Law-Gospel, Natural Law, and Natural Theology

In Reformed teaching about salvation, the Law-Gospel distinction, is codified in the distinction between the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace. The Law, functioning as the revelation of righteousness, was the standard and condition for eternal life if gained "naturally." Adam, placed in the Garden of Eden, was placed under the Covenant of Works, which he failed. This same law, without the ability to grant righteousness, remains the standard for eternal life, for all mankind (Rom. 2:6-11). The law is universal to all, given to all, demanded of all. In contrast to that, the Covenant of Grace was given to the elect under her head Jesus Christ. Jesus fulfilled the conditions of the broken covenant of works; fulfilled the law (Mt. 5:17, Rom. 10:4). Thus for the elect, salvation is freely given upon condition of faith alone. By faith, a person believes in Jesus and is saved. The Gospel, while to be preached to all, is particular, for it speaks of a salvation that those who do not believe do not have, of a message that many parts of the worlds in various epochs of history do not hear. The Gospel in this sense is particular, focusing on a select group in history (those who believe Jesus), and not applicable to those who do not (for whatever reason whatsoever).

Recently, certain Baptists (Bethelem Bible Church) have posted this innuendo on Twitter:

A live look at those on the Doug Wilson and anti-classical theism bandwagon... https://t.co/kOYO1sh3Bg

— No Compromise Radio (@nocoradio) September 24, 2022

The allusion is made that there is a link between Federal Visionist Douglas Wilson, who denies the Law-Gospel distinction, and those who reject Classical Theism, and that both are of course leading believers down a cliff. But that there is such a link is a mere assertion. I for one am against the Federal Vision, reject Douglas Wilson, hold to the Law-Gospel distinction, and yet also reject Classical Theism. But more than just personalities, a greater problem for such people is that there is a logical inconsistency between the Law-Gospel distinction and those who are broadly on the Classical Theism Ressourcement project: namely, their downplaying of the universality of natural law while promoting the idea of Natural Theology.

What is Natural Law and what is Natural Theology? Natural law is the law revealed in nature concerning the created things. It is a branch of philosophy/ ethics whereby what is good and ought to be done is understood from what is seen in nature. Natural Theology on the other hand is a much more contested concept. According to David Haimes, Natural Theology "is that part of philosophy which explores that which man can know about God (His existence, divine nature, etc.) from nature alone via man’s divinely bestowed faculty of reason, unaided by special revelation from any religion, and without presupposing the truth of any religion" (David Haimes, Natural Theology, 12). Jordan Steffaniak of the London Lyceum however rejects this definition for "the task of utilizing natural means via our renewed reason (i.e., the light of nature) in service of theological construction under the authority of Scripture, the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and the context of the church." However, as I have pointed out in my response, Steffaniak's version is not the definition most people would probably have when they see the term "Natural Theology." Haimes' definition, on the other hand, would be the definition most people would run with.

Placing the concepts alongside each other, it is clear that Natural Law corresponds to the "Law" in the Law-Gospel distinction. Natural Theology on the other hand is a misfit. Haimes' Natural Theology asserts the ability to gain certain true knowledge of the true God by all men regardless of religion, whereas the Gospel gives true knowledge of the true God only to those who repent of their sins and turn to Jesus Christ. In other words, Natural Theology attempts to gain something that can only be true given the Gospel (knowledge of God) in a way that is through the law (from creation apart from any religion). Natural Theology is thus a mongrel of Law and Gospel, violating the Law-Gospel distinction in its very essence.

It is therefore inconsistent for someone to hold to the Law-Gospel distinction and at the same time subscribe to the Ressourcement project in its recovery of Natural Theology. For sure, one can be a Classical Theist without being part of the current Ressourcement project, but that is certainly not the case for many of the current crop of "Great Tradition" converts. Many of them are in love with the "Great Tradition," including the "recovery" of Natural Theology, and thus the growing inconsistency between their soteriology and theology proper will increase.

Ressourcement and the downplaying of the universality of Natural Law

With regards to the critique on Douglas Wilson, one curious thing is their attack on Wilson's vision of a Christian society. Now, it is perfectly leigitimate to criticize Wilson's view of a Christian society, but I find it interesting that the same group of people who are attacking Wilson on this are also advocating for or at least staying silent on the withdrawal of Christian witness on the issue of the Natural Law (under the guise of a rejection of the "Religious Right"). The Law is universal and is binding on all humans regardless of ethnicity, language or religion. Natural Law especially is the law of creation, and therefore ought to be implemented in society regardless of ethnicity, language, nationality or religion. But the same people trumpeting the Law-Gospel distinction, teaching that the Law is universal upon all peoples, are also the same people who downplay the universality of the Natural Law. There is a downplaying of what the Natural Law demands as it pertains to the correct moral response to things like Drag Queen Story Hour and the LGBTQ+ agenda as a whole. If Natural Law is so universal and binding, then why is it that those who trumpet the Law-Gospel distinction neuters the Law at precisely the point where it is binding on society? Why are American Christians in general having morals like David French who asserts that one should have the freedom to violate Natural Law? If Natural Law is true, then LGBTQ+ in all its forms should be criminalized, period! Gross violations of Natural Law should never be permitted in any society, and the Reformed tradition has always understood that to be the case.

Ressourcement and the promotion of epistemic "G-law-spel"

A polemical angle of the Law-Gospel distinction is that one should not mix Law and Gospel together into a tertium quid - "G-law-spel." The Federal Visionists including Douglas Wilson do this, denying the Covenant of Works and moving works into the Fiducia element of faith. But if that is true, then the Ressourcement project is mixing Law and Gospel in the epistmic sense, creating this mongrel called "Natural Theology," which is not truly natural and yet not supernatural. In Natural Theology, God is known truly in nature in part, and then the other part of that knowledge of God comes in the Gospel. If the mixing of Law and Gospel is an error, then likewise this epistemic mixture called Natural Theology is in error as well. Since God is necessarily Father, Son and Spirit, those who reject the Son do not have the Father (1 Jn. 2:23). Even as God revealed His truth through Creation (Rom. 1:20, Jn. 1:4), it did not result in knowledge of God, for the mind of sinful man is the darkness that does not know or understand the light (Jn. 1:5, 10)

According to Haimes, "it is natural theology which provides us with the truths necessary for the proper functioning of the principle of appropriate predication" (Haimes, 21). In other words, Classical Theism without Natural Theology is deficient, because Natural Theology provides the tools necessary for Classical Theism to function. Now, other Classical Theists can dispute this assertion of Haimes, but it seems clear that parts of the Ressourcement community can only function if Natural Theology is accepted as true. If that is true, what does this tell us about the assertion that attempts to associate Douglas Wilson and those who reject Classical Theism, except that it is attempting guilt by association, attempting to pass off anyone who rejects Classical Theism as no different from Federal Visionists? However, as we have seen, a belief in the Law-Gospel distinction actually undermines a key component of the Ressourcement project. NoCo radio's slander notwithstanding, it is clear that a true belief in the Law-Gospel distinction would result in a rejection of Natuural Theology, and thus undermine much of the push towards Classical Theism especailly in its Thomistic variant.

Conclusion

The Law is given to all, demands from all, and is revealed in nature. Natural Law is of nature, available to all and reflects God's order ruling creation. Natural Law corresponds to God's Law. The Gospel on the other hand is not unviversal but particular, supernatural in nature, for a people elected by God for saving faith in Jesus Christ. True Christian theology therefore is likewise not universal but particular, supernatural in nature, the epistemic property of the elect of God who gain true knowledge and wisdom by faith in Jesus Christ.

Natural Theology, partly by nature, partly by grace, is the analog of the Glawspel. It is just as illegitimate. But just as it is integral to some for the working of Classical Theism, thus a consistent application of the Law-Gospel distinction would undermine some defences of Classical Theism. Would NoCo Radio therefore repent of their slander against those of us who reject Classical Theism? I doubt so, but one can always hope.

The Law-Gospel distinction

The Law-Gospel distinction has sometimes been thought of as "Lutheran" and thus not Reformed. This kind of thinking however obscure the very real similarities between traditional (confessional) Reformed and Lutheran thought. Both Reformed and Lutheranism came out of the same 16th century Reformation, and at the beginning they were not trying to be different for the sake of being different. Rather, whatever Luther and Lutheran theologians said that were biblical, the Reformed appropriated it. The Reformed of that time were about embracing and confessing the truth from Scripture, not about creating boundary markers against foes real and imagined except where necessary (and most definitely not against "Big Eva").

The Reformed view the Law-Gospel distinction typically with a more covenantal slant. Thus, the Law-Gospel distinction is translated into the Covenant of Works- Covenant of Grace distinction. In the Covenant of Works, we are told to "Do this and Live" (Lev. 18:5, Gal. 3:12). Since we cannot do, we stand condemned under the law, under the broken covenant of works. But under the Covenant of Grace, we are told "It is done." The Gospel proclaims to us what we cannot do of our own accord. We failed, we sinned, but where we fail, where Adam fail, Christ succeeded. We are now under grace, not because we do not have to obey the Law, but because we are not under the condemnation of the Law as a covenant of works.

