A thoughtful reader emailed a question regarding Theonomy
and “law and Gospel.” Specifically, in light of Theonomy, the call for
Christians to acknowledge the law of God as the pattern of our sanctification,
both personal and social, and the call to obedience to that law, “What place does the gospel
have in the believer’s life moment-by-moment?”
This is an excellent question for more than one reason. One
reason is that those who are new and first developing a foundational
understanding of such theological issues often come from a background of
general evangelical theology. This theology generally neglects the role
of God’s law almost entirely, except as a tool to drive us to Christ and the
Gospel. The law is rarely spoken of in its role of providing a guide to godly
behavior for Christian good works (Eph. 2:10).
Even though the Reformed Confessions acknowledge this role of the law, and even
though many Reformed and Evangelical theologians mention this role, it
is rarely developed even for personal life, and even more rarely developed for
social life and institutions.
The reader who sent this question understands Theonomy well
enough to know that it is “not just about reconstructing a society where the
glory of the Lord is displayed in toto, but at heart it is the flip side
of justification, i.e., sanctification,” and “that through sanctification we
are being conformed to the image of Christ.” Great! But there is a lingering
issue regarding what role the Gospel plays “moment-by-moment” in conjunction
with this “in toto” sanctification.
The first thing we need to acknowledge is that this is
hardly an issue pertaining to Theonomy or Reconstruction alone. It is an issue
that needs to be developed and emphasized by all Reformed theology
(indeed, all theology, period). Readers should acknowledge that even if
Theonomy were incorrect, this question would still persist for all general
Reformed theology, for all general Reformed theology asserts both the
constant need for the Gospel and the abiding progress of
sanctification—even if that sanctification pertained only to personal
piety.
I addressed these issues in reference to Theonomy somewhat
elsewhere in a
certain polemical discussion. The relevant meat of that discussion is how
the relationship between “being saved” and ongoing sanctification is nothing
more than basic Confessional Reformed theology. I’ll repeat the points
in more general (non-polemic) form in what follows.
The Confessional view of santification
Rushdoony once made the comment: “The purpose of Christ’s
atoning work was to restore man to a position of covenant-keeping instead of
covenant-breaking, to enable man to keep the law by freeing man ‘from the
law of sin and death’ (Rom. 8:2), ‘that the righteousness of the law might be
fulfilled in us’ (Rom. 8:4).” The thing to note here is a necessary connection
between the believer’s personal relationship with Christ and his or her ongoing
sanctification. This is a Gospel-filled, Spirit-filled life which, because
of these things, goes on also to be an obedient life filled with good
works.
Is this a novel teaching? Hardly. The London Baptist
Confession (LBC) teaches exactly the same thing. LBC Chapter 13 on
“Sanctification” makes clear that as the saints grow in grace, they also grow
“in evangelical obedience to all the commands which Christ as Head and King, in
His Word hath prescribed them.” Obedience? Obedience to commands?
What could this mean? Let a more traditional Reformed Baptist commentator, Sam
Waldron, answer this for us: “In general good works are those which
conform to the law of God as revealed in the Scriptures (see chapter
19).”1
See Chapter 19 indeed. Consider sections 5, 6, and 7 of
Chapter 19:
The moral law doth for ever bind all, as well
justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof, and that not only in
regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of
God the Creator, who gave it; neither doth Christ in the gospel any way
dissolve, but much strengthen this obligation.
Contrary to zealous critics who presents this view of the
law’s binding obligation for the life of the believer after the Gospel as being
“under the law,” the LBC teaches the exact opposite:
Although true believers be not under the law as a covenant
of works, to be thereby justified or condemned, yet it is of great use to them
as well as to others, in that as a rule of life, informing them of
the will of God and their duty, it directs and binds them to
walk accordingly; . . . [M]an’s doing good and refraining from evil,
because the law encourageth to the one and deterreth from the other, is
no evidence of his being under the law and not under grace.2
Section 7 goes on to speak in the exact same terms as
Rushdoony:
Neither are the aforementioned uses of the law contrary to
the grace of the gospel, but do sweetly comply with it, the Spirit of
Christ subduing and enabling the will of man to do that freely
and cheerfully which the will of God, revealed in the law,
requireth to be done.3
Remember what Rushdoony said? “The purpose of Christ’s
atoning work was to restore man to a position of covenant-keeping instead of
covenant-breaking, to enable man to keep the law by freeing man ‘from
the law of sin and death’ (Rom. 8:2), ‘that the righteousness of the law might be
fulfilled in us’ (Rom. 8:4).” It is without any surprise, then, that we
find among the LBC’s scripture proofs for this section none other than . . . Romans 8:4.
