In this day and age there seems to be too sharp of a distinction between Law and Gospel. It's either Law or Gospel with many hinting that to preach any commands of Scripture (Law), in the realm of sanctification, is to lead to legalism. The idea from such proponents is that obedience to Christ is only from gratitude (though they would never say so in such terms).
Without my further babbling here is Dr. Frame on the subject:
Over the years we have come to think of gospel as correlative with faith, and law as correlative with works. In this usage, law is what condemns, and gospel is what saves. Although this distinction differs from the biblical use of the terms, it does become useful in some contexts. For example, we all know a type of preaching that merely expounds moral obligations (as we usually think of them: don't kill, don't steal, etc.) and does not provide the knowledge of Christ that sinners need for salvation. That kind of preaching (especially when it is not balanced by other preaching emphases) we often describe as preaching of mere law, legalism, or moralism. There is no good news in it. We are inclined to say that it is not preaching of the gospel. So, in this general way we come to distinguish the preaching of law from the preaching of gospel. That is, I think, the main concern of the Formula of Concord: to remind us that we need to preach both things.
We should be reminded, of course, that there is also an opposite extreme: preaching "gospel" in such a way as to suggest that Christ makes no demands on one's life. we call that "cheap grace" or "easy believism." We might also call it preaching gospel without law." Taken to an extreme, it is antinomianism, the rejection of God's law. The traditional law/gospel distinction is not itself antinomianism, but those who hold to it tend to be more sensitive to the dangers of legalism than to the dangers of antinomianism.*
...So the law may use threats to drive us to Christ. But truly good works are never motivated by any command, threat, or reward. In my view, this teaching is unbiblical. It suggests that when you do something in obedience to a divine command , threat, or promise of reward, it is to that extent tainted and unrighteous, something less than a truly good work. I agree that our best works are tainted by sin, but certainly not for this reason. When Scripture presents us with a command, obedience to that command is righteous action. Indeed, our righteousness is measured by our obedience to God's commands. When God threatens punishment and we turn from wickedness to do what he commands , that is not a sin, but a righteous response. when God promises a reward it is a good thing for us to embrace that reward.
The notion that we should conduct our lives completely apart from the admonitions of God's Word is a terrible notion. To ignore God's revelation of his righteousness is sinful. To read Scripture, but refuse to allow its commands to influence one's conduct, is the essence of sin. And what then is to motivate good works, if not the commands, threats, and promises of reward in Scripture? The Formula doesn't say. What it suggests is that the Spirit simply brings about obedience from within us. I believe the Spirit does exactly that. But the Formula seems to assume that the Spirit works that way without any decision on our part to act according to the commands of God...The Christian life is a battle, a race. It requires decision and effort.*Please note that when Frame speaks of our righteousness being measured in obedience to Christ's commands he is not speaking in regards to justification but rather sanctification.
* John Frame, The Doctrine of the Christian Life (Phillipsburg, NJ.: P7R Publishing, 2008), p.188-189
*Ibid, p.
No comments:
Post a Comment