to obey it.
Just recently, Tullian Tchividjian has offered quite a strong response, coming down pretty hard on Jen’s article. He accuses her of “theological muddiness,” of having “deep theological confusion”, and of mixing law and gospel in a way which “prevents the reader from hearing (and being relieved by) the real good news.”
But, I have to say, in Jen’s defense, that I think Tullian’s criticisms really miss the mark here. Indeed, as I read his response I was struck by how little interaction there was with Jen’s actual article. I could only find one place where her specific words were quoted. The vast majority of the article was simply a lengthy discussion of how dangerous it is to confuse law and gospel, without demonstrating that Jen was, in fact, guilty of that very mistake. It was almost like large portions of his response could have been clipped from some other article written for an entirely other purpose.
For this reason, much of Tullian’s response did not seem relevant to what Jen actually wrote. For instance, Tullian argues forcefully that “Nowhere does the Bible say that the law carries the power to change us.” Presumably this was written in response to Jen’s article, but nowhere in her article does she claim the law, in and of itself, is able to change us.
On the contrary, she says that God is calling us to the “kind of godly obedience that is impossible for someone whose heart has not been transformed by the gospel in the power of the Holy Spirit.” Does this sound like someone who believes that the law by itself is enough? She expressly says that we need the power of the Holy Spirit before we can obey the law rightly.
Again, Tullian declares that it is “theologically and existentially simplistic and naive when we assume that simply telling people what they need to do has the power to make them want to do it.” Maybe we are reading two different articles, but I found no place where Jen says such a thing.
Tullian also spends an inordinate amount of time showing how mixing law and gospel inevitably lowers and softens the law–“grace for many Christians is the reduction of God’s expectation of us.” But, again, I could not find Jen advocate such a position anywhere. On the contrary, she says, “Rather than abolish the Law, Jesus deepened his followers’ understanding of what it required, and then went to the cross to ensure they could actually begin to obey it.” It doesn’t sound like she is lowering the perfect standard of the law.
Perhaps, in all of these statements Tullian wasn’t really responding to Jen. Perhaps it is just the person “out there” who misunderstands grace. If so, then this goes back to my earlier point: his response interacts very little with her actual article. It raises a concern about whether he is really trying to listen to (and understand) the important points she was trying to raise.
Indeed, Jen goes out of her way to be balanced, offering nuances and qualifications to her view. She laments, like Tullian, the moralism and legalism in our churches; she speaks against any idea that our obedience would “curry favor with God”; and expressly affirms that we “obey out of joyful gratitude.”
So, what’s really going on here? I wonder if the real missing distinction here is not the distinction between law and gospel (as Tullian suggests), but the distinction between the second use and third use of the law (a distinction Tullian never addresses).
The clear focus of Tullian’s response article was on the “second use” of God’s moral law, namely that the law functions to expose our sinfulness, reveal our failure, and to drive us to Christ. It is this second use of the law that is the antidote to legalism. Tullian’s focus on the second use is exemplified by his repeated references to Paul’s awareness of his sin in Romans 7.
And Tullian is 100% right about the importance of the second use of the law. It is critical to a proper understanding of the gospel. The problem is that this was not the point of Jen’s article. Although she didn’t use the phrase, her article was focusing on the importance of the “third use” of the law, namely that for the believer with a new heart, the law is a positive, wonderful, and delightful guide to how to live the Christian life. Put differently, the law is not just something that condemns (second use), but it is also, for the believer, a necessary guide to holiness (third use).
And this third use needs to play an important (though not the only) role in our ministries.
What is surprising about Tullian’s article is the absolute silence about the third use. I know he must believe in the third use, but his sharp distinction between law and gospel does not allow for much room to discuss it. And I think this is perhaps the reason he misunderstood Jen’s article. If one thinks mainly in “second use” categories, then her call to obedience might sound like a call to legalism.
In the end, if Tullian had written this same article as a stand alone piece on the importance of the second use of the law, then I would have said “Amen.” But, as a response to Jen’s initial article, and without a clear distinction between second and third use, it might be guilty of the very charge it originally made: “theological muddiness.”
Mark J. says
Thanks for this, Mike. I am persuaded that on this matter it is a case of “qui tacet consentire videtur.” So thank you for speaking out.
It is interesting that Tullian likes to quote the Reformed on the “law-gospel” distinction, but never actually fully explains what they meant by it. He keeps using that term, but I don’t think it means what he thinks it means.
Fascinatingly, Anthony Burgess once remarked: God’s commands not only inform us of our duty, but are also “practical and operative means appointed by God, to work, at least in some degree, that which is commanded.” This is pretty standard language for our Reformed forefathers!
Richard UK says
1. Yes, God’s commands are…”OPERATIVE means..to work..that which is commanded”. Tullian is exploring this experientially. God’s vehicle for these operative means is gospel preaching, and our experience of its effective working is the motivation of gratitude (rather than fear or duty which relate more to 1st or 2nd use).
2. Gratitude is inside-out, whereas duty/fear is more outside-in (and I am talking about terror, not about reverence when translated as fear). Gratitude and submission can be clearly seen in mature AUGUSTINE, whereas moralists/covenantal nomists draw on ARISTOTLE’s notion of ‘habitus’ whereby virtues can be achieved by practice. We of course Christianise this by adding the phrase ’empowered by the Holy Spirit to obey and grow in holiness’.
3. These are profoundly different because they utilize different anthropologies. The healthy Hebraic one (Augustine’s, Calvin’s and Tullian’s) suggests the HEART as the driver for man’s actions with the will, if it exists (cf Luther), as a processing function. The non-biblical Greek/Stoic one has a gnostic mind-body dualism at its root and sees the WILL as a separate entity within us, which ‘chooses’ between the desires of the flesh within us and the desires that God places within us (those desires presumably on offer to us but, as a Gentleman, never overriding us in our sanctification despite having done so for our justification)
4. The ultimate CATEGORY ERROR (behind any law-gospel or 1st-2nd-3rd use category errors) is this notion that we have a ‘will’ that, on conversion, is made ‘free’. Luther’s donkey imagery suggests otherwise. On this we have unthinkingly accepted Augustine’s rendition of the believer as ‘posse peccare, posse non peccare’ exactly what he had attributed to Adam without identifying the post-Enlightenment spin we have given to it.
5. Putting to one side exactly what Augustine meant by ‘posse’, we have certainly taken it to mean ‘the POWER OF CONTRARY CHOICE’ (or Moral Autonomy) which seems to be exactly what the serpent offered. He/it must be laughing!
6. It is ironic that all our language from ‘I have a duty to obey God’s law’ (which is at least true) through to ‘I am like David and want to obey God’s law’ (which is arrogant) involves the word ‘obey’ in the sense of obeying rules rather than ‘listening intently’ (its pre-Enlightenment meaning) to The One who Speaks who will (back to Burgess and Augustine) bring about what He has commanded. We only speak in symbols but God speaks in power (PERFORMATIVE-SPEECH ACTS, cf Mike Horton)
[Incidentally Tullian has explained ‘law = do, gospel = done’. You, or Mark Jones, or others, may not like this but it is now your turn to explain why scripturally this does not work
I am also grateful that Michael K is able to ‘Amen’ to Tullian’s post at least within a certain perspective; there seem to be too many who wonder ‘what good could ever come out of’ Coral Ridge]
a. says
“there seem to be too many who wonder ‘what good could ever come out of’ Coral Ridge
Hope you’re meaning Jesus, right? …
Nathanael said to him, “Can any good thing come out of Nazareth (or anywhere)?” Philip said to him, “Come and see.” John 1:” 46 Answer: yes- only God-Jesus
Jesus said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone.’” Mark 10: 18
to whom God willed to make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory Col 1:27
So then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure. Phil 2: 12 -13
Praise be to God alone – Father & Jesus & the Spirit!
Christ Jesus, being found in appearance as a man, humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross; for this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. Phil 2:8-11
Richard UK says
Relax!
I would not equate TT or anyone with the son of God! My italics show I was aware of Nathaniel’s quote; the Jews had such a downer on Nazareth that it blinded them. I’m just thinking that if TT came out with something very insightful that his detractors could actually applaud, they still would not do so having developed such a downer on the man
a. says
“Relax!”
am relaxed, except for concern of potential deception about Isaiah 42:8; 48:11b
Cecil says
I see what the 2nd and 3rd uses of the Law mean. Doesn’t that also mean there must be a 1st use of the Law as well? If so, what is it ?
Drew says
it is to restrain evil in society (the civil use)
Andrew DiNardo says
Sorry got it mixed up. I believe Calvin says first use is to point us to our need for Christ. Second is civil use and third guide to life
stephanstrategy says
Cecil,
A brief essay on the three uses of the Law can be found here: http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/sproul/threefold_law.html
It was written by RC Sproul. From his summary (the uses of the law are #2,3,4):
1. The church today has been invaded by antinomianism, which weakens, rejects, or distorts the law of God.
2. The law of God is a mirror of God’s holiness and our unrighteousness. It serves to reveal to us our need of a savior.
3. The law of God is a restraint against sin.
4. The law of God reveals what is pleasing and what is offensive to God.
5. The Christian is to love the law of God and to obey the moral law of God.
Jeff says
Thank you Dr. Kruger for writing on this issue. I appreciate the fact that the president of a respected seminary is on the front lines of this and other issue.
Greenville Seminary will be discussing this issue and more at their conference next year. The topic is on the law.
Blessings brother,
Jeff Downs
Billy Mac says
Thank you for this. It is both an example of the respect and love with which Christians ought to interact with one another, and a solid explanation of the subject at hand. Mr. Kruger, you are winning me over as a regular reader.
Jacob Goff says
Okay. But someone here needs must have an ounce of self-awareness that would allow you to admit how frequently we mis-use the third use in two ways: 1) picking and choosing the commandments that our personalities could best accomplish, and 2) equating our perceived obedience to spiritual superiority (or disobedience to spiritual inferiority). On a practical level, I think Tullian is seeing this rampant perversion of the third use, which betrays an understanding of the second use. A theologian who understands the distinction between law/gospel, and particularly 2nd and 3rd use, should be sensitive to such a theological corrective as Tullian offers.
Tullian says
Hi Mike!
You and I both know (familiar as we are with the law in its three uses) that whether you’re talking about the first, second, or third use, the law has the same limits. It can point, but it cannot produce. It is right and glorious to delight in the law of the Lord, for example, but the law itself (even in it’s third use) doesn’t generate the delight. The gospel does. Anyone paying attention to writing and preaching today (in both the reformed and non-reformed world) cannot deny that there is a gross confusion of categories and that the law (in all of its uses) is assumed to have the power to produce what it demands.
I’m not confusing the three uses of the law. I’m addressing the confusion of law (in any and all of its uses) and the gospel.
Blessings,
Tullian
Michael Kruger says
Thanks, Tullian. I appreciate the comments. I think we have a lot in common here; and we certainly agree about the importance of the second use of the law.
My concern was that Jen never made this mistake that you are so vigorous to refute. You are battling a position she doesn’t hold. I don’t disagree that someone “out there” believes the idea that the law by itself is all we need, but that was not her view, nor mine, nor the view of most reformed folks I interact with.
So, that leads to the question of why you think she held this view (when there was no evidence in her article that she did). My concern is that when someone hears a person (like Jen) say that Christians should keep the law, they might instinctively assume they are making the mistake of believing that the law, by itself, can provide motivation/power to keep it. But, that is not necessarily the case. This is why I brought up the third use of the law–it is a way of viewing the law in light of the gospel. It is a way of using the law in a non-legalistic manner. And this was the way Jen was using it.
Niles says
Michael, it is disappointing that Tullian did not address your main criticism of his article, that he didn’t prove that Jen held the position that he was arguing against.
Tullian, if you see that you have misrepresented Jen (as Michael has laid out), why not apologize and move on? Your points on Law and Grace are wonderful, but you have indeed misrepresented your sister in Christ. You can continue to post comments that are 100% true, as you have, but you are clearly, clearly dancing around the issue at hand.
