Yet, as often happens, a response and overreaction by incautious pastors and professors arises on the other side, decrying any place for evangelical obedience in the Christian life. The commands of Scripture are disingenuous --they are only designed to show us that we cannot keep them. Application in preaching or any call to the Christian that he "ought, must, or should" is seen to be legalism. The only answer to any question in Scripture can only be "Jesus has done it all."
Now, we must admit from the first that this is a legitimate use of the commands of the Scripture. The Law is designed to show us our inability to keep it, convict us of sin, and cause us to look outside ourselves for our salvation, and to turn to Christ in faith, disabused of any foolish notion that we can contribute anything to our righteousness before God. This is the first use of the Law.
Yet, this fails to reckon with Ephesians 2:10. Indeed, it seems to me that both extremes of this debate avoid that verse. Both sides miss that the selfsame works that fail us in justification are the works that God expects of those he has regenerated. The New Perspective / Federal Vision side of the debate says the works that Paul eschews there are the ancient covenant boundary markers such as circumcision. We are saved by faith apart from boundary markers, but not apart from "Thou shalt not commit adultery," which is very much a part of our righteousness, they will say. This, of course, is denied us by the context. Paul uses the same word "works" to describe the same things that cannot save, but which are expected of those already saved.
You can see this by simply substituting the word "circumcision" for works. "It is by grace you have been saved, through faith...and that not of circumcision, lest any man should boast." Now, that is a true point, and the Jews probably needed to hear it --Galatians addresses such things. Yet, it is in 2:10 where the argument breaks down, "For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus, unto circumcision, which God ordained beforehand that we should walk in them." It simply doesn't wash.
The other side (we'll call it anti-nomian, or "anti-law") says works play no place in our lives as Christians. To say they do is to deny the gospel. Some will go so far as to say that preachers who preach commands or imperatives (oughts, musts, shoulds) are legalists and denying the gospel or not preaching grace. This is most grievous to the preacher, and I have counseled dear friends who have faced this charge, and I have faced it myself on occasion. Yet, again this fails the Ephesians 2:10 test. Paul's point is, and I repeat myself, that the same works that can never justify very much are expected of us as Christians. This does not mean we never sin, never fail, never make bad choices, never go headlong into sins and addictions with a high hand --certainly we do. It does not mean that even our best acts are not stained by sin and self --of course they are.
The truth is far more encouraging, and it is simply this: God accepts our imperfect obedience, merely by his grace, as a thank offering, well-pleasing in his sight. What freedom is found in those words. My works please my father. What could be better news than that? They don't make me right with him, they don't earn me his love. They are, rather, the product of the love that he has shed abroad in my heart.
I completely agree, Ken. You are right that those who are trying to offset legalism--either a) of the theological type (that mixes faith and works) or b) simply of the moralistic spirit and attitude--often avoid ever saying "you ought" or any mention of the Third Use of the law. There are two enemies of the gospel--legalism and antinomianism, as the "Marrow" book shows so well. We must be vigilant in both directions. And I appreciate you saying that so clearly.
ReplyDeleteTim Keller
One more thought.
ReplyDeleteThere are two equal and opposite errors--legalism and antinomianism. If you think error A is far, far worse than the other, you may already have one foot in error B.
Tim Keller
Tim,
ReplyDeleteQuite right. Equal and opposite errors, whose end is the same.
Ken, my experience has been that it is not only possible but probable that when I wander into antinomianism I have the other foot in legalism. It is almost impossible to live without any kind of law so the antinomian is likely to replace one law with another. Must NOT smoke cigaretes is replaced with MUST smoke cigarettes. On a related note its interesting how strict some groups are about abstinence from alcohol while flagrantly violating the 4th commandment.
ReplyDeleteThanks Ken. I'm doing my dissertation on related issues. Crucial is a firm grasp of union with Christ, which is in the middle of Eph. 2:1-10 "made alive together with Christ." N.B., as well, that in vv. 1-2 the unregenerate are dead men "walking in sin and trespasses" and in v. 10 we are "walking" in the good works God prepared for us in Christ Jesus. This insight comes from Richard Gaffin, who along with Sinclair Ferguson are showing me the way out of Ditch A (legaliism) and Ditch B (antinomianism) and showing me the road of walking in newness of life (Rom. 6:4).
