Banner
Just South of Wichita PDF Print E-mail
Theology - Auburn Avenue Stuff
Written by Douglas Wilson   
Saturday, April 03, 2010 5:39 pm

I am afraid I have some more bad news for the defenders of the faith over at Heidelhoneyhut. The rot of heresy is spreading. The FV leprosy was not addressed promptly enough, and has begun to spread retroactively through the body of all church history. And you know it is a really bad factory that can send its pollutants upstream.

This, just in, from Turretin's Institutes:

"The Mosaic covenant may be viewed in two aspects: either according to the intention and design of God and in order to Christ; or separately and abstracted from him. In the latter way, it is really distinct from the covenant of grace because it coincides with the covenant of works and in this sense is called the letter that killeth and the ministration of condemnation, when its nature is spoken of (2 Cor. 3:6, 7). But it is unwarrantably abstracted here because it must always be considered with the intention of God, which was, not that man might have life from the law or as a sinner might be simply condemned, but that from a sense of his own misery and weakness he might fly for refuge to Christ...The law is said "to be not of faith" (Gal. 3:12), not as taken broadly and denoting the Mosaic economy, but strictly as taken for the moral law abstractly and apart from the promises of grace (as the legalists regarded it who sought life from it)" (2:267-68).

"The law is not administered without the gospel, nor the gospel without the law. So that it is as it were a legal-gospel and an evangelical-law; a gospel full of obedience and a law full of faith" (2: 268).

So, then, in a more serious vein than my first paragraph, with regard to justification, nuda lex does nothing except condemn a sinner. When this use of the law is under discussion, we have to guard the fundamental distinction between law and grace. But when saving faith comes, we then realize that we are distinguishing things that cannot be separated -- provided we are considering them in Christ, and not in abstraction. This lack of separation is not as dangerous as it sounds -- height, breadth, and depth cannot be separated but a child can distinguish them.

So once saving faith comes, with regard to the broad intention and design of God, the believer principally rests in Christ alone, as He is offered in the gospel. But saving faith also understands the parts and relations of law to gospel, and sees God's overarching gracious intent. He sees totus lex. This is why he can now tremble at the threatenings without that trembling being an example of unbelief. This is why he can render obedience to the laws without that obedience being a form of works-righteousness. In order to have the pedagogical use of the law and the didactic use of the law functioning at all, it is necessary that a man be able to transition between them. That transition is called getting saved.

 

Now join with me in a little thought experiment. Imagine that second quote above had appeared without attribution on the blog of Peter Leithart or Jeff Meyers. Right, that quote about a gospel full of obedience, and a law full of faith. That one. Do you think that we could get a couple dozen men who do not understand their own theological tradition to write a stern letter to the appropriate presbytery demanding that immediate steps be taken?

Lane over at Greenbaggins has said that I deny sola fide (which I emphatically affirm), and he has made this claim on the basis of his own failure to make the most basic distinctions that someone with a Reformed theological education should be able to make. If the Reformed tradition were the Mississippi River, these river boat pilots have managed to get their vessel grounded just south of Wichita. As I put it in a recent comment elsewhere, I really don't understand why the C students think they get to grade everybody else's papers.

But stumbling over a right understanding of the law is not a new problem. Let the apostle remind us of a few things.

"Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned: From which some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling; Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm. But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully" (1 Tim. 1:5-8).



Add this page to your favorite Social Networking websites
Digg! Reddit! Del.icio.us! Mixx! Google! Live! Facebook! StumbleUpon! MySpace! Yahoo! BlogRolling! Twitter! LinkedIn! TwitThis
Last Updated on Saturday, April 03, 2010 7:07 pm
 
Comments
Search
Only registered users can write comments!
Luke Welch  Saturday, April 03, 2010 6:43 pm
I delight in this post in my inner being. (Rom 7.22)
jay niemeyer  Saturday, April 03, 2010 9:59 pm
Perfect rebuttal, period!
Eric Stampher  - Ouch  Sunday, April 04, 2010 11:53 am
Wilson doth swing a sharp and heavy sword, yet it hurt so good.
Michael Bull  - Golawspel  Sunday, April 04, 2010 6:44 pm
Very helpful article. Thank you.
Mark  Sunday, April 04, 2010 8:21 pm
"The law is not administered without the gospel, nor the gospel without the law. So that it is as it were a legal-gospel and an evangelical-law; a gospel full of obedience and a law full of faith" (2: 268).