Winchester RPCNA says
Tullian,
Isn’t the Word preached an operative Word (2 Cor 4:6)? That is, when the Spirit given Word meets with faith in the heart it effects the very thing intended. That’s why the answer to the question “What must we do to be saved?” isn’t met with your reductionistic theological categories, but with the imperative “Repent and believe.” In that sense neither the law or gospel “generates” but only the Spirit who uses both efficiently, right? I think you overcomplicate this.
Blessings,
kb
Jacob Goff says
You accuse Tullian of reductionism and over-complication in the same comment. Salvation is not met with an imperative. “Repent and believe” is simply a confession of a truth held, and – in a very important sense – not imperative in the indicatives/imperatives (2nd/3rd use) distinction. If we cannot let the act of salvation itself stand alone without confusing hearers with “imperatives”, then we are going to end up with bigger problems.
Winchester RPCNA says
Jacob,
Tullian’s reducing law=do and gospel=done is an oversimplification of Reformed systematic categories and the result is an overcomplication in the discussion. So yes, I accuse him of both in the same comment.
I’m actually not totally sure what the rest of your comment means, sorry. My point was that both “law” and “gospel,” according to Tullian’s narrow definitions of “do” and “done” are dead letters unless the Spirit makes them effectual. The law of “itself” cannot generate delight, as Tullian asserts above, but neither can the gospel of “itself.” Both law and gospel are ineffectual without the Spirit. The Spirit alone is the efficient cause of generating delight and obedience. Nevertheless, he uses both “law” and “gospel” to do that, see Ps 119:93, 130. Hence we can preach “Repent and believe the gospel” with the confidence that the Spirit will make that Word effectual. Not that they’re saved by their repenting and believing, they’re saved by the Spirit who works repentance and belief in their heart through the Word–even if that Word is “do” and not only “done.”
Cheers!
Shane Anderson says
I echo the concerns above, and I also have a ongoing concern with Pastor Tullian’s oft repeated contrast between Law and Love. Christ himself affirmed the summary of the Law in the word “love.” Christ’s love for His father, His people, and God’s Word was expressed in joyful obedience to the Law. The preface to the Ten Commandments indicates God’s salvific love as the context for the giving of the Law. “Love is of God” John tells us and “everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. He that loves not, knows not God.”
How odd then the constant contrast in his posts/tweets/etc between Law and love.
Is the law an expression of God’s love to the believer? Are the 10 commands expressions of care from our loving redeemer, or is the God of the 10 commands still condemning us? Sadly, by contrasting Law and love so frequently, Pastor Tullian is promoting hearing only a condemning voice in the Law, rather than the loving voice of our Father to whom the believer is fully, and freely, reconciled in Jesus Christ.
God actually DOES accept something other than the perfect righteousness of Jesus: he accepts those who are in union with him by faith, imputing Christ’s perfect righteousness to them. And he accepts and rewards their sincere good works: WCF 16.6 : “the persons of believers being accepted through Christ, their good works also are accepted in Him; not as though they were in this life wholly unblamable and unreproveable in God’s sight;but that He, looking upon them in His Son, is pleased to accept and reward that which is sincere, although accompanied with many weaknesses and imperfections.”
That’s not a “lowering of the Law” or “confusing Law and Gospel”–that’s exalting the work of the Lord Jesus Christ for AND in the believer.
Michael Kruger says
Thanks, Shane. Appreciate the reminder of WCF 16.6. It is VERY applicable to this discussion.
Shane D. Anderson says
Dr Kruger– As you may know, “Liberate” now has a church network that plainly denies the third use of the Law by proscribing a strict dichotomy between Law and Gospel and commanding an adherence to a specific order in which they are alone useful. Quoted below in its entirety, the agreement teaches that the Law only commands and condemns. After this condemnation the Gospel only “gives and gives and gives again” making no demands.:
“In affiliating with LIBERATE, churches in the Directory agree that:
We are committed to proclaiming God’s two words—Law and Gospel—and we are committed to proclaiming them in a particular order. Our preaching, teaching, worship, and pastoral care will be marked by this proclamation.
First, we proclaim God’s Law: his good, right and true description of what life on Earth ought to look like. God’s law is a picture of his holiness, and therefore cannot be weakened (Matthew 5:18): God’s standard is nothing less than perfection (Matthew 5:48). We proclaim God’s law to remind us of our sins (Romans 3:20), and to prod our hearts to cry out for a savior.
Second, we proclaim God’s Gospel: that his son Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners (1 Timothy 1:15). In Christ, God’s love for us is one-way: from him to us. It does not require any pre-existing conditions, nor does it expect anything in return. It gives, gives, and gives again.
Though both of these words are from God, we believe that the Gospel always has the final word (2 Corinthians 3:7-11). The Law can demand righteousness, but cannot produce it. The Law shows us what we ought to be doing but cannot produce the desire to do it. Righteousness is the free gift of God in Jesus Christ, whose gift puts our sins as far from us as the East is from the West, forever (Psalm 103:12). This is our refrain: First, we are sinners; Finally, Christ is our savior.”
https://michaeljkruger.com/when-you-fail-to-distinguish-second-and-third-use-of-the-law-a-response-to-tullian-tchividjian/
Jack Brooks says
Again: the issue seems to be not, “a problem that is going on out there”, but “what’s going on in the actual article to which you responded?”. Is there any evidence that the author of the article to which you responded committed -any- of the errors you fear?
Zech Schiebout says
Tullian,
Your diminishing of the third use of the law, it appears to me, is more a Lutheran (not Luther’s) view than a Reformed view. As a fellow pastor, ordained in the ARPC, I have been for years curious to know whether you have taken exception to the Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter 19.6. Your public teaching contradicts said paragraph, quoted hereafter in part (from WCF in modern English):
“Although true believers are not under the law as a covenant of works by which they are justified or condemned, nevertheless the law is of great use to them as well as to others. By informing them–as a rule of life–both of the will of God and of their duty, it directs and binds them to walk accordingly. It also reveals to them the sinful pollutions of their nature, hearts, and lives. Therefore, when they examine themselves in the light of the law, they may come to further conviction of, humiliation for, and hatred of their sin, together with a clearer view of their need of Christ and the perfection of his obedience. The law is also useful to the regenerate because, by forbidding sin, it restrains their corruptions…Therefore, the fact that a man does good rather than evil because the law encourages good and discourages evil is no evidence that the man is under the law rather than under grace.”
You emphasize that believers are not under the law as a covenant of works, and you emphasize the second use of the law which is for self-examination and humiliation, and to this I say, “Amen!” But in your public teaching it appears to me you have no real third use of the law. By lumping the 2nd and 3rd uses together, and contrasting them with the gospel, you are effectively subsuming the 3rd use under the 2nd, and thereby stripping the law of its 3rd use.
I am wondering if you can answer a few questions:
1. Can you explain how you interpret, “The law is also useful to the regenerate because, by forbidding sin, it restrains their corruptions”? The 3rd use of the law, according to the WCF, restrains the corruptions of the regenerate. Do you agree?
2. Paul commands Timothy to “…reprove, rebuke, and exhort” (2 Timothy 4:2). How do you go about rebuking a believer? Do you just tell them the gospel, or do you lay the law upon their lives in order to restrain their sin, believing that the Holy Spirit uses the threats of the law to restrain believer’s sins?
3. Before I was converted at 26 years of age, I was a full blown antinomian; legalism never made sense to me. If where sin abounds, grace abounds all the more, then let’s party, was my motto. As I read your writings, I find nearly nothing to curtail antinomianism. You combat legalism continuously and effectively, but leave antinomianism largely untouched. If I embraced what you write, I would actually regress in my spiritual walk and become spiritually lazy, no longer walking worthy of the calling to which I have been called, and no longer offering myself a living sacrifice, but excusing these things on the altar of “Thank God for Jesus Christ; He obeyed for me, therefore my lack of obedience is not all that significant and certainly should not discourage me.” I know and believe the gospel, but also find the law to be a means by which I am pushed toward obedience, especially at those times when I don’t “feel” like obeying. How would you counsel someone with antinomian rather than legalistic leanings?
4. What place does the Holy Spirit play in the life of a believer? Does He work through the Word He wrote as it is brought to bear upon the lives of His people, or does the Word need to be mediated by a certain gospel formula in order to be effective in the lives of God’s people?
5. What does it mean for a Christian to walk in such a way as to please God (cf. 1 Thess. 4:1)? Would you ever tell a believer that their walk as a child of God, in faith and obedience, is pleasing to God?
6. How does sanctification occur in the lives of believers?
Thank you, my fellow brother, for any time you spend answering these questions.
Warmly,
Zech Schiebout
Pastor of Gospel of Grace Church; Springfield, MO
Ken McLain says
1) Do you see nothing in between “the Law is useful to the believer by forbidding sin” and a believer’s actual obedience to the law? IE “Therefore, when they examine themselves in the light of the law, they may come to further conviction of, humiliation for, and hatred of their sin, together with a clearer view of their need of Christ and the perfection of his obedience”
2) What are you asking here? Are you really arguing that the solution to sin is more law alone? So a believer struggling with same sex attraction you are going to tell them – STOP IT – don’t you know the bible says you are not supposed to do that and if you continue to do it death and hell are on their way? And that’s it? That’s the solution?? The law REVEALS the sin so that we GO TO JESUS for life. There is a 3rd use of the law ie instruction in righteousness but it does not impart the life required to obey. The law is necessary to break me and in my brokenness I run to Christ who is my life. II Peter 1:5-9 “For this very reason, make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue,[e] and virtue with knowledge, 6 and knowledge with self-control, and self-control with steadfastness, and steadfastness with godliness, 7 and godliness with brotherly affection, and brotherly affection with love. 8 For if these qualities[f] are yours and are increasing, they keep you from being ineffective or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 For whoever lacks these qualities is so nearsighted that he is blind, having forgotten that he was cleansed from his former sins.” So if you are looking at your life and see it is falling short the problem is you have forgotten the gospel.
3) The solution to ignoring/hating/disobeying the law is not finally a reiteration of the law. Again the law plays a role of revealing sin and displaying the holiness of God, but it CANNOT change us. It is a guide to what a holy life looks like but it is not the MEANS to living that life. It aids us only in the sense that it breaks us and drives us to Christ. There is a connection between the legalist and the Antinomian. The legalist says I will get to God by keeping the law but he remakes that law to something attainable. So he in essence is saying I will do want I am able to do and God must accept that. He is disregarding what the law truly says. In the same way the antinomian says it doesn’t matter what the law says, it doesn’t apply to me. I will live as I please. The heart problem is really the same I will do as I please. The solution for both is not finally the law commanding and demanding the perfect righteousness of God. That may well be needed, but the solution for either person is God’s free, unmerited, unfairly one-sided grace poured out for sinners. It is his kindness that leads us to repentance whether it is legalism or antinomianism.
4) The Word is the sword of the Spirit and yes it must be rightly divided. The Spirit’s purpose is to point us to Jesus as our treasure and source of life. He definitely convicts of sin and uses the law to do so but His end goal for us is not finally moral improvement but faith in Jesus. We could improve our adherence to what the law demands without seeing Jesus as precious. So the end and final work of the Spirit is to enable us to see Jesus as the most precious treasure outweighing all other pleasures. This of course leads to holiness is the “holiness without which no one will see the Lord” (the highest aim). The Spirit delights to tells us that we are children of the Father and our obedience flows from that union and realization. “For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, “Abba! Father!” 16 The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, 17 and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him.”
5) “Whatever is not of faith is sin.” and “Without faith it is impossible to please God.” Faith is what pleases God. So a believer can and does please God by acting in faith. Piper’s definition of faith is “being satisfied with all that God is for me in Christ Jesus.” So faith looks to Jesus for the satisfaction of my soul. There is nothing else that pleases God. I can in faith see Jesus as the superior treasure and reject pornography or anger or living for wealth and though still corrupt in my flesh God is pleased with my turning to Him by faith and rejecting sinful pleasure. However I could not participate in the pornography or anger or money worship by pure obedience to what the law requires for a thousand other reasons. I don’t want my wife to leave me, I want a good relationship with my kids, money leaves me empty none of which have one whiff of “I am so desperate for Christ.” That kind of life and motive is all around us and is not pleasing to God though it seemingly adheres to what the law requires. We do a disservice to ourselves and others when we teach obedience without faith. Of course everyone says “No, No of course faith – I got that way back when I got saved. You have to be saved to obey.” Justifying faith does always work but I am not talking primarily the faith you had in the past at conversion. I am talking about right now faith – faith that in this moment is looking to Jesus as the surpassing treasure. The faith that justifies is the faith that sanctifies. And this kind of faith – faith that looks to Jesus as treasure, life, water, bread – leads to imperfect but true obedience.
