Does the Law Really Lead People to Christ by Revealing Sin Only?
The insanely celebrated return to our Reformed roots teaches the following about the law:
We are unable to keep the law perfectly. And since a perfect keeping of the law is the standard for righteousness required to live with God forever, our inability to keep the law perfectly leads us to Christ who must keep/fulfill it for us. As Christians, we continue to use the law in this way to “preach the gospel to ourselves.” The more we use the law to show our innate sinfulness, the more we experience “vivification” (a joyful, perpetual rebirth).
The bogus idea that perfect law-keeping is justification’s standard aside, the most popular text that supposedly supports this idea is Galatians 3:24 –
So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith.
To make that verse work, “guardian” (paidagōgos) is often translated as “tutor.” That’s a stretch. The word is better translated “protector”:
Among the Greeks and the Romans the name was applied to trustworthy slaves who were charged with the duty of supervising the life and morals of boys belonging to the better class. The boys were not allowed so much as to step out of the house without them before arriving at the age of manhood (Strong’s Dictionary).
Furthermore, the Reformed gospel teaches that the law is used by the Christian for this same purpose in our Christian walk—to continually lead us closer and closer to Christ by showing forth sin. This blatantly contradicts the context of the passage:
Galatians 3:25 – But now that faith has come, we are no longer [added] under a guardian,
Reformed doctrine clearly teaches that Christians are still under the law’s purpose to show us a deeper and deeper need for Christ and His grace as we see our own sinfulness in a deeper and deeper way. In other words, for Christians, God’s word still has a redemptive purpose. This is the basis for Historic Redemptive hermeneutics. However, even in regard to the lost, the showing forth of sin is only one purpose for the law, but far from being the only one.
Primarily, the law shows forth life. This is by far the primary theme of law throughout the Scriptures. The law shows forth the wisdom of God, and the wellbeing (blessings) of those who follow it. The law is also framed in the context of promise much more than it is judgment.
This gets into the major crux of the Reformed false gospel; the fusion of justification and sanctification concepts. The blessings of law-keeping can be experienced by unbelievers and believers alike, but such cannot obtain eternal life. The point is that the law shows forth life as much as it does death. It shows both. Again, this is a constant theme throughout the Scriptures. Who will deny that unbelievers will have a higher quality of life to the degree that they follow God’s law? No, it can’t gain salvation for them, but the law brings horizontal blessings by virtue of its wisdom.
Point in case:
1Peter 3:1 – Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives, 2 when they see your respectful and pure conduct.
In this passage, the husband is not won over by the wife demonstrating how sinful we are and our subsequent need for Christ; she is showing forth the blessings of being a believer. These are blessings that he is also experiencing because the home is sanctified by her presence:
1Corinthians 7:14 – For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. 15 But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace. 16 For how do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?
So, there is a sense in which the unbelieving spouse is blessed by the believing one. The law not only shows forth sin, but also shows forth life. The latter is the way the law leads people to Christ just as much as the former.
paul
Interpretation
Christians like information. Between church, K-Love radio, and cable, we receive information nonstop. We also live in the Information Age. Never before has mankind received so much information.
But all information has a source, and the source of any given information is disseminating the information with a goal in mind, and that goal will depend on how the disseminators interpret realty. They have an agenda. Sure, some Hollywood producers merely want to entertain, but most want to educate according to their own good intentions. In Religion, agenda-driven education is always the goal. That’s us.
So, all information that we hear as Christians has an agenda. There is no exception here in this venue. And there is an all pervasive belief among Christians in regard to discernment: knowing how the teacher interprets reality is not important, I can take from the shelf what is true and leave on the shelf what isn’t true. The goal of the teacher based on how he/she interprets reality is not important. Every teaching has good and bad in it, but we can benefit from what is good. Hmmmm, really?
This shows a fundamental lack of understanding in how words work in communication. If you do not know how a teacher interprets reality, regardless of agreement on elements, through word replacement, and emphasis on certain words over others, you can be led to a functioning belief of the teacher’s choosing. I have watched this happen in Reformed circles firsthand. I know of churches that gleefully follow men that they would have run out of town ten years prior. I have watched this concept in action.
