Law and Gospel - Thesis II

Thesis II
"If you wish to be an orthodox teacher, you must present all the articles of faith in accordance with Scripture, yet you must also distinguish Law and Gospel."

"Note this well. When you hear some enthusiast preach, you may say, 'Well, he did preach the truth...' and yet you did not feel satisfied. Here is the key for unlocking this mystery: that particular preacher did not rightly distinguish Law and Gospel, and thus everything went wrong. He preached the truth of the Law where he should have preached the truth of the Gospel, and he offered Gospel truth where he should have presented the Law. Now, anyone following such a preacher will go astray; they will not arrive at the sure foundation of the divine truth; they will not attain the assurance of grace and salvation. This frequently happens when students give sermons. You will hear comforting remarks such as 'It is all by grace,' only to be followed by 'We must do good works,' which are then followed by statements such as 'With our works we cannot gain salvation.' There is no order in such sermons. Nobody understands them - least of all the person who needs one of these two doctrines most."

C.F.W. Walther
(Law and Gospel P38-39)

The Need of Preaching the Law

Ever hear the Gospel in a sermon and think (though you would never admit it): So what?

What preceded it in the sermon? Was it historical detail? Was it Greek Grammar 101? Was it a story? Was it practical things we need to do, and perhaps are not doing (watch less tv, give to the church, give to the poor, give to the church, pitch Christianity to your co-workers, did I mention giving to the church) ?

Perhaps we did not hear and savor the Gospel, because the Law was not properly preached. Here's a section from Charles Bridges' work: The Christian Ministry


“We cannot have too much of the Gospel; but we may have too little of the Law. And a defect in the Evangelical preaching of the Law is as clear a cause of inefficient ministration, as a legal preaching of the Gospel. In such a Ministry there must be a want of spiritual conviction of sin generally – of spiritual sins most particularly -and- flowing directly from hence – a low standard of spiritual obedience. Indeed, all the prevalent errors in the Church may be traced to this source. We should never have heard of Methodist perfection – Mystic dependence upon the inward light – Antinomian delusion – inconsistent profession of orthodoxy – Pharisaical self-righteousness – or Pelagian and Socinian rectitude of nature – if the spiritual standard of the law had been clearly displayed, and its convincing power truly left. In the want of this conviction, the fullest perception of Evangelical view must fail in experimental and practical effect.

But there are Antinomian errors on the opposite side. If Antinomianism be the relaxation of obedience from the perfect standard of the law of God, is not mere moral preaching a refined species of this unhallowed leaven? Equally with the professed Antinomian, the standard of the law of God is exchanged for some indefinite and every-varying standard of inclination or caprice. The notions of mercy and salvation, as in the other case, are here used as the palliation of sin. All hope, and no fear – is the character of this preaching. How frightful to think of deluded souls sliding into eternity in this golden dream! And of what vast importance is it for the resistance of error, and for an effective exhibition of divine truth – that our Ministry should be distinguished by a full display of the spiritual character, and unalterable obligations, of the law of God!”

-Charles Bridges - The Christian Ministry. pg. 228-229

Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love...

Genesis 22:1-2 - After these things God tested Abraham and said to him, “Abraham!” And he said, “Here am I.” He said, “Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I shall tell you.”



I am teaching a Sunday School lesson on Genesis 22 and thought I would offer a few thoughts here.

We read this narrative and think:

“How can it be that God would require Abraham to sacrifice his all, his prosperity, his full love of his heart, his treasure, his son?!”

We see Abraham’s detailed meticulous preparation, over a long period of time, readying the sacrifice, preparing for the place and time of the sacrifice of his son for the sin’s of Adam’s race.

Yet, at the last moment, God stays Abraham’s arm and provides a substitute. A male sheep, a ram, a lamb of God.

But the Lamb was not the final substitute. The sacrifices continue throughout the story of the Old Testament.

