Usually associated
with the Lutherans, a good number of Reformed people also embrace the
Law-Gospel hermeneutic or at least some variation of it. Immediately equating
every imperative with 'Law' and therefore something apart from Gospel, this
hermeneutic leads its adherents to a number of strange interpretations as well
as generating scores of 'problem passages'.
There is of
course a legitimate Law-Gospel distinction. It's Redemptive-Historical and
notes the thematic Christocentric development and unfolding of salvation
throughout the course of history. Thus it necessarily must make a distinction
between the New Covenant era and the covenants which preceded it. There's
overlap and interplay, continuity and contrast. But this scheme understands
'law' in terms of an epoch of history, a typological covenant form now
fulfilled and obsolete. And even if it grants there was a works principle
present in the old order that isn't there today, it by no means requires that
all commands are necessarily separated from the Gospel, or that the Gospel
itself cannot necessitate imperatives, obligations and expectations.
Wrong turns
can lead to serious misreadings and misapplications of Scripture.
The Lutheran Law-Gospel distinction represents
just such a misapplication and it really comes through when I hear someone from
this camp discussing the Great Commission of Matthew 28. Because there's a
command to disciple and mention of observance (obey, keep, hold fast) this
cannot (it is argued) refer to Evangelism. That would be an introduction of
imperative or command into the notion of the Gospel.
What then
does it refer to? According to this reading it refers to those who have been evangelised
and are now through this mandate encouraged to 'discipleship'. This label of
discipleship and the notions such as obedience that accompany it are treated as
not part of Justification but tied in with Sanctification. The Commission
therefore is not about seeking out new believers (making disciples). Disciples
it is argued are Justified persons pursuing a greater understanding and
intimate knowledge of their declared righteousness. The Gospel under this
scheme is merely Justification. It takes precedent and dominates the system.
All other aspects of salvation and soteriology are read in light of this
Law-Gospel paradigm of Justification.
Even under
this reading the nearly ubiquitous notion of obedience in the New Testament is
still problematic. Since they posit we cannot possibly be obedient (in any
sense) then it is really just something of a hypothetical exhortation that's
meant to drive us once more to the cross. 'Law' is never meant to be taken as a
true command but as something that points to what we cannot do and thus drive
us to grace.
While that's
certainly a hermeneutic that magnifies grace, is this the grace or even the
Gospel presented to us in Scripture?
While indeed
all of our works are flawed and recognition of that drives us repeatedly to
Christ, this hermeneutic is actually an addition to Scripture and distorts the
full-scope of the Gospel. Disciples are Christians, there's no distinction. It
was all the more surprising that the one who was arguing otherwise regarding
The Great Commission was not a Semi-Pelagian proponent of Carnal Christianity
but a convinced if not somewhat rationalistic Calvinist. Actually it is rationalism
itself that is the problem here.
There's not
a separate commission for Sanctification. Sanctification is not something
supplemental but is clearly testified in the New Testament as but one component
or facet of the whole soteriological picture. It is an integral part of
salvation and Christians/Disciples bear fruit, depart iniquity, put to death
the old man, endure and manifest obedience. It is the outworking of
regeneration. In the days before Scholasticism returned and came to dominate
Protestant thought the Reformers could speak with such freedom and use
regeneration and sanctification as virtually synonymous terms. Not a few
readers are both baffled and troubled by this as they read Calvin for the first
time.
All of these
works and fruits are imperfect and flawed but they demonstrate something essential...
vitality, a life, a walk in the Spirit and as James makes abundantly clear,
they are necessary. Faith without works is dead.
The
Law-Gospel hermeneutic cannot seem to grasp this and is forced to resort to
gymnastics when it comes to many texts. The Scriptures don't speak the way they
speak much in the same way they don't fit the language and categories of
Systematic theology. Though Biblicism is decried by these camps it must be
contended they are guilty of conceptualizing some type of Centraldogma which
they now utilize as an arbiter of revelation. Anything, any text or pericope
which rationally violates the Centraldogma must be re-cast in a different
light.
For the
Law-Gospel hermeneutic it is the doctrine of Sola Fide that takes center stage.
While the doctrine of Justification by 'Faith Alone' is true, even the Sola
aspect of it, to utilize it as a lens through which to view and shape all of
Scripture is a terrible mistake. If there is a key to Scripture, a Central
doctrine by which we understand the whole it is without a doubt Christocentric.
The advocates of what must be called Hyper-Solafideism would argue that is in
fact what they are doing.
But it's
not. While Christ is certainly essential to their scheme, it is the grace-works
paradigm which dominates their system. Admittedly it's rooted in Christ's
person and work but the paradigm doesn't do full justice nor accurately reflect
the full scope and orb of New Testament teaching. Like the Five Points, the
Law-Gospel Hermeneutic falls into the trap of reductionism. Rather than
reflecting Scripture and allowing it speak even if it transcends our ability to
systematize it, they elevate Sola Fide to the position of axiom and deduce a
system which is in fact a synthesis of the Centraldogma (or axiomatic
conglomeration) and sacred revelation. While they claim to be adherents of Sola
Scriptura, the Magisterial Reformation and Post-Reformation notion of this is
deficient and we must look elsewhere to find a more faithful testimony and
application of the principle.