6) Sanctification does not happen by my commitment to do what the law demands. Sanctification happens when I place all of my hope on Jesus who did what the law demanded. So preach the law – reveal the full holiness and unapproachable brightness of our God so that we (believers and unbelievers) fall on our faces and cry out “oh wretched man that I am who will deliver me.” And then let us hear the gloriously glad tidings that there is a Savior who ransoms and redeems, love and purses, cleanses and forgives not just unbeliever sinners, but believing sinners. This alone, grace alone, the gospel alone, Jesus alone is able to overcome all of my failure (past, present and future) and enable to see Him increasingly as infinitely precious.
Ethan Smith says
Ken, this is excellent. Thanks for writing this and leading me to worship as I read and was reminded of the incomparable love and mercy of the Father.
Ken McLain says
thank you Ethan…. wish I could edit on here. That last part should say “And then let us hear the gloriously glad tidings that there is a Savior who ransoms and redeems, loves and pursues, cleanses and forgives not just unbelieving sinners, but believing sinners. This alone, grace alone, the gospel alone, Jesus alone is able to overcome all my failure (past, present and future) and enable us to increasingly see Him as infinitely precious.” 🙂
Mark Van Der Molen says
Dr. Kruger, I’m not sure why you are surprised that Tullian does not discuss the third use of the law or why he fails to engage the critique. His law/gospel dichotomous worldview (not distinction) has been discussed for some time. I’d encourage you to read Dr. Mark Jones’ recent book “Antinomianism: Reformed Theology’s Unwelcome Guest”, where Tullian’s theology gets some extended attention.
Jacob Goff says
Paul and Luther received the same accusation of antinomianism. Tullian has refuted this charge multiple times, including three comments above yours. Christians preach the offensive, unconditional grace of God (whose chosen method of saving the elect is still perceived by the world to have been a “failure”). I would expect the world “out there” to accuse Tullian of too scandalously proclaiming love to those who don’t deserve it, but within Christianity I would hope we would celebrate unconditional grace, salvation apart from the law. Worldview not distinction? Swipe, I’m assuming. If so, Tullian is in the company of the reformers and whoever wrote that pesky letter to the Romans during the first century. It is a worldview that ends with gospel-centrality, as opposed to a worldview that ends with a potentially delusional assessment of the individual believer’s spiritual prowess. The Law/Gospel distinction becomes a worldview as a survival instinct – when flanked on all sides by an evangelicalism overrun by a legal temperament.
Kitty says
Encouraged to read your words here. My husband and I have been listening to Tullian’s teaching through Romans and also listening to some …..Lutheran…. sermons and both have been a breath of fresh air. I wonder that so many are so offended by God’s unconditional grace . How can I doubt He will complete the work He began in me. Everyday I see the law before me and thank God for His deliverance. Through the Holy Spirit I desire to live a life pleasing to God and am compelled toward obedience. His law is written on my heart and His spirit guides me to obey. Thanks for taking the time to post here.
Ken Pierce says
I don’t understand how we can say that, for the believer, the law causes no delight. Even if somehow we relegate the Psalmist’s delight in the law to a republication of the covenant of works, Paul clearly states in Romans 7:22, that the Law does cause us to delight in the inward man. It is always doing its convicting and guiding work in the life of the believer.
Ken Pierce says
One further thing, if there are all these Reformed pastors who are confused on the law and the gospel, who are they and where are they? I have been Reformed my whole life, and I have never once come across a single pastor, not one, who said the law had the ability to produce what it demands. So, if these men are out there, I’d really be interested to know who they are.
chrishutchinson says
Ken, I won’t name names here, but I have sat under Reformed preaching/teaching that so strongly emphasized our required obedience, that it was defacto what you describe. To put it in terms of WCF 14.2, they failed to make *primary* what the Confession (and the Scriptres) make primary in our sanctification: resting in Christ. I’ll tell you more in private, if you wish.
Richard Bates says
I commend to everyone the Lutheran theologian Gilbert Meilaender’s essay, “Hearts Set to Obey” which you can find in his book, The Freedom of a Christian. After you’ve read that essay, you might also read Dallas Willard’s essay, “Spiritual Formation and the Warfare Between the Flesh and the Human Spirit” which discusses the nuts and bolts of holistic transformation with specific reference to what St. Paul means by “Put on the Lord Jesus Christ” (Rom. 13:14), and “Lay aside the old self…and put on the new self” (Eph 4:22-24).
JackMiller says
The purposes of the third use of the law as taught in –
WLC Q. 97. What special use is there of the moral law to the regenerate?
A. Although they that are regenerate, and believe in Christ, be delivered from the moral law as a covenant of works, so as thereby they are neither justified nor condemned; [1] yet besides the general uses thereof common to them with all men… [see Q. 95 – “to inform them of the holy nature and will of God, and of their duty, binding them to walk accordingly; to convince them of their disability to keep it, and of the sinful pollution of their nature, hearts, and lives: to humble them in the sense of their sin and misery, and thereby help them to a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ, and of the perfection of his obedience.”],
As for the uses particular to believers:
… it is of special use, [2] to show them how much they are bound to Christ for his fulfilling it, and enduring the curse thereof in their stead, and for their good; and [3] thereby to provoke them to more thankfulness, and [4] to express the same in their greater care to conform themselves thereunto as the rule of their obedience.
So the purpose of the third use of the moral law is 1) to inform believers of God’s holy nature and will, and that they are bound to walk according to it and to convince them that they can’t keep it, to convince them of the sinfulness and their need of Christ. 2) to show them how much they are bound to Christ for fulfilling it for them and paying the penalty of their sin. 3) to provoke more thankfulness to God in their hearts. 4) so that they would take more care, as the expression of that thankfulness, to walk in a godly direction as measured or ruled by the moral law.
I think one can find plenty in Tullian’s teaching that adheres to and affirms WLC Q. 97.
Michael Kruger says
Thanks, Jack. I agree that there is plenty in Tullian’s ministry that agrees with WLC 97. But, there is also plenty in Jen Wilkin’s article that she does as well. That is why it is perplexing that she was charged with being theologically confused. The concern of my post was simply to explore how/why she was perceived to be this way, and to show there are no grounds for it.
JackMiller says
Hi Michael,
I’m presently reading both essays. My comment above was a response only to an earlier comment contending that Tullian doesn’t discuss the third use of the law implying that he somehow denies it.
cheers…
Paul Owen says
I think it is also important to keep in mind that while the Law of God has no power to produce holiness so long as it remains outside of us, this is by no means true of God’s Law written on our hearts in the New Covenant (Rom. 2:14-15; 8:4; 2 Cor. 3:3-6).
Michael Kruger says
Amen, Paul. Great point.
JackMiller says
Good discussion… Paul, you might want to check out how the 16th century Reformers and the theologians of the 17th century orthodox reformed period understood those verses. See Calvin’s commentary on Romans. What you’re espousing is by no means the universal interpretation of the role of the law in believer’s lives. Let me quote John Owen. Notice how what he writes is consistent with WLC Q. 97:
“The law guides, directs, commands, all things that are against the interest and rule of sin. It [the law] judgeth and condemneth both the things that promote it [sin] and the persons that do them; it [the law] frightens and terrifies the consciences of those who are under its dominion. But if you shall say unto it [the law], “What then shall we do? this tyrant [sin], this enemy, is too hard for us. What aid and assistance against it will you afford unto us? what power will you communicate unto its destruction?” Here the law is utterly silent, or says that nothing of this nature is committed unto it of God: nay, the strength it hath it gives unto sin for the condemnation of the sinner: “The strength of sin is the law.” But the gospel, or the grace of it, is the means and instrument of God for the communication of internal spiritual strength unto believers. By it do they receive supplies of the Spirit or aids of grace for the subduing of sin and the destruction of its dominion.” (John Owen, A Treatise of the Dominion of Sin and Grace)
My understanding is this: The believer now relates to the law through the gospel. Or put another way, we do not relate directly to the law any more. We now relate to the the law and the obedience it requires only through our Mediator, Christ Jesus (Rom. 6:14; 7:4-6). I agree that the law is now written on our hearts so that we can say with Paul later on in Romans 7 that in the inner man we embrace the law as good and we now desire to obey. Yet it is still law. What has changed is not only a new heart that embraces the law, but we have Christ crucified and resurrected (the gospel) who is the means communicated by the Spirit for our path of obedience. Do we perfectly obey? Never, not even close. But through faith, forgiveness, and repentance as given by the Spirit in the gospel we have all we need in Christ to walk in a manner worthy of him and as those being conformed to his image.
cheers…
Mark Van Der Molen says
In light of Tullian’s broadside, Dr. Jones has now offered him a golden opportunity to lay some questions to rest:
http://www.meetthepuritans.com/2014/05/10/proposed-debate/
Celal says
I hope the debate goes ahead. I will especially be looking for how Philippians 2:12-13 & Galatians 3:2 is handled by each side.
Mark Kozak says
Paul well describes the human tension even in the child of God, concerning God’s moral law…
22 For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being,
23 but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members.
24 Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?
25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.
(Rom 7:22-25 ESV)
Todd Pruitt says
Excellent post Dr. Kruger. Jen’s article is a proper response to the creeping antinomianism which seems to be gaining popularity among the reformed-ish. I think much of the problem is that the helpful distinctions of law/gospel or indicative/imperative are turned into antitheses. No, the law cannot produce righteousness. However, for the regenerate, the law of God becomes a means by which he sanctifies us. Therefore we rightly rejoice in and love the law of the Lord. This is not because the law makes us righteous. Far from it! God’s law however does constitute a means by which the Spirit sanctifies us. The Scriptures do not contain imperatives merely as a way to prove to us that we cannot obey. Jesus’ parable of the Good Samaritan was not given to prove we cannot be a good Samaritan.
Paul Owen says
A concern I would have, is that some people in the Reformed camp are just as guilty as Rome of mixing justification and sanctification. While it is wrong to collapse justification into sanctification (a charge that can be labeled at Rome), it is equally wrong to collapse sanctification into justification. At the moment of conversion, justification is both imputed to the sinner and infused into the soul. The affirmation of this “double grace” was a key facet of the Protestant response to Rome’s charge of antinomianism. God expects regenerate believers to actually produce good works, and those good works are the fruit of regeneration (Eph. 2:10; James 2:14-26). Sanctification cannot be reduced to trust in Christ’s perfect, imputed righteousness. Those who know God will not break his covenant like faithless Israel, for God’s law will be written on their hearts (Jer. 31:31-34). This is the very essence of New Covenant religion. Any confusion on this point is a very serious error.
Anna says
Tullian should just become a confessional Lutheran and be done with it. Oh wait…even the Lutherans, in their confessions, speak of the necessity of the third use of the Law. Of course, many popular modern Lutherans ignore this part of their doctrine. From the Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord(the section on third use of the law, found here http://bookofconcord.org/sd-thirduse.php):
“Accordingly, we reject and condemn as an error pernicious and detrimental to Christian discipline, as also to true godliness, the teaching that the Law, in the above-mentioned way and degree, should not be urged upon Christians and the true believers, but only upon the unbelieving, unchristians, and impenitent.”
Mark R says
I would like to hear more about Christology in this debate. If Christ had to learn obedience according to his human nature, then so does anyone who is united to him, right?
markmcculley says
Gaffin, By Faith, Not By Sight, p 38—From this perceptive, the antithesis between law and gospel is not an end in itself. It is not a theological ultimate. Rather, that antithesis enters not be virtue of creation but as a consequence of sin, and the gospel functions for its overcoming. The gospel is to the end of removing an absolute law-gospel antithesis in the life of the believer
p 73, —”Here is what may be fairly called a synergy but it is not a 50/50 undertaking (not even 99.9% God and 0.1% ourselves). Involved here is the ‘mysterious math’ of the creator and his image-bearing creature, whereby 100% plus 100% =100%. Sanctification is 100% the work of God, and for that reason, is to engage the full 100% activity of the believer.”
mark: I agree with Cunha’s criticism of Gaffin (The Emperor’s New clothes). The law is not satisfied by the removal of the antithesis in Christians, but by Christ’s satisfaction of the law by His death for the elect.