Is proceeded by..."Thus what was demanded of us in the covenant of works is fulfilled by Christ in the covenant of grace. Nor is it absurd that in this way justification takes place by works and by faith - by the works of Christ and by our faith. and thus in sweet harmony the law and the gospel meet together in this covenant. The law is not etc..."

Yes I get it - Christ has fulfilled the law (covenant of works) on our behalf and by faith we participate in the covenant of grace - of course good works of thankfulness proceeding and so the law is not against the gospel.
greenbaggins  - Green Baggins  Monday, April 05, 2010 4:18 am
Quote:
I really don't understand why the C students think they get to grade everybody else's papers.


I could be wrong, Doug, and you may not have meant it this way, but this comment came across to me as not only way more harsh than I have ever been to you, but also arrogant in the extreme. Please tell me I am wrong.
Terry W. West  Monday, April 05, 2010 5:20 am
Lane,
You are actually going to take offense to that in light of you accusing Doug of denying sola fide? I think Doug is being pretty restraint considering how serious and ridiculous the accusation is that you are making against him. Come on man, you got to be kidding, right?
Douglas Wilson  - answer soon  Monday, April 05, 2010 6:29 am
Lane, your question warrants an answer. I'll try to get to it this morning.
Douglas Wilson  Monday, April 05, 2010 11:35 am
Lane, I think that the C student comment hits hard, as I intended, but I believe it is above the belt. Here's why. This is the situation. You accused me of denying sola fide, which I most emphatically do not. The sole instrument for receiving the gracious gift of Christ's righteousness is God-given faith, plus nothing, period. How many times should I have to say that? You did this on the basis of a convoluted chain of reasoning, in which you got yourself lost (because, incidentally, you wandered away from historic Reformed distinctives on this subject), and yet you found your argument compelling enough to reject my plain testimony about what I have preached and taught for decades.

If we were simply having a discussion, I never would have said something like that. But, like it or not, you have assumed the role of prosecutor -- your blog questioned my commitment to the crucial element of sola fide. You signed the letter of concern about Jeff Meyers. You did this while discussing matters that are over your head. If you just didn't get it, that would be fine. But you claim to see, and you are interfering with the ministries of other godly men, on the basis of what you claim to able to see (John 9:41). I think my response was hard, but not harsh.
greenbaggins  - Lane Keister  Tuesday, April 06, 2010 8:52 am
Well, Doug, I can understand how you came to the conclusion that you did. Let me explain once more what I think about your position. I acknowledge your claim to hold to sola fide. I think that you believe you're holding to it. My position is simply that a denial of the law/gospel distinction is inconsistent with that claim. So I'm not denying that you claim to hold to sola fide. I am questioning the consistency of the position.

Incidentally, you might want to consider this fact: if Westminster California agrees with me (maybe I should regard this as saying that I agree with them) on the importance of the law/gospel distinction to sola fide, then you would be calling the entire faculty of Westminster California C grade students, too. Most of them have a very rigorous theological training. Obviously, what I regard as a breakthrough, you would regard as a regression; otherwise you would never have made this comment. But comments about someone's intelligence really don't have a place in this discussion. It's the ad homimen abusive fallacy, and is therefore completely irrelevant. You have to understand, therefore, that I do not regard this comment as above the belt. Neither do my friends, MANY of whom are emailing me saying, "Did Doug actually say THAT?" I don't believe this comment belongs in the discussion. Fair game is whether my position is consistent, or whether yours is, which is the actual point at issue.
jay niemeyer  - The Reckoning  Tuesday, April 06, 2010 11:33 am
Lane, where exactly might one find the specific quotations concerning the law/gospel distinctions? I want to understand the position with as much clarity as possible, but I'm afraid that I am becoming a bit confused.