Here again, Sam Waldron’s comments, coming from a more
mainstream Reformed view, are helpful. He concludes this section with a
statement almost identical to what Rushdoony said above: “The very
purpose of the gospel is to deliver men from lawlessness and
cause them to obey the law of God (Jer. 31:33;
Ezek. 36:27;
Rom. 8:4; Titus 2:14).”4
Note also not only the same exact sentiment and language, but the same
reference to Romans
8:4.
I have found Waldron’s extended comments on this section
very helpful, particularly in providing a more traditional Reformed alternative
to the idea that it is “insidious and dangerous” to suggest that believers are
somehow bound to the law after having received the Gospel. For example, Waldron
comments:
Some apparently were saying that while we ought to do what
the law says as to its content or matter, we should not do it because the law
says it, but simply because of gratitude to Christ. Several serious problems
may be pointed out in such a sentiment. It is unscriptural (James
2:10-11; Matt. 5:17-19; Rom. 3:31; 1 Cor. 9:21). This
is a subtler form of the error that justified persons are not bound to obey the
law, since ultimately it is not the authority of the law they regard, but
only their gratitude to Christ. Its practical effect is to convey to the
popular mind a lessened sense of the majesty of the law of God and of the
seriousness and absolute necessity of law-keeping. It makes faithful
exhortation to duty difficult, because those who hold this teaching always
object that you are bringing them back into slavery. If anyone speaks to such
people of duty and obligation, their response is that such exhortations are
legalistic. Christ strengthens the original authority of the law. He
does not put the content or the matter of the law on a new foundation. He does
not eliminate the obligation to obey our Creator, but adds the obligation of
gratefully obeying our Redeemer.
Waldron’s point is that a diminished view of law-keeping for
the believer leads not only to complacency, but to the type of complaints
against Theonomy we have heard from critics for some time: it is legalism,
slavery, “under the law,” etc.5
What this “under the law” error does is illustrate the
dangers of overreacting to the claims of Theonomy. In something that is
actually quite common, people overreact to “the law” so much they end up
arguing like liberals, or even antinomians. When one carries their
anti-theonomic critiques—especially in straw man form—to their logical
extremes, they actually start speaking against the basic Reformed theology of
sanctification, and thus, become like antinomians.
Or, looked at from the positive side of the argument, there
is as direct and organic a relationship between salvation in Christ sola
fide and Theonomy as there is between salvation in Christ sola fide
and general, personal sanctification according to the Confession. Answer the
more fundamental question, and you’ll answer the question in regard to Theonomy
as well.
The “moment-by-moment” role of the Gospel
So how does the Gospel of God’s saving grace in Christ Jesus
relate to all of this? I think answer lies right there in the Reformed
Confessions (particularly, the Westminster Confession and the LBC). Chapter 13
of the LBC (to which the WCF is substantially the same), addresses the nature
of our Sanctification:
They who are united to Christ, effectually
called, and regenerated, having a new heart and a new spirit created
in them through the virtue of Christ’s death and resurrection, are
also farther sanctified, really and personally, through the same
virtue, by His Word and Spirit dwelling in them. . . .
Section three concludes that “although the remaining
corruption for a time may much prevail, yet through the continual supply of
strength from the sanctifying Spirit of Christ, the regenerate part doth
overcome; and so the saints grow in grace, perfecting holiness in the fear of
God, pressing after an heavenly life, in evangelical obedience to all the
commands which Christ as Head and King, in His Word hath prescribed them.”
For our purposes here, we need to make three observations.
First, the means by which we are sanctified is the exact same means by which
we are saved in general. The confession is at pains to note that our
sanctification is “through the same virtue” as our union with Christ, effectual
calling, regeneration, and renewal. This virtue includes Christ’s “death and
resurrection,” as well as “His Word and Spirit dwelling in them.” It is by His
finished work and by His Word and Spirit dwelling in us that we are brought to
believe the Gospel, and it is by these same means that we are brought to
believe, love, and seek to obey the Law.