While I will not yet commit to a definitive judgment on the Marrow controversy (in Scotland in the early 18th century), it seems to me that the Marrow men have it right. John Colquhuon (pronounced "ka-hoon") (1748-1827) was a Scottish Presbyterian minister who wrote what is probably one of the best books on the topic of Law and Gospel in the Reformed tradition. His book is entitled A Treatise on the Law and the Gospel, and is highly recommended for its balance and pastoral concern. Here are some choice quotes from the book:

In the Sinaitic transaction, the hewing of the latter tables of stone by Moses, before God wrote the Ten Commandments on them, might be intended to teach sinners that they must be convinced of their sin and misery by the law as a covenant of works before it can be written legibly on their hearts as a rule of life (p. 60)

The gospel, in this its strict and proper sense, seeing it is the form of Christ’s testament which consists of absolute and free promises of salvation by Him, contains no precepts. It commands nothing. It does not enjoin us even to believe and repent; but it declares to us what God in Christ as a God of grace has done, and what He promises still to do for us and in us and by us. (p. 105)

In the blessed gospel, Christ, and God in Christ, are freely offered to sinful men, and men are graciously invited as sinners to receive the offer and to entrust the whole affair of their salvation to Christ, and to God in Him (John 6:32; Isaiah 55:1-4) (p. 120).

The law wounds and terrifies the guilty sinner; the gospel heals and comforts the guilty sinner who believes in Jesus. (p. 151)

Whatever is required in the covenant of works as the condition of eternal life is, according to the covenant of grace, provided and given gratuitously to believing sinners. (p. 156)

The law, as a covenant of works and a rule of life, demands nothing of sinners but what is offered and promised in the gospel; and in the gospel everything is freely promised and offered to them which the law, in any of its forms, requires of them. (p. 161).

The law requires true holiness of heart and of life, and the gospel promises and conveys this holiness. (p. 168).

As it was the privilege of the Christians in Rome, so it is the privilege of all true Christians, in every place and in every age, that they are dead to the law as a covenant of works, and that the law in that form is dead to them. (p. 198)

As the relation between the husband and spouse is dissolved by death (Romans 7:2), so the relation between the law as a covenant and believers is, in the moment of their justification, dissolved (Romans 7:4). (p. 203)

When it comes to the Law and the Gospel, the twin dangers are Legalism (Gospel is not good news but more law), and Antinomianism (The Law is to be disregarded). Throughout the history of the Christian church, groups have veered into one or the other. If we embrace a Law-Gospel distinction, how should we understand these twin errors? Here Colquhuon puts it succinctly:

There are two errors respecting the deliverance of believers from the law which are equally contrary to the Oracles of Truth. The one is that of the legalist who maintains that believers are still under the moral law as covenant of works; the other is that of the antinomian who affirms that believers are not under it even as a rule of life. (p. 205)

In other words, the Legalist puts salvation dependent upon our good works. While they may pay lip service to grace, they hang the Law as a threat and motivator to goad believers to be good or to do good works. For legalists, we must preach the Law to make believers do good works, and imply that failure to obey the Law will make them somehow less welcome in God's sight.

The Antinomian does the exact opposite. The Antinomian does not really focus on good works. He is only interested to tell believers about "grace, grace, grace" without calling them to live holy lives for God. At best, an antinomian thinks of sanctification as an automatic process, and all anyone has to do is to think about grace and he will be holy.

Here, again, Colquhuon has excellent counsel for how we are to navigate the Christian Life. How should we live our lives and deal with the vestiges of our our sinful nature while cultivating the proper desire to do good works?

If Christ is the way to God and to glory, and it He is the way of holiness, or the holy way, then you who have believed through grace ought to take heed that you walk consistently in that way. “As you have, therefore, received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in Him” (Colossians 2:6). In union with Him, go forward daily in the exercise of faith and love, and in the practice of holiness. Depending on his grace and strength, advance with holy diligence and with increasing ardor in the daily practice of these good works which are works of faith and labors of love. Make constant progress in your exercise of faith, and by sanctifying and comforting influences from the fullness of Christ, walk on with cheerfulness and resolution in Him as your way to the perfection of holiness and of happiness. (pp. 317-318)

They not only look, therefore, to the law as a rule for authority to oblige them to the practice of good works, as well as for direction in performing them, but the look also to the gospel, and to the Savior offered in it, for strength to perform them, for merit to render them acceptable to God, and for a reward of grace to crown them. (p. 320)

The Law is the standard, the goal. But to the Christian, it the Gospel who gives them strength for sanctification. While desiring to obey the Law can be a motivator for good works, it must be grounded in one's love for God because of his gratefulness for an-already present salvation. Sanctification is about gratefulness, not about earning brownie points before God, for after all, who can give anything to the God who owns anything anyway?

The Law-Gospel distinction is a distinction that preserves the necessity of the Law and the glory of the Gospel. We must get it right in order that we may not put believers back under bondage, yet to encourage them to be holy and do good works. It is because of this that Colquhuon's book seem to be me very important for the task at hand, so that Christians can be edified and assured of their standing before God.

On sins against Nature

For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; (Rom 1:26)

Διὰ τοῦτο παρέδωκεν αὐτοὺς ὁ θεὸς εἰς πάθη ἀτιμίας, αἵ τε γὰρ θήλειαι αὐτῶν μετήλλαξαν τὴν φυσικὴν χρῆσιν εἰς τὴν παρὰ φύσιν, (Rom 1:26)

All sins partake of the commonality of "sin." In that manner, all sins are equally damnable before God, there is no distinction in culpability between one sinner and a "greater" sinner. All sins are therefore equally forgivable under the blood atonement of Christ upon the condition of faith and repentance.

However, just because all sins are equitable in terms of damnation and forgiveness does not imply that all sins are to be seen as equal. This does not mean that we should revive the artificial Medieval (and Roman Catholic) categories of Moral and Venial sins, but just an acknowledgment that, though all sins are damnable, some sins are worse than others. After all, committing murder is worse than hating a brother, and Jesus was not equating the two in Matthew 5:21-26, but rather to show that the sixth commandment applies to the heart attitude, not just the mere physical action of murder. It is after all ridiculous to claim that hating a person is the same as murdering him. For otherwise, if one seeks the death penalty for murder, ought one to kill anyone who hates another person also? This is the type of nonsense those who see no differences at all among sins will get themselves into.

There are sins, and there are worse sins. Among the worse are what can be categorized as sins against Nature. Now, the Scriptures do not explicitly say what define sins against Nature except to give us examples like homosexuality (e.g. Rom. 1:26). Nevertheless, since "nature" (φύσις) is related to the "being" of a thing, and furthermore the context of Romans 1:18-32 has reference to Creation, it is evident that "Nature" is related to Creation. "Nature" is therefore to be defined as God's order of how things operate in their very being (ontology).

"Nature" as such has to do with God's ordained order, which is not necessarily the same as Science. Science is the study of the empirical orderliness of Nature, but it is not Nature. Furthermore, the natural world is fallen, therefore there should be some things that are in nature ("natural"), which are in fact contrary to Nature (as intended by God; Natural Law). There is also a further distinction between sins that do not violate Nature (being ethical as opposed to ontological), and sins that violate Nature (going against the established "being" of things). To the former belong sins like murder, racism, theft and so on. To the latter are sins like homosexuality, which in Romans 1:26 was stated to be "contrary to nature" (εἰς τὴν παρὰ φύσιν).

Sins against Nature are thus sins that distort the very being of things. Homosexuality, transgenderism, genderbending etc attack the created nature (ontology) of humans as male and female. Beastiality, transpecieism etc attack the created nature (ontology) of humans as humankind. The idea of creating human-animal or other types of hybrids that transcend their created kind boundaries (as opposed to species which remain their own kinds, but with one or two genes from other species) likewise attack the created nature of humanity. In fact, one interpretation of Genesis 6:1 is that of fallen angels taking human females as wives, an interpretation which I currently have no particular opinion for or against, but if that is true, it gives even greater credence to the idea that crimes against Nature are particularly heinous crimes.

Scripture does in fact speak to crimes against Nature. They are particularly heinous because they attack the very order of Creation, being ontologically rather than ethical. That is why Sodom and Gomorrah were singled out for judgment by God, not because they were the most wicked cities quantitatively, neither because they were the only ones committing homosexuality, but because they as a society celebrated homosexuality, every single one of them. Abraham had interceded to spare these cities for the sake of 10 righteous people (Gen. 18:32), but even 10 righteous people could not be found in them.

There is therefore a qualitative difference between ethical sins, and sins against Nature. While all are damnable, and all can be forgiven upon repentance and faith, sins of the latter are considered worse sins than the former. And when such wickedness is celebrated in a culture as per Romans 1:32, we know that the wrath of God is upon a society, giving them over to the wickedness of their hearts to their own destruction.

Bavinck on Law and Gospel

According to Herman Bavinck, there are three ways to speak about the relation of Law and Gospel. The first way is broadly, as depicting the Old and the New Testaments (Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 4:453). The second way is "concretely," which is to say as presented in the text, such that "the law made promises and the gospel utters admonitions and imposes obligations." (Bavinck, 4:454). The third way is in "content," where the two are contrasted as antithetical to each other (Bavinck, 4:453-4). With regards to the third manner, Bavinck writes,

Although they [Law and Gospel] agree in that both have God as author, both speak of one and the same perfect righteousness, and both are addressed to human beings to bring them to eternal life, they nevertheless differ in that the law proceeds from God's holiness, the gospel from God's grace; the law is known from nature, the gospel only from special revelation; the law demands perfect righteousness, but the gospel grants it; the law leads people to eternal life by works, and the gospel produces good works from he riches of the eternal life granted in faith; the law presently condemns people, and the gospel acquits them; the law addresses itself to all people, and the gospel only to those who live within its hearing; and so forth. (Bavinck, 4:453)

We see here that Bavinck agrees fully with the Law-Gospel distinction as being something that comes from the Reformation, which "restored the peculiar character of the Christian religion as a religion of grace" (Bavinck, 4:453).

