In this post I will be addressing an argument against the Law/Gospel distinction from Eastern Orthodox blogger MG's post “Breaking down the Law-Gospel dialectic”. His argument tries to show that the Law and the Gospel are not distinct theological categories. I will distinguish the two in the following way: Gospel is believing in the promises of God especially as it relates to our salvation in Christ alone and the is Law the commandments of God. In short what distinguishes these two: the Gospel is “believing” and the Law is “doing”. In Pauline thought believing is never doing and doing is never believing. Now that we understand the distinction let us take a look at MG's supposed counter example to this distinction:
Revelation 14:6-7 6 Then I saw another angel flying directly overhead, with an eternal *gospel* to proclaim to those who dwell on earth, to every nation and tribe and language and people. 7 And he said with a loud voice, "Fear God and give him glory, because the hour of his *judgment* has come, and worship him who made heaven and earth, the sea and the springs of water."
MG writes, after quoting this verse:
“If law is observance of commandments (fear, give glory, worship), and the everlasting gospel teaches us to obey God’s commandments, then are the two really in opposition?”
The first theological mistake that MG makes is by pointing out that people who hold to the Law/Gospel distinction think that there is actually opposition between the Law and the Gospel. This is far from the truth because most Reformed/Lutheran accounts of the Law and The Gospel never say that they are opposed to each other but rather they are distinct from one another. The Law and the Gospel work together to bring about God’s redemptive historical plan and thus there is no opposition here, but only a distinction here.
Secondly, why does MG assume that when it speaks of the Gospel it has to be referring to all the imperatives mentioned (fear, give glory, worship)? My contention is that John is only referring to God’s judgment or justice being displayed to believers and non-believers. The Gospel does contain, after all, God’s justice and righteousness (Rom. 1:17) and surely John is talking about God’s justice which is the Greek word “krisis” used in this passage (in the ESV translation above it is translated as judgment). It seems that this is all John is trying to say: that the eternal gospel is God’s coming justice. This is something that Protestants who hold to the law/gospel distinction agree with. This is a statement of fact about God’s righteous purposes and not an imperative for us to follow.
The reason why MG took the verse in this way is because as an Eastern Orthodox person he rejects the follow Protestant positions: 1) The clearer passages of Scripture ought to interpret the unclear; 2) the Gospel is that of believing and not doing.
Paul states clearly that an aspect of the Gospel is justification by Faith alone (Rom. 1:16-17). Also, that those who reject the Gospel and try to add any works to it, as Paul's Jewish opponents did, are condemned to hell (Gal. 1:8-9). If we would let the clear scriptures define what is the Gospel rather than some difficult apocalyptic imagery in Revelation then one would clearly see that what John was talking about was God’s righteousness and justice as an aspect of the eternal gospel rather than bundle of imperatives. But MG did not do this because his church rejects the Gospel and rejects the reasonable interpretive principles that lay at the heart of the Reformation.
Nate--
ReplyDeleteI never said law and Gospel are not distinct theological categories. On my view, they are not the same; they are distinct, but not intrinsically opposed. This means that just because something is Gospel does not mean it is non-law, and just because something is law does not mean it is non-Gospel; and it is false that the more law-ish something is, the less Gospel-ish it is, and visa versa. There are some accidental aspects of the law (such as the way certain human beings responded to it, and the consequences that followed from these responses) that are contrary to the way of the Gospel. But there is nothing intrinsic to law or Gospel that is opposed to the other.
You say that in Pauline thought, believing is never doing and doing is never believing. If this is so, then why does Paul seem to portray faith as a virtue—a real moral quality that has an inherent normative importance with respect to justification? He speaks of it depriving the flesh of its power over us, giving the power to hope and endure trials, glorifying God, and being looked upon by God as righteousness (Romans 4:18-22)? Even granting for the sake of argument that Paul denies that any and all works contribute causally to justification, Paul sure seems to think that faith is a virtue, and that therefore our justification is contingent on virtue. And if Paul and James are not in opposition, why does James seem to view works as constitutive of the virtue of faith (2:22, 2:26)? More importantly, why does Jesus praise people’s faith, and tell them that their faith has made them well? Sure sounds like He thinks it is a virtue. Regardless, Revelation seems to take the Gospel and not define it as exclusively stressing the importance and sole necessity of “believing” as opposed to “doing”. The definition presupposes faith, surely; but it does not presuppose that works are not instrumental to appropriation of the Gospel in any sense (in fact it seems to affirm that they are instrumental).
Don’t you precisely affirm that there is an intrinsic opposition between law and Gospel in your definition? You wrote “I will define Law as the commandments of God. In short, the Gospel is “believing” and the Law is “doing”. In Pauline thought believing is never doing and doing is never believing”. Just because God can use both things to bring about his purposes does not mean that they are not intrinsically opposed. In Reformed theology, God uses all kinds of things that are intrinsically opposed to God in order to bring about his purposes, so this does not seem to prove anything.