All of the words that form the ideas of any teacher you are listening to are framed according to his/her interpretation of reality. In the English language, the alternative use of words to put forth an idea are literally innumerable. No pun intended. Anybody’s best guess is that the English language has about 470,000 primary words. Generic words can be used to put forth an idea that would normally be dismissed out of hand in a certain venue by avoiding the specific word etc.
A classic example in Christian venues is the use of the word “gospel” to put forth certain ideas about justification that would be dismissed out of hand if the word, “justification” was used. Initially, that is. Once the idea is assimilated into the group’s minds, “justification” can then be freely used which seals the deal. If a teacher doesn’t believe in a particular biblical truth, he/she can simply never teach on it while assimilating nuanced antithetical ideas into the general curriculum. Hence: “One man’s account seems convincing until another comes forward.” Well, the other guy never comes forward, and you are therefore convinced.
The idea that we can glean helpful truth from any message is naïveté on steroids. Every word is an accomplice to that teacher’s interpretation of reality and the goal’s thereof. That is what “teaching” is. It is purpose-driven. 900 people liked what the words of Jim Jones seemed to say, but didn’t understand that his interpretation of realty would leave them dead and rotting in the hot sun of Guyana.
This also speaks to the scandalous reality of systematic theology not being taught in the churches. Congregants are left to accept whatever caveats are dished out from the pulpit.
Which can lead to anywhere.
paul
Enablement: Words Don’t Always Mean What We Think They Mean to Others
My dear Paul asked if I would write my perspective on being enabled by the Holy Spirit. We are having differences of opinion on what enablement means. I realize that my perspective will not be full of theological depth, proof texts, or biblical word analysis. My perspective will come from a personal angle.
My first inclination is to say, “Yes. The Holy Spirit enables us to do the will of the Father.” However, all the enablement was given to us at salvation. I must appropriate that enablement in order to accomplish the will of my heavenly Father.
Consider these examples:
a) By strength man is enabled to work.
b) Wealth enables men to be charitable or to live in luxury.
c) The law enables us to dispose of our property by will.
d) Learning and industry enable men to investigate the laws of nature.
The outside source, whether a person, event, or thing renders one capable or able to accomplish some task. A person must act upon that enablement in order to accomplish the desired activity. Strength enables one to work, but if strength is not applied, work is not accomplished. The rope enables you to secure yourself when you climb the mountain. The rope will not do the mountain climbing for you. You must use the enablement (rope) to accomplish the desired task (climbing the mountain). The Holy Spirit supplies the enablement ( at salvation), the believer must appropriate the enablement in order to accomplish the will of the Father. The enabler (Holy Spirit) is always there, the enablement (strength, power, ability ) have already been provided, the believer appropriates it.
There is another consideration with enablement. In today’s society if one is labeled an enabler it connotes a negative and undesirable accusation. Consider this example:
Hi. My name is Susan and I am a recovering enabler. Years ago I was confronted about being an enabler. Not me. I was a loving, caring, submissive Christian wife whose goal in marriage was to build up my husband with honor and respect. After all, we were going to serve the Lord together. Our vows were taken from the book of Ruth: where you go I will go. We lit the unity candle signifying to all who came to our wedding that we were going to be one flesh, one mind, one heart. I was a good Christian wife, not an enabler. An enabler helps people continue in their addictions. An enabler is a wimpy, floor mat of a wife who has no life of her own apart from her husband’s wishes and whims. That certainly was not Susan St. Denis! I was not an enabler.
My name is Susan and I am a recovering enabler. Years ago I was confronted about my being an enabler. Yes, me. I finally admitted it to myself ,to my pastor and to my closest friends. The counsel I received from my pastor was to keep trying to “fix” what was broken in my first husband, Wayne. I needed to show Wayne that I needed him. I was to become a Total Christian Woman, the perfect, submissive wife. In doing so he would see that his addictions could not give him what I could provide. I was told by my pastors that I was not submissive enough and had a rebellious spirit and when I got right with the Lord, then my husband would follow suit. Sadly, this “biblical” counsel given to me by my pastors only fueled his addictions and deepened my enablement. In my attempts at fixing, I also rescued, coached him when he tried recovery programs, nursed him back to health after being beat almost to death by his drug dealers, and was his cheerleader during the sober times. I was his bank, his bill payer, his bail bondsman, and the accountable one. I was an enabler, a martyr, lost and wounded. However, without me to help him he would have had to face the consequences of his actions and that might have interfered with his continued use. I protected him from consequences and from himself. Sadly, I enabled him to die an early death at the age of 55. Two years before his death, I stopped running interference for him, stopped making excuses, and stopped shielding him from the consequences of his addictions. He died of congestive heart failure, and a diabetic coma all directly related to his alcohol addiction. IF I had not assumed the role of enabler would Wayne’s life have taken a different course?