Bavinck's second way of speaking of "Law" and "Gospel" is concretely, which is to say that the elements of Law and Gospel are so intervowen in the text of Scripture that "the law made promises and the gospel utters admonitions and imposes obligations" (Bavinck, 4:454). We note here that Bavinck is not by this denying the Law-Gospel distinction he affirmed in the previous page, but rather he is acknowledging (1) that the text of Scripture is not always delineated into neat "Law" and "Gospel" sections, and (2) that issues such as "duty-faith" are tough issues to categorize nearly as either "law" or "gospel." Regarding the issue of "duty-faith," the idea that unbelievers have a duty to believe in Jesus Christ and are thus called to do so, Bavinck states that even among the Reformed there is disagreement about how to categorize it. This "preaching of faith and repentance, which seemed after all to be a condition and a demand" was argued to "really [belong] to the gospel and should not rather (with Flacius, Gerhard, Quenstedt, Voetius, Witsius, Cocceius, de Moor, and others) be counted as law (Bainck, 4:454). So some categorize it as "Gospel," which would seem to have the Gospel making demands, while others like Witsius, who I think are more consistent, would categorize it as "Law". The difficulty is due to the fact that Law and Gospel are tightly intervowen in the text of Scripture, such that, while in concept and content they can be distinguished, and SHOULD be distinguished, they often are found together in the text of Scripture and applied together in practical life.

So we see three main senses in speaking about Law and Gospel. Broadly, they refer to the Old and New Testaments. Concretely, they refer to the textual and concrete applications of "Law" and "Gospel" activities. In content, they refer to antithetical realities of "Indicatives" and "Imperatives." For a full orbed view of both justification and sanctification, we should understand these three senses, so that we neither confuse the "Law" with the "Gospel," nor do we flatten out the Christian life as if everything is about just focusing on the complete salvation in the Gospel.

Grace, the URCNA and Joseph Prince

What do these three have in common? Answer: Nothing. Yet if one were to read former reformed charismatic Jonathan Koh's blog post, one would have thought that they all promote Gospel grace.

The recent furore over charges of Antinomianism has caused Dr. Micheal S. Horton to respond over at the White Horse Inn blog. In this post, Horton defended the Reformed orthodox teaching of the Law-Gospel Distinction. Horton maintained that antinominanism is a perverse distortion of true biblical teaching and he denied that he or the White Horse Inn ever taught it. He maintained that the way to address Antinomianism is not more law but more Gospel. As Horton wrote,

What’s striking is that Paul answers antinomianism not with the law but with more gospel! In other words, antinomians are not people who believe the gospel too much, but too little! They restrict the power of the gospel to the problem of sin’s guilt, while Paul tells us that the gospel is the power for sanctification as well as justification. ... The ultimate antidote to antinomianism is not more imperatives, but the realization that the gospel swallows the tyranny as well as the guilt of sin. It is enough to save Christians even in their failure and not only brings them peace with God in justification, but the only liberation from the cruel oppression of sin. To be united to Christ through faith is to receive everything that we need not only to challenge legalism but antinomianism as well.

All of these are truly biblical, in context of the overall Gospel message. This is important when we look at Jonathan Koh's horrendous distortion of Horton's post.

On his blog, Jonathan Koh wrote:

They say history repeats itself. And it’s true in this matter of grace, antinomianism and legalism. When people accuse New Creation Church and Joseph Prince and other grace-based preachers of “antinomianism”, guess what – it’s happened before. Down the centuries, people have come up on different sides in the Reformed tradition on these matters. And even as I speak, things are hotting up in the blogsphere [sic] and in the Reformed world. People (many Reformed Christians themselves) are challenging some Reformed Christians (like Michael Horton) on the way they preach the gospel and grace. Too much grace, they say. Gotta beware of antinomianism. Same charges that have been thrown at Pastor Joseph Prince and many others.

The problem here boils down to context, context and context. Koh is wrong in his assertion, which we shall see in a moment.

Micheal Horton is a pastor in the URCNA (United Reformed Churches of North America) down at Santee (Christ URC). One thing about the URC churches is that they have some sort of fixed liturgy, and they do not use the liturgy they use merely because they like it. Rather, they have a fixed liturgy because they think that their liturgy reflects their doctrines. Therefore, their liturgy by and large reflects their functional theology.

It is with this in mind that I would like to look at the liturgy of a URC church which I have visited. While Oceanside URC is not Christ URC, I do not think there is much of a difference between the two confessional churches.

Oceanside URC's liturgy for Oct 24, 2010 A.M. service

Call to Worship
Invocation - Ps. 124:8
God's Greeting - Rev. 1:4-5
Song of the Month (from proposed Psalter Hymnal)
Reading of the Law (responsive reading)
Summary of the Law
Confession of Sin (Individual and Corporate Confession)
Ps. 51:10-12 (a cappella)
Declaration of Forgiveness (by the minister)
- Short responsive lines -
Song (Ps. 63)
Morning Prayer
Offering
Scripture Reading
Sermon
Lord's Supper
Song (Ps. 96)
Song
Benediction

As we can see, the first use of the Law (for conviction of sin) features prominently in the liturgy. This is in fact the common tradition of all Reformed and [Confessional] Presbyterian churches that I have attended so far. The Law is read, there is a period of examination and individual repentance, followed by corporate repentance of sins for the whole congregation. Oceanside URC follows up with a declaration of forgiveness based upon the Gospel, while in the OPC there is the declaration of forgiveness followed by the reading of the Gospel.

The Law-Gospel distinction in the Reformed and Presbyterian circles therefore has both elements of the Law and the Gospel, not the Gospel alone. Horton being a URC minister has this idea of the Law Gospel Distinction in mind, whereby the first use of the Law is applied every Lord's Day followed by the salve of the Gospel.

Prince's idea of grace - Antinomianism

In his blog post, Koh attempt to link Horton and Prince together. Having read Prince's first book, Destined to Reign, I am astounded that such a comparison can even be attempted.

Unfortunately, I do not have my copy of the book with me; it is with my friend Joel Tay who is rather busy at the moment. So no page numbers will be given.

According to Prince, we should not think about sin. In fact, the Holy Spirit is stated not to convict us of sin but of righteousness. The way to be sanctified is to NOT think about sin but about righteousness. In point of fact, Prince even gave us a formula for not sinning. This is done by repeating the phrase "I am the righteousness of God in Jesus Christ" like a mantra over and over again.

One does not have to read far to see that what Prince is advocating is the Word of Faith teaching of Positive Confession, this time applied to salvation. Prince does not tell people to confess their sins. In fact, he counsels just the contrary and says that only Satan convicts people of sin and believers should not think of sin. Salvation therefore is all about not thinking of sin but speaking to oneself positive confessions of one's own righteousness.

We can see therefore the big gulf between Prince's teaching and what Horton advocates. The difference between true antinomianism (in Prince) and false charges of antinomianism is the presence of the proclamation of the Law in its first use. The URC, as with all Reformed and Presbyterian denominations, proclaim the Law. We believe that the Holy Spirit is the one who convicts men of sin, and that the Law is necessary (in its first use) for believers. The Gospel is given only after the Law has done its work, never apart from it.

Also, we believe in the continuing validity of the Law in its third use (for telling us how to live according to God's will). While we glory in the Gospel and God's grace, we do not therefore nullify the Law in our lives. The Gospel in this sense of sanctification is the impetus and motivation for our loving a godly life, yet without being the judge of our salvation. After we have strived to live according to the Law (in its third use), we continue to return to the Gospel as our only hope and the only way we can be saved.

All this of course is alien to the teaching of Joseph Prince, who is a true Antinomian. Contrary to the assertions of Jonathan Koh therefore, there is nothing Prince has in common with Horton and Reformed orthodoxy. We believe in the ministry both of the Law and of the Gospel in the lives of Christians. The Confessional Reformed recognize our continual sinfulness and wickedness before God, continually confess our sins, and turn to the Gospel always for the joyous message of God's forgiveness offered to us in the person of Jesus Christ.

Truly, how different is our sorrow and our joy from the false peace offered by Prince.

A Response to Frank Turk's Open Letter (ADD)

Assignments have been done on my side, and immediately after I am done we have Frank Turk writing an open letter to Mike Horton regarding the latter's tendency towards promoting Antinomianism. If not for the fact that Turk has been wearing the Anti-discernment hat again, this time blaming the White Horse Inn (WHI) of creating this "monster", I guess I might have let it pass as I have many other things to do.

Turk's letter is an interesting piece to note, for it clarifies the difference between a Reformed and an Evangelical view of Law and Gospel. Perhaps in no other piece so far is the difference between the two views set out this clearly.

In this post, I will respond to Turk's open letter according to various topics, and show where Turk is in error.

