Arminianism and pietism are deadly to orthodox
faith. Many, many Christians in our community are tired of
compromised, broad evangelical “Churchianity.” The church phone
rings weekly from people who have heard about our ministry and are
interested in what we are doing. Sadly, they don’t always like what
they discover. Sometimes it is tempting to gloss over some things
(we’re still a small church and every warm body is welcome!), but we are obliged to let
people know what they are letting themselves in for. Recently a
young man called who was looking for a Reformed Church that did not
compromise on the Westminster Standards. His main concern was our
view of the Law of God. This is a hot topic in reformed circles
today. Many Christians have questions regarding the relationship of
Old Testament Law to New Testament believers. Many people have
opinions about the Law without really thinking through the
implications. Many others have a hidden agenda. Thus a brief review
of the conversation with this young man regarding the Law is very
instructive.
I began my answer to his queries about the Law
by stating that as a PCA elder I had vowed to support and defend the
Westminster Confession. Chapter XIX paragraph 4 states, “To them also, as a body
politic, he gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with
the state of that people; not obliging any other now, further than
the general equity thereof may require.” The relevant question is
what was meant by the term “general equity.” I understand the
Westminster Divines to mean that there are certain, universal moral
principles based on the unchanging character of Almighty God. These
principles are encapsulated in all three of the classic divisions of
the Law, civil, ceremonial and moral. Since these are case laws, even though
sections have been fulfilled by Christ (and thus in one sense have
passed away), they are still relevant and applicable because they
provide practical examples of God’s unchanging nature applied to
specific situations (cf. Matt 5:17-19). As we meditate on one
specific application of God’s unchanging nature applied to one
situation, we gain wisdom to apply the same unchanging principle to
other situations not specifically covered (cf. Josh 1:8). Thus the
Old Testament Law is still relevant, practical and applicable for
New Testament believers.
The young man then said that I was making the
Confession speak out of both sides of its mouth, on the one hand
saying the judicial law was no longer binding on Christians, and yet
on the other also saying that it still did. I responded by giving an
analogy; “If I say that no
one is allowed into my home except with my permission, I
am not saying that all people are excluded from my home, just those
that don’t have my permission.” The General Equity clause makes a
distinction between certain laws given to Israel, and those that are
applicable for all people in all times. The one does not exclude the
other.
The young men screamed, “But that’s legalism!”
He insisted that the judicial law had nothing of value what so ever
for Christians. By judicial law I think he meant the penal sanctions
required by God for certain sins. He went on to say that it was
serious heresy to hold such a position and that I sounded like one
of those “theonomists!”
I replied that I am not a theonomist but rather
maintain the same view of the Law of God that has always existed in
the Reformed faith. I then asked, “But what do you mean by the term
‘theonomy?’” He could not give an a coherent answer except that he
thought they were a bunch of right wing fanatics who wanted to
replace the gospel with social action. I replied that an entire
chapter of my doctoral dissertation critiqued the modern
reconstructionist movement and I had never read or heard of anyone
calling himself a theonomist who held to such a view.
I inquired whether he believed in the moral law
(i.e., the Ten Commandments). He replied that, “Yes, the moral law
was the only part of the law still binding in this age.” I said,
“Fine, should the state enforce the 10 Commandments?” He said, “No,
of course not, that’s judicial law.” I then asked whether he
believed in Romans 13. He was a little vague here, but after I
reminded him that this chapter taught that the secular state was a
minister of God to avenge evil, he finally admitted “Yes.”
I then asked, “What sorts of things ought to be
illegal? Should the State pass laws against murder, adultery, lying,
stealing, etc.” To this he replied “Oh yes, because they are in the
second tablet of the Law.” So it’s OK for the state to pass laws
against some things God condemns? Though he didn’t want to, he
finally muttered an
affirmative.
I then asked him what was the one sin
specifically mentioned in the New Testament that brings God’s
judgment against a nation? He said “unrighteousness.” I said, “Fine,
but what specific sin was mentioned in Romans 1:18ff.” After a
little prompting he finally remembered that idolatry was the
fundamental sin by which God judges all nations. Social, political
and economic disaster is God’s inevitable curse on idolatrous
nations. Then I asked, “Should the State, to avoid God’s curse, make
laws against idolatry?” The young man began hemming and hawing at
that point, not wanting to take up any more of my time.
Smelling blood, I pressed the point home. “On
the day of judgment when kings, presidents and governors have to
give an account to God for how well they fulfilled their duties
according to Romans 13, by
what standard will God judge them? If God requires the State to
be His minister, what is the criteria He will use to determine how
well they have done their jobs?” The young man replied, “By the
Scriptures!”
I replied, “But which Scriptures? Careful, now
you’re sounding like one of those ‘theonomists!” Where are the
Scriptures that tell a king how to govern, what sorts of laws to
pass, what types of sanctions to bring against sin, evil, idolatry
and iniquity? Doesn’t the Law of God give us His standards of
righteousness and justice?” He said he didn’t know but then retorted
“Well, are you saying the State should execute homosexuals and
adulterers!”