Todd Pruitt says
Paul Owen – Who are these people “in the Reformed camp” who are just as guilty as Rome in mixing justification and sanctification? This would be false teaching and a clear violation of their ordination vows (if indeed they are part of a Reformed denomination that requires such vows). Or is this “Reformed camp” of which you speak another term for broad evangelicalism which likes TGC or T4G? I do not find these sweeping but wholly unsubstantiated statements helpful at all. Again, if there is false teaching among the confessionally reformed then let’s hear it. If there is someone in the presbytery in which I serve teaching a romanist salvation then I’d like to know so I can bring charges.
Paul Owen says
Todd, they would be the same people whom you identify among the “reformed-ish” who have adopted the “creeping antinomianism” that is “gaining popularity” these days. Just as Rome is open to the charge of reducing justification to sanctification, so the “reformed” antinomians are open to the charge of reducing sanctification to justification.
Todd Pruitt says
Perhaps I’m just being dense (which is entirely possible!) but I’m not following you. I’m asking who these reformed pastors are who are teaching that we are justified by the law. That seems to be Tullian’s charge.
Paul Owen says
Todd, I never said anything about being justified by the Law. I’m saying that the antinomian error focuses on justification to the expense of a robust doctrine of real internal sanctification. Rome’s error is more that they emphasize sanctification at the expense of justification (as imputed righteousness). Sorry if was confusing in how I expressed myself. I agree with your position, so I don’t really understand why we are arguing. 🙂
Todd Pruitt says
You just seemed like a good guy to argue with Paul!
Drew says
I was reading this the other day from Calvin and thought I would share it. It seems that according to Calvin the principle use of the law is the third use. Am I missing something?
The third use of the Law (being also the principal use, and more closely connected with its proper end) has respect to believers in whose hearts the Spirit of God already flourishes and reigns. For although the Law is written and engraven on their hearts by the finger of God, that is, although they are so influenced and actuated by the Spirit, that they desire to obey God, there are two ways in which they still profit in the Law. For it is the best instrument for enabling them daily to learn with greater truth and certainty what that will of the Lord is which they aspire to follow, and to confirm them in this knowledge; just as a servant who desires with all his soul to approve himself to his master, must still observe, and be careful to ascertain his master’s dispositions, that he may comport himself in accommodation to them. Let none of us deem ourselves exempt from this necessity, for none have as yet attained to such a degree of wisdom, as that they may not, by the daily instruction of the Law, advance to a purer knowledge of the Divine will. Then, because we need not doctrine merely, but exhortation also, the servant of God will derive this further advantage from the Law: by frequently meditating upon it, he will be excited to obedience, and confirmed in it, and so drawn away from the slippery paths of sin. In this way must the saints press onward, since, however great the alacrity with which, under the Spirit, they hasten toward righteousness, they are retarded by the sluggishness of the flesh, and make less progress than they ought. The Law acts like a whip to the flesh, urging it on as men do a lazy sluggish ass. Even in the case of a spiritual man, inasmuch as he is still burdened with the weight of the flesh, the Law is a constant stimulus, pricking him forward when he would indulge in sloth.”
Andrew DiNardo says
I was recently reading Calvin and came across this comment concerning the law. It seems for Calvin, the third use is the principal use of the law. Am I missing something?
The third use of the Law (being also the principal use, and more closely connected with its proper end) has respect to believers in whose hearts the Spirit of God already flourishes and reigns. For although the Law is written and engraven on their hearts by the finger of God, that is, although they are so influenced and actuated by the Spirit, that they desire to obey God, there are two ways in which they still profit in the Law. For it is the best instrument for enabling them daily to learn with greater truth and certainty what that will of the Lord is which they aspire to follow, and to confirm them in this knowledge; just as a servant who desires with all his soul to approve himself to his master, must still observe, and be careful to ascertain his master’s dispositions, that he may comport himself in accommodation to them. Let none of us deem ourselves exempt from this necessity, for none have as yet attained to such a degree of wisdom, as that they may not, by the daily instruction of the Law, advance to a purer knowledge of the Divine will. Then, because we need not doctrine merely, but exhortation also, the servant of God will derive this further advantage from the Law: by frequently meditating upon it, he will be excited to obedience, and confirmed in it, and so drawn away from the slippery paths of sin. In this way must the saints press onward, since, however great the alacrity with which, under the Spirit, they hasten toward righteousness, they are retarded by the sluggishness of the flesh, and make less progress than they ought. The Law acts like a whip to the flesh, urging it on as men do a lazy sluggish ass. Even in the case of a spiritual man, inasmuch as he is still burdened with the weight of the flesh, the Law is a constant stimulus, pricking him forward when he would indulge in sloth.”
chrishutchinson says
1) This is a technical point, but don’t we want to use Calvin’s enumeration of the three uses of the Law, rather than the Book of Concord’s? In that case, the tension is between the first and third use of the Law, not the second and third.
2) It seems to me that the two articles talked past each other. Tullian seemed to be mostly talking about being aware of our inward sin that we never fully conquer; Jen seemed to be talking about the reality of progressive sanctification, particularly in our outward actions. Tullian was following the line: see the greatness of your sin, that you might see God’s grace all the more. Jen seemed to be saying: yeah, but don’t forget to obey in the meantime, as you are able. Both are true, and as I have counseled people over the years, some need to hear one more than the another; it just takes wisdom to know the difference.
3) At the complete risk of self-promotion, I recently wrote on this debate here and have been told that it was a helpful, balanced approach: http://theaquilareport.com/settling-some-dust-in-the-sanctification-debate-remembering-a-neglected-section-of-the-westminster-confession/
4) FWIW, I also wrote a booklet on this back during the Federal Vision controversy entitled, “Grace My Fears Relieved: the blessing of the Law/Gospel distinction,” which I am happy to email anyone who is interested. [email protected].
All that sounds rather pompous; it’s just easier to refer to prior writings than summarize complicated points in a blog comment. Blessings to all.
Matt says
Chris, you should post 4) on your website. I think I remember reading it a while back, and it was very helpful.
Rich C says
I will state at the outset, I also found Jen Wilkin’s article less than satisfying.
I wrote the following several years ago to try to explain, in a Sunday School class, the difference between the Law of Moses (in all three uses if you like), and the Law of Christ.
For what it’s worth…
The Law of Christ – Traveling in Freedom
A practical illustration for us, as believers, to help us understand the Law of Christ in relationship to the Law of Moses, is to see ourselves as travelers on roadways with traffic laws (i.e., the Law of Moses), yet always traveling in conscious awareness of “loving our neighbor as ourselves.” (i.e., The Law of Christ) (Lev.19:18; Matt.5:43)
This translates into our exhibiting, by the grace of God working within us, the fruit of the Spirit (Gal.5:22-23) to our fellow travelers in ways that, if our intent was merely to obey the traffic laws, we would not experience the joy of loving our neighbor as ourselves.
Traffic laws are observable. There are signs and regulations that are readily seen.
But the Law of Christ is not observable, in the sense that we can point to signs posted along the way and be satisfied we have met, or are meeting, the requirements of these laws.
As an example – a sign saying, “Do not stop on shoulder of road” might justify us from helping a fellow traveler who has inadvertently driven into a ditch on the side of the road. Some might continue driving on, because as their argument might go, they have kept their obligation to the posted law.
In another instance, obeying the posted 10 mile an hour speed limit in a subdivision where children are playing may not get you a ticket, but may still endanger a child who runs unawares into the street. The Law of Christ, not the posted speed limit, will cause us to slow down even more, and to be watchful for one of these “little ones” (Matt.18:10).
But believers coexist with an unbelieving world. There is a good purpose for traffic laws. There is a reason for the Law of Moses also. Both laws attempt to keep the disobedient orderly (1 Tim.1:8-11). Without laws, the unbeliever would have no self-justifying reason or obligation to refrain from doing as they please. Traffic laws hold people accountable, under threat of punishment, and protect us from careless or purposeful lawlessness. In the same way, The Law of Moses holds, even those who profess they keep that law, accountable. At best, those laws create order. At their worst, no one can claim to have kept them perfectly (Romans 3:19-20).
The freedom believers have in traveling in a world of laws, yet set free to ultimately obey the Law of Christ, are expressed by our concern for the well being of our fellow travelers. There are no limitations to the amount of love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, or self-control (the fruit of the Spirit in Galatians 5) we might display to others while traveling. This is why Galatians 5:23 ends with, “against such there is no law.” Imagine traveling the country on roads where there was no traffic laws to be enforced, yet everyone was looking out for each other! While we need laws to protect ourselves from those who desire to live recklessly, what laws would be needed to restrict us from loving and serving each other?
Merely obeying traffic laws, or the Law of Moses, can result in a joyless, loveless journey. The freedom to do more than the law requires, as the Law of Christ enables us to, makes every detour, hill, valley, and encounter with others, only another opportunity to express the love of Christ. For believers, the Law of Christ is written on our hearts and cannot be taught, only revealed to us as an act of God in salvation. As we read the Word of God and contemplate the example of Jesus Christ, we will see more clearly how to manifest the Law of Christ in our lives.
Ethan Smith says
Rich, this was very helpful. Thank you for sharing!
chrishutchinson says
Let me add that it is important for us to acknowledge that the first use of the Law (Calvin’s enumeration) continues in the Christian life, along with the third use. Some Reformed preachers seem to think that the Law no longer convicts us once we are converted, since we are only to delight it in — that the Law/Gospel distinction somehow disappears after we believe. I find that extraordinarily odd. We must not pit Psalm 119 against Romans 7, as if only one were true.
jsm52 says
“It seems for Calvin, the third use is the principal use of the law. Am I missing something?”
The purposes of the third use of the law as taught in –
WLC Q. 97. What special use is there of the moral law to the regenerate?
A. Although they that are regenerate, and believe in Christ, be delivered from the moral law as a covenant of works, so as thereby they are neither justified nor condemned; [1] yet besides the general uses thereof common to them with all men… [see Q. 95 – “to inform them of the holy nature and will of God, and of their duty, binding them to walk accordingly; to convince them of their disability to keep it, and of the sinful pollution of their nature, hearts, and lives: to humble them in the sense of their sin and misery, and thereby help them to a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ, and of the perfection of his obedience.”],
As for the uses particular to believers:
… it is of special use, [2] to show them how much they are bound to Christ for his fulfilling it, and enduring the curse thereof in their stead, and for their good; and [3] thereby to provoke them to more thankfulness, and [4] to express the same in their greater care to conform themselves thereunto as the rule of their obedience.
So the purpose of the third use of the moral law is 1) to inform believers of God’s holy nature and will, and that they are bound to walk according to it and to convince them that they can’t keep it, to convince them of the sinfulness and their need of Christ. 2) to show them how much they are bound to Christ for fulfilling it for them and paying the penalty of their sin. 3) to provoke more thankfulness to God in their hearts. 4) so that they would take more care, as the expression of that thankfulness, to walk in a godly direction as measured or ruled by the moral law.
Andrew Duggan says
The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple.The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes. Psalm 19:7,8
This is what Christ in Psalm 19 says about the law. I can’t understand someone wanting to contradict him.
Sally says
From Jen’s article:
“These lists crush the unbeliever but give life to the believer. They make straight the paths of those who love them, and though this way is narrow, it leads to life.
The Law becomes a gracious means of conforming us to the image of the Savior. ”
This is from the section of Jen’s article. It definitely implies that the law is the means of changing us, even enabling us to “[learn] to obey in both motive and deed, just as Christ obeyed.”
Michael Kruger says
Thanks, Sally. But, I think you misunderstand Jen here. It is very common on the history of Reformed theology to call God’s word “a means of grace.” It is a major channel through which God’s grace flows to us. Of course, this requires the work of the Spirit for this to happen–and Jen makes it clear that she knows this–but that does not prevent us from using words likes “means.” Word and Spirit always go together.