I don’t assume that when it speaks of the Gospel it is talking about the imperatives as themselves the content of the royal announcement about Christ’s Lordship and Kingdom. However, if we take statements like Romans 1:16-17 to be enunciating an aspect of the Gospel, we can see them as plausibly having two elements: the announcement of God’s salvation, and the divinely-ordained condition of appropriating that salvation. So in Romans 1:16-17 the salvation of God is his power and the condition of appropriating it is faith. This seems like an appropriate, not arbitrary or ad hoc, way of looking at Romans 1:16-17.
ReplyDeleteThis same framework, when applied to Revelation 14:6-7 would yield the conclusion that God’s salvation is his judgment or coming justice, and I’d be glad to agree with you on that point. But the framework would also entail that the conditions of appropriating this judgment correctly are fearing, glorifying, and worshipping God. This is further reinforced by the fact that the text says “fear God and give him glory *because* the hour of his judgment is come”. The word “because” seems to imply a kind of conditionality, where the threat and promise of judgment makes it appropriate for those who hear the Gospel in the previous verse to respond to its word with worship and reverence. Again, this seems to put the law out of opposition with the Gospel, implying that some of the things of the Gospel are law-ish, and some of the things of the law are Gospel-ish, that the two are intrinsically related. This does not deny, though, that one (the Gospel) is the source of the efficacy of the other (the law).
Also, I do think we should generally interpret the clearer passages of Scripture by the unclear. I just think that Paul does not teach justification by faith alone, much less teach it clearly anywhere. And there are even clearer passages in Scripture that seem to precisely deny justification by faith alone. Where in Romans 1:16-17 (or anywhere else) does Paul say that an aspect of the Gospel is justification by faith *alone*?
I agree that those who try to add works to the Gospel are in heresy. The question is whether any works are already a part of the Gospel. Are good works not a part of the conditions for appropriating the salvation offered to us in the Gospel? This doesn’t seem obvious at all. What is obvious is that *works of the law* are not a condition for appropriating the Gospel. But why move from Paul’s statements that “some works” are not necessary to “all works” are not necessary?
Hello MG,
ReplyDeleteThe difficulty here is that Lutherans and the Reformed are not comfortable at all with the language of opposition when describing the law/gospel distinction. This is why it is called the law/gospel distinction rather than the law/gospel opposition. So when you say they are opposed you are in a sense shooting down a straw man and that had to be pointed out. There are in Reformed thought something that are true about the law that is true about the Gospel namely that they are both exist, holy, righteous, revealed by God, and work teleologically at redeeming us. But were they are distinct and not opposed is that the Gospel is believing in the promises of God for our salvation and the law are all other imperatives and commands that involve doing with respect to a certain amount of effort. Thus, we have a distinction here and not opposition. There are a lot of properties that mind has that the body does not but that does not mean that dualist are committed to the fact that body and the mind are necessarily opposed to one another. So this is true of the law/gospel distinction the fundamental property of differentiation is “doing” and “believing”. I know you as an Eastern Orthodox reject the doing and believe distinction that the law/gospel distinction makes; this is why this post was written.
The Bible and Paul no where display the faith we have for justification as a virtue. I believe the faith discussed in Roman 4:18-22 is an argument for the divine origin of Abrahams Faith and not something that is virtuous in Abraham. The only thing I would see virtuous in this passage is that when it speaks of him growing in faith which is a virtue that I believe takes place after justification in sanctification. But I still do not think you have provided evidence here of faith that justifies us is in and of itself virtuous. James in verse 22 is talking about the faith and works in sanctification. And in James 2:26 James is saying that a Faith without works is not a saving faith at all, but that is different from saying that the works and the faith together as conditions save or justify you. The faith that Jesus commends is the faith that is in sanctification which is a virtue and not the faith that justifies you. Every time the word Gospel is used it does not need to mention the fact that we need to believe every case. In fact sometimes the Gospel is presented as facts and propositions we should believe in (1 Cor. 15:1-6). This does not mean that just because believing is not mentioned in ever instance that the distinction in Pauline thought between believing and doing is implausible. So in the case of Revelation my point still stands, John is merely pointing out the fact of God’s just judgments and this is the Gospel, not the imperatives in the passage.
You Said: Don’t you precisely affirm that there is an intrinsic opposition between law and Gospel in your definition? You wrote “I will define Law as the commandments of God. In short, the Gospel is “believing” and the Law is “doing”. In Pauline thought believing is never doing and doing is never believing”. Just because God can use both things to bring about his purposes does not mean that they are not intrinsically opposed. In Reformed theology, God uses all kinds of things that are intrinsically opposed to God in order to bring about his purposes, so this does not seem to prove anything.
ReplyDeleteResponse: I was not trying to oppose them, but I was rather trying to show where they ought to be distinguished, hence the law/gospel distinction and not the law/gospel opposition. I believe I deal with the rest of this above in my first response.
