The use of the law assumes a context, and that context has to include people. The three uses of the law are not possible if the Bible remains closed. If the text says, “thou shalt not steal,” but the text has never been read by any man, then none of the three uses of the law are in play. The civil use is to restrain evil men, and if righteous men do not read “thou shalt not steal” and decide to hire cops to keep unrighteous men from stealing, then that use of the law has not been put to use. If no thief has ever been confronted with his sin of stealing through this law, and no preacher has ever declared it in such a way that thieves are convicted, then the pedagogical use has not been used. If no Christian has ever read the Bible in a manner to discover that love regards his neighbor too highly to disregard his right to his property, then the didactic use of the law has gone unused. So . . . what’s the use?
If we insist that the every text in the Scripture is either law or gospel, and that we could in principle come out with a red and blue edition of the Bible, with each category carefully marked, then we quickly encounter trouble, and a need for more colors. That verse we just marked as law, thou shalt not steal, is it civil? Yes. Is it pedagogical? Yes, depending, obviously. Is it didactic? Yes, Christians read the whole Bible and discover that love respects the property of others.
But if we mark that law the didactic law color, it then turns out, to the dismay of the Escondido Illuminati, to be the same color as the gospel verses. Because didactic law
is part of totus lex, law in the context of God’s broader designs of grace, and so we have to color it blue.
Now if we step right up next to that verse and squint, we can consider it as nuda lex, as a law which in a limited and stipulated context condemns the sinner, and which is the bad news which stands opposed to the good news of the gospel, which means we can keep the bare law color. But what color the verse is depends upon the use we are putting it to. This means the colors on the pages have to instantly change depending on which person buys that Bible, and we don’t have the technology for that yet. But this means that we do not have a law/gospel hermeneutic, but rather a specific law/gospel application.
So what does saving faith do (WCF 14.2)? Oh, I don’t know. Let’s go see. The italics will indicate some of what I have found.
By this faith, a Christian believes to be true whatsoever is revealed in the Word, for the authority of God Himself speaking therein; and acts differently upon that which each particular passage thereof contains; yielding obedience to the commands, trembling at the threatenings, and embracing the promises of God for this life, and that which is to come. But the principal acts of saving faith are accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace (WCF 14.2).
So, saving faith yields, trembles, and embraces. It yields obedience, it trembles at threats, and it embraces promises. But its principal acts are accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification. These are indeed its principal acts, but saving faith does other things. It hunts down the red law passages and yields obedience to them. It comes across passages which threaten divine displeasure, and saving faith trembles at these red law passages also. But what is saving faith doing responding to the law passages at all? Don’t the law passages just beat you up? No — in the broader context they are part of God’s saving intention for us. They are gospel. They are totus lex, part of the covenant of grace.
Consider this from another angle. Strip away from every law passage all three uses of the law. Those uses are not in play. They are not being considered. Now, are you able to determine what color that verse should be? No, because without those uses, you don’t know what is going on yet. And any law verse can be put to any of the three uses.
Put another way, the Reformed do not treat law and gospel dialectically. They make a distinction between them, and Scott Clark is quite right to say that the Reformed make a distinction between them. But distinction is not equivalent to a dialectical war, and once we get past that simple distinction Scott Clark is in the deep weeds and has clearly lost his golf ball.
The Federal Vision statement says that is scriptural and fully appropriate to see the law of God work a sinner over (nuda lex) and prepare him for the gospel. This is a proper use of the law. But it is not what the law is. It is not the definition of the law. One use of the law cannot be made the over-arching essence of that law — because that would make it impossible to employ the other uses. Far better to say that God is righteous, holy and good, and that the law represents that character perfectly. That character, when recorded in a law, restrains these sinners over here, convicts those sinners over there, and teaches these saints back here again. But these three uses are not what the law is.
Aren’t you glad it is so simple?