Ken McLain says
But in what way is it a means Michael? “Therefore, when they examine themselves in the light of the law, they may come to further conviction of, humiliation for, and hatred of their sin, together with a clearer view of their need of Christ and the perfection of his obedience.” The law isn’t the direct agent of change – it is helpless to change us. But the law does reveal our ongoing sinfulness and our need for Christ so that we run to Him by faith for His righteousness.
Michael Kruger says
The Confession is quite clear about the word as a means of grace:
WLC Q.155. How is the word made effectual to salvation? A. The Spirit of God maketh the reading, but especially the preaching of the word an effectual means of enlightening, convincing, and humbling sinners; of driving them out of themselves, and drawing them unto Christ; of conforming them to his image, and subduing them to his will; of strengthening them against temptations and corruptions; of building them up in grace, and establishing their hearts in holiness and comfort through faith unto salvation.
WSC Q. 89. How is the Word made effectual to salvation? The Spirit of God maketh the reading, but especially the preaching of the Word, an effectual means of convincing and converting sinners, and of building them up in holiness and comfort, through faith, unto salvation.”
The italicized portions above make it clear that the confession affirms that God’s word does things such as comforts, encourages, and building up in holiness. Of course, it clarifies that this is always done along with the work of the Spirit. But, just because it requires the work of the Spirit doesn’t mean the Word doesn’t do these things.
See also quote by Berkhof. Notice particularly the italicized portion:
“The Word of God is the most important means of grace….The Word as a means of grace consists of two parts, namely, the law and the gospel. The law as a means of grace first of all serves the purpose of bringing men under conviction of sin, Romans 3:20, making him conscious of his inability to meet the demands of the law, and becoming his tutor to lead him to Christ, Gal. 3:24. In the second place it is also the rule of life for believers, reminding them of their duties and leading them in the way of life and salvation. The gospel is a clear representation of the way of salvation revealed in Jesus Christ. It exhorts the sinner to come to Christ in faith and repentance, and promises those who truly repent and believe all the blessings of salvation in the present and in the future. It is the power of God unto salvation for every one that believeth. Rom. 1:16; 1 Cor. 1:18.
Ken McLain says
Every statement here says the law leads to holiness BY FAITH – by humbling them, subduing them and drawing them to Christ – that is what I am arguing for
Jason Crenshaw says
Mark Jones book is excellent for this discussion and so is Kevan’s The Grace of Law. For an excellent and concise treatment from a Puritan writing in the midst of the antinomian controversy, read Samuel Bolton’s True Bounds of Christian Freedom though Anthony Burgess spells things out more thoroughly. Reformed theology has always acknowledge three uses of the law but the emphasis (beginning with Calvin who in the Institutes actually deals with sanctification before justification in order to demonstrate this emphasis and make clear his view of the positive role of the law) is to be laid on the third and positive use of the law. Bolton’s treatment (so representative of the Puritans) can be summed up like this: the law (second use) sends us to the gospel (or Christ) for justification; and the gospel (or Christ) sends us to the law for sanctification. Law-Gospel-
law (placed underneath the gospel on purpose).
In the Lamb who is the lamp,
Jason
RSC says
“…free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death… so that the righteousnes of the law might be fulfilled in us”. Romans 8: 2, 4
In other words, restored to the joy of lawkeeping after the pattern of Christ, the living torah, into whose image we are being transformed.
jsm52 says
Indeed…
jsm52 says
John Owen, Hebrews Commentary, Chapter 8:
“For the principal cause and means of the liberty of believers under the gospel, ariseth from the clear light they have into the mystery of the love and grace of God in Christ. This knowledge and faith of his incarnation, humiliation, sufferings, and sacrifice, whereby he made atonement for sin, and brought in everlasting righteousness, is that which gives them liberty and boldness in their obedience, 2 Corinthians 3:17,18.”
a. says
what a prayer it is for all of us to be equally compelled to boldly, publically affirm truths being proclaimed as well as without partiality, compelled to boldly,publically confront errors/misleadings for the sake of the listening family; nonetheless, we know and trust that all things are open and laid bare to our Lord.
theoldadam says
The so-called “3rd use of the law” (guide) is already present in the first two uses. Therefore it is superfluous and can be used to let the fox back into the henhouse. It seems a better course would be to jettison “3rd use” and stick with Holy Scripture on the matter.
“Christ is the end of the law for righteousness for all those who have faith.”
“Christ is the end of the law…”
Christian freedom depends on this.
The law needs to be used (theologically) to kill. To expose. Not to try and help to make us “better”. It is far too late for that.
Thanks.
russmccary says
http://sanctifiedbygrace.org/what-does-a-celebretory-failurist-need-to-change-his-heart/
a. says
read your post tonight;appreciate the scripture, wish there was more. Jesus, His word, His Spirit – such grace to us. how else would we know our God and be saved. As Jesus asked His Father, sanctify them in the truth, Your word is truth. (John 17:17)
a few thoughts…
“I sympathize with Jen Wilkins concerns concerning holy living in our modern day church culture.”
…which are Jesus concerns & “Jesus method” for how he dealt with licenscious people (assuming you mean believers) include His instructions after His departure:
-remember what you have received and heard and keep it and repent; those whom I love, I reprove and discipline therefore be zealous and repent; let the one who is righteous still practice righteousness Rev 3:3,19; 22:11b
-build up on your most holy faith, pray in the Spirit, keep in the love of God, wait anxiously for the mercy of our Lord and have mercy on some, who are doubting; save others, snatching them out of the fire; and on some have mercy with fear, hating even the garment polluted by the flesh. Jude 1: 20-23
-if any among you strays from the truth-turn him back from the error of his way James 5:19-20
“What is it that makes a person want to obey God? the hinge-point “
…the indwelling Spirit of the born again Christian (who works thru the word); there are many unregenerate people who will hear the gospel many times and will never want to obey nor will obey. (1 Cor 2:14)
“ Christian intrinsic knowledge”
…born again Christians have the mind of Christ (1 Cor 2:16); we do have to study the word; restudy; remember; seek God; receive instruction & be trained; destroy speculations,every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God; take every thought captive (2 Cor 10:4-6),etc.
“It is God’s grace alone that leads us to repentance and joyful obedience That’s not just once, but through our whole Christian life!”
AMEN.
russmccary says
I appreciate your thoughts :). I definitely agree that not all respond to the gospel in the same way and as Jesus said in John 3, “The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.”
Those who respond are a mystery to us, however what my post emphasizes is that we need to understand as Christians what changes those who are elect in order to be most effective for the glory of Christ. Thanks for your input!
a. says
“what my post emphasizes is that we need to understand as Christians what changes those who are elect in order to be most effective for the glory of Christ”
hi russ -think that was what I was trying to get at- it is the LORD who changes us; and for humans to be most effective? – we don’t need to worry or need human strategy, we just yield and obey the Lord and do and say all that He says. And for the glory of God? we glorify God through obedience to Him. I love how Jesus Himself said He only did what His Father said to do/did and what He heard from His Father is what He said/made known. We are being transformed from glory to glory by Him by the renewing of our minds, by beholding the glory of the Lord. It seems a dangerous thing to human filter His word as we will all be held accountable. We embrace and behold everything about Him- His great deeds, His beauty, His perfect ways and this is all shown to us in the whole of the bible. And yes, no filtering either of our daily reminders to ourselves of His incomparable love for us singing to Him about it; thanking Him for it; meditating on it; desiring to love back. Who are we to have been made His own possession forever.
Ken McLain says
“The Law that once gave death now gives freedom” Jen Wilkin
“For this reason, much of Tullian’s response did not seem relevant to what Jen actually wrote. For instance, Tullian argues forcefully that “Nowhere does the Bible say that the law carries the power to change us.” Presumably this was written in response to Jen’s article, but nowhere in her article does she claim the law, in and of itself, is able to change us.” Michael Kruger
Michael Kruger says
“I will never forget your precepts, for by them you have given me life.” Psalm 119:93
The language that Jen used in her article is straight out of Scripture verses like the one above. They simply affirm that the Word of God is a means of grace. So, yes, God’s commandments are a means by which the believer is encouraged, lifted up, strengthened, and enlivened. Sure, this means must always operate along with the Spirit–the Word and Spirit always go together. But, Jen also made this very clear when she said that this sort of law-keeping is “impossible for someone whose heart has not been transformed by the gospel in the power of the Holy Spirit.” So, on any fair reading of her article, she is simply affirming the standard Reformed view.
Jeff D. says
It seems as though if a Christian tells another Christian that he/she must “do…,” one always has to say (at the same time) every time, “you can only do this by the Spirit working in you.”
Ken McLain says
But the law is not of faith, rather “The one who does them shall live by them”
“Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law. But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.”
“Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God. For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code.”
What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.” But sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. For apart from the law, sin lies dead. I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died. The very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me. For sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me. So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.
For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit
You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by believing what you heard? Are you so foolish? After beginning by means of the Spirit, are you now trying to finish by means of the flesh?
Michael Kruger says
All the verses you quoted here are clearly about the second use of the law, namely that the law condemns and judges sinners. Indeed, the entire context of Galatians is one regarding justification; this is precisely why Paul is appealing to the second use. What you have not addressed is that there is a valid function for the third use of the law, as exemplified by the quote from Psalms I mentioned above. I can explain the Galatians statements, can you explain the one from the Psalms?
Dante says
If I may interject… I am no advocate of TT – there is much danger and negligence there – but concerning Galatians, the key to the letter is in 1:6-9 and 3:1-5. Paul is going back to the beginning – justification – to show that we progress in sanctification just as how we were justified – by faith in Christ. (The WSC says sanctification is a work of grace so if it is by grace, it must be thru believing in Christ.) “Having begun in the Spirit [i.e., justified by faith which was attested by receiving the Spirit], are you now being perfected by the flesh [i.e., sanctified by works]?” The agitators – whom Paul identifies as satanic unbelievers who must be removed from the church – were telling the Galatians they need to add the law to Christ in order to progress in the life of the Spirit. Ultimately, they would be trusting in their sanctification as their righteousness. That is why Paul goes back to justification. Our righteousness is imputed by faith and the righteousness the Spirit works in us throughout our pilgrimage is thru that same faith in Christ. D Moo, G Fee, and others understand the letter in this way. The pastoral concern of the letter is sanctification. I fell into this gross error as a young believer and know the misery of sanctification by works of the law. Grace & joy to you.
Ken McLain says
Galatians is only about justification? Romans 7 is about justification?
Michael Kruger says
I said the context of Galatians was about justification. Galatians covers much more territory than that one issue, but it is that issue that is driving the letter.
Ken McLain says
As to Psalm 119:93 – I’m not sure it is the best text to pull out – that it trumps verses speaking directly to sanctification but nevertheless here are Spurgeon’s comments on the verse: “I will never forget thy precepts, with them hast thou quickened me.” “The quickening Spirit delights to work by means of the Word; but though the word be the means yet the benefit comes from God, “For with them thou has quickened me.” Life come from the fountain of life. The Gospel is the sovereign plaster, but it is God’s hand that must apply it, and make it stick; make it to be peace, comfort and quickening to our souls. There is a double quickening, when, from dead, we are made living; or when, from cold, and sad, and heave, we are made lively…. and so not only have life, but enjoy it more abundantly, according to Christ’s gracious promise… So God quickens by increasing the life of grace; or morally or externally, by promising the life of glory.”
Michael Kruger says
There is nothing in Spurgeon’s statement that contradicts what I have been saying. On the contrary, he affirms (in effect) the fact that God’s word is a means of grace.
Ken McLain says
The context of Galatians may have much to say on justification as sanctification is rooted in it, but the specific texts quoted are about sanctification – “after beginning by means of the Spirit, are you now trying to finish by means of the flesh?” Clearly post justification
Ken McLain says
I have no problem with the Word or more specifically the law being a means of grace. But it is not a means in the sense that it directly enables my obedience. It is a means in the sense that it reveals my sinfulness and brokenness and points me back to Christ for life. It reveals the holiness of God and way I should walk but it does not empower that walk – for that I must go to Christ who is my life. If we miss that we may as well be Islamic or Mormon. Both Spurgeon’s quote above and the WMC seem to indicate this.
