John Owen was a master of distinguishing between Law and Gospel, yet he never underestimated the goodness and beauty of the Law despite its apparent weakness. The quote below is one of the clearest and most precise expressions of the correlation of both the Law’s goodness and its inability to save sinners:
‘The law is holy,’ but it cannot make them holy who have made themselves unholy; it is ‘just,’ but it cannot make them so, – it cannot justify them whom it doth condemn; it is ‘good,’ but it can do them no good, as unto their deliverance from the power of sin.
-John Owen, Sin and Grace: Of the Dominion of Sin and Grace, p. 544
That is the classic Reformed position on the Law in relation to salvation: It is holy, but it cannot make a sinner holy; it is righteous and/or just, but it cannot justify the sinner; it is good, but it cannot make something that is bad good. In other words, the weakness of the Law is not actually the Law’s weakness – it is our weakness in relation to it. The Law is, as the Apostle Paul puts it, ‘weakened by the flesh.’
Hence the first use of the Law: to drive us to Christ and his gospel.
- For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit (Romans 8:3-4).
- 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 (Romans 7:13)
The other side of this is the number of ways people take the Law and try to make it into the gospel, i.e., taking the Greatest Commandment and declaring that as the gospel when it also condemns us.
Great post.
Thank you Timothy. I have been guilty of that sort of thing myself. Free grace is something that, pardoxically, is difficult to accept, and not many are preaching it these days. Isn’t it so ironic that the Puritans were the princes of free grace, yet are stereotyped today as the rigid legalists? It’s hard for folks to understand that repudiating the false power of the law to save actually leads to holiness.
Yes, that is the problem. Most people cannot see how the Law could possibly lead to holiness. But we all struggle with that.
I am curious if you are familiar with “Exchanged Life ministries” or “Operation 220.” They are one and the same. I have had friends that have latched onto their teachings, which tend to paint the law as this tyrannical ruler that we have been freed from, and have no use for.
They pin everything on Galations 2:20 “I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.” All discussion with this group is founded on an insistence that we are body, soul, and spirit- three separate entities of these exact categories… Which becomes a weird, gnostic obsession over the “location” of sin, in an effort to explain why they still sin if it is “no longer I who live, but Christ.”
The explanation goes something like this: “we are saved in the “spirit”, but our “soul” is where the “old man” resides, and sometimes we choose to live by him instead of being “spirit lead”, at that “deeper” and “core” level. By creating these “areas” of being, they claim that they are not actually “sinners” because sin’s blame is located at the spirit-level. The remedy then, to when they sin is to simply stop living “by the flesh,” which is in their soul, and start living by their deeper-self, as known in the spirit.
Basically, for adherents of this teaching, you must seek to be “living by faith”, which they say means “allowing Christ to be who He is.” Furthermore, this tends to translate into a means of discarding any embodied implications of the gospel, because to them, saying “you should think about what you eat, wear, or do, is all a bunch of neo law-giving.
This was all very confusing for me when I was first confronted with it, because it becomes a mega-semantics game. I can elaborate further if need be. I bring this all up because A)I was just curious if you run into these sorts where you are. (I’m in Dallas), and B) you are discussing the goodness of the Law, something that this group entirely demonizes as being “entirely useless” to the saved sinner. I was hoping you might give some response to that.
Thanks,
I am not familiar with either of those organizations, but I have heard of that sort of teaching before, mostly from Word of Faith, prosperity style preachers. That sort of teaching is cut off from, basically, the first 1900 years of orthodox Christian doctrine of all stripes.
Here’s my take: first, the trichotomist idea of the soul and spirit being separate ‘entities’ cannot be proved biblically. My opinion is that those words are used interchangeably in Scripture and refer essentially to the same thing.
Second, historic Reformed churches (I would say Protestant, but the Lutherans don’t affirm this) have taught that there are three uses or purposes of the Law. You may already know this, but I’ll go ahead: The first use is to reveal our sin and drive us to Christ. The second use is to restrain sin in the civil and societal realm. The third is to frame our actual pattern of living once we have already trusted in Christ. Samuel Bolton summarized the first and third uses in this way: The law sends us to the gospel for our justification; the gospel sends us to the law to frame our way of life.
The freedom that we have from the Law is freedom from it as a covenant. We are no longer under the power of ‘Do this and live.’ Those who have not trusted in Christ are still under it in that way; they are still under it as a covenant of works (which they cannot fulfill because of their sinful nature). The gospel declares that Christ fulfills the Law (as a covenant) for us; He perfectly obeyed the Law, earning eternal life, but voluntarily died the death of a Law-breaker. Now we can relate to the Law in a new way, not relying upon it to ‘make’ us holy, but seeing it as the pattern of life which Christ obeyed, and we must obey in order to become more like him. The Law itself has no power to do this; this is why we need the Holy Spirit empowering us to become more like Christ.
