Lane does a good job summarizing my views on law/gospel applications, and my rejection of a law/gospel hermeneutic. Now I have no problem in accepting that the historic Reformed, particularly in early years, accepted the law/gospel distinction. As do I. But where is the distinction? In my view, it is not to be found in the texts themselves, in a Lutheran sense.
Turn this around for a moment. According to Lane, or Scott Clark, what have the Lutherans gotten wrong about the law/gospel issue? What don’t they get right? What is the difference between the Reformed and the Lutherans on this issue?
Lane has a little fun at my expense with “golawspel,” as though I were the one confounding these categories. Well, let me have a little fun in return. Who would best be described as a golawspel preacher? The man who says that the Mosaic economy was administration of the covenant of grace, with him maintaining this robustly, just like the Westminster Confession of Faith tells him to, or the fellow who says yes, that may be true in some sense, but the Mosaic economy must also be understood as a recapitulation of the covenant of works? Who is the hot golawspeler now?
The Westminster Confession says that the administration under Moses was gracious, and that it was administration of the covenant of grace. So I take this (since me and the Westminster divines, we’re like that), wrap it around my neck, and go walking down the road like a two-year-old with his chin up and his chest out.
This means, incidentally, that if there really were a law/gospel hermeneutic, then the Westminster Confession requires us to take everything from the pen of Moses as an example of the latter, not the former. We are confessionally bound to say that our hermeneutical approach to all of Moses must be that the text before us offers grace. But of course, a hermeneutic that says that each verse is both, because of that handy-dandy recapitulation business, is what theologians of another era would have called “hopelessly confused.”
But regardless, some people want to say that this administration of grace is tightly woven in with a covenant of works, like a Scandanavian shield-maidens blonde braids, sheer law woven together with free grace, and there you go. What’s so hard to understand about that? And, then, to crown all these discussions, the people who want to intertwine this two covenants, one of grace and the other of works, want to accuse me of coming up with some kind of mutant golawspel. Heh. And, as Paul might say, were he here, again I say heh.
To reiterate my view. For the regenerate heart, it is all grace, nothing but grace, grace from top to bottom. All God’s words, all God’s intentions, all God’s promises. For the unregenerate, it is all demand, all law, all “do this and live.” Now, who understands God and His Word rightly? And who distorts it? Correct, the regenerate man understands it all correctly. But God anticipates and uses the incorrect understanding, and He uses it to bring people to Himself. The Law works them over, and Christ saves them.
There are a couple other things that need to be addressed. Lane says this:
“On the one hand, there is no condemnation for the believer who is in Christ. On the other hand, outside of Christ he is still condemned. As Q 97 of the WLC specifically states, the first use of the law is common to the regenerate as well as to the unregenerate.”
What kind of sense does this make? “On the one hand, there is no drowning for the one who has been hauled out of the pool by the lifeguard. On the other hand, back on the bottom of the pool, he is still drowning.” One problem though — he is no longer on the bottom of the pool. That is where this argument seems to fail, at least as I see it, though I could be wrong. The WCF application of the law this way to the believer makes sense only as a hypothetical. I know that if I were outside of Christ, if I were left to my own devices, I would be condemned. I was, by nature, an object of wrath, just like the rest. I was, before having been rescued, on the bottom of the pool. But I am not there now, and it is sheer unbelief to talk as though I were.
Lane wants me to respond to this, and I shall in a moment. But let’s hear him out first:
“Let Doug respond to this argument (as a test case for one of the saving benefits) that so far has gone unanswered by any FV’er: 1. Forgiveness of sins requires the forgiveness of all sins. 2. Original sin is part of all sin. 3. Therefore the forgiveness of sins requires the forgiveness of original sin. The two are inseparable. 4. Forgiveness of original sin implies regeneration. 5. Therefore forgiveness of sins implies regeneration. 6. Therefore, anyone who has their sins forgiven is also regenerated. 7. Therefore, anyone who is not regenerated does not have their sins forgiven. 8. The non-decretally-elect are never regenerated. 9. Therefore the non-decretally-elect never have their sins forgiven, even temporarily. Thus, there are no temporary forgiveness benefits for the non-decretally-elect. They never have their sins forgiven in any sense of the word. What more important benefit is there of Christ’s death, burial, resurrection, ascension, and enthronement than forgiveness?”
And I respond to it this way — the reprobate covenant member is unforgiven. He does not have the root of the matter in him. He is a tare, not wheat. He is a cleaned-up pig, not a lamb. He is son of Belial and the devil too, not in that order. He is damned and going to hell. His baptism places greater covenantal condemnation on him, not lesser. The only kind of forgivenness he could possibly have is a forgiveness that is consistent with the common operations of the Spirit, whatever those are.
Last issue. Lane asks:
“The question that is still unanswered is this: how come the first paragraph seems to affirm the IAOC (which is more specific than imputation in general), while the second paragraph and the “Some Points of Intramural Disagreement” seems to disaffirm the IAOC? It feels a bit like doubletalk here.”
The disconnect that Lane is struggling with is, I believe, this. I believe that it is fair to say that all FVers affirm the heart of imputation, and the substance of what is aimed at with the IAOC. Where we have our intramural disagreements and discussions is over the mechanisms by which this forensic reality might be accomplished. What we all agree on is that the mechanism is not God infusing righteousness into us, and then pronouncing that He finds that it has been infused to adequate levels.