Finally, when we reach the New Testament, we have a repetition of the themes of Genesis 22:

Genesis 22:2 He said, "Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love…

Matthew 3:17 And behold! A voice out of the heaven saying, “This is My Son, my Beloved, in whom I have been delighting.”
_________________________
Genesis 22:6 “And Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering and laid it on Isaac his son. And he took in his hand the fire and the knife. So they went up both of them together.”

John 19:17 and [Jesus] went out, bearing his own cross, to the place called The Place of a Skull, which in Aramaic is called Golgotha.
____________________________
Genesis 22:8 Abraham said, “God will provide for himself the lamb for a burnt offering, my son.” So they went both of them together.

John 1:29 The next day [John] saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!"

____________________________________________

Genesis 22:12b – “for now I know that you fear God, seeing you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me.”

Romans 8:32 He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things?

John 3:16-17 "For God loved the world in this way, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
_________________________________________
As Tim Keller put it: “And when God said to Abraham, “Now I know you love me because you did not withhold your son, your only son whom you love from me,” now we can look at God taking his son up the mountain and sacrificing him and say, “Now we know that you love us because you did not withhold your son, your only son, whom you love from us.”

We began asking:

“How can it be that God would require Abraham to sacrifice his all, his prosperity, his full love of his heart, his treasure, his son?!”

Now we are wondering:

“How can it be that God would supply what he required of Abraham, to sacrifice His all, His prosperity, His full love of His heart, His treasure, His Son?!”

The story of the Old Testament is God’s detailed meticulous preparation, over a long period of time, readying the sacrifice, preparing for the place and time of the sacrifice of His Son for the sins of Adam’s race.

And can it be that I should gain
An interest in the Savior's blood!
Died he for me? who caused his pain!
For me? who him to death pursued?
Amazing love! How can it be
that thou, my God, shouldst die for me?

What makes a Defective Sermon

Andrew Webb has a great article on the different ways preaching goes wrong:

1. No Law, No Gospel. 2. Law, No Gospel. 3. Gospel, No Law

Three Basic Forms of Defective Preaching

Law and Gospel - Thesis 1

Thesis I
The doctrinal contents of all Holy Scripture, both of the Old and the New Testament, consist of two doctrines that differ fundamentally from each other. These two doctrines are Law and Gospel.

In his first thesis Walther covers six differences between law and gospel to help the Christian and Christian teachers identify the difference when they read the scripture.
1. They differ as to how they were revealed to humans.
2. They differ regarding their contents.
3. The differ regarding the promises held out by each doctrine.
4. They differ regarding their threats. (Gospel has no threats whatsoever - only words for consolation.)
5. They differ regarding the function and the effect of either doctrine.
6. They differ regarding the persons to whom each of them is to be preached.

This doctrine is important not to skip over in our Christian Churches. As Walther states:
...you can gather how foolish it is-in fact, how terribly deceived so many people obviously are - when they ridicule pure doctrine and say to us, "Enough already with your 'Pure doctrine, pure doctrine'! That can lead only to dead orthodoxy. Focus on pure living instead. That way you will plant the seeds of righteous Christianity." That would be like saying to a farmer, "Stop fretting about good seed! Be concerned about good fruit instead."


So how does pure doctrine of law and gospel together lead to true Christian experience and understanding?
Again Walther:
"The Law tells us what to do and charges us with not having done it, no matter how holy we are. Thus the Law makes us uncertain; it chases us about and thus makes us thirsty. Now when Christ invites those who thirst, He means those who have been crushed under the hammer blows of the Law. These persons Christ invites directly to come to Him; of course, indirectly he invites all people. A person who is thirsting like this only needs to drink-and receive the consolation of the Gospel. When a person is really thirsty and is handed even a small glass of water, how greatly refreshed he feels! But when a person is not thirsty, you can hand him one glass of water after another - it will do him no good; it will not refresh him."