When Paul asked me to write comments about the Holy Spirit being an enabler, I cringed. You can certainly see how this term bears many negative connotations for me, and to associate enabling to the work of the Holy Spirit evokes unpleasant thoughts. I would rather think of the Holy Spirit as my helper as we co-labor together to grow in the wisdom and knowledge of the Lord. However, when I became a believer I was enabled by the Holy Spirit with the same power that resurrected our Lord from the dead. I was rescued from hell, saved from the penalty of sin, redeemed by His blood, forgiven, justified by faith, and empowered by the Holy Spirit on that day I accepted Christ as my Lord and Savior. The Holy Spirit’s enablement (being empowered) is a one time event. He does have a continual role in my life as His child. He convicts of sin, He is a helper, a comforter, a counselor, an advocate with the Father.
When I hear or read of someone who says that “the Holy Spirit enabled them to do thus and so” it makes me wonder, “In what way?” Are they saying that the Holy Spirit shielded consequences so that the activity so desired can continue? Are they saying the Holy Spirit smoothed things out so as to not to rock the boat? Are they saying that the Holy Spirit provided financial assets so that choices can continue? Knowing what the term enable means and all its ramifications, I encourage believers to use it with care. Coming from my personal experience of 36 years of being an enabler, and how today’s world sees enablement, another biblical term would seem more appropriate to describe the work of the Holy Spirit.
My name is Susan and I am a recovering enabler.
Vows, Car Doors, Coats and Chairs
You see it every now and then; a husband opening the car door for his wife, or the event at Perkins that prompted this post: an elderly man stood up first to hold up his wife’s open coat for her to fill. After all those years? Then I had a light bulb moment: “Why not? Isn’t one of the ’till death does us part’—also to—’cherish’?” It would seem that us men take the faithfulness and love part of the wedding vow much more serious than we take the “cherish” part.
What does “cherish” mean? Well, it’s actually a little more focused than love. You can love anybody, especially if your a Christian. We are commanded to love our enemies, right? Cherish means: ”To cling fondly or inveterately to: to cherish a memory” (Dictionary.com). Cherishing necessarily requires display; that’s why I like the cited definition. When we cherish a memory, we do what? Usually, we have taken pictures, framed them, and displayed them at home and work. We are never commanded in the Bible to cherish our enemies. To cherish is to set love on fire. Guess what the antonym for cherish is? Answer: “neglect.” That’s key.
As Christians, I believe we have been given all we need for life and godliness. In fact, Ephesians 4:24 indicates that we have been given the full righteousness and holiness of Christ. Therefore, the apostle Paul commands us to “put on the new.” Pity: so much of today’s discussion concerning the law of God is framed around “obligation.” Obligation?—biblical commands are an invitation to appropriate and put on the righteousness given to us by Christ. Biblical commands are an invitation to set love on fire! Pity: many are taught today that Christ not only bankrupted heaven to give us His righteousness, but he also puts on that righteousness for us, and while we wait for Christ to do our part, the love of God is hidden under a bushel basket. To cherish is to display the love already given, IF we believe Ephesians 4:24.
Besides men, we promise, we vow, and before witnesses. I guess the guy that was at Perkins gets that part. God is very serious about vows. He says it’s better not to make any than to make one and not keep it. In fact, Psalms 15:1,4 says that vow-keeping is the mark of a righteous person:
“LORD, who may dwell in your sacred tent? Who may live on your holy mountain?…. who despises a vile person but honors those who fear the LORD; who keeps an oath even when it hurts, and does not change their mind;” (NIV@2011).
Want another version?