For instance: when we are given the gift of faith by God, must that faith include the Lordship of Christ?
As far as I can understand, repentance to the rulership of Christ is part of what justifying faith does. It is not that our obedience merits anything at all. Rather, reliant trust in God's Anointed - and His sacrifice for our sins - brings about a heart that surrenders to His rule. This is a type of law, no matter how you slice it, no?
But the point is in the reckoning. Do we reckon our repentance as a wage earning act? Or do we surrender because we believe in Him and what He has done to save us?
If we reckon Him as Lord and Savior through the message of the Gospel, He reckons us as righteous.
Bob Donaldson  Monday, April 05, 2010 6:04 am
Throw a rock down a dark alley and only the dog you hit barks.
jay niemeyer  Monday, April 05, 2010 6:35 am
It seems to me that those who think that obedience to the commands of God is contrary to Sola Fide are denying "Lordship Salvation".
They teach that to merely believe that you are forgiven by the sacrifice of Jesus of Nazareth is effectually salvific.
But where is the Lordship of Christ in this? Is not His Captaincy of the universe an essential aspect of the good news that we trust in?
Christ - our anointed King - Has died and risen, and He is "seated at the right hand of God". Or, salvifically, can we neglect this aspect of our belief and still have Sola Fide?
M. Stewart Quarles  Monday, April 05, 2010 7:58 am
"Harsh" is destroying the lives of good reformed men through internet tweets.
jay niemeyer  Monday, April 05, 2010 10:55 am
Hey, I just thought of something...
The thief on the cross was saved by faith like everyone else, but what was the content of his belief? Was it in the efficacy of the sacrifice of Jesus, or was it his surrender to, and trust in, Jesus as the Christ of YHWH - despite His execution?
In hindsight, we see that Christ had died as a propitiatory sacrifice for us, so this aspect of the Gospel is essential for us to believe. But to believe in the crucified and risen One as Lord is indispensable as well, no?
If we trust this, we must trust His word and delight in His commandments, right?
Or am I misinterpreting Greenbaggin's point?
J. R. Schuiling  - There's Quotes and then there's Quotes  Monday, April 05, 2010 11:02 pm
Pastor,

I for one would not be thrown off had any of your listed men made use of the second Turretin quote, provided they also unreservedly made use of the first. It seems however that that scenario is less likely than your nautical hypothesis. Please prove me wrong.

Moreover, the second Turretin quote requires some qualification and clarification. It is obvious that by "administered" Turretin means Covenantally administered after the fall. For the Law is frequently administered in the hearts of men apart from the Gospel. Further the Law was administered in the Covenant of Works without the Gospel, and as all men remain personally bound to that Covenant outside of Christ, the Law continues to be administered in that sense apart from the Gospel.

The first Turretin quote demonstrates the Reformed Law-Gospel Paradigm aptly. (The men you listed, as well as the Klineans, would do well to note that:) In the Reformed scheme, by Law is meant the moral law abstractly considered and not in the full breadth of context as it appears in the Covenant of Grace (in particular, as delivered by Moses). Thus, when the Reformed distinguish Law and Gospel, they do not bifurcate administrations of the Covenant of Grace, nor do they merely indicate individual heart attitudes. What they do intend are two theoretically legitimate principles of approach to God, that is, by personal fulfillment of the moral law or by that of another. Here it seems that both parties have run aground on opposite banks of the Reformed Tradition.
Martin Bucer  - The "C" Student/JV Team/Practice Squad  Friday, April 09, 2010 7:00 pm
C students" is actually not only a hilarious classification - it's right as rain.

If anything, Wilson is engaging in grade inflation. He's being too charitable toward the JV team/practice squad, many of whom simply have no real world experience in anything save for taking tests through age 21 and then "candidating" for a Bushwood Countryclub that was dumb enough to "call" them into "Gospel Ministry".

Nope. These Dukes of Plaza Toro have no business being in the Christian ministry as evidenced by their utter contempt for the 9th commandment as it relates to fellow Christian ministers, their disdain for their avowed Robertsian procedures, and their smug, self-congratulatory comportment toward not only fellow Reformed ministers, but 99.99% of a Christendom the very existence of which they reject.

The hypocrisy also is curious, if not suffocating: "We'll call you and the other 'FV heretics' gospel deniers (or sit idly by and give full platform to those who do), and agitate for your being removed from ministry, but MAN this 'C student' thing is REALLY over the top."

Be encouraged, Myers, Wilson, Jordan, Leithart. Keep up the great work, and ignore the JV team. Nobody cares what happens in JV games. The auditorium's empty.....