Frank Turk and the "Discernment mafia"

The first thing we would want to look at the issue of the "discernment mafia". Since the publishing of Tim Challies' article attacking discernment ministries as doing evil as entertainment, Frank Turk has been on a crusade to attack "watchbloggers". Instead of discerning, Turk suggests that we should be involved in a local church and submit to the elders who are the ones who are to teach sound doctrine.

Now, of course there is nothing wrong with being involved in a local church. In fact, all believers should be in a local church. That is not the issue. The issue is whether discernment and blogging are to be done by non elders/pastors. Oh wait, the issue isn't even about that. After all, Pastor Ken Silva is a pastor.

The fact of the matter is that Frank Turk is a hypocrite. In that previous post, he says that "the focal point and center of discernment ought to be in the local church" (Emphasis his). Well, THAT particular post of his is NOT situated in the context of the local church. So much for consistency. So what exactly is wrong with "watchbloggers"? Well, I guess it is because the "watchbloggers" are not doing their discernment ministry Turk's way.

Fast forward to yesterday and Turk's open letter to Horton. What do we find in his open letter? In his open letter, Turk wrote:

What I am not talking about is people who are doing the legitimate work of elders who are accountable in their local churches, who are usually elders, and who display openness and transparency about their character and ministry by not hiding behind an alias or an internet nickname. What I am talking about is the avalanche of people who populate the internet via discussion boards, blogs, and social media who frequently demonstrate all the love and real compassion of a rock through one's window. They are people who, on paper, make a sound confession of faith, down to the mint and the cumin, and wouldn't know what to do if their Hindu neighbor invited them to a birthday party on Sunday morning — or how to turn the other cheek in order to make a foothold for the opportunity to share the Gospel. They usually don't attend church because they can't find one which is up to their doctrine snuff, and the reason is that they have made themselves into a private magisterium. They have never said or written anything for which they would apologize or reconsider because they have never been wrong.

So it seems that Turk's beef with the "discernment crowd" is that 1) they are not elders in their local church, 2) they do not display openness and transparency online, 3) they demonstrate all the love and real compassion of a rock through one's window.

In response to Turk's complaints, I agree with reason 2. Reason 3 is a blanket condemnation which is furthermore subjective. Furthermore, I don't think we need to look far to see Frank's own snarkiness, so that becomes a moot point. As for reason 1, is Turk an elder or pastor in any church, and if so, which church? That would be truly an interesting fact to know. After all, if Turk is not an elder or pastor, he frankly is a hypocrite in this regard. (No pun intended)

Almost comically, Turk then practically demanded that Horton rebuke the "discernment crowd" because they use the Reformed lingo of the Law Gospel distinction and are passionate about a new reformation. If that isn't Guilt by Association, nothing is. Presumably, Horton is held responsible for the conduct of people he hardly knows.

The worst part about this section of Turk's Open Letter is the insinuation that the Law Gospel Distinction is a distinctive WHI and Hortonite teaching. Nevermind that this is classic Reformed orthodoxy going back to the 16th century at least. Nevermind that there are other Reformed Christians who have no relation to Horton or WHI or even WSC who hold to these classical Reformed distinctives. Horton is the bogeyman for all the problems Evangelicalism has with the rise of the "discernment mafia". Before we go deeper into fantasy world, perhaps we should remind ourselves that Horton is a mere professor not a ruler who controls the actions of anyone who uses the language of classic Reformed orthodoxy.

The subjunctive mood?

Having had Greek classes, Turk's pontification on the subjunctive mood being a third mood distinct between the indicative (Gospel) and imperative (Law) left me speechless. Since he mentions the New Testament, it is a legitimate assumption that he is referring to the subjunctive mood in koine Greek as found in the Greek New Testament. Well, technically speaking of course he is right. There is also the mood called the optative as well, and who can forget the infinitive? And of course, we can count the participle as a separate "mood" as well I guess?

The problem here is that when the Law-Gospel distinction is expressed in term of the indicative versus the imperative, we are not talking about verbal moods (or tenses). We are rather grouping everything into "do" and "done". Subjunctive as such can function both ways, depending on the context. A hina plus a subjunctive for example can be a mere factual statement (purpose/result clause or content), but a hortatory subjunctive ("Let us __") has a volitional force of "Do".

Turk is therefore in error at this point.

Gospel as transformative or declarative?

The core problem with Turk is his view of the Gospel. Classical Reformed orthodoxy teaches that the Gospel is good news period. The Gospel is proclaimed to sinners of what Christ has done for them. Over and over, the Scriptures starts with proclaiming the Gospel, and then proclaim the law (in its third use) as how we ought to live in light of the Gospel. In epistles like Romans, the model is Law (first use), then Gospel, then Law (third use).

According to Turk, the Gospel must be seen as something that God has done for us which results in "the advantages of declared righteousness". Therefore, the Gospel itself is transformative. Whereas the Reformed position is that the Gospel is declarative, Turk and I suspect many Evangelicals think of the Gospel as transformative. Therefore, it is the Gospel that must transform lives, which brings us to the next point.

Confusion of Justification and Regeneration

Turk's view of the Gospel confuses justification and regeneration. Justification is a forensic declaration by God that a sinner is considered right before God. In justification, there is no actual change in the sinner, which is after all why it is called forensic! To say that the Gospel is transformative is to say that justification as a process creates sanctification. But that is the error of Rome and all Semi-Pelagianism. Justification does not create sanctification. Justification is a separate process altogether apart from works, so how can we smuggle works into the backdoor?

The problems lies in the confusion of justification and regeneration. In regeneration, the Spirit of God starts the process of sanctification in the believer's life. In Reformed orthodoxy, regeneration is the basis for both sanctification and faith. Faith logically results in Justification. Yet regeneration is neither justification or sanctification. Sanctification follows justification temporally not because the "Gospel transforms sinners", but because the same Spirit that gives faith unto justification also is in the process of sanctifying sinners. The Gospel is God's instrument to evoke justifying faith, but justifying faith and sanctification are two different things, much less the Gospel and sanctification.

Turk's failure to understand this probably comes because of the problems inherent in both sides of the Lordship Controversy. As Dr. R. Scott Clark remarks:

It is not surprising that there is a backlash from some non-confessional evangelical quarters regarding the use of the law. It’s been this way since at least the start of the so-called “Lordship Controversy” in the late 1980s. One of the features of that controversy was its disconnection from the Reformation. Both sides appealed to the Protestants but both sides ignored the Protestant confessions where all of this is worked out exquisitely and briefly.

Turk is thus in error as he reveals that he does not understand the relation between the Gospel, faith, justification, regeneration and sanctification.

Means of Grace versus Spiritual Disciplines

The last point is a relatively minor point in the dispute, but we can see in here a problem with modern Evangelicalism with its failure to understand the means of grace. Turk shows this in his denigration of the sacraments as "the Gospel is made the centerpiece alone on the table". Besides the failure to understand the Gospel as declarative not transformative, it is illuminating that Turk and fellow Evangelicals do not think highly of the sacraments. Yet, we know that the whole spiritual discipline movement a la Richard Foster and Dallas Willard have been gaining steam. So to come and receive from the Lord what He has ordained to be tokens of His love for our comfort (the means of grace) is not looked on as being important. Yet, to do unbiblical "disciplines" such as lectio divina, contemplative prayer etc. somehow is very "spiritual". I think the Bible does talk about such an attitude:

Now the rabble that was among them had a strong craving. And the people of Israel also wept again and said, “Oh that we had meat to eat! We remember the fish we ate in Egypt that cost nothing, the cucumbers, the melons, the leeks, the onions, and the garlic. But now our strength is dried up, and there is nothing at all but this manna to look at.” (Num. 11:4-6)

Just as God gave the Israelite manna from heaven, yet the Israelites were not content with what God had provided and lusted after the food of Egypt, so too modern Evangelicals are not content with the provision of God's grace through His appointed means, but crave after "spiritual experiences" and follow their spiritual lusts to indulge in "spiritual disciplines", of which God has not thought fit to inform us of.

Is it no wonder that God is not in any of these "disciplines"?

Conclusion

In conclusion, Frank Turk is in error in his view of the Law and the Gospel. We should reject his advice as being not in line with Scripture, and his attack on "watchbloggers" as being extremely hypocritical. While I am sure he has good motives, he is blind to his own faults and we will see if he takes correction. Since he claims that the "watchbloggers" have "never said or written anything for which they would apologize or reconsider because they have never been wrong," we will see if he lives consistent with his position, or live otherwise. Amen.

Addenum:

It seems that Frank Turk's bone of contention is with Horton's "pastoral theology", not his "confessed theology". Go figure!

Brandan Kraft and the abomination stewing over at P-Net

Over the last three posts (here, here and here), I have attempted a rebuttal of the error of Eternal Justification as well as its corollary doctrines (a denial that the elect were ever actually under wrath and the idea of timeless eternity). While it is probably the case that not all participants in the Predestinarian Network (hereafter P-Net) and the forums have the same beliefs in these matters, the founder of this website, Brandan Kraft, does indeed embrace such errant doctrines.

Matt Powell (who it seems had prior interactions with P-Net two years back) has came up with three excellent posts (The Heresy of Eternal Justification, More on Eternal Justification, Eternal Justification and Antinomianism) in which he analyzes the issues concerned in its interaction with the Gospel message (as opposed to mine which come from a more epistemic perspective). As I read it, I began to see how deep the doctrinal rot in P-Net and especially in its founder Brandan Kraft had been. In my initial post on this topic, I have worked out the logical implications of embracing the Eternal Justifcation error. In looking at Powell's posts and the links that he provided, I see with my own eyes that they are not on their way there but are already there. Now, generally, I focus on addressing the issues and as such do not check out much on the people involved. Powell's links however show me how deep the rot is.