The New
Testament knows nothing of a Christian who is not a disciple and knows nothing
of a faith that does not produce obedience. Regardless of the imperfections,
flaws, and corruption with regard to our motivations, the obedience we exhibit
is a testimony to our Union with Christ and the transformative and renewing
work of the Holy Spirit which brings us into conformity with Christ. We are
called to walk in light of His Kingdom and to partake in His sufferings. Any
Gospel which exempts this has cheapened the nature of the message, its demands
and the power of the Holy Spirit to bring these elements into effect.
The
Law-Gospel hermeneutic whether it means to or not ends up functionally treating
Sanctification as something that is both optional and hypothetical. Church
history bears this out. The separation has led numerous groups down speculative
and ultimately destructive paths seeking to find some expression of the 'next
step' in the move toward discipleship. Increasingly they turned to more
subjective and experiential notions of how this would come to pass. It's not
surprising because objectively in terms of Scripture there wasn't really any
support of such a notion in the first place.
We can agree
with the critics of Pietism that the 'normal means of grace' are sufficient but
when applied in a Constantinian or Cultural Christianity context the 'normal'
means are corrupted and degraded. When they are separated from a faithful and
vigorously preached word that makes demands of its hearers the 'normal'
sacraments are reduced to empty forms.
When you
have a doctrine that can't be preached vigorously and imperatively demand
antithesis for fear of confusing law and gospel than you have no ability to
disciple, no ability to stir obedience and no means of letting the word
function as a sword. In another piece I will argue this way of understanding
'Faith Alone' also effectively destroys Church Discipline.
The Word
will cut. It either cuts hearts and effects change or it will cut out the chaff
as it were. It will burn off the dross. The Word provokes a response. People
will change or they will get offended and leave.
It is an
unfaithful application of Scripture that produces stagnation and it is an
impotent gospel that preaches grace with no demands. Grace is cheapened and so
is the enduring salt and light of Christian witness. We're not speaking of
preserving culture, but maintaining witness in the face of culture. A gospel
that doesn't demand or produce antithesis quickly become indistinguishable from
the world. The Theonomists have grossly abused the antinomian label but in this
case it is applicable at least in a generalized sense.
It would
seem that even MG Kline struggles with this somewhat as he recognizes the
Matthew 28 passage as echoing the covenantal language previously seen in the
Mosaic order. However he (properly) wishes to emphasize the very different
nature of the Gospel epoch. Salvation has always been by Grace through Faith in
the person and work of Christ but there was another typological layer to the
Old Covenant order, a works principle reminiscent of the Garden. Israel as a
type of Adam entered the Garden in the form of Canaan, the land of milk and
honey, a repeat of the primaeval paradise. To maintain this status there was a
requirement of obedience. For Adam this was as an individual, for Israel (as
typological Adam and thus typological Christ) it was corporate, comprehended on
a national level.
Kline would
argue the 'works principle' was something that only existed under the Old
Covenant order and was only applicable on the corporate level in terms of
Israel's ability to stay within the land.
The Church
Age is the Already-Not Yet manifestation of the Consummate Kingdom. It is the
heavenly reality present by the Spirit in the fallen world. The Kingdom-Ecclesiastical
order cannot be abrogated or superseded. At this point we agree with Kline and
thus there is no works principle in the sense of treating the entire order as
probationary. In This Age we will know no other or subsequent covenant
arrangement. The Covenant of this era is not typological. It's not comprised of
unfulfilled symbolism.
Nevertheless
the covenantal language in Matthew 28 does indeed echo the Covenant
declarations which are also found in Moses and this in no way detracts from the
graciousness of the Gospel. It didn't under Moses either and that's even if we
allow for a corporate-level works principle.
The New
Covenant Gospel worked anachronistically under the old order and the concept of
obedience and mandated observation also functioned even prior to Moses in the
person of Abraham. Faith without works is dead. The works are not meritorious.
We do not merit Christ's merits. But the works are evidence of the living
trusting faith at work in our hearts. There is no faith without them. Matthew
28 reiterates this aspect in the language of observance and obedience and
though the New Covenant order cannot be superseded, individuals must indeed
persevere, endure and throughout the New Testament the language associated with
salvation is often cast in provisional terms.
Salvation is
often qualified with an 'if' and there are constant warnings regarding the
danger of falling away. The Law-Gospel Hermeneutic renders these many passages
impotent and hypothetical. They are annoyances to the system.
Thus it must
be understood that while the Ecclesiastical order cannot be replaced,
individuals and individual congregations, microcosms of the order are also
treated provisionally. They may fail, fall into apostasy and be removed even if
the order as a whole cannot. We see this for example in the opening chapters of
Revelation where individual congregations are threatened with the removal of
their candlestick. Klineans would agree the candlestick represents the presence
of the Holy Spirit necessary to ratify their status as localized manifestations
of the heavenly council or gathering. Without a generalized obedience and
adherence, which probably ought to be understood qualitatively rather than in
some form of quantification, they are in danger of dissolution. By qualitative
obedience we are suggesting that it is probably difficult to establish a set
list of 'marks' or criteria by which this status can easily be determined.
There are other considerations such a momentum and trajectory and this is also
true with individuals.
As far as
congregations go, Paul allows for provisional status in Titus. This has nothing
to do with bureaucratic labels so common in denominational systems but with
their formal status as viable congregations. Though they are not yet duly
constituted they are progressing toward that mark and must both as a community
and as individuals manifest the fruits of repentance and belief in order to
maintain that status.
The Great Commission
is a command for Christians to go out into the world, into the nations, and
through the Word preached and through baptism 'make' Christians. Christians are
taught to follow the Lamb and calling it obedience in no way detracts from the
gracious character of the Gospel.