ReplyDeleteJohn K. Dawson
John (Dawson) --fascinating insight. I just had the delight of hearing Dr. Gaffin twice on imputation, resurrection and new life at the Banner of Truth, and I can see precisely the point about union with Christ.
ReplyDelete...So as, a man's doing good, and refraining from evil, because the law encourages to the one, and deters from the other, is no evidence of his being under the law; and, not under grace.
ReplyDelete"God accepts our imperfect obedience." Yes Ken, I like that. Very good news for the likes of me, indeed! Reminds me of the story of that first Palm Sunday when Jesus did not reprimand the crowds for their imperfect obedience in their desire to make him king in their own fashion, but instead was silent and rode the humble donkey. So, I'm thinking, yes, God accepts our imperfect obedience, but God also says, "Keep watching...I'm not done showing you yet." :) Thanks for posting. Glad I found your blog.
ReplyDeleteThe third use of the law as a guide for Christian obedience is necessary and vital. A right understanding of the gospel causes me to love God’s law and to seek to obey Him with my whole heart. "Shoulds, musts, oughts" can be useful in conveying needed exhortations to my sinful flesh. But grace must permeate any exhortation for biblical behavior. Please emphasize the word “permeate.” I don’t mean a sermon that just adds an “oh, by the way” reference to grace. A sermon dominated by “do’s” and “don’ts” puts more responsibility on the child of God than the gospel will allow. Even if not intentional, sermons lacking in redemptive truth only wound and lead to despair. I know that I am saved by grace. But I “must,” ought, should” be reminded that I am also kept by grace. Christ-focused sermons show me both the depth of my sin and the wonder of God’s amazing grace.
ReplyDeleteCarolyn
Earlier this week I was having a conversation with my 21 year old son about how to graciously offer correction to someone theologically, morally, ethically, etc., and the first verse that came to my mind was 1 Thes. 5:14 which tells us to admonish the idle, encourage the fainthearted, and help the weak, and to be patient with all. These verses remind me that I need to take the time to listen and try to understand what the motivating factors are in someone's behavior. Are they lazy, discouraged, or simply needing to be taught a different way of thinking about something? It seems that the emphasis on law or grace would depend on what the motivations are discerned to be. Very good thoughts Ken, and as for the public ministry of the word preach the whole counsel of God. I know I need to hear both. Never antinomianism or legalism as both are distortions of the gospel, but always law and grace as God intended them to be used.
ReplyDeleteI would like to second what Carolyn said above.
ReplyDeleteAs a layman in the pews, I know that I need to hear the law. But as a Christian I have within me a spirit to supply my own indignation and disappointment at my failures. Therefore, when a preacher lets his voice ring out, shouldn't it do so more strongly for what Jesus did than for what I should do? On the other hand, I am probably too sensitive--and grace for pastors, too, lots of grace.
--Ed
Ed,
ReplyDeleteI think we ought to preach like Jesus, Stephen, Paul and the other apostles did --which means a balance. The indicative is always central --what God in Christ has done, and I strive to keep that central in my preaching. The imperative (commands) are built on the indicative.
What is in view here is not railing against sins, but a call to follow Jesus in joyful, loving obedience.
Ken,
ReplyDeleteGood post. A couple of supporting thoughts.
1) I had a pastor recently tell me that he saw no tension between justification and sanctification. I just don't understand that approach to preaching or discipleship. We ought always to feel a lack in our sanctification that we do not feel in our justification. There is always more that we *ought* to do; and there is nothing more that we *have* to do. All at once. There is balance, but a balance that comes out of the tension 'tween the two, not by conflating them.
2) Sibbe's "A Bruised Reed" is just excellent on this stuff.
3) Col. 2:6-8: "Therefore, AS you received Christ Jesus the Lord, SO walk in Him, rooted and built up IN HIM and established in the faith, just as you were taught, abounding in thanksgiving. See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ" (emph. added obviously).
Paul spells out what some of those empty philosophies which follow the pattern of this world are a few verses later, which have an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism, but are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh.
I think the point is that obedience must come from thankfulness, and that is by having more of Christ (somehow) -- that it is by faith alone.
A problem is that too many "oughts" and "dos" from pastors are mere human suggestions turned into commands by the weak consciences of their hearers. And so they come away from worship or Sunday School accused (falsely) and discouraged rather than comforted by the Gospel and thus motivated to *true* good works by gratitude.
I agree that Sibbes is a great book --just recommended him myself to someone yesterday.