“….in whose eyes a vile person is despised, but who honors those who fear the LORD; who swears to his own hurt and does not change;”(ESV).
As these verses indicate, vow-keeping isn’t always easy, but don’t look at this as an indictment, look at it as an invitation to display love already given. Look at it as an invitation to display the importance of what is important to God. Look at it as an invitation to publicly display that you love your wife like Christ loves the church. Look at it as an invitation to set love on fire, and do so at every opportunity—even using car doors, coats, and chairs.
paul
Gospel-Driven Confusion
I appreciate Greg Gibson’s blog which will often list a series of relevant articles for “busy disciples” (http://networkedblogs.com/8BQuZ). Many times, the articles concern “New Calvinism” which also includes those who hold to the doctrine of Gospel Sanctification (or “gospel-driven” sanctification). This is an antinomian doctrine that synthesizes justification and sanctification, covertly nullifying the use of the Law in the sanctification process.
The most recent list (of which are not necessarily the shared view of Greg Gibson) are excellent examples of the confusion GS is unleashing on the contemporary church. The first article is about a church that executed a popular trend among GS based churches: excommunicating non-active members. Gibson posted the link written by Jonathan Leeman of “9 Marks” blog, which is connected to Capital Hill Baptist Church. CHBC became heroes in the Neo-reformed movement when they excommunicated 256 members for non-attendance, so their interest in interviewing the pastor from the latest church to out-perform them is understandable.
But unbelievably, it quickly became apparent from the twenty or so comments attached to the article, and the authors feedback that it is unclear as to whether or not the parishioners were actually excommunicated or not. It all began with the following apt observation in the comment section:
“….membership on a church role is NOT, absolutely NOT, the same as membership in the Body of Christ. The church membership role is a fallible, human attempt to count members and be more efficient in ministry. That’s great. I’m for church membership and church roles. I support regenerate church membership. I also support culling through roles and taking names off the role because they are inactive and unresponsive. But that is distinctly different from the real theological issues behind the labels “excommunication” and “unrepentant sin.” Those two terms need to be used with care and precision. And we are adding to Scripture to justify applauding their use here….It’s STILL assuming leaps and bounds over what Scripture says. Surely this Catholic view of the Scriptures is NOT what 9 Marks believes [hmmm, I wouldn’t be sure of that]. This is labeling something unrepentant sin that Scripture does not label sin. It’s inferring and implying from Scripture with the result of pronouncing EXCOMMUNICATION (a VERY serious word) over people who may just have never gotten the letter. Or people who never in their years of attending that church under leadership with a lesser view of membership were ever taught to embrace. It’s a sloppy use of church discipline [amen brother!!], which is a very needed practice in the church. This undermines the good use of church discipline for every congregation that desires to use it as God intended for the health of the Body. I implore you again, for the health of the churches who read this and are affected by the leadership here, please correct this article or take it down”[you go boy!!!].
I agree, but then things really start getting crazy when another reader notes the following about the same article:
“If those of you commenting would bother to read the article, you would find that the term ‘excommunication’ wasn’t part of the response, but part of a question posed by Mr. Leeman to Mr. King.
Mr. Leeman asks:
“David, I heard that you recently excommunicated 500 members from your church. Can this be right?”
Mr. King responded:
“What you heard is only partly true. We actually removed 575 members”.
Here, this reader corrects the other readers by pointing out that Leeman called it excommunication, but the pastor of the church that removed the members supposedly corrected him by using a different word. But then the other readers rightly correct him by pointing out that the only logical conclusion that can be drawn from the interview is that the members were, in fact, excommunicated:
“Well apparently according to the last statement by Mr Leeman of his desire that some of the 575 would ‘repent and attend healthy churches’ so based on this it leads one to assume that all these people are indeed excommunicated to the fullest extent and definition of term, and not just ‘removed from the membership role’….Mr. King did not correct him when Mr. Leeman asked about excommunication. He only corrected the numbers. Mr. King is saying, ‘Well actually we excommunicated 75 more people than you said.’ The point remains that excommunication is an unfortunate term to be used here and this article should be taken down or corrected.”
