Categories: Law and Gospel, the 3 uses of the Law

When the Reformed and Lutheran scholastics talked about God’s moral law (lex moralis), they taught that there are three basic uses of the law (usus legis).  They are:
1) The civil use (usus politicus sive civilis).  That is, the law serves the commonwealth or body politic as a force to restrain sin.  This falls under the general revelation (revelatio generalis) discussion in most of the scholastics as well as natural law (cf. Rom 1-2).
2) The pedagogical use (usus elenchticus sive paedagogicus).  That is, the law also shows people their sin and points them to mercy and grace outside of themselves.  In Muller’s summary, this is “the use of the law for the confrontation and refutation of sin and for the purpose of pointing the way to Christ” (p. 320).  This can be found in the Heidelberg Catechism Lord’s Days 2-4.
3) The normative use (usus didacticus sive normativus).  That is, this use of the law is for those who trust in Christ and have been saved through faith apart from works.  It “acts as a norm of conduct, freely accepted by those in whom the grace of God works the good” (p. 321).  This can be found in the Heidelberg Catechism Lord’s Days 32-52.
Note: “In this model, Christ appears as the finis legis, or end of the law, both in the sense that the usus paedagogicus leads to Christ as to a goal and in the sense that the usus normativus has become a possibility for man only because Christ has fulfilled the law in himself” (Ibid.).  In other words, in both the pedagogical use and the normative use Christ is central as the one who has saved his people from the law’s demands and the one who has merited the gift of Spirit-wrought obedience.

And now in plain speak.  We have discussed in the past that there is a clear and distinct difference between Law and Gospel.  This is one of the two main category distinctions that we get from Martin Luther.  The other main category distinction is between the two kingdoms, which we will discuss in the next post.  The Law consists of commands.  It is always tied to a blessing and curse principle.  Do this and you shall live; do it not, and you shall perish.  One of the most important things to develop at the outset is the context of that last sentence.  When discussing do this and you shall live, we are not talking about the here and now.  This is a statement concerning Judgment Day.  We are in the realm of eschatology again, and we are talking about eternal life.  So, in terms of the Law, Do this and you shall live means do this and you shall have eternal life.  Obviously, the second part of the clause is the curse that damns the person to eternally suffering the Wrath of God, i.e. hell. 

The key feature of the Gospel is that it is in the indicative mood.  We can call this the present perfect tense as well, because it is completed action in terms of the present.  The Gospel events have finished.  It is a declaration of the condition of things based upon events that are finished.  This is NOT present progressive tense.  This is NOT ongoing action.  This is completed action.  The Gospel is News.  It is not dependent upon how we react to it.  The World Trade Center towers have fallen.  They fell regardless of how we feel about it, or how we reacted to it.  That event is outside of us.  That event occurred independent of our interaction with it.  That was news.  The Gospel is news.  The Gospel is in the indicative mood.  The Gospel is in the present perfect tense.  The Gospel is NOT about how we feel.  The Gospel is about what Jesus has done for us.

The Law, then, is imperative.  The Law is a command.  The Law tells us what to do.  Let’s break down Luther’s three uses of the Law and see what they mean.

The first use of the law is the civil use.  This means that the law restricts how we behave towards one another.  All people are aware of this use of the law.  We receive this form of the law by general revelation or natural revelation.  Natural revelation is the law as we have imprinted upon our hearts.  We, in creation, are hard wired for natural revelation.  Adam and Eve did not yet have the stone tablets of Moses, and yet they were aware of the Law.  The Law was obvious to them by observing creation.  Natural revelation is available and known to all people, even atheists.  Natural revelation gave Adam and Eve the Law under which humanity fell.

Specific revelation is more specific than natural revelation in that it uses words.  Specific revelation is the Law as written in the Torah.  Specific revelation was given to Moses.  Whether we are Christian, Jew or neither, some form of natural or general revelation is known to us.  Under these terms, we know the difference between right and wrong.  We know generally how to behave towards one another.  This is the Civil use of the Law.  When governments make civil laws, they are using general and natural revelation, which are right kingdom items, to mandate behavior in the left kingdom, the kingdom of man, the kingdom of the here and now.  The Civil use of the Law is a government of man using the Law of God to restrict behavior and enforce some ethical code.