Whatever differences theologians have posited rightly
between “law and Gospel” for all of history, the role of Christ, Word, and
Spirit in animating and empowering the believer in both cannot be one of
them. By the same token, then, we must acknowledge that Reformed theology affirms
obedience to the Law as a Gospel-driven, Spirit-filled reality.
Second, we deduce, therefore, that the very reason for which
we need the Gospel “moment-by-moment” is also the very reason we strive to grow
more faithful in obedience “moment-by-moment” (and perhaps the same could be
said, vice versa). There is no separating the faith by which we
apprehend forgiveness for our sins through Christ’s atoning work and that by
which we mortify the flesh and conform our lives to his standards of
living—even though we distinguish between them for several reasons.
Again, the reason for confusion on this issue is most likely
because of a failure to teach on the sanctification and obedience side of the
equation. Indeed, it is very likely that all the recoil against
application of God’s law has left a vacuum in Christian teaching that begged to
be filled with something theological, or theological-sounding. Some
quarters have returned to various liturgical niceties to fill this void. Some
have created a type of neo-hyper-confessionalism. Some have turned to church
growth tactics of all sorts. Others—probably most of conservative Reformed
circles—have been left to do nothing more than continually emphasize
only justification by faith and our need for the Gospel every moment of our
lives.
I believe this latter emphasis, which I hear from many
non-Theonomic and anti-Theonomic Reformed Christians, is what has created the
difficulty for people like the reader who asked this question. The continual
drumming of our continual need for the Gospel combined with the continual neglect
of applying God’s law (i.e., sanctification), has created a dissonance in the
minds of people who begin to contemplate what sanctification is and how it
works. The moment they begin to ask the sanctification question, and thus the
Theonomy question, they begin to fear they may be departing from that which
they have been taught (rightly) is the all-crucial doctrine: our continual need
for the Gospel. The obvious answer does not appear readily as it should: both
Gospel and law are processed in us by the same power, virtue, agency, and
means, and that is Christ, His Word and His Spirit dwelling in us.
Third, our obedience (sanctification) must be to “all the
commandments” Christ has given us, and this means sanctification has a much
larger scope than just our personal devotions and prayer closet. This is where
Theonomy begins to get real, because this is where sanctification begins to get
real. What happens when we contemplate radical obedience in the areas of
education or business? Debt?
This is not even to ask about the so-called “civil” use of
the law which applies to society and non-believers also. That is also a major
Theonomic topic. But here we consider only “all areas of life” concerned with
the personal and social aspects of believers. This is a huge category, but it
is no less confessional than any other, and we must embrace it just as much as
we embrace salvation by grace alone through faith alone, as well as the basic
understanding of sanctification through those same means and power as described
above.
Conclusion
So, for
a Theonomist, “What place does the gospel have in the believer’s life
moment-by-moment?” The answer to that is simple. It has the same place,
moment-by-moment, as it does for any general Reformed theologian, and as it
should for any Christian. It has a central, crucial, and absolutely necessary
place in our life of saving faith in Christ. But
our sanctification unto obedience has exactly the same requirement. We need
affirmation of the forgiveness of sins and full, free, gracious acceptance by
the Father because of Christ’s finished work every moment of our lives.
We also need the outlook, direction, and corrective influence of God’s law every
moment of our lives. And we require Christ’s Word and His Spirit every
moment of our lives for either to have even one moment’s effect in
us.
Notes:
- Waldron, Samuel E
(2013-03-27). A Modern Exposition 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith (Kindle
Locations 3526-3527). Evangelical Press. Kindle Edition.
- Waldron, Samuel E
(2013-03-27). A Modern Exposition 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith (Kindle
Locations 3958-3975). Evangelical Press. Kindle Edition.
- Waldron, Samuel E
(2013-03-27). A Modern Exposition 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith (Kindle
Locations 3981-3983). Evangelical Press. Kindle Edition.
- Waldron, Samuel E
(2013-03-27). A Modern Exposition 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith (Kindle
Locations 4127-4128). Evangelical Press. Kindle Edition.
- See Waldron’s further
comments at Waldron, Samuel E (2013-03-27). A Modern Exposition 1689
Baptist Confession of Faith (Kindle Locations 4088-4128). Evangelical
Press. Kindle Edition.