The cat is finally out of the bag! Here is the
problem again and again when talking with people who are vehemently
against “theonomy” and “reconstructionism” but who really just hate
the Law of God. When it finally comes down to it, modern day
churchmen think that God’s Law is too harsh, His judgments too cruel
and His sanctions against sin, barbaric and uncivilized. They think
they are more compassionate, more loving and more forgiving than
God. Even though they know that law breakers are going to spend an
eternity in Hell for their sins, they refuse to think through the
implications. Sin is really bad, Hell is real and evil will be
punished eternally. All earthly pain is a reminder and warning of
the eternal consequences of sin. The modern day church is appalled
by God’s law because it does not want to face the eternal sanctions
that God requires. And thus in fleeing from the Law, they flee from
God’s righteousness. But the Bible says that the Christian is one
who loves the Law of God (Psa 119:97). Jesus said that He did not
come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it (Matt 5:17). Heaven and
earth will pass away, but not the smallest letter of the Law shall
pass away until it is all fulfilled (Matt 5:18). The Law of God is a
schoolmaster to bring us to Christ (Rms 7:7).
For the Christian to be under grace not law
means that the law no longer has the power to send God’s elect to
Hell. It does not mean that we are free to make up our own rules and
standards of righteousness. Though Jesus kept the whole law for us
and no one can be saved by keeping the Law, can a Christian murder,
fornicate, steal, lie, covet with impunity? NO (Rms 6:15)! Are any
of God’s commandments, principles, statutes, laws negotiable? What
kind of son willingly and knowingly and consistently rebels against
his father? Can he expect to escape discipline (Hebs 12:5ff)? A true
Christian loves the Law of God because it is the definition of God’s
holiness. We want to obey God. Yes, we sin and need to repent of
that sin. But we still
want to obey Him! The law of God is the standard of holiness. You
cannot have Jesus as savior if you do not acknowledge Him as Lord
(Rms 10:10). And to acknowledge Him as Lord means keeping His
commandments (or Law; cf. Lu 6:46).
I’d like to say that the penny dropped for this
young man and he had a sudden change of heart. Maybe he just needs a
little time and a lot of study and then he’ll come around. But most
people will not thank you for exposing their inconsistencies. Only
God in His grace and mercy can grant repentance and make the scales
fall from rebellious eyes. Like Adam in the garden, we sit in
judgment on God, and cover it up with pious platitudes and aberrant
theology. As Christendom suffers its most ignoble defeat in two
thousand years of Church history, the average “believer” refuses to
acknowledge his responsibility to be a law-keeper because at heart
he is in rebellion to God.
People who call themselves “Reformed” ought to
know better! They know that theology is crucial. They know they have
to be consistent in their theology which is why we have confessional
standards by which we judge orthodoxy. While the standards never
replace Scripture, they are a reliable summary of Scripture. We must
think through the implications of our faith. Christians who refuse
to be consistent with their own theology, reveal that at heart, they
are really syncretists, mixing humanism and paganism with Biblical
truth. Syncretism brought God’s judgment against Israel and is bringing God’s
judgments against us. Van Til was right; there is no neutrality.
But there is hope. There is always a remnant.
Persecution, affliction and adversity are God’s tools to bring about
repentance. God is doing a great house cleaning in our era. Those
who say they love Him are being tested. “If you love me, keep my
word (Jn 14:23-24).” Not everyone who says “Jesus is Lord” really
means it. Just as God winnowed Israel to sift the wheat from the
tares, so also is mainstream evangelical Christianity be tested.
Sadly, rather than gold being refined as fire, the modern church is
like fool’s gold; it looks pretty but it can’t take the heat. And as
Christians fail to act as salt and light in our world, society
crumbles around us. Eventually, when believers a hundred years from
now look back on what we lost, and how we lost it, they will
undoubtedly shake their heads in amazement at our stiff necked,
suicidal rebellion. We had it all, but lost it because we stopped
obeying Jesus. It really is easier to obey God and be blessed then
to rebel and suffer His discipline. They’ll know that from our
experience. Our discipline will be their instruction.
The Western world is suffering a nasty hang
over from over a century of hating and breaking God’s Law. Our
spiritual ancestors loved the Law of God and sought to order every
aspect of life according to it. They built the freest, most
prosperous and stable societies that ever existed. But like the
prodigal son, we have squandered our inheritance. For more than a
hundred years now, antinomianism (i.e., against the law) has
flourished in the church and destroyed Christian civilization. It
has reduced the Christian faith from a complete world and life view
to a harmless, spare time philosophy, personally engaging but
socially irrelevant.
There
are several basic questions that each Christian must ask and answer
if we are to ever get out of this present humanistic nightmare. Does
the Bible tell us how to live or do we make up the rules as we go
along? Does Biblical Christianity have answers only for the
subjective inner portions of our lives or does it apply to every
area? God’s Word says, “By the works of the flesh shall no man be
justified...”
Salvation is a gracious gift of a loving and sovereign God.
But remember, that same God also said, “He who has my commandments
and keeps them, he it is who loves me... (Jn 14:21)” If you say you
love Jesus, why aren’t you obeying
Him?