Samuel Bolton (1606-1654) was an English Churchman of the Puritan variety and also was delegated as a member of the Westminster Assembly. In other words, Bolton was a Calvinist.
Bolton once said, "The law sends us to the Gospel so that we may be justified; the Gospel sends us to the Law again to inquire what is our duty as those who are justified."
As Lutherans, we should have some major problems with statements such as this one. In Lutheranism, we often talk about God's proper work and His alien work. His proper work is the Gospel; what God has done in Christ to save us. His alien work is the Law.
You see clearly from statements such as Bolton's, Reformed Theology reverses this altogether. God's proper work in Calvinist world is the law. The Gospel is never God's proper work. Statements such as this one betray Reformed Theology's ideas about Christ and the Gospel. The Gospel is never God's final yes. It's never God's final word. It's never His proper work. The Gospel is only a means to drive us right back to the same thing that condemns us in the first place. Now why would God do that? Sounds a little silly when you see the statement for what it is. But the truth of the matter is, in Reformed Theology the end goal is always the law, not the Gospel.
Strikingly, this statement by a conservative Puritan is theologically reflective of much of mainstream Christianity now days. The Gospel is just a means, but then we must move beyond the Gospel to bigger and better things. In the case of Bolton and the Puritans (and modern denominations such as the OPC), we have to move right back to the thing that killed us in the first place: God's Law. In the case of much of modern day Christianity, it's a bunch of other cultural norms (or perhaps even counter-cultural norms).
It's hard to label this statement as legalism, since Bolton and the Puritans would never assent to a stance that spiritual life is gained through obedience to the Law, but to use a Lutheran term, it certainly bends heavily to the Pietistic side of things.
On the other hand, statements like this have a way of stripping the believer of all assurance of salvation. Instead of looking objectively to Christ, outside of you, the believer has to look to self, to see how well they are obeying the law that the Gospel drove them to. When you chuck the heterodox doctrine of limited atonement into the mix, this problem is magnified.
Puritans such as this simply will not look objectively to Christ crucified for their sins and the means of grace where Christ has promised to meet us - Word and Sacrament. They can't. Their theology will not allow it. Their rejection of the objectivity of the means of grace forces them to look to self for assurance. In this light, Bolton's statement is just consistent with his theology.
Statements like this get it all wrong. Bolton fails to realize that the entire life of a Christian is one of continual repentance, as Luther pointed out in the first of his famous 95 theses. The Christian life is never a life of continual victory and obedience to the law. It is one of continual repentance and forgiveness of sins. The third use of the law is there for Christians to see what is good and pleasing to God - not for us to be driven back to that law by the Gospel. The Gospel is always God's final word. It's His ultimate yes.
And if this is the case, the Gospel is not a means to an end, it is an end in itself. The Christian needs the law too, but mainly for repentance. We see the law and must admit we have not kept it, even while in Christ. Hence, we can never move beyond the Gospel. We must hear those sweet words of Absolution, of what Christ has done for us in the Word, and receive that body and blood in our mouths for the forgiveness of our sins. We continually need the Gospel. It is truly the last word, not a means to drive us back to the very thing that condemned us in the first place as fanatics like Bolton and the Puritans would have us believe.
+Pax+
Your words, on their face, pretty much empty the 3rd Use of any significance. It also makes the Law something to be ignored, even disparaged, as is the ideology of the Radicals. You have done too much.
ReplyDeleteTotally disagree Delwyn. I was simply pointing out the separation of law and gospel and the sloppiness of Reformed theology in this area.
ReplyDeleteYou're reading more into what I said than what I actually said. I am simply showing that in Lutheranism, and in Christianity, the Gospel does not drive us back to the thing that condemns us in the first place. That would make the LAW God's proper work and the GOSPEL nothing more than a means to drive us back to the real thing.
ReplyDeleteThe Gospel drives us to the love of God. How is that love expressed? Jesus said, "If you love Me, you will keep My commands." Paul said, "Love fulfills the Law." John wrote, "hereby we know that we love God, when we keep His commandments." The Gospel is not superior to the Law. It is the means of reconciliation between us in our inability to keep the Law, and God, who gives us His Law for our benefit.
ReplyDeleteThe Gospel drives us to rely on Christ alone. Period. The new obedience does result and this is where the 3rd use comes in. Should we go on sinning? No.
ReplyDeleteNot to mention, Christ and His work us is the Gospel, part of which is that He fulfilled the law on our behalf.
ReplyDeleteCORRECTION: JEsus said, "... keep My WORD," not, "keep My Commandment" (John 14:23). Ok, back to the discussion.
ReplyDelete"We love Him because He first loved us."
ReplyDeleteCould you explain where you think I have made a mistake in the blog? I am not a Radical...many people can attest to this.
ReplyDelete"We love Him because He first loved us." New Obedience doesn't just "result," unfortunately, otherwise there would be no exhortation to "let this mind be in you..." or "Walk in the Spirit," and Paul would not have had to "press towards the mark of the prize of the upward call of God." New obedience takes place ONLY in those who crucify the flesh daily, walk after the Spirit, not after the flesh, who "walk by faith and not by sight."
ReplyDeleteThere is a teaching that has hit the airwaves that says, "Since Jesus paid for all of our sins on the cross, you do not have to ask God for forgiveness; instead, you just thank Him for the forgiveness that He has already given you. It is rooted in the same idea that you are presenting here.
ReplyDeleteI agree that "Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness." But the Law STILL serves a positive purpose - showing us HOW to love God and our neighbor. God DOES speak in His Law, just as He speaks in His Gospel. He just speaks on different topics - not contradictory, but different.
I agree with you. All I was trying to say is that the Gospel does not drive us back to the law.
ReplyDeleteOops, I wsa wrong to think that I was wrong. While in verse 23 Jesus said "my word (logos)," in verse 21 He said, "21 ὁ ἔχων τὰς ἐντολάς μου καὶ τηρῶν αὐτὰς ἐκεῖνός ἐστιν ὁ ἀγαπῶν με· ὁ δὲ ἀγαπῶν με ἀγαπηθήσεται ὑπὸ τοῦ πατρός μου, κἀγὼ ἀγαπήσω αὐτὸν καὶ ἐμφανίσω αὐτῷ ἐμαυτόν."
ReplyDelete[James Swanson, Barbara Aland, et al., The Swanson New Testament Greek Morphology: United Bible Societies’ Fourth Edition, 4th ed. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2002), Jn 14:21.]
"Entolas" - Commandments... well, I guess He did say that love is manifested in keeping His Commandments. So I'm back to where I started. The Gospel justifies us, but it doesn't
tell us how to live in the light of our justification. It tells us what God did, not what we should do once we have believed it. That is still the work of the Law of God.
I believe you. I notice that Lutherans tend to speak very well when it comes to polemics, but sometimes TOO well. To understand Bolton properly, you must see his words in the context of what they were directed.
ReplyDeleteBecause the English Reformation moved away from external means of grace, they were left with internal means. That was wrong, but they STILL dealt with the same issues that we dealt with - "How shall we now live?" To a point, we both came up with the same answer - trust in God's gift of righteousness as it pertains to justification. The problem is, how do we determine who is real and who is not. We decided not to worry about that issue, leave it with each individual to trust in God or not. They chose to worry about it, leading them to the work of fruit inspection. We don't deal with fruit inspection, choosing instead to focus on the dispensation of forgiveness through the sacraments, assuming that people will sin after they have believed They assumed the opposite, that believers will actually as well as positionally, turn away from sin and bear the fruits of righteousness, and that those who do not are not actually believers. I think that the Lutheran position is more realistic, while the Reformed position is more idealistic.