After this comment, the author of the post then suggested that all of the confusion was merely a matter of semantics regarding the definition of different terms. He was then corrected as follows:
“I agree with your definition of excommunication and am using the term in the same way. I take issue with the assumption of ‘unrepentant sin.’ The process he outlines makes not attending their church an ‘unrepentant sin.’ And if they could not document by people’s responses that they were indeed attending their church or another church (I hope at least that), they were LABELED unrepentant. I don’t mind them removing them from the roles. But it is not sin to stop attending a particular church. I have moved churches several times since college, all but once because I moved cities. I likely wouldn’t have gotten a letter even if they had tried to contact me. If they had labeled me unrepentant, it would have been slander. I’d be much more comfortable with this if either 1) you removed the terms excommunication and/or unrepentant sin OR 2) Mr. King clarifies that people weren’t labeled unrepentant simply because they didn’t respond to his letters to them. Because that is a BIG jump over a number of restraining principles in Scripture.”
The author then responded with the usual, long, tortured GS-type response. This sad, confusing commentary can be read in its entirety here: http://networkedblogs.com/8BQuZ
Actually, I like Camile’s response the best:
“This is simply appalling. I understand the need to ‘tidy’ a membership list. That happens.
But to ‘excommunicate’ people simply because they moved away or even joined another church? Talk about assigning negative intent.
I hope it’s sobering for you. I do. This has nothing to do with Jesus or the Gospel.”
P.s., Camile, it’s what happens when you think every verse in the Bible is about redemption.
But in another article listed along with the one above, the confusion continues, and this time at the hands of one of the fathers of Gospel Sanctification, the lovable Jerry Bridges. The second article is entitled “ 12 Steps to Identifying Your Functional Saviors” and the author begins the post this way:
“Whatever we direct our affections, energies, and hopes towards is our object of worship. Our heart needs Jesus; our flesh craves idols. This is why growing in love for Christ requires daily execution of idols. But how do we know what our idols are?”
This is the GS belief that we change by emptying our hearts of idols which leaves a void in our heart that Jesus then fills with himself resulting in Christ obeying for us. This was all hatched by David Powlison in the early 80’s and articulated by Paul David Tripp in his book “How People Change.” Powlison came up with a method to determine what those idols are by asking ourselves “X-ray questions.”
The author then shares a sample of 12 primary X-ray questions that can supposedly be used to determine heart idols from the Jerry Bridges book, “The Bookends of the Christian Life”:
1. I am preoccupied with ________.
2. If only ________, then I would be happy.
3. I get my sense of significance from ________.
4. I would protect and preserve ________ at any cost.
5. I fear losing ________.
6. The thing that gives me greatest pleasure is ________.
7. When I lose ________, I get angry, resentful, frustrated, anxious, or depressed.
8. For me, life depends on ________.
9. The thing I value more than anything in the world is ________.
10. When I daydream, my mind goes to________.
11. The best thing I can think of is ________.
12. The thing that makes me want to get out of bed in the morning is ________.
In an unusual display of discernment by readers, some raised questions about such a notion. For example: if I am preoccupied with my daughters wedding the week prior to the big day does that mean I have heart idols? If I am preoccupied with my wife being in labor, does that mean I love her more than I love Christ? The whole goofy notion of determining heart idols through asking ourselves “X-ray questions” brings up more questions by thinking Christians than could ever be answered; like, should “Christ” be written in every blank? Apparently, the propagators of the method don’t even know; Jered, the author of the post, responded this way:
“There’s nothing wrong with cherishing family, wanting to protect family, being sad if someone in our family is hurt of suffering, etc. I don’t think that’s what the list is getting at.
Nor is it saying we should put ‘Jesus’ into the blanks [well then, what should go in there?]
It’s just a general list, taken altogether, that can be diagnostic of where our ultimate treasure is. No need to absolutize each question or over-think it. Let’s just be conscious to have Christ as our ultimate treasure, which means being aware of our natural drift to idolatry.
The cool thing is that this doesn’t mean we stop enjoying or loving good things. This means actually loving our families better and enjoying good things (like work, sex, sports, etc.) more than if they were our actual treasure.”
Huh? So, they’re diagnostic questions, but the answers are not definitive? Welcome to the confused, nebulous world of Gospel Sanctification, and Gospel-Driven confusion.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
6 comments