Kraft's profile page on P-Net shows the following description:

Soteriological Position: Hyper-Calvinism (Hardshellism)

Creeds and Confessions: London Baptist Confession of 1644, Canons of Dort [sic], Goat Yard Confession of Faith (1729), Gospel Standard Articles of Faith

When Adam and Eve sinned, what really happened?: It was revealed to Adam that he was a sinner and needed the righteousness of Christ which demonstrated the eventual regeneration of every elect individual.

[Bold added]

Kraft flaunts his hyper-Calvinism (don't need to call him out on this one), and this can be seen even in the creeds and confessions he holds to - The Gospel Standard Articles of Faith (GSAF). This is what the document states:

XXIV We believe that the invitations of the Gospel, being spirit and life, are intended only for those who have been made by the blessed Spirit to feel their lost state as sinners and their need of Christ as their Saviour, and to repent of and forsake their sins. (Isa. 55:1, John 7:37, Prov. 28:13, Matt. 11:28-30, John 6:37.)

XXVI We deny duty faith and duty repentance - these terms signifying that it is every man's duty spiritually and savingly to repent and believe (Gen. 6:5, Gen 8:21, Matt. 15:19, Jer. 17:9, John 6:44, John 6:65.) We deny also that there is any capability in man by nature to any spiritual good whatever. So that we reject the doctrine that men in a state of nature should be exhorted to believe in or turn to God of themselves. (John 12:39-40, Eph. 2:8, Rom. 8:7-8, 1 Cor. 4:7.)

[Bold added]

The GSAF denies the offer of the Gospel and duty faith and duty repentance, which is a mark of Hyper-Calvinism.

In my initial post, I have made plain that one of the logical consequences of believing in eternal justification is that it leads to a theory that believers are to be considered as "saints who happen not to realize that they are already justified". All of this was initially meant by me to shock the adherents of Eternal Justification to their senses by showing the hopefully undesirable consequences of embracing such an error. However, it seems I have misjudged Kraft and company. They are already there as it were.

Notice Kraft's answer to the question as to what really happened when Adam and Eve fell — he came to know that he was a sinner and shown that he needed Christ's righteousness as a demonstration of the eventual regeneration of the elect. So, firstly, Adam and Eve did not became sinners, but rather they become conscious of the fact that they were sinners all along. We must note that the question does not ask regarding the episode when God confronted Adam and Eve after their sin, but rather what happened WHEN they sin.

Likewise, the doctrine regarding Christ's righteousness has been altered. Since it is more of a demonstration, substitutionary atonement takes a back seat (if it has a seat at all). Rather, Christ's righteousness becomes primarily to do with showing that all the elect will be regenerated in due time - as we "pardoxically" experience it in time of course). As Powell succinctly states:

[In Kraft's scheme] Conversion is simply becoming aware of our status as saints. Adam didn't change when he fell, believers don't change when they are saved... (Eternal Justification and Antinomianism)

This is a full-blow assault on the Gospel in the name of "grace", which it seems is similar to the "grace" teachings promoted from the other side of the spectrum in the teachings of Joseph Prince.

Moving on, we see a post on something very foundational to the faith, which left me initially stunned and at a loss of words.

...

In this article, I will present evidence, that should be sufficient to indict James the brother of our Lord Jesus Christ, for the crime of Judaizing the Pauline doctrine of Justification by faith alone, without the works of law. James the brother of Jesus, is the antithesis of Paul and never fully comprehended the Pauline doctrine of Justification. I do not believe he was even an apostle as some suggest. A false apostle perhaps, but no true apostle of the Gospel of Christ. However that is another subject worth discussion.

...

[Nicholas Laurienzo, James Exposed]

And here is what Kraft wrote on his profile:

Is the book of James authoritative?: I don't believe it is authoritative.

Such is a denial of the authority of Scripture by attacking the canonicity of James' epistle. Who is Kraft that he thinks he has the right to decide what constitutes or does not constitutes the Word of God? So much for any claim to be Evangelical through this attack on Sola Scriptura, nevermind Reformed.

Branda Kraft is a heretic who is in danger of the fires of hell for his wicked deeds and false doctrines. He and those like him are called to repent of their wickedness, and produce fruits in keeping with genuine repentance.

Book Review: All Old Testament Laws Cancelled by Greg Gibson

Some time ago, I was contacted to see if I wanted to review a upcoming book by Greg Gibson entitled All Old Testaments Laws Cancelled. It was an interested topic for sure, and from the excerpts available seemed like a good read from the perspective of New Covenantal Theology, so I agreed to do so. The shipping duration was rather long, but I finally got to reading it and then thinking over how to formulate the review before penning it down. Fresh off from my series-to-article on Law and Gospel, I was in the process of moving on to a few books on Covenant Theology, so the timing could not have been more perfect.

Anyway, after prayer and reading of the Scriptures, here is my review of the book, which I have emailed back to them. Thanks Greg and JesusSaidFollowMe Publishing for giving me the privilege to review your book.

Article: A Primer on the Topic of Law and Gospel

I had collated the various posts on the latest series on Law and Gospel, and have improved on them at various parts, correcting spelling and grammatical errors as I see them. Also, quite a couple of footnotes and references were added so as both to clarify various terms and teachings mentioned, as well as substantiate various claims with literary sources. Here is the improved article here entitled A Primer on the Topic of Law and Gospel. May God use this for the edification of the Church, Amen.

Law and Gospel: Application and Conclusion

Application in an analysis of various movements

The Epistle to the Galatians — the harshest letter ever written by Paul in the Scriptures. Yet all of this was necessary because of the importance of the doctrine being subverted by the Judaizer heretics. The doctrine of salvation by faith alone apart from works and law-keeping is the doctrine by which the Church stands or falls, and also the doctrine by which the salvation of each individual believer stands or falls too. Paul pronounced an anathema against the Judaizers for distorting the doctrine of salvation as their false "gospel" distorts the true Gospel message. This message of Paul is as relevant to us today as it is to the Galatian Christians of that time.

In our times, a multitude of false "gospels", all deserving the anathema of God, have spread across the land. Such false "gospels" divert people from the true Gospel which saves, and we would look at some examples here: Strict Sabbatarianism, Roman Catholicism and Purpose-Drivenism aka Warrenism.

Strict Sabbatarianism

The issue of a mandatory keeping of the Sabbath on a particular day in a particular manner, whether it be the seventh-day variety as seen in Seventh-Day Adventism, or of the more historically reformed heritage of the first-day Sabbath, constitutes strict Sabbatarianism. Besides being impractical and absurd, such strict rules invariably breeds a form of Legalism. This can be seen explicitly in the case of Seventh-Day Adventism with its emphasis on Sabbath keeping being necessary for continuation in the state of being saved, as Sabbath-keeping is God's mark of salvation^[1]. As opposed to this form of hard legalism, the reformed variety is expressed most strongly in the example of the Puritans, who sometimes have an imbalanced focus on keeping the law till they fall into soft legalism — keeping the rules and regulations otherwise one is deemed to be disobedient towards God and thus not in a right standing with Him.

As we have seen throughout the exposition of Galatians, Paul's contrasted the law with grace, works of the law with faith, and never the two shall meet (being antithetical to each other), at least not in this plane. Our salvation and standing before God is all of grace, and none of works. The Scriptures do not differentiate between various aspects of the law, nor do they differentiate between works done for salvation and works done for the continuation of salvation. In fat, as we have already seen, the error of the Judaizers IS precisely salvation by faith PLUS continuance in works. Hard legalism as seen in Seventh-Day Adventism thus fall into the exact same error as the Judaizers, and are therefore subjected to the same anathema as them. Ditto for soft legalism, except that the reformed variety typically inconsistently embraces the doctrine of justification by faith alone, and therefore the problem arise only in those who emphasized more on their doctrine of legalism at the expense of the doctrine of free grace.

Roman Catholicism

If strict Sabbatarianism is analogous to the Galatian heresy, Roman Catholicism with its express denial of the doctrine of Justification by Faith alone, coupled with the attendant doctrines of the Treasury of Merit, Indulgences, Purgatory, Penance etc make the Judaizers look like children with regards to false doctrine. Roman Catholicism not only (officially) proclaims salvation by faith plus works, they oftentimes unofficially practice salvation by works especially with regards to their laity. Romanism far surpass the Judaizers in their heresy, and the biblical judgment against her is therefore a strict anathema.

Purpose-Drivenism aka Warrenism

Notwithstanding Rick Warren's profession to be a Protestant (and a Southern Baptist at that!), Warren through his behavior does not show the genuineness of his profession. The compromise with Rome logically leads to a denial of the Gospel, and Rick Warren through partnering with Romanism practically denies the Gospel. This is not to mention the entire focus on works that his PEACE plan is based upon; a "second reformation" that is based on "deeds, not creeds". The Bible is most certainly interested in our true beliefs as opposed to our professed beliefs, and Warren's works do show that his profession is just "lip-service" and cannot be a belief from the heart (Is. 29:13), as his life is not consistent with his profession.

