…The Ten Commandments bind us still as they were then given to a people that were at that time under the covenant of grace made with Abraham, to show them what duties are holy, just and good, well-pleasing to God, and to be a rule for their conversation. The result of all is that we must still practice moral duties as commanded by Moses, but we must not seek to be justified by our practice. If we use them as a rule of life, not as conditions of justification, they can be no ministration of death, or killing letter to us.
-Walter Marshall, The Gospel Mystery of Sanctification, Chapter 6, Kindle Loc. 1235-39 (Get a free copy for Kindle HERE).
The traditional Reformed understanding of God’s Law is that it has three continuing uses:
1. It is to restrain evil (Civil Use)
2. It is to reveal sin and lead us to the Savior (Pedagogical Use)
3. It is to direct the living of the Christian life (Moral or Normative Use)
Marshall nails the third use here: having been accepted by God the Father solely on the basis of the finished work of Christ, we are now to strive, by the power of the Spirit at work within us, for new obedience. The problem emerges when we slip into the idea that our obedience now somehow contributes to God’s acceptance of us. At that point the third use of the Law is wholly perverted and becomes an agent of death rather than life, disobedience rather than obedience.
Yes, I very much appreciated this clarification by Marshall. Later on, (pg95 in the book), he says “The true gospel… promises that God will pour out of His Spirit on all flesh (Acts 2:17), and will put the laws into our minds, and write them in our hearts (Heb 8:10), and will cause us to walk in His statutes, that we shall keep His judgements, and do them (Ezek 36:27). This word of God’s grace, that requires not holiness of us as a condition, but promises it to us as a free gift, must needs be the only doctrine that is able to build us up, and to give us an inheritance among them that are sanctified (Acts 20:32).
I especially like where he says that “God will our out of His Spirit on all flesh (Acts 2:17), and will put the laws into our minds, and write them in our hearts.” Following the Law is an act of Sprit-filled obedience. This, I think, helps protect one from driving off the road into the ditch of legalism (where the law is needed for justification), or swirving to drive off the road into the opposite ditch of antinomiansim (where man sees no need for the law after being saved by grace.)
Walter Marshall flops the term “antinomianism” around quite a bit in his text. Would you be able to unpack a bit what Marshall assumes the reader already knows about this term?
I think he is probably referring to Lutheran tendencies among those in the Reformed tradition. By that, I mean the tendency to see the Law as serving mainly, if not only, the purpose of driving us to Christ for mercy. There were different forms of this, and still are, but most Protestants have emphasized the other two uses of the Law (civil and moral) right alongside its pedagogical use.
There are still strains of this today, but it is worse in many circles (like those who say that you can ‘make a decision for Christ’ and then live a life that doesn’t make it its aim to please him, and be cut off from the church, and then still be fine in the end). The main point he would make would be that faith will necessarily produce good works.But I don’t think that is necessarily what he is dealing with in his context.
He is probably most concerned that we see the necessity of the moral Law as our ‘rule of faith and practice’ rather than simply as a means of driving us to Christ. My own issue here is that I don’t really see Lutheran leanings as true antinomian leanings. Reformed folks were a bit spoiled in those days because they didn’t have to deal with the type of hardcore antinomianism that we deal with today. We have both legalism and antinomianism all around us.
I can clarify terms if you need me to; just let me know.
That all makes sense. I’ve recalled since then the famous “faith without works is dead” quote from James, and begun to see this as largely summing up what Marshall is primarily attempting to explicate here. I then remembered Luther having said that he wished the book of James had never been written because James’ letter uses language that can be difficult for those struggling with the concept of grace. Thus, I suppose we set the scene for what Marshall is trying to reconcile.
I think you’re tracking quite well.