Dante says
It is as though the agitators – whom Paul says were deliberately corrupting the gospel – were saying, “If you want to go on in Christ, if you want to progress in the new covenant, if you want to pursue the fruit of the Spirit, you must come under the law.” The agitators were leading them to trust in their sanctification for righteousness before God. That is why Paul points them back to their justification by faith – they have already been counted righteous in Christ by faith alone. Our sanctification is the fruit of our faith and union with Christ – it does not establish our own righteousness before God. To turn back to the law for sanctification is unbelief in Christ (Gal 5:2-4). Paul is saying this stoichea which belongs to this age is precisely what Christ delivered them from by his death (Gal 1:4 & 4:8-10 cf. 6:12-14). Gal 5:16-26, which concerns sanctification, is the climax of the letter and 1:1-12 is paralleled by 6:10-18. This very matter – the eschatological nature of sanctification by grace in Gal – was the subject of my thesis at RTS.
When you read the multi-view books on sanctification, the irony is that the reformed view – besides using more Scripture than any other view, that is not really ironic – but the reformed view is about grace alone yet is the most active in terms of calling us to discipline (note its prevalence in Titus 2) and self-denial (Calvin was absolutely right in seeing this as the heart of what it means to follow Christ, pace Matt 16:24). Put another way, salvation is monergistic (grace alone) and sanctification is part of salvation (it is the intrusion of our glorification into this age), so sanctification is monergistic. Yet it is by that grace that we are taught and enabled to obey the word and follow Christ (Titus 2:11-14; Rom 6). Phil 2:12-13 sums up the mystery of sanctification – it is by grace working in us. We also see this dynamic in Jude 21 which Jude derived from Jesus in Jn 14:23; 15:9-10 – “keep yourselves in the love of God.” God keeps us persevering in sanctification by grace. It is because God shows us grace that we persevere in loving him which is to obey his word (Jn 14:15; 1 Jn 2:5-6; 5:2-3).
Brad says
Psalm 19:7-9 seems to indicate the same idea of the Scriptures being the means of grace.
The Law of the Lord is perfect, reviving the soul, the testimony of the Lord is sure making wise the simple.
The precepts of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart, the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes.
The fear of the Lord is clean, enduring forever, the rules of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.
Ken McLain says
“Believers no longer live under the Law, but the Law lies under us as a sure path for pursuing what is good, right, and pleasing to the Lord.” Jen Wilkin
“We owe them, “This is the way, walk in it.” This way is often delineated by lists—a list of ten don’ts in Exodus 20, a list of eight do’s in Matthew 5, a list of works of the flesh (Galatians 5:22-23) and spiritual fruit (Galatians 5:22-23) in Galatians 5, and so on. These lists crush the unbeliever but give life to the believer. They make straight the paths of those who love them, and though this way is narrow, it leads to life.
The Law becomes a gracious means of conforming us to the image of the Savior.” Jen Wilkin
“Again, Tullian declares that it is “theologically and existentially simplistic and naive when we assume that simply telling people what they need to do has the power to make them want to do it.” Maybe we are reading two different articles, but I found no place where Jen says such a thing.” Michael Kruger
Dante says
Brothers and Sisters, The apostle John wrote “so that you may not sin” (1 Jn 2:1). Those who truly believe in Christ and confess their sin fight sinning which is to say, they walk in the light (1 Jn 1:7,9). It is not that we are sinless in this age, but righteousness characterizes a true believer (1 Jn 2:29 – 3:10) precisely because we have received saving grace (Titus 2:11-14). That’s how amazing grace is – our salvation includes the double cure – justification and sanctification (distinct yet inseparable). “When we hear mention of our union with God, let us remember that holiness must be its bond” (Inst. III.vi.2). “…unless we would turn away from our Creator in impious ingratitude, we must cherish righteousness all our life.” (Inst. II.viii.2) Any man with a shepherd’s heart wants to see the sheep grow in their union with Christ which bears the fruit of obedience to Christ’s word (see Col 1:28; 2:6-7). TT is not, as Calvin would say, “solid.”
Matt says
Mike,
Don’t you think one of the elephants in the room in all of this is even more basic than our ‘uses of the law’ but rather what we mean by ‘law’? Seems to me this is where the discussion diverges from the get-go before you can have an intelligent discussion about ‘uses’ and ‘divisions’! If you think of ‘law’ at its most basic level as God’s ‘moral requirements’ (the status-quo Reformed approach) or as that which kills and crushes (a Lutheran approach via their 2nd use), that pretty much guarantees you have two hermeneutical paradigms for how you are going to proceed.
And frankly, I don’t know that either view squares easily with Paul’s ‘usage’ of ‘nomos’ if Westerholm, Moo, T. David Gordon and others are correct in arguing that ‘law’ is ordinarily used by Paul as a kind of synecdoche for the Mosaic Covenant/Mosaic epoch.
Chris Nelson says
Obedience is not legalism. The Christian loves the law and what is the law of Christ except the law of God internalized per what Jeremiah wrote of the New Covenant. What does Tullian do with Proverbs?
Jack Miller says
So what should we make of the renewed controversy over Tullian’s emphasis on the free grace of God in Christ?
1. We should appreciate Tullian’s passion for God’s unconditional favor to sinners in Christ.
2. We should be cautious to accept the verdict that anyone who preaches unconditional grace is an antinomian. Yes, there are real antinomians, those who deny the third use of the law in a variety of ways…
3. Tullian probably disturbs some folk by quoting Lutherans who do deny the third use of the law. They infer from his quotation that he agrees with them in their denial of the third use. That, of course, is a non sequitur…
4. I’m confident that Tullian holds to and teaches the Reformed confession but he could set some hearts at ease by being clearer and more consistent in print (online and in paper) about his commitment to the Reformed doctrine that we’re justified in order that we might be (progressively) sanctified and to the third use of the law.
5. We should be cautious about those, who, in response to Tullian, teach approaches that have the effect of shrouding the gospel in conditions. Here are some resources on conditions in the covenant of grace…
The above and more can be found at Oh That Tullian!
a. says
so what should we make of the renewed controversy”
guess one thing.. just as said, controversies, disputes do contribute to distraction and excessive focus, acclaim on man over our Lord and Savior Jesus who has all authority, who commands us to make disciples, teaching them to observe all that He commands and He is with us always (Matt 28:18-20) ..1 Tim 1:5, Col 1:28, James 3:1
C. Trace says
What Tullian Tchividjian is preaching is an age old no-effort mantra which can be seen today in New Age environments. The fact of regeneration sets the divide. Once regenerated we are *able* to do. Like the new agers Tullian and his followers are wanting to – in effect – jump to the state of glorification where believers will be simply unable to sin. We are not yet glorified.
matt says
Exactly. Tchividjian tipped his hand at the beginning when he wrote that he’d never seen a real Christian revel in or brag about sin.
That means, if you do either of those, you’re not a real Christian.
THAT means, you need to become a Christian – and then you won’t do either of those things…
you’ll be glorified!
This has dire practical implications. Can we imagine telling a girl with an eating disorder that once she’s a real Christian, she’ll be fine? A boy who masturbates that once he’s a real Christian, lust will evaporate? Can we imagine telling an addict the he won’t revel in alcohol ever again?
I would expect a little more careful writing from a pastor allowed to teach in a seminary.
JackMiller says
Michael,
Given that evident concern for the third use of the law on this blog, may I raise a concern about what’s going on now in these comments which seem to be getting into 9th commandment territory. (WLC 143-145).
C. Trace says
Interesting Luther quote to throw into the discussion. I saw this in Joel R. Beeke’s Puritan Reformed Spirituality on page 396:
“As Luther says, the law is like a stick that God first uses to beat us to Christ, but later we use it as a cane to help us walk the Christian life.”
Beeke’s essay in that volume titled Cultivating Holiness speaks directly to this whole subject including a section on whether effort is needed or merely faith, something Beeke gives evidence of being historically a long-standing claim/counter-claim.
butter light says
The THIRD use of the Law, so called, is a construct of the Church in response to the Church’s perceived need to enforce righteousness on its people. The Church for some reason sees the need to be a mother to its people. There is not THIRD use of the Law for if we are in Christ we are “free from the law oh happy condition,”
JackMiller says
Believers are free from the law as a covenant of works, indeed! But are we free to not follow Christ’s commands as his disciples? Are Jesus’s commands optional as a way to walk? No. His blood continually covers both our persons and our works, but by that we shouldn’t conclude that the law from his hand no longer has any obligation unto good works.
C. Trace says
Here is that Beeke essay Cultivating Holiness:
http://theresurgence.com/files/pdf/joel_beeke_1995-04_cultivating_holiness.pdf
Richard UK says
Michael
1, Tullian wrote “Nowhere does the Bible say that the law carries the power to change us.”
You then wrote “Presumably this was written in response to Jen’s article, but nowhere in her article does she claim the law, in and of itself, is able to change us”.
Actually Jen does say
(A). “These lists (Ten Commandments, Sermon on the Mount etc) crush the unbeliever but GIVE LIFE to the believer”
(B) “The Law .. gives freedom (to believers)”
and
(C). “The Law becomes a gracious MEANS of conforming us to the image of the Savior”
However (A) and (B) cannot be made to fit with Romans, and (C) is only true is you totally conflate law and gospel. Both are not just muddy but wrong – surely?
2. Even if Tullian’s reply did not address Jen’s post closely enough, it is not clear that Jen was herself doing much more than a caricature of Tullian’s position.
(A). Does Tullian maintain failure is a virtue?
(B). Tullian does in fact make it clear how obedience is to come about – gospel preaching generating heart-located desire/gratitude – cf Sibbes, Chalmers. Jen suggests a sort of an outward but also inward Perfectionism (“He called for obedience in motive as well as in deed, the kind of godly obedience that is impossible for someone whose heart has not been transformed by the gospel in the power of the Holy Spirit. Rather than abolish the Law, Jesus deepened his followers’ understanding of what it required..”)
3. In closing, Tullian is sceptical of glib presentations of the Third use which suggest that the Law gives the what/where and the Holy Spirit gives the (perhaps rather directionless) how. But how does the Holy Spirit give the ‘how’? Too many explanations talking about ’empowered me’ sound like magic talk. We receive the Holy spirit; we don’t just get the power of the Holy Spirit. It is Christ who lives in us. Too many explanations of the Third use ignore this as too difficult and settle for an ‘Improved Old Man’. Tullian sees the deadly effect of this on the churched and unchurched
Michael Kruger says
Thanks, Richard. Appreciate your comments. Couple of clarifications are in order. First of all, you challenge Jen by saying she presented a caricature of Tullian’s view. But, did she mention Tullian in her article? She did not write it specifically against him. As for whether she believes law, on its own, actually produces life, I have already addressed this issue several times in the comments above. Here are my prior words:
“I will never forget your precepts, for by them you have given me life.” Psalm 119:93
The language that Jen used in her article is straight out of Scripture verses like Ps 119:93 above. They simply affirm that the Word of God is a means of grace. So, yes, God’s commandments are a means by which the believer is encouraged, lifted up, strengthened, and enlivened. Sure, this means must always operate along with the Spirit–the Word and Spirit always go together. But, Jen also made this very clear when she said that this sort of law-keeping is “impossible for someone whose heart has not been transformed by the gospel in the power of the Holy Spirit.” So, on any fair reading of her article, she is simply affirming the standard Reformed view.
The Confession is quite clear about the word as a means of grace:
WLC Q.155. How is the word made effectual to salvation? A. The Spirit of God maketh the reading, but especially the preaching of the word an effectual means of enlightening, convincing, and humbling sinners; of driving them out of themselves, and drawing them unto Christ; of conforming them to his image, and subduing them to his will; of strengthening them against temptations and corruptions; of building them up in grace, and establishing their hearts in holiness and comfort through faith unto salvation.
WSC Q. 89. How is the Word made effectual to salvation? The Spirit of God maketh the reading, but especially the preaching of the Word, an effectual means of convincing and converting sinners, and of building them up in holiness and comfort, through faith, unto salvation.”