The focus on works in Warrenism runs counter to the message in Galatians, of which the message is on the grace of God and our faith in Him. The entire purpose driven paradigm is thus built on the sand of Man's works apart from faith in Christ, and thus face the anathema of Scripture. For God pays no regard whatsoever to what we pay lip service to, but to what we actually believe in.

Conclusion

In conclusion therefore, let us learn to run the race of faith. Let us learn not to trust in our works to save us or even to put in a better standing with God, but to trust in Christ who is our perfect righteousness. May we learn from this epistle to the Galatians and know the functions of Law and Gospel, so that we can be more firmly rooted in living the Christian life to be one of faith and lived by the Spirit, and not to be one burdened by the Law. Amen.

---

Reference:

[1] See the teaching of SDA apologist Walter Veith's teaching here on the traditional SDA doctrine on the Great Controversy, which I have refuted here and here. Also see Ellen G. White's teaching on the subject in The Great Controversy (Harvestine Books, Altamount, TN, USA, 1998), p. 69, 641

The Sabbath will be the great test of loyalty; for it is the point of truth especially controverted. When the final test shall be brought to bear upon men, then the line of distinction will be drawn between those who serve God and those who serve Him not. While the observance of the false sabbath in compliance with the law of the State, contrary to the fourth commandment, will be an avowal of allegiance to a power that is in opposition to God, the keeping of the true Sabbath, in obedience to God’s law, is an evidence of loyalty to the Creator (p. 641)

Law and Gospel: Galatians - The practice of Christian Liberty

For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery. (Gal. 5:1)

For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” But if you bite and devour one another, watch out that you are not consumed by one another.

But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law. Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.

If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking one another, envying one another. (Gal. 5: 13-26)

As we come to the end of our look through the book of Galatians on the topic of Law and Gospel (of which I have nowhere come close to exegeting it in detail — those who desire to have a more detailed exegesis can consult Martin Luther's Commentary on Galatians for an excellent treatment of this epistle), let us finish with a look at the practical implications of this topic for Christian living.

Previously, we have shown that the idea of the Law being the schoolmaster or guardian is a guard against the heresy of Antinomianism. Even when Paul was focused on condemning Legalism and works-righteousness in the Epistle to the Galatians, he did not for once give any leeway to its opposite error, Antinomianism. Rather the Law still had value in Paul's eyes, and in the sight of God too, though not for salvation through our justification before God.

In the passage further down in Gal. 5, Paul approached the Christian Life from a different point of view. Having destroyed the Law as an instrument of salvation, Paul did not attempt to set forth a new law for Christians based upon the Gospel for obedience. For doing so would not only confuse his audience and remove the force of his previously strong denunciation against Legalism and works-righteousness, but he did not have to do so at all. After all, the important thing in the Mosaic Covenant was never the letter (which Paul denounced strongly), but the spirit behind the letter of the Law (cf Deut. 10:12; Ex. 34:5 - note especially its context). The letter of the Mosaic Law was the "scaffolding" necessary to point towards its inner reality^[1], the spirit of the Law, which is now being fully revealed in the New Covenant.

Paul's manner of approaching the topic of Christian living therefore went straight to the heart of the issue — the spirit of the Law, without using those terms as such since the terminology is not that important. This has the advantage of not needlessly causing confusion by using the term "Law" in more than one sense also. We can however see that this is what Paul was getting at as seen in Gal. 5:14, in which Paul states that the Law is fulfilled in the commandment to love our neighbor as ourselves, thus in this case focusing on the horizontal aspect of Christian living. Like Jesus who mentioned that first in response to a question from the Pharisees (Mt. 22:35-40), the essence of the Law or the spirit of the Law is here put forward as the way of living the Christian life. Christian liberty therefore is to walk in the Spirit and not by the letter (Legalism), or by the flesh (Antinomianism) (Gal. 5:13, 16)

As for living the Christian life, Paul uses therefore comes from the direction of the Spirit- flesh divide to convey the idea of the spirit of the Law. In Gal. 5:17, Paul depicts the both of them at war against each other. After adding a reminder to be led by the Spirit and not by the letter of the law (Gal. 5:18), Paul waded in and showed us the way of Christian living. We are not to indulge in the works of the Flesh in any shape reformed, of which an entire list of sins are given in Gal. 5:19-21. What is shocking here given the theme of Christian liberty is that those who practice such things are stated as not inheriting the Kingdom of God (Gal. 5:21ff), which means they would not be saved. But we do know that Paul is not advocating works salvation here since he has already denounced it in the previous four chapters, so what is he getting at? In light of the Spirit/flesh dualism stated earlier in Gal. 5:17, which parallels the faith/works dualism in Gal. 3:12a, Paul is here suggesting that walking according to the flesh is evidence that one is not walking according to the Spirit and therefore not saved. In other words, if we are saved, we will walk according to the Spirit, and then we will not produce bad fruit. And therefore producing bad fruit would means that we are not walking according to the Spirit, and therefore not saved (Modus Tollens: If p, then q. ~q. → ~p)

In contrast to the evil fruit of an unregenerate heart that does not walk according to the Spirit, the Scripture shows us the fruit (singular) of the Spirit which all believers will have in an ever-increasing manner as we walk in the Spirit: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control. (Gal. 5:22a). Switching between the Spirit/flesh and the faith/law dualisms, Paul declared that there is no law [letter] operative on the things of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22b). Rather, Christians neither live according to the [letter of the] Law nor the flesh, but according to the Spirit [of and behind the law].

And let us not grow weary of doing good, for in due season we will reap, if we do not give up. So then, as we have opportunity, let us do good to everyone, and especially to those who are of the household of faith. (Gal. 6:9-10)

As Paul wraps up the Epistle to the Galatians proper, Paul exhorts the Galatian Christians to walk by the Spirit as they have lived by the Spirit (Gal. 5:25), of which examples that they are not to be conceited, provocative or envious of each other were given (Gal. 5:26). Good works therefore as designed for believers (Eph. 2:10) is nothing more than living out the Christian life by the Spirit. We are all, like the Galatian Christians whom Paul addressed, exhorted to do good to everyone, especially to our fellow brothers and sisters in the Lord; the household of faith (Gal. 6:10).

With this, let us conclude and see the relevance of the epistle of the Galatians to all of us especially to the modern movements of our day.

[to be concluded]

---

[1] C. Matthew McMahon, A Simple Overview of Covenant Theology (Puritan Publications, New Lenox, IL, USA, 2005), p. 58

Law and Gospel: Galatians - The allegory explained

Allegory of Law and Gospel

Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not listen to the law? For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave woman and one by a free woman. But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, while the son of the free woman was born through promise. Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar. Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother. For it is written,

“Rejoice, O barren one who does not bear; break forth and cry aloud, you who are not in labor! For the children of the desolate one will be more than those of the one who has a husband.”

Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise. But just as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so also it is now. But what does the Scripture say? “Cast out the slave woman and her son, for the son of the slave woman shall not inherit with the son of the free woman.” So, brothers, we are not children of the slave but of the free woman. (Gal. 4:21-31)

In this allegory, the Apostle Paul uses the Old Testament characters Hagar and Sarah to make a point about the relation between the Law and the Gospel, that perhaps through using this literary device he would be able to make the antithesis between Law and Gospel clearer. Having shown that the Law was unable to save, and Law and Gospel do not mix, Paul proceeded here to plead for the Galatian Christians to reject the Law as unto salvation, and instead follow the Gospel of Grace, so that they might truly be on the correct path of salvation.

Abraham is indeed the common father and originator of both the Old Covenant and the New Covenant as it were, for the former coming from the children of Abraham by natural descent, and the latter being the antitype of Abraham's true religion as required by God (cf Rom. 4:3). It is in such a setting that Paul starts his allegory, using Abraham's two sons as examples of the Old and New Covenant to make his point. Historically, Abraham had two main sons Ishmael and Isaac, the former conceived through natural means by a concubine Hagar while the latter was conceived through supernatural enablement (in old age) by his wife Sarah. Hagar furthermore was a slave woman, servant to Sarah.

This historical data was conveyed to the Galatian Christians in verses 22-23, stating only the major facts that Paul requires for his analogy. Two different sons were described, with the emphasis being on their circumstances of birth. The first one, Ishmael, came from a slave woman and was born naturally (according to the flesh), while the second one, Isaac, came from a free woman and was born according to the promise of God.

Having established the two sons as the basis for his allegory, Paul shows how each son relates to Christians and to the Law. Paul links Mount Sinai which symbolizes the Law with Hagar and the circumstance of her slavery in verse 24, and then follows through with his identification with the present day Jewish religion in verse 25, as if the reference to Sinai was not clear enough. It can thus be seen that Paul here equates following of the Law with being in a condition of slavery. Conversely, the New Covenant way is linked to the heavenly Jerusalem, where God lives and reigns (cf Rev. 21:1-4)

The relationships drawn up by Paul can be seen in the following table:

Old Covenant	New Covenant
Hagar	Sarah
- slavery	- free
- according to the flesh	- according to promise
Mount Sinai/ present Jerusalem	Heavenly Jerusalem
- Law	- faith

Quoting Is. 54:1 in Gal. 4:27, which begins the passage describing the New Covenant relationship, Paul uses this prophetic Old Testament text to prove to us that the true religion that God has planned is that of promise not via natural means, in an effort to refute the Judaizers. For how can the desolate one who has not physically bore any children have more children than those who are married, unless by supernatural means? And that is precisely the point that Paul makes in quoting this text from Is. 54, in order to show that the (Old Testament) prophet Isaiah have already prophesied this coming of a New Covenant which can be seen described in the rest of Is. 54, that is not according to the flesh but according to God who promises and fulfils it. So if the OT prophet has already prophesied that this would happen, why are the Galatian Christians therefore following the Judaizers, who most definitely cannot hold a candle to the prophet Isaiah?