You Said: I don’t assume that when it speaks of the Gospel it is talking about the imperatives as themselves the content of the royal announcement about Christ’s Lordship and Kingdom. However, if we take statements like Romans 1:16-17 to be enunciating an aspect of the Gospel, we can see them as plausibly having two elements: the announcement of God’s salvation, and the divinely-ordained condition of appropriating that salvation. So in Romans 1:16-17 the salvation of God is his power and the condition of appropriating it is faith. This seems like an appropriate, not arbitrary or ad hoc, way of looking at Romans 1:16-17.
Response: I was not saying that in every instance of the Gospel being spoken you just automatically assume it has to do works or doing instead of believing. All I was merely pointing out was that you reject the Reformed principle that the Gospel can never mean “doing” it only involves “believing”. I agree faith is a condition that we must fulfill in order to be saved, but it is that condition and that condition alone that you reject and hence you reject the Gospel. If you were to read Romans 1:16-17 of faith that justifies the ungodly apart from all works as in the context of the book of Romans then you would have a good way at looking at Romans.
You said: This same framework, when applied to Revelation 14:6-7 would yield the conclusion that God’s salvation is his judgment or coming justice, and I’d be glad to agree with you on that point. But the framework would also entail that the conditions of appropriating this judgment correctly are fearing, glorifying, and worshipping God. This is further reinforced by the fact that the text says “fear God and give him glory *because* the hour of his judgment is come”. The word “because” seems to imply a kind of conditionality, where the threat and promise of judgment makes it appropriate for those who hear the Gospel in the previous verse to respond to its word with worship and reverence. Again, this seems to put the law out of opposition with the Gospel, implying that some of the things of the Gospel are law-ish, and some of the things of the law are Gospel-ish, that the two are intrinsically related. This does not deny, though, that one (the Gospel) is the source of the efficacy of the other (the law).
ReplyDeleteResponse: “Because” or hoti in Greek does not necessarily imply conditionality. It could be merely read as message to unbelievers to threaten unbelievers and to motivate believers in their sanctification, but not as conditions of salvation. But all of that would not be the gospel; the only thing that can be called Gospel legitimately is the just judgments of God.
You Said: Also, I do think we should generally interpret the clearer passages of Scripture by the unclear. I just think that Paul does not teach justification by faith alone, much less teach it clearly anywhere. And there are even clearer passages in Scripture that seem to precisely deny justification by faith alone. Where in Romans 1:16-17 (or anywhere else) does Paul say that an aspect of the Gospel is justification by faith *alone*?
Response: There are no verses in the Bible that deny justification by faith alone. After Romans 1:16-17 Paul connects to the next thought with for or gar. This continuation lead Paul into showing that both Gentiles and Jews are both condemned and cannot be justified by their own doing. This leads Paul to top off his thoughts by showing that both Jews and Gentiles are condemned and that no one will be justified by works of the law (Rom. 3:9-20). This connects Paul to his next thought on justification by faith alone, which I have argued for elsewhere in our conversations and you have not given me a response to it:
“Paul defines grace as something that cannot be compatible with or mixed with works otherwise it would not be grace (Rom. 11:6). Paul even goes on to say that the only thing that would be compatible with grace is faith (Rom. 4:16). It says in Romans 3 and in other places that we are justified by grace (Rom. 3:24). So it has to be faith otherwise it would no longer be of grace. And therefore, it cannot be of works because it we would no longer be justified by grace. Hence, Justification by faith alone.
It also says in Ephesians 2:8-10 that we are saved not by our own doing because faith and grace are not of us.”
You Said: I agree that those who try to add works to the Gospel are in heresy. The question is whether any works are already a part of the Gospel. Are good works not a part of the conditions for appropriating the salvation offered to us in the Gospel? This doesn’t seem obvious at all. What is obvious is that *works of the law* are not a condition for appropriating the Gospel. But why move from Paul’s statements that “some works” are not necessary to “all works” are not necessary?
ReplyDeleteResponse: This is because if it were by works in general then it would not be by grace otherwise grace would not longer be grace (Rom. 11:6). Furthermore, if our justification was by his grace (without works) is in the past when we were ungodly by faith then that would seem to exclude all types of good works that would make one Godly (Rom. 3:24; 4:5; 5:1).
As I have said else where about the Greek word for “Justify”
“Romans 4:5 5 And to the one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness,
The Greek word “dikaioo” for to justify means to make righteous in the sense of already declaring that one is intrinsically righteous or to declare someone righteous when he is not. Clearly in Romans 4:5 it is not the former but the latter since God justifies the ungodly. Dikaioo never means inwardly or subjectively transforming to person so that he can be righteous but rather it is a declaration of what already is or declaring something that is ungodly righteous.”
Thanks for your time MG.
I hope you are well,
NPT