O Heart Bereaved and Lonely

So Fanny Crosby wasn't always the best in theology. But when she's good, she's great. A hymn I've enjoyed lately, O Heart Bereaved and Lonely. One may enjoy how it incorporates the Incarnation and our Savior's sympathy into our every sorrow. "For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin. Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need. " (Hebrews 4:15-16)

1. O heart bereaved and lonely,
Whose brightest dreams have fled
Whose hopes like summer roses,
Are withered crushed and dead
Though link by link be broken,
And tears unseen may fall
Look up amid thy sorrow,
To Him who knows it all

2. O cling to thy Redeemer,
Thy Savior, Brother, Friend
Believe and trust His promise,
To keep you till the end
O watch and wait with patience,
And question all you will
His arms of love and mercy,
Are round about thee still

3. Look up, the clouds are breaking,
The storm will soon be o'er
And thou shall reach the haven,
Where sorrows are no more
Look up, be not discouraged;
Trust on, whate'er befall
Remember, O remember,
Thy Savior knows it all

The Bible in a Sentence

This was an interesting exercise in summarizing the Bible in one sentence. My favorite was:

Mark Dever:

God has made promises to bring His people to Himself and He is fulfilling them all through Christ.

With honorable mention to

Kevin DeYoung:

A holy God sends his righteous Son to die for unrighteous sinners so we can be holy and live happily with God forever.

And if I might say this, Doug Wilson's answer was the most ridiculous, making the Bible sound like a bad medieval fairy-tale. However, it does illustrate the wackyness of FV guys who seem to want to show off their poetic or symbolic language wrapped in obscure theology:

Doug Wilson:

Scripture tells us the story of how a Garden is transformed into a Garden City, but only after a dragon had turned that Garden into a howling wilderness, a haunt of owls and jackals, which lasted until an appointed warrior came to slay the dragon, giving up his life in the process, but with his blood effecting the transformation of the wilderness into the Garden City.

Original Sin, Pastoral Care, and the Courage to Speak Truth

I've met a similar scene multiple times: I enter a room where a mother is holding a small, blanket-wrapped package. The room is thick with grief; the mother crying and the husband with a look of stress on his face. I am there to talk about what they want to do with the remains of their miscarried child. It was in those moments that some of the discussions I had earlier in some seminary classrooms came back to mind, much to my displeasure and a bit to my anger.

In two theology classes, two different professors brought up the subject of infant death and salvation. In both professors, the doctrine of Original Sin loomed large, sufficient to damn from the moment of birth. When asked about infants that die, one replied, “I know you won't like it, but you have to have the courage to say that they are sinful, without faith, and therefore, under any criteria we can measure, condemned.” The argument was that if you allow for one instance of salvation without faith, you are soon on the road to universalism, then atheism, all over the question of if infants that die are damned.

The question I asked then was about 2 Samuel 12, where David's son dies at seven days old (a day before circumcision). When informed of the death, David replies “Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he will not return to me.” (2 Samuel 12:23) I was then informed that was a bad text to use, partly because the son died for David's sin and David was merely talking about the place of the dead, and judgment occurs later, where we would assume they will be parted again with David heading heavenward and the infant, towards damnation. The answer seemed at the time a poor one, for it seemed to dismiss rather than explain the reaction of David. Who would be happy to briefly see their child again before they are ushered off to hell? Was that David's relief?

Here, I stood before a woman and father who had just lost a child, even before seven days. They did not care to hear about my former professor's “courage” in declaring the probable damnation of their child or dismissal of David's source of hope. The pastoral comment I often told believers was, with that most inappropriate text rolling around my mind, was something along the lines of: "though he won't return to be with you, know you will go to meet him someday."

My first professor may not be happy that I used the very text he warned us not to use, but he wasn't in the room. I do remember the same discussion in another class with a bit of a different answer from my other professor. He said faith seems to be what the Scripture always tells us we ought to have to be assured of salvation. Yet, salvation also involves God's election/choice and his grace. This other professor ended the question by saying he wouldn't answer the question definitively, because it wasn't his decision to make. Original Sin is sufficient to damn, God's grace is sufficient to save.

