LAW and Calvin’s False Gospel
Here I am, some thirty years after being saved, and looking back; and I can tell you that theological training from the pulpit to the saint is abysmal. Hence, today’s Christian landscape. If Christians are ignorant in regard to their relationship to the law, they are open to just about any proposition that would come down the pike—Reformed theology far from being excluded.
As previously discussed here at PPT, the primary problem with Reformed theology is that it fuses justification and sanctification together, but another glaring contradiction to truth is its view of the law. One stands amazed that the election/freewill debate is even the issue.
Let’s begin by looking at the truth concerning the relationship of the law to Christians. First, “law” is really a biblical term that is speaking of the word of God as a whole. The word is used interchangeably throughout the Bible with “Scripture, “word,” law and the prophets,” etc. Only thinking of law as the Ten Commandments or biblical imperatives is not helpful. Matthew 4:4, as well as many other texts, refer to the Bible as being God’s complete philosophical statement to man in regard to life and godliness.
Second, there is an anthropological law of God written on the hearts of every person born into the world:
They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them (Romans 2:15).
Therefore, sadly, antinomian Christians will display worse behavior than the unregenerate that follow the law written on their hearts. All people are also accused or defended according to this inherent natural law by their consciences. Even after salvation, Christians are to utilize this aspect of our design in sanctification (1Timothy 1:5, 1:19, 3:9, 4:2, 2Timothy 1:3).
But the law also poses a continual confrontation and dilemma for the unbeliever. Without Christ, it is their only ticket to heaven—good luck with that one, and the violation of one law is all it takes to condemn in the first place (James 2:20), plus the law provokes sin. Somehow, knowing of a law tempts the unbeliever to actually break it—leading to death. So, God sent the law to increase sin as a way to show the unbeliever their need for Christ (Romans 5:20, 7:5 Galatians 3:24,25).
Now, this is the part that is hard to get our minds around, but when we are saved, the law is abolished…for justification purposes. All men are born “under the law.” It is a covenant that they are born under, but it also enslaves them to sin. When we are saved; ie. when we die in Christ, the covenant of the law is cancelled in the same way that a marriage covenant is cancelled when one of the spouses dies, and we are also freed from the enslavement of the law as well (Romans 7:1-4). We are then raised to new life in Christ that totally changes our relationship to the law—we are now free to obey it and experience the blessings of the “perfect law of liberty” (James 1;25). It is utterly awesome to study all of the different ways other than these in which the word of God frames the law’s different relationship to the believer verses the unbeliever. Rather than the law being nothing more than a covenant of condemnation constantly pointing us to Christ, it is now what we need to be equipped for every good work (2Timothy 3:16,17). So, our relationship to the law must always be framed according to the following: ….for justification, or ….for sanctification.
But here is the HUUUUUUGE problem with Reformed theology, and Calvinism in particular: the relationship between the law and the believer does not change after salvation. They even say in broad daylight that it still shows us our need for the cross, or still leads us to Christ. Supposedly, we are therefore continually sanctified by the death of Christ. This is blatant heresy of the worst order. What more do I really need to make my case other than the highly acclaimed cross graphic below?
Like the law’s relationship to the believer before salvation, the law points to a continual need for the cross (or gospel). The relationship doesn’t change. This fact is articulated well by Michael Horton on page 62 of Christless Chritianity:
Where we land on these issues is perhaps the most significant factor in how we approach our own faith and practice and communicate it to the world. If not only the unregenerate but the regenerate are always dependent at every moment on the free grace of God disclosed in the gospel, then nothing can raise those who are spiritually dead or continually give life to Christ’s flock but the Spirit working through the gospel. When this happens (not just once, but every time we encounter the gospel afresh), the Spirit progressively transforms us into Christ’s image. Start with Christ (that is, the gospel) and you get sanctification in the bargain; begin with Christ and move on to something else, and you lose both.
So, in other words, if we move on to “something else” other than the gospel, we lose “both.” Both what? Sanctification and justification—if we move on to a different perspective on the law that isn’t gospel focused; ie, a continual need for the same gospel that saved us. All law must be seen as grace “disclosed in the gospel.” This unchanging relationship to the law in regard to salvation is plainly aped by John Calvin in book 3, chapter, 14, and sections 9-11 in the Calvin Institutes:
Although we see theft the stains by which the works of the righteous are blemished, are by no means unapparent, still, granting that they are the minutest possible, will they give no offense to the eye of God, before which even the stars are not clean? We thus see, that even saints cannot perform one work which, if judged on its own merits, is not deserving of condemnation.