ReplyDeleteBut, we can't simply preach to the tender consciences. I think I've made that mistake in the past. And, quite frankly, sometimes the tender consciences need to get up and do something. Speaking as one, I know it helps me to get out of myself and do for others.
The simple truth is --not every facet of every sermon is for everyone. Scripture itself targets various people in its teachings, "To some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, he told this parable...," "Woe to the rich, weep and howl...," etc etc.
I agree that unBiblical "oughts" and "do's" can be oppressive. This, to me, points to a real weakness in Reformed teaching. We want everything to be Law ("Thou shalt homeschool...") and hae little room for wisdom and advice, of which Scripture is full. This allows us to judge others who make different decisions we do, and look for simplistic one-size-fits-all approaches, when Scripture itself accounts for varying circumstances.
Yet, there are clear Scriptural imperatives given to us as believers --the same way I give imperatives to my kids, whom I love whether they keep the imperatives or not. It doesn't change the fact that they "should" keep the imperatives!
Oh, and the aforementioned pastor needs to be pointed to the Westminster Catechisms --clearly showing wherein justification and sanctification differ!!
ReplyDeleteKen,
ReplyDeleteAgreed on all points! Esp the wisdom about not every point of every sermon being for every last person.
Also: WCF 14.2 is just lovely and balanced on all this. I wish more PCA TEs heeded its balance and emphasis. In other words, it tells us what the principal acts of saving faith are (resting on Christ), even as it says that saving faith includes obedience, trembling, etc. So if we make principal what the Confessions says is not principal (as a general rule of our ministry), then we are out of accord with the WCF, and the Gospel.
Ken, You may know that you will continue to love your children whether or not they keep your imperatives. But isn't it your continual reassurance of that love given through your actions and words which motivates them to obey? Surely you want more than obedient outward behavior which simply masks an inner rebellious heart. Like most parents, we want our children's motivation to obey us to come from their great love and respect for us and the unconditional love that we attempt to show them.
ReplyDeleteMy point is simply that our imperatives for our children do not have the power to cause them to desire to obey. Because they are sinners, they need continual reminders of our love for them and especially of the great love and mercy of their heavenly Father who will continue to love them regardless of their obedience. It is grace that provides the motivation and the ability to obey. The same is true for the child of God. Obedience that is not heart-felt, grace-motivated obedience is not real obedience that pleases or honors God.
Carolyn
Love all this discussion. I just remembered Luke 7:47 which says he who has been forgiven much, loves much. The way I see it the only way I understand the magnitude of God’s forgiveness (grace) is if I truly understand how sinful I am, and I only understand that from the law. I so agree with Ken’s comments about that not every sermon will speak to every person. Part of being in the body though is that I accept that it doesn’t always have to be for ME! I can be tenderhearted, but for the most part I am adept at rationalization, so I can just about always find a “reason” to excuse my sin. So I need to hear the law a lot. It is easy for me to presume on God’s grace. I think one of our chief problems is that we all project too easily what we think and feel on to other people and everyone has the same life experiences, temperament, emotional reserve, intellect and all these things can play into what we “need” to hear. I remember once telling a group of kids that there would be people that they would share Christ with that would have a hard time believing that God could possibly forgive THEIR sin and there would be those who would have a hard time believing THEIR sin was really a problem. I told them to lean heavily on grace with the former and the law with the latter. I am thankful to you Ken for doing both! The gospel is that Jesus died for my sin. I only know my sin through the tutoring the law provides.
ReplyDeleteMelanie, excellent thoughts as always.
ReplyDeleteCarolyn, I think I agree, but there is also the danger of needing too much reassurance. "What more can he say than to you he hath said?" In short, we have the cross, which shows us how much God loves us. Yes, we need to be reassured of this often, in our frailty, but there must be a balance. If we are often doubtful of the love of God, that points to some sort of spiritual imbalance in ourselves that we must address.
Chris Hutchinson is an able soul doctor, maybe he can help me say better what I'm trying to say here.
Eh, ran out of time to comment with getting ready for GA, etc. All I would add is that I think CS Lewis is actually helpful on this point -- that God "leaves us on our own" so that we learn to become like Christ -- that would not happen if we had immediate revelations experiences from Him all the time. (see Screwtape, ch. 8). That and every Lord's Day should be an adequate reminder of His love for us.
ReplyDeleteBut Ken said it all just fine! I like that -- soul doctor. Can I put Dr. in front of my name, then?