The question seems not to be between “courage” and "weakness" but between presumption and humility. The second seems much more appropriate for pastoral care. It is also where the Westminster Confession comes out where in Ch 10.3 it states: “Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth:” No observable faith is mentioned and I don't think the Westminster Confession is an inclusivist document or on the road to universalism because it allows for salvation without observable faith. God needs no permission or logical justification from us to save whom he will, whether we see faith, or give the child the sign of the covenant.

Indeed, Jesus often seems to welcome children and especially the children of believers well before they have an observable faith by which to respond. Mothers bring, carry even, babies to Jesus to touch/bless (Luke 18:15-17). Fascinating to me is that Jesus did not reject these little heathens. He did not ask the mothers to delay until they had faith and could be proven disciples, but just blessed the babies as these mothers wanted. Would we wish to say that Jesus lacked the courage to correct these mothers in their ignorant theology which valued the children of believers as blessable and valuable, and as belonging to the kingdom of heaven?

David's words about going to his son were spoken before his son was circumcised, before his son had observable faith, and with a hope that was unexplainable if he thought his son to be damned. The same man who declared his culpability from conception (Psalm 51) also declares his hope for his son (2 Samuel 12). And when walking into a room of grieving parents, when being a pastor to those parents that lose children, I can't say that God saves all children. But I can't say God damns them either. I can say: David had a hope, Christ welcomed the children of believers and we are called to trust God's goodness and election. These together give me a strong inclination to share David's hope for the reunion of believers and their departed infant children.

Interrupting these deep thoughts…

…for a really cool picture of C.F.W. Walther.

Machen on historical Christianity

"If the saving work of Christ were confined to what He does now for every Christian, there would be no such thing as a Christian gospel...It is the connection of the present experience of the believer with an actual historic appearance of Jesus in the world which prevents our religion from being mysticism and causes it to be Christianity.

It must certainly must be admitted, then, that Christianity does depend upon something that happened; our religion must be abandoned altogether unless at a definite point in history Jesus died as a propitiation for the sins of men. Christianity is certainly dependent upon history."

-J. Gresham Machen. Christianity and Liberalism. pg. 120-121

Augustine on Psalm 59 (sounding like Luther)

It tickles me that sometimes when reading Augustine, I have to look at the book cover again to remind myself I am not reading Luther. Here is Augustine commenting on Psalm 59:3 "For, lo, they lie in wait for my soul: the mighty are gathered against me"

"There are also other men strong, not because of riches, not because of the powers of the body, not because of any temporally pre-eminent power of station, but relying on their righteousness. This sort of strong men must be guarded against, feared, repulsed, not imitated: of men relying, I say, not on body, not on means, not on descent, not on honour; for all such things who would not see to be temporal, fleeting, falling, flying? but relying on their own righteousness.…“Wherefore,” say they, doth your Master eat with publicans and sinners? (Matt 9:11) O ye strong men, to whom a Physician is not needful! This strength to soundness belongeth not, but to insanity. For even than men frenzied nothing can be stronger, more mighty they are than whole men: but by how much greater their powers are, by so much nearer is their death. May God therefore turn away from our imitation these strong men.…The same are therefore the strong men, that assailed Christ, commending their own justice. Hear ye these strong men: when certain men of Jerusalem were speaking, having been sent by them to take Christ, and not daring to take Him (because when he would, then was He taken, that truly was strong): Why therefore, say they, “could ye not take Him?” And they made answer, “No one of men did ever so speak as He.” And these strong men, “Hath by any means any one of the Pharisees believed on Him, or any one of the Scribes, but this people knowing not the Law?” (John 7:45-49). They preferred themselves to the sick multitude, that was running to the Physician: whence but because they were themselves strong? and what is worse, by their strength, all the multitude also they brought over unto themselves, and slew the Physician of all.…"

And on Verse 10: Behold what is, “My strength, to Thee I will keep:” on myself I will in no ways at all rely. For what good thing have I brought, that thou shouldest have mercy on me, and shouldest justify me? What in me hast Thou found, save sins alone? Of Thine there is nothing else but the nature which Thou hast created: the other things are mine own evil things which Thou hast blotted out. I have not first risen up to Thee, but to awake me Thou hast come: for “His mercy shall come before me.” Before that anything of good I shall do, “His mercy shall come before me.”