The italicized portions above make it clear that the confession affirms that God’s word does things such as comforts, encourages, and building up in holiness. Of course, it clarifies that this is always done along with the work of the Spirit. But, just because it requires the work of the Spirit doesn’t mean the Word doesn’t do these things.
See also quote by Berkhof. Notice particularly the italicized portion:
“The Word of God is the most important means of grace….The Word as a means of grace consists of two parts, namely, the law and the gospel. The law as a means of grace first of all serves the purpose of bringing men under conviction of sin, Romans 3:20, making him conscious of his inability to meet the demands of the law, and becoming his tutor to lead him to Christ, Gal. 3:24. In the second place it is also the rule of life for believers, reminding them of their duties and leading them in the way of life and salvation. The gospel is a clear representation of the way of salvation revealed in Jesus Christ. It exhorts the sinner to come to Christ in faith and repentance, and promises those who truly repent and believe all the blessings of salvation in the present and in the future. It is the power of God unto salvation for every one that believeth. Rom. 1:16; 1 Cor. 1:18.
Richard UK says
Thank you, Michael, and apologies that I had overlooked your earlier points
I am now more puzzled than before (‘confused but at a deeper level’!). But first, taking your points in turn
1. No, Jen does not mention Tullian but it is still true that she presents a caricature of his position!
2. I had wondered whether to do a ‘Carl Truman’ and ‘call her out’ for not naming names but Tullian seemed the only one out there who could remotely be accused of ‘celebrating failure’ so I decided to press on
More seriously
3. I totally agree with everything you say about the Word as (the) means of Grace so I am surprised you thought otherwise, and I would be surprised if anyone thought Tullian did not acknowledge this too.
4. But I can now see a possible root of this misunderstanding, which might explain if/why Tullian misunderstood Jen. If so, it would still validate his point that there is too much confusion of law and gospel!
5. You are the expert but the word ‘Law’ (nomos) is almost invariably used in the NT in the negative sense in which Paul uses it, negative as to its effect on us while beautiful in its depiction of God (eg the Sermon on the Mount). Its majority use in the OT is similar where Sinai and the Mosaic code overshadows everything.
6. But there is a second (not secondary) use in the OT in which David loves the Law, and ‘Torah’ can as well be translated as way of/to life. But for those we normally use words like ‘precept’ or perhaps ‘teachings’. Sometimes what is references is just the negative (in the Pauline sense) ‘Law’, and at other times it is the whole counsel of God which includes law and gospel.
7. Perhaps the problem has been that Tullian read her to speak of the negative Law as able to give life – I certainly did, because she only used the word ‘Law’ and linked it with obedience. Yes, at the end she did give two Psalmic meanings of ‘Law’ but I took her to be saying effectively that the negative sense of the Law was still lovable, rather than by way of a belated definition of what she had meant by Law all the way along
8. That might sound like an ungenerous interpetation by me (clearly you read her differently) but I am surrounded by people who say of the Ten Commandments not only that they love them aspirationally, but that they love doing them as well. I did get this impression from Jen since there was no sense of the struggle of Rom 7.
9. If there are two interpretations of Jen’s article, we may never know what she intended in her heart especially if you know she did not write it specifically against Tullian; and that still would be a different issue to how the ‘reasonable man’ might read it
Richard UK says
PART TWO – BERKHOF
While totally agreeing (i) that the Word is the most important means of grace, and (ii) the Word consists of two parts – law and gospel, I wanted to look more closely at your WLC and Berkof extracts.
1. WLC 155 upholds the importance and efficacy of preaching by which we are enlightened, humbled, conformed, subdued, strengthened, built up in grace and comforted. (WSC 89 similarly)
We also have our hearts ‘established in holiness’. With all the preaching Tullian does (albeit not as exegetical as I would like) I cannot see how he is failing to believe that the Word does that too. What precisely do his detractors say he is failing to do in the pulpit? Specfically remind his flock of their sins? Would that establish their hearts in holiness? His flock, like those gathering round Jesus, seem to be those well aware of their sins but unaware of the gospel.
2. But I see a potential misreading of the Berkof passage, perhaps by Jen or others
“The Word of God…. In the second place it is also the rule of life for believers, reminding them of their duties and LEADING them in the WAY OF life and SALVATION”
Berkhof then clarifies how by saying that, not the law, but “the gospel is a clear representation of the WAY OF SALVATION revealed in Jesus Christ”
He then further clarifies “It [the Word] exhorts the sinner to come to Christ in faith and repentance, and promises those who truly repent and believe all the blessings of salvation in the present and in the future” This is not a picture of ‘doing’ or even ‘appropriating’; it is a picture of ‘receiving’ and/or ‘believing’ (yes, in the face of failure assuming you can be convicted of anything beyond one’s own ‘acceptable’ sins)
Berkhof himself therefore sees the Word’s gospel component, not its law component, as specific to the ‘way of salvation’. I’m not advocating dropping the Law out of the Word any more than he, but I just don’t think it is helpful to be told “Christian, you CAN obey the Law”.
The misreading then comes when seeing the (negative, in the Pauline sense) law component as “reminding them of their duties” but assuming it is still this same law component, not the wider ‘law and gospel’ totality, that ‘leads’ them in the way of life and salvation.
Your introducing these passages was helpful, though I suppose some may say they relate to justification, not the issue of sanctification which Jen was addressing
Matt A. says
If you all haven’t read this response to this debate you really must. http://sanctifiedbygrace.org/jen-wilkins-use-of-the-law-is-not-a-virtue/
stephensaliba says
EVERYONE NEEDS TO LISTEN TO TULLIAN’S ANSWERS TO KEVIN. http://www.fightingforthefaith.com/2014/05/is-tullian-tchividjian-an-antinomian.html
ANWERS ALL THE ANTINOMIAN ACCUSATIONS AND EXPLAINS HIS VIEWS ON THE 1ST USE, 2ND USE, AND EVEN 3RD USE.
http://www.fightingforthefaith.com/2014/05/is-tullian-tchividjian-an-antinomian.html
Brian says
Dr. Kruger, what do you think of R. Scott Clark’s reply that Tullian has fully affirmed the third use of the law? http://heidelblog.net/2014/05/oh-that-tullian-3/
chris hutchinson says
I listened to the above interview. On the theological issues, I am closer to Tullian than to the other side (although I do not like the way he formulates everything — resting in Christ is the PRINCIPAL act in our sanctification; but it’s not the only act, cf. WCF 14.2, which Tullian sometimes seems to say; he is just sloppy and too passionate at points to be engaging in careful, PUBLIC systematic theology. R. Scott Clark does a much better job).
I also did not like the way the Lutheran host closed the program with his stark Law/Gospel contrast, implying that Tullian’s accusers may somehow be unjustified if they don’t repent of the specific accusations they made against Tullian. As if Christians are not filled with all sorts of impurities until glory, that is the kind they are not able to see and thus repent of. Every Christian I know has huge blind spots; I am to be patient with them, as God is with me, cf. Phil 3:15. Maybe I misheard the host’s statement; listen and see what you think.
Finally, I am highly disappointed in Tullian’s reaction. WHY NOT RATHER BE WRONGED than drag this all further into the public sphere? Has he never read I Cor. 6:7? In his latest interview with the Christian Post, he even said that Keller and Carson were “flat out” lying in their statement on TGC.
After all, let’s consider the persecution he has endured: he has been asked to MOVE a BLOG site before he was ready to. Let’s tell that to our Chinese brothers and sisters and let them rank that one.
Yet Tullian is the one who has made himself into a large public figure by an aggressive use of media and family connections. There are many, many pastors of large churches across this country who are content to pastor their congregations without having to be players in the evangelical empire. He sought public influence, and now he is complaining that his lack of wise, careful formulation is bringing him flak?
He thinks he is being persecuted for standing for radical grace. Maybe he is taking flak for not being as careful as he ought in proportion to the influence he has sought. A little humility would go a long way to proving his point that the Law continues to convict believers.
Again, I am a Law/Gospel guy all the way. I live in Romans 7. I think Kevin DeYoung, while trying to achieve balance, is overly simplistic, and misses the essence of what Tullian is saying. But the way some of these men (e.g Jones, Tullian) have gone after each other in public, accusing each other of first antinomianism; and now of lying, is a scandal to the Body of Christ. Sin and pride happens.
All y’all need to relax a little, forgive each other, and learn to speak more graciously. And yes, that is a gospel imperative; following the indicative of how God has already spoken to you in Christ. Treat each other with the grace you yourselves have already received.
chris hutchinson says
OK, I just read Rick Philips’ excellent article here:
http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2014/05/where-the-sanctification-contr.php.
I was not aware of all of Tullian’s blog posts which Rick referenced (and don’t have time to read them tonight). But if Rick is correct, then I certainly do not agree with all that Tullian is saying. So I need to take my own medicine and be more careful before I say whose side I am closer to, theologically. I apologize for my own lack of carefulness.
I am just saying I get what Tullian is after, pastorally. But his accusations and tone in these interviews has been shameful, in my opinion.
Richard UK says
Rick has not at all painted an accurate record of what Tullian’s earlier blogs have expressed. Rick says anyone is welcome to show him wrong but of course Ref 21 blogs do not permit replies.
If you want to judge his/their behaviors, then join the throng on each side. But looking at the underpinning doctrine – sanctification, what it is and how to achieve it – is far more important. So some bald points
1. Jen’s article does actually suggest “the false idea that the law of God provides the power to produce what it commands”
2. Tullian would answer ‘Yes’ to Rick’s first question. That is obvious. If Tullian was not concerned about sanctification, why would he be saying what does not produce it
3. Rick’s second question is fraught with difficulties and the answer almost depends on where the emphasis lies in the question. Tullian sees this; Rick does not. When Rick says “in the power of grace through faith in Christ” does he mean the Romanist notion of an infused power (pack)? I think he himself would say No. So does Rick mean “with the person of the Holy Spirit working in and through us” (Phil 2 v 13), then Tullian would say yes, but Rick spoils that notion by adding “for the believer himself or herself to do”. At the end of the day, Rick and those like him have no idea how to reconcile God’s sovereignty with man’s liability, or what Phil 2 v12-13 really means
4. When actually has “Tullian has not retracted or clarified but has hardened his insistence that we should not expect Christians to change”? This is tantamount to accusing Tullian of antinomianism which would put Rick into a small minority of Tullian’s detractors
5. Rick is taking the Prescriptive (moralist) interpretation of 1 John 5 2-3, whereas the alternative Descriptive view explains what Christians will do. Martin Lloyd Jones expressed the former view in his published sermons but later realised that he had this wrong (maybe Rick is not aware).
Bill says
Mike, I think you totally misunderstand the third use of the law. The third use of the law has nothing to do with a christian’s ability to obey the law. What you write smacks of legalism, by implying that somehow christians can obey the law. You specifically wrote:
“Put differently, Jen was concerned about those who view the law only negatively (as a means of exposing failure), and rarely discuss how Christians are empowered to obey it.”
I’m sorry but in the parable the tax collector who was a christian clearly said, “God have mercy on me a sinner”. Luther taught it as the christian being “simul justus et peccator”, simultaneously just (because of Christ’s obedience) and sinner (because of our own disobedience). And Paul in Romans 7 confesses his incapacity to obey the law. So yes, we all agree that the third use of the law refers to christians, but we disagree in that christians you fail to admit that christians are utterly destitute and incapable of obeying the law, christians have not been empowered to obey as you imply. A christian is a christian not because of his obedience, but because of his faith that receives Christ’s obedience instead as a substitute for our own disobedience.
Mark Van Der Molen says
Bill, the Heidleberg Catechism is helpful here:
“Question 114. But can those who are converted to God perfectly keep these commandments?
Answer: No: but even the holiest men, while in this life, have only a small beginning of this obedience; (a) yet so, that with a sincere resolution they begin to live, not only according to some, but all the commandments of God. “
Bill says
Mark, i agree 100% with the Heidelberg catechism. Christians only have the first fruits and the most they can do is what Paul teaches in romans 7 with their mind they serve the law of God but with their flesh they serve sin. This is what Heidelberg teaches that you quoted, christians have a sincere resolution but can not obey the law. So when somebody like Mike challenges Tullian in this article and teaches that somehow christians are empowered to obey the law, this is a fall statement, and exageration of what the first fruits that we receive in this life are.