I would highly, highly recommend Samuel Bolton’s book ‘The True Bounds of Christian Freedom.’ It is the classic, definitive (non-Lutheran) Protestant book on the relation of Law and Gospel. It’s only a penny used on Amazon right now:
http://www.amazon.com/The-True-Bounds-Christian-Freedom/dp/0851510833
I would also recommend a prayerful, thoughtful reading and re-reading (with mediation) of Romans 8. I would even go so far as to recommend memorizing the entire chapter. It is the classic statement of the position of the believer in relation to the Law. I spent about a year preaching through Romans 8 and I have never ceased to profit from that study. Here’s a little condensed post I wrote on it: http://tidesandturning.wordpress.com/2012/07/20/snippets-law-in-christ-and-law-outside-christ-romans-82/
I have also created a diagram (based on Samuel Bolton’s reading of the Law) that might help in trying to interpret how the law relates to us:
http://tidesandturning.wordpress.com/2012/09/18/interpreting-levitical-laws-as-a-christian-an-interpretive-grid/
In short, I would say that we must exalt Christ and never look to the law for justification or salvation. The law does not have the power to save us, only to condemn us. But once we have been driven by our sinfulness to Christ, we must then look to the law as the norm for how we are to live our lives as followers of Christ. Let me know where I can clarify. I have a fairly light work week this coming week, so I can even write posts on this if need be.
I ordered two copies of the Samuel Bolton book.
In one of your other posts, you said “To summarize, the Law of God, which is summarized in the 10 Commandments, and further summarized, ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart…’ and ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself,’ can be to you either a ‘law of sin and death’ or ‘the law of the Spirit of life.’ Which of the two it is for you depends upon your relationship to Christ.” This post was very very helpful in helping make articulate that the Law of the Spirit is NOT a different Law, replacing the Law of the Mosaic covenant, but the same. The difference is our position. The “Exchanged Life” folks do not seem to understand this.
I must admit, I already had written back several examples of the kind of things I run against that I wanted to ask for you insight in, before I read the other post of yours that you cited in reference to the interpretive grid of the Law…. then I had to just simply delete all that junk I wrote. You dispatched all my questions with efficiency. (They mostly had to do with distinguishing between civil, ceremonial, and moral Law.) Thank you! That post was incredibly helpful.
The more I consider how to reach people I love with views about the Law, or man as a trichotomy, etc the more I feel like often we are dealing less with a lack of Scriptural knowledge, and more with a general ineptitude in literary analysis. It agitates me that we keep funneling people through a scholastic system that is impeding not only our ability to handle the very “core” subjects it promotes, but our ability to read Scripture. I would like to ask how you feel it is best to help an adult out of school who DOES want to strengthen there grammar, etc. If they are beyond school, and school failed them, then what now?
Your question is a tough one that I wrestle with all the time in my ministry. Let me try to work toward answering it on two levels.There are two ways that this can be approached, and I think that perhaps this is not an either/or but a both/and.
The easy answer to the question is that folks need to learn the basics of grammar. One convenient way to do that is to read some sort of beginner’s guide to grammar. I took a writing class a while back and had to read a Pocket Guide to Writing that I found very helpful. There are similar ‘pocket guides’ to grammar that you can find that are very inexpensive. They are short, concise, and to the point.
But even if the people you are talking about are willing to work through something like that, I still don’t think it’s enough. Which leads to the second point.
I worry that the problem is not simply that people are borderline illiterate, but that they are aliterate.Illiteracy means you can’t read. Aliteracy means you don’t read, won’t read, or can’t understand what you read. Let me start by pointing to a few resources on the subject: Mars Hill Audio has a really intriguing piece on this called ‘On Books and Reading.’ I think the audio costs around $5. Here’s a link:
https://marshillaudio.org/catalog/books-and-reading
They also have one called ‘The Worth of Words’ that is helpful: https://marshillaudio.org/catalog/worth-words-preserving-and-caring-language
I have also written a brief post about aliterism based on C.S. Lewis’ book ‘An Experiment in Criticism’ (which is also quite helpful): http://tidesandturning.wordpress.com/2014/02/03/the-literate-vs-the-aliterate/
So much for the resources, let me move to the point. It may sound trite, but the fact of the matter is that people need to read, whether they can read well or not. I did not read a single book from my childhood through teenage years. My love for reading flowed from my conversion to Christianity. I immediately realized that if God revealed himself in a book, I was going to have to become a reader, and so I did. I credit my love for reading to the new birth. That’s sort of an aside, but the fact of the matter is that if God reveals himself through language, then it is my duty as a Christian to know language well. This is why early American’s were so keen on universal literacy. This is why the Sunday Schools of Whales during the Welsh revival in the 19th Century transformed an uneducated nation into the opposite.