Christmas thought from Athanasius

"The achievements of the Saviour, resulting from His becoming man, are of such kind and number, that if one should wish to enumerate them, he may be compared to men who gaze at the expanse of the sea and wish to count its waves. For as one cannot take in the whole of the waves with his eyes, for those which are coming on baffle the sense of him that attempts it; so for him that would take in all the achievements of Christ in the body, it is impossible to take in the whole, even by reckoning them up, as those which go beyond his thought are more than those he thinks he has taken in.

Better is it, then, not to aim at speaking of the whole, where one cannot do justice even to a part, but, after mentioning one more, to leave the whole for you to marvel at. For all alike are marvellous, and wherever a man turns his glance, he may behold on that side the divinity of the Word, and be struck with exceeding great awe."

Athanasius, On the Incarnation of the Word. ch 54, 4-5 (free version here, buy here)

We're All Judaizers Now (?)

"So the error of the Judaizers is a very modern error indeed, as well as a very ancient error. It is found in the modern Church wherever men seek salvation by "surrender" instead of by faith, or by their own character instead of by the imputed righteousness of Christ, or by "making Christ master in the life" instead of by trusting in His redeeming blood. In particular, it is found wherever men say "the real essentials" of Christianity are love, justice, mercy and other virtues, as contrasted with the great doctrines of God's Word. These are all just different ways of exalting the merit of man over against the Cross of Christ, they are all of them attacks upon the very heart and core of the Christian religion. And against all of them the mighty polemic of this Epistle to the Galatians is turned."

-J. Gresham Machen (Commentary on Galatians)

[Hat Tip: Nick Batzig]

Athanasius on Sola Scriptura

[The Scriptures] are fountains of salvation, that they who thirst may be satisfied with the living words they contain. In these alone is proclaimed the doctrine of godliness. Let no man add to these, neither let him take ought from these. For concerning these the Lord put to shame the Sadducees, and said, ‘Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures.’ And He reproved the Jews, saying, ‘Search the Scriptures, for these are they that testify of Me.'

...But for greater exactness I add this also, writing of necessity; that there are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. But the former, my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being [merely] read; nor is there in any place a mention of apocryphal writings. But they are an invention of heretics, who write them when they choose, bestowing upon them their approbation, and assigning to them a date, that so, using them as ancient writings, they may find occasion to lead astray the simple.

Thankful for the Righteousness of Christ

Isaac Watts penned a line that I believe summarizes the gospel in one verse: "The best obedience of my hands / Dares not appear before thy throne; But faith can answer thy demands / By pleading what my Lord has done." This Hymn by Isaac Watts is simply headed: "The value of Christ, and his righteousness.

Phil. 3:7-9."

No more, my God, I boast no more
Of all the duties I have done;
I quit the hopes I held before,
To trust the merits of thy Son.

Now, for the love I bear his name,
What was my gain I count my loss;
My former pride I call my shame,
And nail my glory to his cross.

Yes, and I must and will esteem
All things but loss for Jesus' sake:
O may my soul be found in him,
And of his righteousness partake!

The best obedience of my hands
Dares not appear before thy throne;
But faith can answer thy demands
By pleading what my Lord has done.

