Not long ago I listened to a sermon on the Rich Young Ruler in Matthew 19 and I was struck by the difficulty the preacher seemed to have in dealing with the passage. I agree, there are some interpretive challenges but I think that often these difficulties are the result of theological baggage that's brought to the text.
For my part I will state right at the beginning that I don't believe Christ accepted the Rich Young Ruler's claim and yet rather than directly contradict him, he got there another way by demonstrating that the laws he claimed to keep from his youth - he had not actually kept at all. He had not understood what the Law was really about or what kind of obedience would be the result of faith.
More could be said about the nature of the law and its relation to faith and the fact that the young ruler had never been broken in spirit, and learned to put his trust and dependence in God. Obviously large sections of the Evangelical movement will not appreciate this point due to their watered down definition of saving faith which is usually divorced not only from enduring obedient trust but from even repentance as well.
I was thinking of this passage in light of some Anabaptist discussions I had also recently heard in which the rank Pelagianism (of some of them) was on full display. They refuse to accept the notion that God might command something that we are unable to keep and hold us to account for it. This goes against their notions of fairness, concepts of the will, and their well meant if misguided 'plain' or 'common sense' reading of the text.
The implication is that if the Rich Young Ruler had followed through on Christ's additional requirements - he would have been saved. This might lead to questions as to whether or not Christ was targeting something specific in him that affected or hindered him in ways others might not be.
The notion is completely mistaken. Or rather, we could say this, that for him to have done that - sold all his goods and followed Christ as a disciple, that would have been the result of regeneration, the Holy Spirit transforming him. And thus (in an empiric sense) the act would demonstrate his salvation. The events (or works) would indicate the Spirit's work of regeneration. But even this would not have saved him - at least not in a post-fall setting. Christ's challenge to him was specific - he went right to the heart of the young man's idolatry and self-regard.
The Reformed tend to have a narrative that suggests the Law was never meant to be kept as a means of salvation. It was never designed for that and this leads to some divisions within their camp over the pre-redemptive Edenic arrangement and so forth.
As a result, the Reformed tend to reason along these lines - if the Law was not meant to save, then it must instead be for other purposes and thus they formulate arguments regarding other uses surrounding guilt and conviction and most importantly - a rule of life and for societal restraint.
The Lutherans erect the Law/Gospel paradigm and designate 'law' as the commands of God regardless of the context. The law cannot be obeyed and as many have observed in practice, this often translates into - so don't bother trying, an expression of antinomianism. Some in that camp vehemently deny this while others insist it is not a valid application of the theology but nevertheless it has historically proven to generate a problematic result. The problem is not with the model they argue, but in its application.
I would argue for a different understanding of the law on the basis of Galatians 3.21-22 - for a start. There are other passages to be considered but this one suffices to make the point. Paul raises the question about a law given that could have resulted in life. He doesn't simply dismiss the notion out of hand but rather considers it a dead question in light of sin. All are under sin that the promise of faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
Another passage that argues along similar lines is found in Romans 7.10 wherein Paul says the commandment was ordained to life but because of sin it became condemnation and death. The law is spiritual (v.14) a point he contrasts with the fact that he is carnal, sold under sin.
This
is both a theological point and a redemptive-historical one as he is
comparing and contrasting the Abraham-Moses-Christ dynamic with the
Mosaic Law being parenthetical and temporary.
This brings us to
another tangled question - what is the law? Sometimes it's a broad
concept regarding the commands of God, something the Lutheran
paradigm tends to emphasize. Other times it's used as a catch-all for
the Old Testament epoch which includes the pre-Mosaic period. In
other instances its specifically delineated as the Mosaic order. We
read in Romans 5 about how even though the law had not been given,
death reigned from Adam to Moses and how the law was a ministration
of death (2 Cor 3.6-7). But we know that it also points to Christ and
depicts the gospel itself (2 Cor 1.20). In other cases the law refers
to a dominion, authority, rule, or order such as found in the opening
of Romans 7 - another debated passage regarding its theological
import in contrast to (as some see it) a redemptive-historical
metaphor. This latter point has led to some of the debates over just
what Paul is trying to say about salvation and righteousness.