God does not (as many foolishly imagine) impute that forgiveness of sins once for all, as righteousness; so that having obtained the pardon of our past life we may afterwards seek righteousness in the Law. This were only to mock and delude us by the entertainment of false hopes. For since perfection is altogether unattainable by us, so long as we are clothed with flesh, and the Law denounces death and judgment against all who have not yielded a perfect righteousness, there will always be ground to accuse and convict us unless the mercy of God interpose, and ever and anon absolve us by the constant remission of sins.
Please note, since our relationship to the law is not changed, “….there will always be ground to accuse and convict us unless the mercy of God interpose, and ever and anon absolve us by the constant remission of sins.” And, “God does not (as many foolishly imagine) impute that forgiveness of sins once for all, as righteousness; so that having obtained the pardon of our past life we may afterwards seek righteousness in the Law.”
Notice that Calvin frames sanctification in a linear law that demands perfection to remain justified. We rather contend that law in regard to justification has been abolished and replaced with a different relationship to the law.
I strongly suspect that the Reformed gospel is grounded in the Platonist view of truth which holds to the idea that truth is immutable. Hence, to say that the law has a different relationship to the believer verses the unbeliever would be to believe that the standard of the law changes. This breaks a fundamental rule of Platonist metaphysics. It also explains the Reformed rejection of anything that smacks of dispensationalism. Furthermore, to abolish the law….for justification, and uphold it ….for sanctification, would be an enablement for man (or the general population of the saints) to participate in interpreting truth, which is a clear violation of Platonist epistemology. More research is needed, but this is where my strong suspensions are leading me.
Nevertheless, Calvinism is still plainly guilty of fusing justification and sanctification together with an unchanging relationship to the law following. In the Reformed mind, the law remains the standard for maintaining justification, and believers remain under it….for justification. Which is a huge problem.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
Reblogged this on Clearcreek Chapel Watch.
LikeLike
Thanks for this post, Paul! The relationship of the believer to the Law is something I’ve really been struggling to understand. This was helpful.
Joey
LikeLike
Paul,
I understand that you oppose the “active obedience” of Christ imputed to the believer for their justification. I must confess that after years of believing that very thing, I’m starting to question it. When it comes to our justification, to our being counted righteous, I never once see Paul rejoicing in the active obedience of Christ during his (approximatly) 33 years here on earth; he is always rejoicing in the cross. I understand that New Cavinists see Christ’s perfect law-keeping as being CONTINUALLY imputed to us, so that we are always in need of justification, but I don’t think that “old Calvinists” held/hold that view–or certainly not all of them. Jay Adams, for example, considers himself a Calvinist, and he also holds to the imputation of Christ’s perfect obedience as our righteousness, but he seems to think of this imputation as a one time (not continuous) act.
Anyway, do you have any good reading material you could point me to about the nature of our imputed righteousness? If not Jesus’ perfect law-keeping, then what?
Thanks,
Joey
LikeLike
Joey,
Your observations are astute. Adams is a Sanctified Calvinist, and not the original article. Authentic Reformed doctrine is heresy of the worst order. Folks of the Reformed tradition such as Denver Sound Church have also rejected the form of double imputation that is progressive, or progressive imputation. Here is where we all struggle as illustrated by your last sentence:”If not Jesus’ perfect law-keeping, then what?” Answer: nothing! Christ kept the law perfectly because of who He is, and it also made it possible for Him to be the only possible man who could be born under the law without being condemned. Christ did not come to obey the law perfectly so His obedience could be imputed to us for progressive sanctification in order to prevent “legal fiction”–He came to abolish the law as a rule for judging the saints. If there is no law for purposes of justification because the covenant has been cancelled by God–then that settles it. We struggle with the law of justification being maintained, but there is no need for that–it has been abolished! When Christ said he didn’t come to abolish the law in Matthew 5–he is speaking in regard to kingdom living, not ….for justification. I will get you some links for additional information on imputation.
paul
LikeLike
I agree with you that “law” generally refers to the whole Old Testament–or, better, to the whole council of God–but it does not always seem to do so in the writings of Paul–as when he spoke about how death reigned prior to the law even over those who were not guilty of transgression like Adam, and then the law was added so that sin might increase. How are we to make sense of that, Paul? If there was no law which people prior to Moses were under, does that mean that nobody living between Adam and Moses are held accountable as condemned sinners by God? I mean, if Christ’s suffering and death abolished the law for justification, so that there is no more law for us (again, with respect to our justification), does that put us in the same position as those between Adam and Moses, as they had no law to condemn them either?