The second use of the law is the pedagogical use of the law.  This is a vastly important point that must be clearly understood in order to understand the Gospel.  The second purpose of the Law is to show people that we are sinful.  I didn’t know what it meant to covet; I had to look that up.  Now, I know what it means to covet, and I realize that I do, indeed, covet.  The Law has made me aware of my sin.  This goes much deeper than mere definition, however.  The Law carries reward and punishment.  The wage of sin is death.  The Law teaches us that we have all earned death.  The Law finally teaches us that we are all fallen creatures in Adam.  The purpose of the Law is to condemn man.  The second purpose of the Law is to bring man to his knees in the realization that we cannot possibly uphold the Law.  The second purpose of the Law is to turn us away from ourselves, outside of ourselves, to the Gospel.  The second purpose of the Law is to turn us towards the redemption and salvation offered to believers through Christ’s life, death, resurrection and ascension.  The second purpose of the Law is to show us that we cannot do it, and turn us toward the One who, not only could do it, but did do it, and He did it for His people.

The third use of the law is normative use of the law.  This use is for believing Christians.  It has no applicability to non-Christians.  Once we understand that we are completely incapable of fulfilling the law, that we are therefore left in a wholly desperate predicament, that we have therefore turned outward towards Christ and His alien righteousness through the Blood of the New Covenant, then the Law serves a very different purpose.  Jesus has fulfilled the Law in terms of the Blessings and the Curses of the Old Testament Covenants of Law.  We are reborn through Christ’s blood in the Sacrament of Baptism into the New Covenant as believers.  We have been given the gift of faith by the power of the Holy Spirit.  Therefore, we are no longer under the Law.  That is Christian Liberty.  Now, we have a new master that is not the Law.  Our master is Christ Jesus, our Lord, our Savior, our King.  We have an obligation of obedience to Him.  We are expected to follow the moral law, the Decalogue, not under the blessing and curse principle, but out of our obedience and gratitude for the intervention of Grace on our behalf.  We freely accept this obligation as our duty to Christ as one of His people, chosen before time to receive from the Holy Spirit the gift of faith.

In summary, the three uses of the law are the civil, the pedagogical and the normative uses.  The civil use of the law is the use of general and natural revelation by civil authorities to mandate behavior that avoids sin.  The pedagogical use of the law is to cause believers to realize that they are sinners incapable of the standard of perfection required for salvation, and to therefore turn them away from themselves towards Christ.  The normative use of the law is for believers who understand and believe that their righteousness before God is independent of their works, based completely upon the imputed righteousness of Christ for us, and is therefore a freely accepted normal standard for behavior.  I hope that you found this helpful.

--Troll--

Worth dying?

This morning, the question that was raised concerning certain Christian martyrs was: what exactly is it that would be worth your life?  I want to build up the idea from scratch until it reaches a minimum threshold to be worth my life.

The starting point was faith.  Is faith worth my life?  Well, faith in what?  Is all faith the same?  The word faith in the Bible has a very specific meaning, but that word has been usurped by the culture and stripped of its textual richness, made bland by liberals and ecumenical movements.  What faith means now is belief in something, anything.  That something could be a naturalistic view of spirituality, where divinity resides in all things, including rocks and air.  That faith could be in humanity in general or the self specifically.  The word has lost its Biblical context.  No, I would not die for faith.

Faith needs an object, so it would seem.  Let’s try this one:  Faith in Jesus.  I have faith in Jesus…to do what?  To just be there for me?  To make the sun rise?  To endow me with blessings in this world?  To be my own personal advisor?  I’m sorry, but none of those things are big enough for my life.  Jesus has to do a whole lot more than be my own personal counselor, advisor, physician and spiritual mentor.  I can get all of those things without going to Jesus; therefore, this faith in Jesus is not enough for my life.