There is a case to be made for a redemptive-historical (as opposed to individualist) model in Romans 2-7, and then again in chapters 9-11 - contrasting the Old and New Covenants and their communities. For some this leads to a conundrum regarding Paul's struggles in Romans 7 - something they would prefer to relegate to being a metaphor expanding on this law-gospel motif in the opening chapters. Paul, they would argue, is speaking as a hypothetical Jew under the Law. We might accept this apart from vv.14-15, where he makes it clear the struggle is in light of the fact that even under grace we retain a sin nature that must be struggled with. The lost do not have this struggle or desire to serve God and do what is right. The self-righteous Jews thought they kept the Law and didn't wrestle with the dilemma either. The problem is not with Paul's portrayal of the Christian life but some theologians' limited understanding of justification and assurance.
At this point we should touch briefly on the Sermon on the Mount - which some see as a new law issued from a new mountain. Is the ethical standard higher in the New Covenant? Those that place the heavy emphasis on grace and sola fide are forced to deny this and thus argue that Christ is merely giving a correct interpretation of the law - as opposed to rabbinic and Pharisaical rationalisations.
Others argue that as the Church is in the age of redemptive-historical maturity, Christ's correct elucidations of the law are appropriate as we move from an age of type, shadow, and letter to fulfilment, light, and Spirit. The higher calling is not for those living in a typological Kingdom with its many temporal accommodations but rather for those inhabiting the true eschatological Kingdom - even if in these Last Days it is by means of an Already-Not Yet dynamic.
Lutherans are not greatly troubled by the Sermon's exacting ethics. We can't keep these commands and if you're trying to - you just might be guilty of legalism, of trusting in work's righteousness. As such the profound spirituality and high ethical calling is missed by most of them.
The Reformed tend to see it as an idealized or metaphorical discourse that can only find eschatological fulfilment. It's not meant to be taken or followed literally as that would be not only impossible but ludicrous in some cases. Some go further and turn it on its head - giving away your cloak as well can be the sinful encouragement of covetousness or other forms of sin. Turning the other cheek can become something dishonouring to God, cowardly, and a failure to stand up for what is right and defend the weak.
The Anabaptists take the Sermon as literally as possible but given their Pelagian tendencies this does run the risk of becoming a works-righteousness paradigm.
It seems clear enough that in redemptive-historical terms Christ was not merely elucidating a correct understanding of the Mosaic Law, but calling his people to a higher ethic that moved beyond the temporary (but for a time necessary) rule of lex talionis - the eye for an eye laws of retribution. The vengeance system which afforded Cities of Refuge was to be dispensed with. The questions and debates here often stray into the implication that the Law was defective or that God changed His mind. The discussion is also mired in a flawed scholastic paradigm that divides the Law into unwarranted categories - spawning debates over civil-ceremonial distinctions that don't exist and the much mistaken location of a permanent codification of the Moral Law in the Decalogue.
Such models fail to grasp and apply the pedagogical metaphor used by Paul - the schoolmaster's regime of 'do not' compared to those who are baptized into Christ, who live (redemptive-historically) under faith as opposed to law. They are called not merely to 'do not' but to 'do'. The Old Covenant Law certainly taught the love of God and love of neighbour but the New Covenant order not only switches the primary emphasis but due to its Last Days eschatological-Kingdom outlook, and our citizenship in that Kingdom - it raises the bar and requires an elevated ethic and imperative. It moves well beyond not only the 'do not' commands of the Old order but also its various ethics rooted in typology. As such, we no longer wage herem-holy war for the sake of an Earthly kingdom, nor root sanctification in things like dietary laws. They served their purpose and were holy because God had commanded them. But being typological, they could also be temporary.
It
is critical the Law must be understood redemptive-historically. It
served a parabolic purpose demonstrating in both temporal and tactile
terms the nature of curse and redemption. It was a picture of the
salvation story worked out in history and lived by real people and
connected to real events. It was flawed because it was but a
temporary model, a prototype. It wasn't the actual Kingdom, its
kings, priests, and prophets were not the True. Its promises as
glorious as they were, would always fall short and ultimately fail.
It wasn't actual redemption and those who lived under it (in
chronological terms) were saved by looking beyond it to that which
was to come. The law standing alone could not save. It pointed to
life beyond itself, in a future fulfilment. Alone, it was a
ministration of death.