Having made the clear identification of Christians as being those of the promise (Gal. 4:28), Paul used the historical narrative to push his allegory further. Just as Isaac was persecuted by Ishmael (mocked at cf Gen. 21:9), so also those who are according to the flesh (all adherents of works religions) would persecute those who follow the Spirit (Christians). In finishing the allegory, Paul states how the slave woman and her son was cast out after the heir of the free woman arrived on the scene (Gal. 4:30), and in so doing sets forth plainly the antithesis between works/Law and faith. When faith or the promise comes, there is no room for the Law or works, and these things are to be cast aside. There would thus be absolutely no mingling of the two unto salvation, as Paul had stated again and again various ways in this epistle of his in order to emphasize the seriousness of this issue to the Galatian Christians.

This allegory therefore teaches the exclusivity of Law and Gospel in salvation. Linking the Law and the earthly Jewish religion with Hagar was an insult to the unbelieving Jews, and yet such was indeed the case, for the Jews in rejecting their Messiah and trusting in themselves had became a stench to His nostrils, incurring God's wrath as seen in the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70.

As we look at the form of this allegory, let us consider two more things, namely: the Jewishness of the allegory, and the allegorical method itself.

The Jewishness of the allegory may not seem to be an issue until we realize that the Galatian Christians were almost all Gentiles who would not have read the Old Testaments before they were converted. Yet, Paul did not think it mean to refer to biblical characters such as Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Ishmael and Hagar. Notwithstanding the fact that there may be some Galatian Christians who may have read through the Old Testaments by then, the fact of the matter is that these figures would not be very familiar to them compared to the Jews who were brought up memorizing the Torah. This show us that content is more important than delivery, and although they may struggle to remember the history behind these people, Paul expects them to read up the Old Testament Scriptures if they do not know or cannot remember the narrative behind his allegory.

So in our time and age, it is more important for us to focus on getting the message that we want to convey right first before working on our delivery. Also, dumbing down the message to appeal to the crowd/ congregation is the wrong way to go. Rather, we should expect the congregation to rise up to the standard of the Scriptures as they are expounded on.

The allegorical method is a problem in itself, for this is by far the only allegory used by Paul, and in fact in Scripture. This allegorizing of narrative accounts in the Bible to teach biblical lessons seem to be what Paul is doing, and it has been suggested that such a method would be a legitimate method of reading, interpreting and teaching the Scriptures. However, all of them forget one major thing, which is that Paul's allegorizing is itself inspired, and not merely another allegorizing and therefore not all allegorizing is de facto ok simply because Paul did it in this passage.

More devastating to the promoters of the allegory method is the fact of how Paul allegorized the narrative of Abraham and his two sons. Paul did not simply take any narrative in Scripture and allegorized it, but one in which the situation does speak to the issue at hand. Although not directly relevant to the issue, the contrast between works and promise in the example of Hagar and Sarah, Ishmael and Isaac, dovetails neatly with the contrast between works-righteousness and grace through faith in Paul's controversy with the Judaizers. Similarly, as I have shown, both appeal to the same father in Abraham. Paul therefore uses Abraham as an example to show that although it is indeed true that the Law does come from Abraham, it is nonetheless obsolete now as it is tied in with his son through Hagar, Ishmael.

With similarities in subject matters and circumstances, plus the apologetic value against the Judaizers who are Jews by birth, Paul decided to use this narrative as an allegory. It is therefore seen that this allegory is carefully chosen by Paul more to make a point against the false "'gospel" proclaimed by the Judaizers (ie its apologetic value) and to make it very plain to the Galatian Christians both the proper relation between Law and Gospel if they haven't gotten it yet, and the OT anticipation of the New Covenant thus proving that the Judaizers were lying about the teachings of the OT Scriptures.

With this, therefore, there is no basis for promoting the allegorical method of Scripture interpretation. Certainly, this is not to say that certain Scriptures cannot be interpreted allegorically, but there are strict criteria to do so like subject matter alignment. Plus, it is to be used mainly for apologetic value, which makes such allegorical interpretations even rarer. It must be noted also that Paul did not deny the normal narrative reading and in fact it must be present before it can be interpreted allegorically otherwise the alignment is non-existent. This indeed undercuts all systems that promotes allegorical interpretations of Scripture, especially the liberal ones which deny the historicity of the text of Scripture. Neo-Orthodoxy similarly has no basis for the allegorical method as it is mean to be used, for not all that is in Scripture is without error according to them.

With this, let us conclude the series with a look at the practical implications for the true teachings with regards to the Law and the Gospel.

[to be continued]

Law and Gospel: Galatians (4)

The problem in Galatia - in more detail, and its remedy

Formerly, when you did not know God, you were enslaved to those that by nature are not gods. But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again to the weak and worthless elementary principles of the world, whose slaves you want to be once more? You observe days and months and seasons and years! I am afraid I may have labored over you in vain (Gal. 4:8-11)

For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.

Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace. For through the Spirit, by faith, we ourselves eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love.

You were running well. Who hindered you from obeying the truth? This persuasion is not from him who calls you. A little leaven leavens the whole lump. I have confidence in the Lord that you will take no other view than mine, and the one who is troubling you will bear the penalty, whoever he is. But if I, brothers, still preach circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been removed. I wish those who unsettle you would emasculate themselves! (Gal. 5:1-12)

As Paul finishes delineating the purposes of the Law with regards to the Gospel, he continues calling the Galatian Christians to stop following the Law but instead live the Christian life by faith. In the process, Paul gave us the final clue into the exact nature of the problem in the Galatian churches.

We have earlier seen in the exposition of Gal. 3:1-4 that the Judaizers were deceiving the Galatian Christians into adding works to their faith for salvation. Such works were called works of the law because they were based on the Mosaic Law, or the Law of the Old Covenant. Here, we are given more insight into the specific works called for by the Judaizers.

Seeing that the proto-Judaizers or Judaists at the Jerusalem Council had emphasized the ritual of circumcision, it should not be surprising that the Judaizers here emphasized circumcision too. In fact, they brought in quite a lot of the rituals of Judaism for the Galatian Christians to observe. In Gal. 4:9, Paul called such works of the Law "weak and worthless elementary principles". Such observing of the law was concretely set forth as observation of "days and months and seasons and years"; religious holy days (Gal. 4:10), causing Paul to worry that his labor might be in vain (Gal. 4:11).

It is indeed shocking to see Paul referring to the teachings of God's holy Law given by God Himself as being "weak and worthless principles". But yet when we realize what the role of the Law is, and what the Judaizers are making of the Law, then such a denigration of the Law is understandable in that context. For the Law was never meant to be used to save anyone, for the simple reason that no one can fulfil its perfect requirements, ever. The Law was meant to prepare the way for the Gospel, not to save. And since the Gospel and Law are antithetical to each other, smuggling in the Law in an attempt to contribute somehow for our salvation would be to deny the Gospel, for the two cannot coexist. It is on this understanding that the Law is considered "weak and worthless principle", for it are powerless to save (thus weak), and has no use unto salvation (thus worthless).

The Jews then have started to treat their walk with God as just another religion, as we can see from the Pharisees in which the keeping of rules and regulations are vital but a relationship with God is not (eg. Mt. 6; 23:1-36). Such religiosity is prevalent in almost every false religion in the world — a religion of do's and don'ts. The Gentiles Christians in Galatia were saved out of this legalistic works-righteousness, yet here they were going back to it again; exchanging one type of works-righteousness (paganism) with the Jewish form of works-righteousness (conditional Covenantal works righteousness). This therefore is the reason why Paul contrast their former pagan state of enslavement with the state of the Judaizers and their followers, which constitute another form of enslavement. Instead of being in bondage to such outward forms of religion, Paul calls them to stand firm in Christian liberty and not to submit to a (new) yoke of slavery (Gal. 5:1). In Paul's view therefore, any time any outward form of religiosity is made necessary for salvation, that doctrine and gospel based upon that teaching is false and must be opposed as being a form of works-righteousness false 'Gospel'.

From inveighing against making religious holy days mandatory, Paul in the passage in Gal. 5:2-3 makes the same objection to the keeping of the Old Covenant sacrament of circumcision. Following the exact same reasoning which denigrates the keeping of religious holy days unto salvation, Paul here rightly perceives that the insistence on the keeping of circumcision is done out of obedience to the Law. Being therefore a work of the Law, those who desire to be circumcised are obliged to keep all of the law, for Law and Gospel are opposites. Following the Law would therefore entail rejection of the Gospel and thus rejection of Christ, thus resulting in being severed from Christ the only means of salvation (Gal. 5:4). Due to the severity of the issue and his anger at these false teachers, Paul sarcastically called upon the Judaizers to emasculate or castrate themselves (Gal. 5:12), as if to say: 'Since you desire to cut the foreskin, you might as well just cut through the whole thing so that you can boast in the flesh'.