I tell people to read anything on paper that isn’t complete filth. I don’t care if they have to start reading comic books and USA Today. It’s better than nothing. Anything that will encourage them to read is a step in the right direction. But from there you have to encourage them to read things that will challenge them. You have to raise the bar if you want to jump higher. And once that bar has been raised, then it is time to really start tackling the Bible in a deliberate, thoughtful way. It would be easy to say ‘just read the Bible.’ But you have to know your ABCs before ‘thou shalt not’ makes any sense. For instance, with my children, I do not introduce them to difficult concepts and grammatical structures: I just want them to hear the stories. And that’s great. But as they develop I will start introducing them to those things.
I have rambled. Let me put it succinctly: First, short introductions to grammar are helpful. Second, simply encourage them to read. And as they read, encourage them to pick up their game. Maybe this week they read USA Today. Next week perhaps they can read a magazine. Then a book. Then a better book. I actually do this at church from the pulpit quite often. Before the service I will recommend children’s books and encourage even the grownups to read them. I held up a copy of Wind in the Willows this past Sunday and urged people to read it.
As far as introductions on reading Scripture, I suppose How to Read the Bible for All its Worth by Gordon Fee etc or Knowing Scripture by R.C. Sproul would be a good place to start. Beyond that, John Frame’s book The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God is a masterpiece – but it is a difficult read.
Let me know where I can be clearer or more helpful; I know I’ve rambled, but it’s a complicated subject.
There is enough here to chew on for a bit. I’m going to go through some of these resources and attempt to employ them within my community. I’ll be back with more questions when the experience has generated some. At this point, I do not have further questions. Need to chew the food before shoveling more in the mouth. I do, however, want to weigh in on the subject in a particular aspect that is close to me from my own life in relation to this discussion.
Speaking from my own experience, I’ve loved and lived in story since I was a small child. I have an extended family that used to tell stories relating to family history when I was growing up. I think that had a profoundly formative influence on me, beyond my own gravitation. However, my ability to hold to the task of reading, fiction or non-fiction, for any significant period of time was slowly lost during high school and at the beginning of college. When I realized what was happening, I became frustrated, but frustration alone didn’t cure the patient. Furthermore, the damage was already at a devastating level.
I think I had always assumed that non-readers were just being lazy rebels of some sort, (and many are), but this experience taught me that some people have a desire to read, and yet something “beyond” that desire is getting in the way of it. It was bewildering for me to want to do something so badly, that I used to do so much, and yet no longer be able to do it. I beat myself up for not having enough “authenticity” to my desire to read, laying everything at the feet of desire, but nothing changed, because my life practices did not create a culture for that desire to revitalize, grow, and mature.
Fast forward. Eventually I began to learn and become sensitive to the lifestyle I was living and how it did or did not contribute to the cultivation of a holistically healthy human. It was a challenge. Learning that all parts of one’s existence effect all parts of one’s existence in a sort of, (to borrow from an earlier post of yours,) “ecological” reality, seemed such a simple and ethereal concept to me at first glance. I am still learning what and how this applies, and will probably always be, not only because of the profundity of the reality, but because life is not static, so creating and managing the interdynamics of one’s existence is always changing. Some words could be said here about being “Spirit lead” I suppose…
Well, that’s all very vague, but I think you probably already get my point since you post alot about the relationship of our life practices to our lives. I really just wanted to bring up that beyond grammar, and beyond the practice of reading, the shape and rhythm of our daily life must be altered in order for, (among other things,) our study of the Word to deepen. If a runner learns the correct stride and form, and then practices running, he is better off than the one who does not. However, if OUTSIDE of running, this same runner is given to dissipation, gluttony, etc, it will bleed into and effect all the things he is doing DURING running and FOR running. The reader must learn the same about their own life.
These were my thoughts, upon reading your thoughts.
I wanted to point you to just a couple of more things for future reading. I wrote a lot of this stuff before I really had anyone reading the blog, so we might as well get a little use out of it. One recounts my journey into more regular Bible reading:
http://tidesandturning.wordpress.com/2012/04/19/rapid-bible-reading/
For the next one, you can pretty much ignore what I wrote; but read the quote by Spurgeon. I like the idea of a ‘culture of the inner man.’ I think that phrase might be helpful for you:
http://tidesandturning.wordpress.com/2013/05/27/the-culture-of-the-inner-man-spurgeon/