If one who lived during the time of the
Law looked for the coming redeemer depicted in the entire
temple/sacrificial system - indeed in the land and monarchy itself,
they would be saved. They were anachronistically members of the New
Covenant. This reality and dynamic ties in with some of the questions
concerning Christ and Hades during the days in the tomb.
Some have argued for a position sometimes called Neo-Nomianism, that the New Covenant presents us with a new law to be obeyed and this is necessary for salvation. This becomes highly problematic to the Sola Fide paradigm and apart from a narrow focus on Richard Baxter (1615-1691), subsequent discussions and uses of the term are necessarily varied and quickly veer into different directions.
It's worth mentioning at this point that in light of some of the controversies in recent years over Federal Vision, Norman Shepherd, Klaas Schilder, Mercersburg, and the New Perspective, one finds contemporary Reformed theologians arguing that the views of the aforementioned represent an assault on the gospel, on Sola Fide itself. They would then quote Luther regarding Sola Fide being the article by which the Church stands or falls.
There's an irony here as the Lutheran system certainly affirms Sola Fide but does so in the context of sacramental means. You cannot separate Lutheran soteriology from the sacraments. That's how Lutheran Sola Fide works. The sacraments are the means employed by the Holy Spirit to effect grace. When Evangelicals and most Reformed are presented with this, they are likely to denounce it as undermining if not completely subverting their intellectual/emotional understanding of Sola Fide. I say this only to point out that even this question is more complicated than many would have it.
Confessional Lutherans certainly balk at any suggestion of works salvation and yet do hold to the possibility of genuine apostasy - which belies Reformed narratives about the Magisterial Reformation and the critical element of assurance. The Lutherans have a robust doctrine of assurance but it is not at all the same as the Reformed, let alone today's common Calvinistic understanding of Perseverance as being akin to Eternal Security. Confessional Lutherans also tend to rail against Puritanical moralistic preaching, believe it undermines Sola Fide even while they will argue that Baptism is salvific and the Lord's Supper not only imparts grace, but brings us into union with Christ. For many Reformed, this sacramental paradigm is all too near to Rome. Many Baptists struggle to accept this as valid Christianity - stumbling over not only Lutheran views of baptismal efficacy but their concept of the Real Presence in Communion.
And thus on these points of sacramentology and apostasy, Confessional Lutherans tend to find favour with the views of Federal Vision - at least in the broad strokes and would argue their views on these points are (for the most part) in keeping with their understanding of Sola Fide in the framework of New Testament ecclesiology.
As I write this I am reminded of so many articles I've read and interviews with Reformed leaders denouncing Federal Vision and calling their audience back to the Reformation's battle cry of Justification by Faith Alone. In many cases it's clear these theologians are simply ignorant - they read the Scriptures through the lens of their tradition - usually the 19th century variety of Calvinism, and they are also ignorant of the larger Reformation and the theological paradigms of Lutheranism and Anglicanism - which are just as much part of the Protestant tradition.
I mentioned Mercersburg a moment ago. The theological controversies surrounding Mercersburg were in part over the very heritage of Reformed historical theology. JW Nevin rightly argued that 19th century America with its individualist application of Scottish Common Sense Realism had significantly revised historic Reformed theology in terms of the meaning of Church and the Sacraments. The views he (as a German Reformed leader) vigorously opposed have become normative and in many respects the orthodoxy of today's Reformed community.
One of the problems (I would argue) in understanding these issues is found in an unwarranted and misguided split in the realm of soteriology. When Justification (or even Election) is made the Centraldogma, the fundamental and foundational principle upon which a subsequent system is built and organised, then the New Testament's larger, multifaceted, (and somewhat more dynamic) concept of soteriology is distorted. Doctrines that are presented in both general and individual terms must be forced for the sake of coherence as are doctrines that are presented in an eschatological already-not yet dynamic. Justification is separated from Sanctification. Rather than understanding salvation as Union with Christ which is then manifest and applied through various dynamic means, justification is instead prioritized. This leads to canon within a canon issues in the realm of hermeneutics - Romans taking precedent over James, Hebrews, and other books. Also it distorts understandings of law in terms of command.