What if Jesus were the Son of God?  I’ve read in the Bible, in the synoptics in fact, that demons and the devil himself know that Jesus is the Son of God, the second part of the Holy Trinity.  This knowledge does not seem to alter their behavior.  Is this enough to alter mine?  Let’s assume that this is true.  So, what does this mean to me?  Is this fact worth my life?  No, not yet, but at least you have my attention.

What if Jesus was the Son of God who died, was buried, and on the third day, rose from the dead, and is seated at the Right hand of the Father, reigning in heaven?  OK, that’s spectacular news.  What does it have to do with me?

What if Jesus died to save sinners?  If He died, how did He save anyone?  Is Jesus a great example that I’m supposed to follow?  Do I have to die a martyrs death for salvation?  No, I’m not buying that one either.  Christianity wouldn’t have survived for 2000 years if the only road to salvation was martyrdom.  Perhaps there is a connection between this death and resurrection of Jesus and my own salvation.

What if Jesus died for me, as a sacrifice on my behalf to a justly angry and Divine God, to expiate my sins, to reconcile me to the God of the Universe, to provide for me righteousness so that I may join Him justly on the Last Day?  What if the Holy Spirit gave me the knowledge of this transaction through the testimony of witnesses to Jesus’ life, death and resurrection as recorded in scripture, and the belief that this account was True?  What if I had faith, or belief, in this knowledge of Christ’s work on the Cross for me as revealed in the Bible, with knowledge also of all of the richness, fullness and nuance of this transaction, would that be enough for my life?  Would that be enough for your life?

Jesus is the Son of God, the second part of the Holy Trinity.  He did condescend to temporarily leave His heavenly throne and become incarnate as both fully God and fully man, thereby taking on the burden of the Law, so that He could fulfill the Law as no other man had done, and no other man could do since the fall of Adam.  By fulfilling the Law, He became a worthy sacrifice to a just God, Himself, being all parts of the drama for us.  He was the priest who made the sacrifice.  He was the sacrifice.  He was God to whom the sacrifice was made.  He sent the third part of the Holy Trinity afterwards, to reveal to His elect, to those who would belief, the truth of the knowledge contained in the scripture, the knowledge of the work of Jesus on the Cross.  He has ascended back to heaven, where He sits until He comes again in Glory to judge the living and the dead.  The only hope of me or any man for salvation is faith, faith in all of this and more as revealed in the Bible.

Yes, that is enough.  For that truth, for that faith, I would become a martyr.  When we take the shorthand instead of spelling out the whole formula, it is important that at least we know that it is shorthand, and that we know for what the word is shorthand as well.  Is this enough for you?

--Ogre--

The State of American Christianity

Right off the bat, some of you may take issue with my title.  Shouldn’t it be “The State of Christianity in America?” Well, no, I don’t agree.  You see, I’m very fond of labels and words.  I think they serve us well.  When I say the word “elephant,” you go through a mental check list of what it is to be an elephant.  If I show you a photograph of a zebra and tell you that it is an elephant, you have a firm grasp of the label “elephant” and are able to refute my claim.  Categories and labels are the areas where the Church has completely lost touch.  Let’s start at the beginning.

“The fundamental fault of the modern Church is that she is busily engaged in an absolutely impossible task – she is busily engaged in calling the righteous to repentance. Modern preachers are trying to bring men into the Church without requiring them to relinquish their pride; they are trying to help men avoid the conviction of sin.

“The preacher gets up into the pulpit, opens the Bible, and addresses the congregation somewhat as follows: ’You people are very good,’ he says. ‘You respond to every appeal that looks toward the welfare of the community. Now we have in the Bible – especially in the life of Jesus – something so good that we believe it is good enough even for you good people.’

“Such is modern preaching. It is heard every Sunday in thousands of pulpits. But it is entirely futile. Even our Lord did not call the righteous to repentance, and probably we shall be no more successful than he.”

-- J. Gresham Machen, Christianity and Liberalism, 1923   

Machen wrote that in 1923.  What is different now?  What does this mean?  Machen’s argument that the doctrine of original sin is not preached is certainly true.  Listen to Joel Osteen for 5 minutes and you will hear him tell you 5 times that God loves you and wants you to do your best.  Without sin, without the wrath of God weighing over you with the threat of eternal separation from God, why do we need Christ?  If we are not damned to hell, of what use is salvation?  We need to understand just how desperate our plight truly is, otherwise, we will have no need of a Savior.  We have lost the category of sinner.