Jeff Downs says
The one who says “I have come to know Him” and does not keep His commandment is a liar and the truth is not in Him; but whoever keeps His word, in him the Love God has truly been perfected.” 1 John 2:4-5
Dante says
This is true, but here John is specifically speaking of Christ’s command from Jn 13:34-35 where Christ commands us to love (forgive) one another as he has loved (sacrificially forgiven) us. John is contrasting the children of God with the false teachers who did not believe Jesus was the Messiah come in the flesh. John proves that they were antichrists by virtue of the fact that they did not obey Christ’s word. Sin remains in us but we confess from our heart, fight against sin, and walk with God in the light (1 Jn 1:7,9; 2:1). The problem with this discussion is that the word ‘law’ is used in Reformed theology differently than how the NT uses. D Moo and S Westerholm are right to see Paul using ‘law’ with reference to the entire Mosaic code. If this got squared away, there would be more clarity. The truly regenerate person most certainly obeys the word of God, but the NT never says we “keep the law.” We don’t, we can’t, and that’s never our aim. Grace & Joy to you.
Richard UK says
Thank you, Dante, for your support for Bill, in response to Mark and Jeff
‘Commands’ or ‘Commandments’ even when affixed with ‘which I have taught you to obey’, more often refers to a/theTruth (not Rules) which is to be taken to heart. In this sense it is the ‘Torah’ (law = life) or the Davidic sense for which we usually use the word ‘precepts’ or ‘teachings’ to distinguish from Paul’s negative NT connotation.
We must also remember that any attempt to keep part of the law involves keeping all of it, a point which HC Q114 obfuscates
Tullian is not saying we should not keep the law; if anything, he is saying it is a lot harder than people imagine. It is not a walk in the park, or even a marathon – it is a raging lion coming at us (to borrow Luther’s analogy)
Dante says
Richard UK, I have almost no idea who I’m supporting – threads get rather confusing to me! I simply saw a post that I thought I could say something edifying in response to. I only aim to write what I think is theologically true. Decades ago I came into the ref’d faith via the doctrine of sanctification and had no idea what I read was ref’d – I had simply and finally found someone (Berkhof) whom I thought said what Scripture said. I felt like I had a brother in him and the rest is history. But I’ll add, there is this new wave of non-reformed “reformed” guys in whom I see nothing of reformed piety. Here in Los Angeles, I know of a few PCA’s that are entirely contrary to reformed faith and practice.
Bill says
Dante, I define repentance the way the lutheran confessions do. I consider Ryrie and other dispensationalists that propose the “carnal christian” doctrine as antinomian, The Augsburg Confession defines repentance as acknowledging sin and turning to Christ for forgiveness. Repentance excludes any good work in the Augsburg confession. Now the catholic church jumped on this. So the Lutheran Church in the Defense of the Augsburg Confession said it has not objection if somebody wanted to say that good works follow repentance. I also have no problem with this. Good works always follow faith. But even the best works of the Christian are like filthy rags, Issaiah 64:6 and God only accepts those works on account of Christ. in lutheranism the Saints are simultaneously saints and sinners. I am not denying personal transformation when we are born again, but we only receive the firstfruits, and in no way can a christian claim that he keeps the law. He does not. The law of God expects perfection, and from this point of view both christian and non-christians alike violate God’s law. The sole difference is that the sin is not imputed to the Christian and it is imputed to the non-christian. It’s pointless to say, christians sin less than non-christians, because we are trivializing the law when we say this, as if God somehow has such a low standard that a christian can obey. Only one man, Jesus Christ, is and was capable of obeying God’s Law, and he obeyed so that his perfect righteousness will be imputed to those that believe on His name. .And of course repentance is a something that starts at conversion and is a lifelong process, I’ve been saying all along that what differentiates a christian and a non-christian is that the christian repents and the non-christian doesn’t. In lutheranism every Sunday lutherans confess to being poor and miserable sinners deserving nothing but temporal and eternal punishment. This is repentance, where we confess our sin, our destitute condition and turn to Christ’s perfect righteousness and clothe ourselves in Christ. This process is ongoing until we die, since we sin daily, we need Christ daily, until death. But as far as disobeying the law, as I said there is no difference between believer and unbeliever, they are both offenders. The difference is the believer has Christ as his advocate and the unbeliever does not, but both are equally sinners, but the believer is a Saint (because of Christ’s imputed righteousnes alone, not because he can obey the law or produce any works) and the unbeliever is not.
a. says
“what differentiates a christian and a non-christian “
to conclude then, summing agreement bottomline:
do not be amazed that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit.” John 3:7
the mystery hidden from the past ages and generations, but has now been manifested to His saints, to whom God willed to make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory. Col 1:26-27
He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life. And we know that the Son of God has come, and has given us understanding so that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life. 1 John 5:12 ,20
Dante says
Bill, I enjoyed your reply very much but would make a couple tweaks (the definition of repentance is lacking). I also thoroughly enjoy reading Luther on theo of glory/theo of the cross (great wisdom there that stands against this new breed of supposedly “reformed” guys) and on law-gospel which operate on absolutely antithetical principles – works and grace (Gal 3:10-12, see MG Kline, Kingdom Prologue). By no means was Luther the exegete Calvin was, but a major beauty of both of them is in their ad fontes attitude and strong stance on Scripture’s authority (though again, I believe Calvin and the Reformed then applied this to the matter of worship). I never heard TT’s voice until last week. I pay no attention to these celebrities though I realize some of them are noble men. In a radio interview TT tried to hide behind M Horton and RS Clark. He was in effect saying, “If you have a problem with me, you have a problem with them because I got this from them.” This brings up what I thought years ago. In TT books (which I only get the sense of thru ads), he is saying misleading things that I heard M Horton saying in 1991-1993 on the White Horse Inn. (The program began Dec 1990 which in God’s providence I just happened to hear that night.) The brightest of the bunch was K Riddelbarger – Horton sharpened up only after his post-doc work – and Horton would *clearly* be influenced away from a reformed view of sanctification by R Rosenbladt. I don’t know if Horton would err now as he did back then but I doubt it. So that is the issue – I’ve read the mutli-view books containing the Lutheran view of sanctification and I don’t find it to be fully biblical. There are deficiencies that I believe the reformed view avoids by following Scripture more carefully (and have always thought 1 Jn plays a major role in this correction to both Lutheran and dispensational views). Having said that, I’m in Los Angeles and there are PCA pastors here that in no way exhibit a reformed view of sanctification in their life or ministry (and also clearly reject the regulative principle) so there is most certainly a departure from the reformed faith in the PCA, at least among this new wave of young guys who are in no way fit for the ministry (in light of the Pastoral Epistles which they care little about). Grace & Joy to you
Bill says
a , what you say is 100% correct what differentiates a christian is that he is born again. This why Luther , in the bondage of the will refers to coming to faith this what the non-christian can not do by his own effort, he must be born again to become a christian. Outward obedience of the law is something completely opposite. The lutheran confessions are clear that the unbeliever can obey the law, specially civil obedience as good or in many cases better than the christian. Simply because the unbeliever is motivated by money, fame, personal approval. The unbeliever many times has superior, innate talent or ability and puts more effort into his work because of the powerful motivators that I mentioned, . This is why there are many unbelieving lawyers, doctors, businessmen that are way better than christians in the same profession. They work harder and do better work and serve their clients and customers better than a christian ever does. Outward behaviour or works or obedience of the law is not what differentiates the christian from the non-christian. This is where Jen misses the mark completely. Because those works, civil obedience and serving neighbor, the unbeliever can perform. What he can not do is come to faith or be born again, only God brings his elect to faith.
Mark Van Der Molen says
Bill, today you wrote:
“The lutheran confessions are clear that the unbeliever can obey the law, specially civil obedience as good or in many cases better than the christian.”
On May 29 you wrote:
“… christians have a sincere resolution but can not obey the law.”
So unbelievers can obey the law, but Christians cannot?
a. says
“What he cannot do is come to faith or be born again, only God brings his elect to faith.”
and then what Bill? what does the Lord promise to do? I am so grateful He has united faith to the hearing of His word to believe, trust, embrace Jesus and His EVERY word, it profits His children every day. Do you trust His every word? How could we not? – the Spirit of the living God is inside us – the same power that raised Jesus from the dead is at work in us. What faith will the Son of Man find when He returns?
Bill says
Mark, you are asking me if unbelievers can obey the law but christians can not. I said clearly that in matters of civil obedience, the unregenerate man is free to obey. Civil obedience or outward behaviour is not what God cares about. The pharisees had better civil manners than the christians, they washed their hands before eating and the christians did not. The unbeliever as I said is motivated by money, fame, power, social acceptance in a way a believer is not. So in many cases the unbeliever will excel at civil obedience like the pharisees did. The unbeliever will win more olympic medals than the christian, be a better businessman, doctor, and lawyer. This is why Paul told the Corinthians that most of them had low social status, despised by the world. Luther called theologians of glory those that seek this kind world recognition and excellence in good works that in reality are only good in the eyes of man but not in the eyes of God. This civil righteousness or outward obedience of the Law profits nothing in God’s eyes. This is why Paul wrote that the righteousness that comes from obeying the law is like garbage. Philippians 3:8 shows the contempt that Paul had for the righteousness that comes from the law: “Phil 3:8 What is more, I consider everything a loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them garbage, that I may gain Christ 9 and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in[a] Christ—the righteousness that comes from God on the basis of faith.”
Bill says
Dante, agree 100%. The christian has the obedience of faith, but the obedience of the law he does not. There is a difference between faith and law (works), a christian obeys the first one but only Christ has obeyed the latter one. So you are correct a christian obeys the word of God, but this does not mean he’s capable of keeping God’s commandments, he’s not. The difference between a christian and and a non-christian is not that one sins and the other one doesn’t, the difference is that repents (acknowledges his failure to keep the law) and trusts in Christ for salvation, and the other one does not. The christian is forgiven , the unbeliever is not. But both the christian and the unbeliever sin daily, and in some cases they christian sins in more gross ways than an unbeliever, all we have to do is look at David a man after God’s own heart.
a. says
“a christian repents and trusts in Christ “
amen
that slave who knew his master’s will and did not get ready or act in accord with his will, will receive many lashes; from everyone who has been given much, much will be required; and to whom they entrusted much, of him they will ask all the more. Luke 12:48
Dante says
I see now that I was actually affirming Jeff’s use of 1 Jn 2 and offering a little exposition. Bill, you seemed to define repentance as only acknowledgement of sin. This was the definition supplied by the dispensationalist C Ryrie (whom I think was a Sandemanian) but repentance is the turning from sin which is a work of grace in us (Acts 11:18). We repented when we first believed and as Luther said in his Theses, repentance characterizes the Christian’s life throughout his pilgrimage. We see it in 1 Jn 2:1. The one who sincerely confesses and is forgiven (1 Jn 1:9) is the one who walks in obedience to Christ (1 Jn 1:7). Sanctification is by grace through faith, but that in no way downplays the absolute necessity of imperatives which fill the apostles’ letters. It is God working in us by his grace that we keep Christ’s word (cf. Titus 2:11-14). I see that Ref 21 just published 12 articles on sanctification. I concur with it except for the use of the term ‘moral law’ in art. 6. God bless
Mark Van Der Molen says
Richard UK wrote: “We must also remember that any attempt to keep part of the law involves keeping all of it, a point which HC Q114 obfuscates.”
I have not heard of any church subscribing to the Heidelberg argue through ecclesiastical process that the Heidelberg is unclear on this point and needs modification. I am a confessionally Reformed person who believes this is a clear statement of biblical truth.
Also, there are other parts of the Heidelberg that confirm what you say, in that, the failure to keep one part of the law is a failure of keeping the whole law. Thus, it is misleading to criticize one particular question of the Heidelberg as “obfuscating” another truth that it in fact addresses.
We are Reformed, not Lutheran, and for the regenerate, the law is not longer a “raging lion” as if we remain under its curse, but as the Westminster Confession states, for the Christian the law and the gospel “doth sweetly comply.”.