The law and works are relegated to sanctification which is supplemental to (but separate from) the fundamental question of salvation. Historically this split has generated a host of errors from Cheap Grace theology to the fallacies of Carnal Christian theology as well as appealing to a second (and sometimes third) work of grace in order to understand and justify the lack of desired fruit and response in light of the gospel message.
Justification is presented as an accomplished one-time event, while other aspects of salvation such as sanctification are presented as ongoing and yet secondary - not of the essence of the gospel.
And yet Justification is presented by Paul as something future, yet to be completed in passages such as Romans 2.13, and Galatians 5.5 - as well as multiple instances of justification in reference to Abraham. He went out by faith (saving faith) from Haran (Genesis 12, Hebrews 11.8), and when he believed God regarding his seed/offspring (Gen 15.6, Rom 4.3, James 2.23). But he was also justified in Genesis 22 by his working faith as James points out in 2.21 of his epistle. Justification is a complete one-time act but at the same time is ongoing and yet future.
And is sanctification merely progressive? This is not how Paul speaks about sanctification in 1 Corinthians 6.11. In that passage sanctification is definitive and spoken of as complete and some unfortunately run with this and use this fact to lessen the weight and import of other passages which demand growth, obedience, holiness, works, and perseverance. This hyper-definitive error is often associated with the Eternal Security/Once Saved Always Saved theology of the (Finney and Moody-inspired) Evangelical movement which has also taken deep root in some quarters of Calvinism - with many modern adherents failing to understand that Eternal Security is not the same as the historical teaching regarding the Perseverance of the Saints, which itself only tells part of the story.
Thankfully most schools of thought still acknowledge that sanctification is ongoing and while they struggle with its import (if any) they usually argue (if tepidly) for this as a necessary element of the Christian life. Within Calvinism there are also unwarranted debates over Sanctification and whether it is monergistic or synergistic. For many, the tight and coherent theological package that reconciles the many ambiguous passages and seeming contradictions is to say that justification is monergistic and sanctification is synergistic - creating slots (as it were) to allocate the numerous problem passages and organize them. The same is also on display in the unwarranted hair-splitting regarding regeneration and conversion - the former being monergistic, the latter synergistic. This kind of narrow denotation and scholastic definition may be in the service of coherent systematic theology but it rests of forced exegesis at best.
Is the law something merely meant to convict or guide in the realm of sanctification - but not justification? This very split is not found in the New Testament. The law (understood as the commands of God and not the Mosaic Law) is necessary to the life of the Christian. The New Testament is very clear that we must bear fruit - the fruit of trust and obedience. We are saved by faith - even faith alone. But as many have said that faith must never be alone. The works must be present. Do they save?
The New Testament doesn't deal with these questions in the pedantic technical way the theologians seem to approach it. Its use of doctrinal terms is not so restricted. They are broad, occasional, and operate in dynamic categories. The works must be present - this is repeatedly stated without qualification.
Works are necessary. We are called to keep the commands of God and we need to repent when we don't. The Lutherans are right in that sense (that we always fail) but their tendency to rest on justification and embrace a kind of nonchalance regarding obedience testifies to a misguided reductionist understanding of the gospel and its imperatives.
The Reformed get lost in the systematics of Election and Justification and the specifics of their Confessional tradition. Others get lost in monocovenantal schemes and fall prey to Judaizing formulations tying sanctification in with the Mosaic Law - a modern manifestation of the Galatian error.
The idea that we must keep the commands of God and these works play a part in our salvation suggest to the modern Reformed (and Evangelicals) either blatant legalism or that God has somehow lowered the standard in order to accommodate us. This is not the case. Rather our flawed and imperfect works are by faith acceptable to God by means of the Holy Spirit. It's not a question of quantity - earning points and rewards in reference to a bar or level we must attain. It's a question of quality and the fact that the heart is there that wants to serve God, walk in his ways, and be reconciled to Him. This involves brokenness, dependence or trust, and repentance. These elements demonstrate the work of regeneration. That is saving faith - though some will call this neo-nomianism. Romans 8 comes into play here as it speaks of the law being fulfilled in those who walk by the Spirit. Additionally it must be said the wrestlings of Paul in Romans 7 which present so many problems for some (in light of Sola Fide) are in fact normative and necessary components of the Christian life and the struggle of faith. Those who fail to struggle have fallen into presumption fed by bad theology or are victims of the false gospel of cheap grace.