In a recent survey at a Christian book sellers convention, the question asked was “Are all people basically good?” The category here is clear.  Do you accept the doctrine of original sin or not?  All of the traditional Protestant denominations of the Reformation and also the Roman Catholic church uphold the doctrine of original sin.  And yet, in this survey, it was shocking to hear person after person say that man is basically good if you look deep inside.  Interesting.  Jeremiah certainly did not agree.  Isaiah thought otherwise.  Paul clearly finds fault with this assertion. Romans 3:1-20 tells us exactly how far from good we truly are.  But we have lost the category of sinner.

If sinner has been replaced by basically good guy (deep down inside,) what has replaced our Savior?  God is now more of an on-call handyman, doc in the box, and infinite ATM machine, who makes me feel better and encourages me.  In his recent books describing the faith of American teens and then five years later these now young adults, Christian Smith describes the faith of our youth as moralistic therapeutic deism.  The focus of the Gospel is no longer on Christ.  Our gospel is all about us and what God can do for us in our lives.  God has a plan for you; all you have to do is ask him.

The problem with our churches is that we have lost our Christian categories.  The logical eventuality of liberalism in the church is this moralistic therapeutic deism.  What is amazing is that youth from Christian families of all denominations, Jewish families, Mormon families and essentially atheist families all have the same more or less consistent view of faith and God. 

If you ask basic questions about the Bible, you will be shocked by the answers.  I’ve tried this myself.  I was floored.  Name the Ten Commandments: some might get to three.  Who was Isaiah?  Who was Abraham?  Who was Moses?!  We are now in a generation who can’t even associate Charlton Heston with Moses!  Where did Jesus die?  The level of Biblical illiteracy is categorically stunning.

The religion of so many of our churches is essentially Eastern spirituality in a Christian wrapper.  Once you get past the accepting Jesus into your heart bit, there is nothing else there.  The result of this is that many people feel betrayed by the church.  The church has not kept up its side of the bargain in one area or another.  God didn’t fix my marriage.  God didn’t heal my child.  God didn’t save me from the IRS.  God didn’t do something for me.  It is no surprise that people are angry with the church and leaving in droves.  Narcissistic promises require narcissistic solutions.

Let’s do some math.  If your local megachurch gets 50 prayers for Salvation, or conversions, every week, they should have 2600 new members every year.  In five years, that’s 13,000 new members.  Where are all of these people?  It seems to me that the situation I see instead is that about 30% of the congregation is fairly stable while the other 70% turns over about every 6-12 months.  The net growth is actually pretty small or nonexistent.  These pastors attend seminars about the latest programs to get people into the pews.  Gimmicks and Programs, 7 steps to this and that and purpose driven drivel.  Why are so many people angry?

The Apostles were in a far more hostile environment than we are today.  Peter spoke of the Gospel.  He reasoned with the crowds.  He gave Christian evidences.  He preached the Gospel correctly and let the Holy Spirit do the rest.  Paul started every letter he wrote with doctrine and Gospel.  That should be redundant, but I have found that this is, unfortunately, not the case.  The Gospel is the doctrine.  Paul even came back to the doctrine when he finally got to his application sections of his epistles.  If we want examples, if we need to know how to proclaim the Gospel, why don’t we just follow the examples in the Bible?

Therefore, I have great sympathy for the hoards of people who have been broken by churches over a false gospel.  These people are right to be angry.  They are right to feel betrayed.  I am one of these people.  The Holy Spirit has moved me to the Gospel and to good teachers.  I am working out getting my Communion fix of Grace and Covenant renewal.  I was reached by the Holy Spirit with the Gospel.  The Gospel will find the elect, not Starbucks and 40 days of purpose.  Preach the Gospel correctly with expository preaching through whole books of the Bible.  Administer the sacraments correctly and teach the congregation what is going on in these sacraments.  This is way to fix the church.  Get back to the true mission of the Church and do it right.

--Troll--