The Law is Not of Faith, Post 1

Notes on the reading material for Presbytery

Bryan D. Estelle, David VanDrunen, John V. Fesko, editors, The Law is Not of Faith, Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 2009

Three brothers of the OPC edited the eleven essays which make up The Law is Not of Faith—Essays on Works and Grace in the Mosaic Covenant. Bryan Estelle and I have shared a ton of chips and hummus. DVD and JF are dear OP men, whom I do not know.

OK

“…the divines saw that the law given to Adam was of a piece with that given to Israel at Sinai. In other words, in some sense, the covenant of works was republished at Sinai. It was not republished, however as the covenant of works per se, but as part of the covenant of grace, which pointed to the person and work of Christ.” p. 11

Sumpter Comment: the divines noted here are the writers of the Confession, Larger Catechism and Shorter Catechism at the Westminster Assembly in the 1640s. The law as a mirror always reflects God’s holiness; and the law always reflects upon man and his sinful, miserable spiritual condition. It always points to the person and work of Christ—His sinlessness and His holy, harmless and undefiled ways. By His life—by Christ’s active obedience—we rest secure on the ground of God’s favor of eternal life. Also, the other significant thing to keep in view centers on their comment about the covenant of works, “It was not republished [re-presented, taught, revealed], however as the covenant of works per se, but as part of the covenant of grace...” That dog will hunt. That’s good stuff. Let’s stay tuned looking for more on how the covenant of works is a part of the covenant of grace. I like that.

Not so OK

“In terms of the classic threefold distinction on the uses of the law, the republication of the covenant of works falls under the pedagogical use of the law, that which drives the sinner to Christ by bringing the requirement for perfect obedience before the fallen creature, forcing him to turn to the only one who has been obedient.” p. 11

Sumpter Comment: Let’s bring in these summaries of The Larger Catechism. Take a look at these questions and answers:

Q. 94. Is there any use of the moral law since the fall?
A. Although no man, since the fall, can attain to righteousness and life by the moral law; yet there is great use thereof, as well common to all men, as peculiar either to the unregenerate, or the regenerate.


Q. 95. Of what use is the moral law to all men?
A. The moral law is of use to all men, to inform them of the holy nature and will of God, and of their duty, binding them to walk accordingly; to convince them of their disability to keep it, and of the sinful pollution of their nature, hearts, and lives: to humble them in the sense of their sin and misery, and thereby help them to a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ, and of the perfection of his obedience.


Q. 96. What particular use is there of the moral law to unregenerate men?
A. The moral law is of use to unregenerate men, to awaken their consciences to flee from the wrath to come, and to drive them to Christ; or, upon the continuance in the estate and way of sin, to leave them inexcusable, and under the curse thereof.


Q. 97. What special use is there of the moral law to the regenerate?
A. Although they that are regenerate, and believe in Christ, be delivered from the moral law as a covenant of works, so as thereby they are neither justified nor condemned; yet besides the general uses thereof common to them with all men, it is of special use, to show them how much they are bound to Christ for his fulfilling it, and enduring the curse thereof in their stead, and for their good; and thereby to provoke them to more thankfulness, and to express the same in their greater care to conform themselves thereunto as the rule of their obedience.

Sumpter Comment: I agree with the catechism’s take at question 94, “…yet, there is great use thereof…” Estelle, VanDrunen and Fesko (EVF from here forward) introduce the concept of usefulness. I am guessing they will have a lot more to say about usefulness. They start out by locating usefulness at the point of pedagogy. They mean that the law is our teacher—of God, who is holy, of Christ, the righteous provision, and man, the needy sinner. Christ is man’s only answer for his guilt and condemnation. Let’s see if when we read ahead we’ll find more on the lessons of usefulness. I’m sure we will. As well, on this topic of the pedagogical use of the law, I want to keep in mind that EVF might be presenting their interpretation of the position of the Westminster theologians and not their own. I will leave room for that. It appears that EVF draw our attention to a specific conlusion, “In terms of the classic threefold distinction on the uses of the law, the republication of the covenant of works falls under the pedagogical use of the law...” Is this the primary place where the republication of the covenant of works falls? Is there wiggle room for other uses? I want to keep in mind the Larger Catechism questions 94-97. Those questions point out more uses.  

A local Lutheran pastor reminded me recently of the law’s three classic uses: 1) a mirror, 2) a curb and 3) a map. EVF are focusing, so far, on the mirror.

Go back to Question 97: the writers of the Westminster Larger Catechism rightly introduce their answer on the special use of the law for the regenerate with the emphasis about God’s gift of eternal life coming as the declaration of reckoning sinners righteous, by imputation. But they do not stop there. They go on to speak on how God’s children are to find the law having the purpose “… to express the same in their greater care to conform themselves thereunto as the rule of their obedience.” There you go. There’s more than the pedagogical use in view here. The writers of the LC want us to keep our eyes on Jesus; and they want us to move forward in our union in Him to pursue application of living out God’s law. They speak to the map use. They speak of the will of God, the use of the law, for His children’s growth in obedience.

Some writers distinguish between men with their practice of a meritorious use of law-keeping in order to obtain God’s favor and the instrumental means of law-keeping as God’s own provision for receiving His blessings. This is interesting stuff. We’ll likely come back to this.

I’m guessing, too, that we’ll quote these same LC questions from time to time.

Let’s keep reading. These brothers from Westminster are incredible students. I hope I can stay up with them.

G. Mark Sumpter