LikeLike
Joey,
Yes they had a law that condemned them–the one written on the heart of every person born (Romans 2:12-16). They will be judged by it–everytime they violated their conscience, it is sin to them. All people born into the world are “born under the law.” And Christ was the only man born into the world that was not immediately condemned for being born under it because he keeps it perfectly. As new creatures, we live by it, but in regard to our justification–IT CAN’T TOUCH US! IT HAS NO JURISDICTION!
LikeLike
See ya law, you can’t touch me. I can do anything I darn well want to. BUT, that’s not going to happen because I am a new creature who is no longer under the bondage of sin. Ya, I can do whatever I want to and I am still not condemned because there is no law to judge me, “and where there is no law, there is no sin.” I can do whatever I want, I JUST DON’T WANT TO. This is the way it must be–two perspectives on the law in regard to justification and sanctification. Otherwise, when i work in sanctification, I have no idea where my motives are: Am I merely seeking to please the Lord, or trying to earn my salvation? There would be no way of knowing.
LikeLike
…Or are we to understand unbelievers from Adam to Moses to still be guilty because they were still in Adam–guilty in virtue of Adam’s sin–whereas now we are in Christ and counted innocent? That makes sense to me. Bare with me as I try to wrap my head around things 🙂
Joey
LikeLike
Joey and Paul –
That last comment of Joey was in my thoughts as well. It seems to me that “now” (current time) when we use the term “law” we are encompassing the entire counsel of God in the Scripture that we have now. When Paul was writing about the “law” he seemed to be clearly speaking of the Mosaic law. When Paul wrote his words there was no New Testament written or compiled, so he could not have been referring to the “law” as we do now.
LikeLike
Bridget,
Law is a term for all of God’s revelation. Matthew 4:4 / 2Timothy 3:16,17. / Matthew 5:18-20.
LikeLike
Joey –
Wasn’t it “because of” the hardness if their hearts that God gave Israel the law to begin with? They aleady knew what was good and evil, pleasing to God or not. Man has known since the beginning what was “good” and has turned away. But from the beginning of creation a man’s “faith” in God was also counted to him as righteousness, and this was before the Savior had come. God’s salvation is not confined to time and space. The law came into time and space, as did Scripture. These are a means to an end . . . not the end in themselves. It seems to me that they are tools to lead us to the one we are to be in relationship with. Many people today have their faith in the tools and not
in God. If their tools were to break, where would they be? I think this is why people fight over the Scripture and it’s interpretation so ardently at times. They need to defend their faith (in their interpretation of scripture) or it all falls apart for them. This begs the question, where is their relationship with God? Before the Mosaic law, how did man interact with God? There was no law, Jesus, or NT in the picture? Because Scripture came, does that mean that God ONLY reveals himself and relates to us through Scripture?
It can be a bit overwhelming to think on these things, I know, but we believe a lot of things “just because” and never question “orthodoxy.”
And, never fear, I am not a universalist.
LikeLike
But he answered, “It is written, “‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.'”
What does “every word that comes from the mouth of God” mean? Just Scripture? Do we even know EVERY WORD that has come from the mouth of God?
“18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.
19 Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.”
This, to me, points to the Mosaic law as given in OT. Jesus did come to (and did) fulfill this law.
2 Tim.
14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it
15 and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.
16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
17 that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.
Again, when this was written, the canon we now consider the Bible was not compiled. Even in this text we have “sacred writings” as Paul is speaking to Timothy who learned about these writings as he grew up, and we have the reference to all “Scripture.” There was a purpose for the sacred writings “which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Jesus Christ.” Then there is the purpose of “All Scripture,” which, at this point did not include the entire canon that is “currently” considered the Bible.
That is why I believe that most usages of the word “law” in the NT are referring to Mosaic law.
Jesus did give us further insight into the “good works” we were created for though.
I totally agree with the separation of justification (finished work in Christ Jesus) and sanctification (in process by faith and works, i.e. doing good as in 2 Tim. 3:17). I was taugh this in the beginning of my Christian walk. It has definitely morphed into something else in some circles.
LikeLike
Bridget,
We can’t live by what we haven’t heard. And “every” word would include all Scripture. In Luke 24, law (Moses), Scripture, and law and the prophets are used interchangeably.
LikeLike
The law no longer condemns a true, (believer in Christ) Christian. However, I no longer desire to sin, not because it will justify me, (I already am justified) but because I don’t want to. Sin has lost it’s power, praise the Lord! You nailed it, Paul.
LikeLike