Great Prayer

At the end of Morning Prayer, Rite Two, of the 1979 Book of Common Prayer is this prayer which I think is a great opening to a day of ministry:

Almighty God, Father of all mercies,
we your unworthy servants give you humble thanks
for all your goodness and loving-kindness
to us and to all whom you have made.
We bless you for our creation, preservation,
and all the blessings of this life;
but above all for your immeasurable love
in the redemption of the world by our Lord Jesus Christ;
for the means of grace, and for the hope of glory.
And, we pray, give us such an awareness of your mercies,
that with truly thankful hearts we may show forth your praise,
not only with our lips, but in our lives,
by giving up our selves to your service,
and by walking before you
in holiness and righteousness all our days;
through Jesus Christ our Lord,
to whom, with you and the Holy Spirit,
be honor and glory throughout all ages. Amen.

Death is not your Friend

Over the past 6 months, I have seen a lot of death. I've seen people seem to drift off quietly, like into a deep sleep. I've seen seemly endless chest compressions on someone drifting in and out of consciousness, scared and begging not to die. I've seen a man gag as the last breaths will not come into his lungs.

I've also seen many reactions to death. Seeming acceptance, perhaps hiding a denial. I've seen a raging at the world, God, or the random forces of nature. I've seen cheerful demeanor that accompanies words of celebration.

And in these times, I've heard many words about death. And of all the words I've heard, a certain class always makes me cringe. It is not the despair over death. It is not the anger over death. It is the belittling and minimizing of death. “He looks so peaceful.” or “death can be healing.”

Death is not your friend. Death is never good. Death is not peaceful, but the most violent thing that befalls man. Death is the ultimate curse (Gen 2:17). Death is last enemy (1 Corinthians 15:26). Death is what we look forward to ending (Rev 21:4).

When we see tears in the eyes of a mourner, my desire is that we will not belittle the reality of death. We ought not try to say that death is good. (inverse of Rom 14:16) We ought not call what is our curse and enemy good. But we can look forward to the end of death. Good may follow, but will never be death. Mourning and anger are not to be corrected when facing death, but truly expressed and addressed with a hope that is not death, but life.

Death is never good.

Death is not your friend.

A Robe, not a Cape.

D.G. Hart has a quick bit of logic in favor of ministers donning a plain, simple robe in corporate worship. I think he is right on about ministers:

"Isn’t the nature of their work to get out of the way and let the word and Spirit do the work? And wouldn’t a robe that hid personal idiosyncrasies of sartorial preference and cultural breeding be a good way to remind the pastor that his work is not finally about him, his taste, or his social standing? "

http://oldlife.org/2010/10/22/why-should-chaplains-have-all-the-good-uniforms/

On Christian Civil Discourse

Professor Carl Trueman has a thought provoking article on civil discourse in America for Christians. If we understand the injunction to "honor your father and mother" as being about honoring those placed in power above us as Larger Catechism Question 128 states:

Q. 128. What are the sins of inferiors against their superiors?
A. The sins of inferiors against their superiors are, all neglect of the duties required toward them; envying at, contempt of, and rebellion against their persons and places, in their lawful counsels, commands, and corrections; cursing, mocking, and all such refractory and scandalous carriage, as proves a shame and dishonor to them and their government.

If that is our understanding, we should be careful with the names we throw around like "fascist" and "marxist." I'd probably want to dialogue about the application of such a reflection with Trueman, but I think he gets an interesting conversation started:

http://theaquilareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3173:confessional-subscription-and-political-discourse&catid=49:people&Itemid=132

Current Reading: Marrow of Modern Divinity

I've started to read this book for fun in my few free moments. (Yes, I read theology for fun in my free time.) The Marrow of Modern Divinity is a classic book by an unknown author that sparked a controversy in Scotland in the 1700's. in this work, a gospel minister talks to a legalist and an antinomian and explains (in question and answer form) why true faith is neither legalistic and merely moralistic, nor is it libertine and unconcerned with right living. so far the chapter on Adam has been very profitable. Buy this book and read it to your spiritual betterment.

And if you don't want to bother with all that reading, you can get a good introduction to the controversy by Sinclair Ferguson in audio form: here