Now, it must be noted that Paul himself is not against circumcision or any observation of religious holy days etc per se, but only when believers are coerced to do them unto salvation. Gal. 5:6 shows us that the whole ritual of circumcision by itself is nothing, for Paul had in fact circumcised Timothy even (Acts 16:3). Rather it is faith which works through love that is important, not any type of works, in the domain of salvation. Similarly for us therefore, nothing that pertains to the practice of religion in rites and rituals should be made binding upon the Christian for salvation. Besides the obvious ritual of circumcision, no one holy day observance is binding upon the Christian, and that includes Easter and Christmas. It is not wrong to do any of these things, or to follow the OT ceremonial laws with regards to not eating pork etc, but we must oppose such practices when they are made part of being a Christian.

In the course of looking at the interaction between Law and Gospel, there is an interesting alegory introduced by Paul, which we would look at now.

[to be continued]

The Covenant of Works by Wayne Grudem

In line with the recent assault on the idea of the Covenant of Works, and the biblical idea that the Law has the innate potentiality to save (not that it can save or was meant to save), here is an article by Wayne Grudem from his Systematic Theology on the issue of the Covenant of Works

Excerpt:

Is the covenant of works still in force? In several important senses it is. First of all, Paul implies that perfect obedience to God’s laws, if it were possible, would lead to life (see Rom. 7:10; 10:5; Gal. 3:12). We should also notice that the punishment for this covenant is still in effect, for “the wages of sin is death” (Rom. 6:23). This implies that the covenant of works is still in force for every human being apart from Christ, even though no sinful human being can fulfill its provisions and gain blessing by it. Finally, we should note that Christ perfectly obeyed the covenant of works for us since he committed no sin (1 Peter 2:22) but completely obeyed God on our behalf (Rom. 5:18–19).

On the other hand, in certain senses, the covenant of works does not remain in force: (1) We no longer are faced with the specific command not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. (2) Since we all have a sinful nature (both Christians and non-Christians), we are not able to fulfill the provisions of the covenant of works on our own and receive its benefits—as this covenant applies to people directly, it only brings punishments. (3) For Christians, Christ has fulfilled the provisions of this covenant successfully once for all, and we gain the benefits of it not by actual obedience on our part but by trusting in the merits of Christ’s work. In fact, for Christians today to think of themselves as obligated to try to earn God’s favor by obedience would be to cut themselves off from the hope of salvation. “All who rely on works of the law are under a curse....Now it is evident that no man is justified before God by the law (Gal. 3:10–11). Christians have been freed from the covenant of works by virtue of Christ’s work and their inclusion in the new covenant, the covenant of grace.

Law and Gospel: Galatians (3)

For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.” But the law is not of faith, rather “The one who does them shall live by them.” Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”— so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith.

To give a human example, brothers: even with a man-made covenant, no one annuls it or adds to it once it has been ratified. Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, “And to offsprings,” referring to many, but referring to one, “And to your offspring,” who is Christ. This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void. For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise.

Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made, and it was put in place through angels by an intermediary. Now an intermediary implies more than one, but God is one.

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.

Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise. (Gal. 3:10-29)

As we continue on through Galatians, the role of the Law for New Covenant believers, in fact for believers of all ages, is here revealed to us.

The Law: It can theoretically save

Gal. 3:10 allows for the possibility of salvation by the Law if one obeys all of them perfectly, but it does not teach it as it is logically fallacious (Denial of the antecedent) to infer the inverse principle of Gal. 3:10 (ie p → q, therefore ~p → ~q?). Verse 21 however informs us that the failure of the Law was that it could not give life, otherwise the Law could otherwise suffice for righteousness and salvation, thus showing forth the theoretical potential of the Law to save

For more explicit teachings on this aspect of the Law however, the passage of Rom. 2:6-11 is referred to. As it is written:

He will render to each one according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury. There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. For God shows no partiality (Rom. 2:6-11)

I have exposited on this relevant passage in a previous article^[1], of which the main thrust of this passage have been summarized as follows:

Therefore, when Paul wrote verses 6-10, he is indeed affirming the viability of works in gaining salvation. He affirms with the Jews that truly if you want to be saved through works, then it is theoretically possible for such to be done (Gal. 3:21b). However, as he shows and will continue to show, what is demanded to earn salvation by works is perfect obedience to the Law, for a slight infraction would be as if the whole law was broken (Jas. 2:10). Since such is the case, no person can be justified by the law, for the Law condemns all who fail to meet up to its high standard (Gal. 3:10).

Thus, it can be seen that the Scriptures do teach that the Law have the potentiality for meriting salvation. In fact, the entirety of the concept of federal representation, of Christ functioning as a second Adam (cf Rom. 5:12-21; 1 Cor. 15:20-22), requires this concept as it is expressed in the Covenant of Works in order for the whole scheme of salvation to be theologically and logically coherent^[2].

The Law: It brings judgment

Verse 10 of Galatians 3 pronounces a curse on the those who rely on the Law for their salvation, by pronouncing judgment on all who do not do all the works of the Law. Verse 12 states also that those who desire to practice the Law in the context of salvation and gaining righteousness would live according to its dictates for salvation, which is impossible given the impossibility of fallen Man to follow all the commandments perfectly. This is confirmed especially in passages like Rom. 2:12-3:18 as it depicts the reality of the total depravity of Man. Man therefore is incapable of following the Law and will be judged by whatever law they have, whether the one of the conscience or the one revealed by God (Rom. 2:12-16), and thereby shown to be under the judgment of God as we have all fallen short of God's perfect righteousness (Rom. 3:23)

The Law: It prepares the way for the Gospel

Paul continues on in verses 19-26 to reveal to us this aspect of the Law. The Law as stated in verse 24 was our guardian or tutor (NASB) until Christ came. In the ancient Roman culture, this guardian or tutor was an older person hired to bring up the child and teach the child various skills etc in order to prepare him for life as he grows up to be his father's heir. The Law therefore is said to function in such a way to prepare us for life as children of God, which is by faith and faith alone. In other words, life under God's free grace is made available in the Gospel for those whose hearts have been prepared for it by use of the Law as a tutor to prepare us for the Gospel. But what kind of preparation was the Law meant to give?

Verse 19 shows us that the law was added because of transgressions while awaiting the arrival of the Messiah of promise, while verse 22 in conjunction with verse 21 inform us that the Law imprisoned everything under sin so that the promise of eternal life which is by faith in Jesus Christ would be available to those who believe. This therefore shows us that the Law through placing everyone under the concept of sin and judgment prepares the way for the Gospel to save us who believe. Referencing back to Paul's own teaching on the subject in Rom. 7: 7-13

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.

Did that which is good, then, bring death to me? By no means! It was sin, producing death in me through what is good, in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure (Rom. 7:7-13)

The Law of God therefore produces in Paul the awareness of sin, for apart from the Law, Paul would have still sin but he would not have known sin as sin (Rom. 7:7), so that sin might be shown to be sin (Rom. 7:13). In figurative language, Paul describes this awareness of sin as sin coming seemingly alive when the Law was heard and understood (Rom. 7:9), and thus bringing knowledge of condemnation.

So therefore to the question of how the Law prepares the person for the Gospel, it can be seen especially in Rom. 7 that the Law does this by showing us our sinfulness and inability to save ourselves, thus precipitating our need for an external Savior to save us from our sins. It is thus in this way that the Law is needful for all of us who believe, and apart from going through the school of the Law, we cannot "graduate" to the inheritance of grace.

The Law of God: Against Antinomianism

As the imagery of the schoolmaster or tutor or guardian in Gal. 3:23-25 shows, the way to the inheritance of grace is by "graduating" from the school of the Law. If this is so, then the teaching of Antinomianism will be severely undermined here. Although the epistle to the Galatians mainly addresses Legalism in all its forms, yet in this passage especially, the usage of the Law undermines the claims of Antinomianism. For if the Law's usage is likened to a Roman tutor, then the nature of those who are saved are those who have been trained by the Law, thus the Law does train believers for the Gospel, not that it has no bearing whatsoever on the believer, and therefore this undermines the entire enterprise of Antinomianism in which system it has no place for the Law at all in the lives of believers.

That said, it may be argued that the Law functioning as a tutor ceases when the promised Messiah Jesus came, and therefore this function of the Law only applies to Old Testament Jews and not to New Testament Christians. Notwithstanding the obvious Dispensational error of dividing the people of God, this does not hold in light of Scripture in passages such as Rom. 7 in which Paul shows this function of the Law working out in his own personal life, which surely occurred after Jesus' death and resurrection. It is therefore true that the function of the Law as a tutor ceases when Jesus comes, but this just means that the New Covenant makes available the cessation because now the way for salvation is proclaimed and manifested. This reality therefore plays out in the heart of every individual who likes Paul therefore has the Law to prepare him for the Gospel of grace, which in turn ceases the guardianship of the Law. The alternative interpretation therefore is untenable in the light of Scripture, and the usage of the Law to prepare us who will believe for the Gospel is thus still valid.

[to be continued]

---

References:

[1] Daniel H. Chew, Review of John Piper’s sermon on Rom. 2:6-10 given on 6th Dec 1998 (Source)

[2] Daniel H. Chew, On the Covenant of Works (Source). Referencing Robert Reymond's excellent book on systematic theology, Reymond says that "if Christ's obedience has no meritorious value, neither has a penal substitution been made for our sins nor is there a preceptive righteousness available to be imputed to us' (p. 433)"