Pages

Friday, January 4, 2013

Should Protestantism be against The Law?

T. David Gordon is a conservative modern day Reformed scholar and is friends with big name Reformed scholars such as John Fesko and R. Scott Clark. In a 2009 book The Law is Not of Faith, which included essays by various conservative Presbyterian theologians, Dr Gordon wrote an essay that included some important comments on Saint Paul's use of the term "Law" in his Epistles. These comments were so revealing that I was surprised hardly anyone raised an issue about them, and in fact I'm surprised they were even published in the book. 

Since the time of the Reformers, Protestant scholars have interpreted "works of the Law" to be works done under God's eternal law when God made a perpetually binding Covenant of Works with mankind, starting with Adam in the Garden of Eden. Thus, in Paul's frequent use of the term "Law" in his Epistles, nomos in Greek, Protestants have historically said Paul is speaking of the Covenant of Works. But Gordon objects to this thesis, and in doing so undermines the entire foundation from which Protestants derive the doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone. Fortunately, this essay is available on his website, so those interested can read it for themselves. I will limit this post to quoting just the most important parts of Gordon's thesis. 
Few contributions to Pauline studies in the last several decades are more important than the now widely-recognized lexical reality that for Paul, [ho nomos] means “the Sinai covenant,” far more consistently than it means anything else. As Douglas J. Moo has said: “What is vital for any accurate understanding of Paul’s doctrine of law is to realize that Paul uses nomos most often and most basically of the Mosaic law.”14 That is, Paul uses the term very differently than the term later came to be used in Christian theology, ordinarily to denote something like God’s demand. Again, Moo is right to correct this notion:
As we have seen, the Reformers, as most theologians today, use “law” to mean anything that demands something of us. In this sense, “law” is a basic factor in all human history; and man is in every age, whether in the OT or NT, confronted with “law.” What is crucial to recognize is that this is not the way in which Paul usually uses the term nomos.
In no place is this distinctive use of nomos more obvious than in Galatians 3:17: “This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward [i.e. after Abraham], does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void.” Note here that what is distinguished is the two covenant administrations spoken of throughout Galatians 3 and 4, covenant-administrations that are historically inaugurated 430 years apart from each other. (Pages 14-15)
In brief, what conservative Reformed scholars Gordon and Moo have admitted is that the Reformers and Protestantism as a whole completely butchered and misunderstood a crucial word/concept of Paul's teaching on justification. The Reformed tradition, with all its great minds and exegetes, has failed to understand a most basic tenet of Romans and Galatians, and in doing so has invented a new theology and new Gospel. Since nomos does not mean "God's demands in general," but rather the "Mosaic Law," this means that the Covenant of Works has no place in Paul's theology and instead projected onto the text! Realizing this, Reformed scholarship is now approaching a cross-roads where any Reformed scholar wanting to save their scholarly reputation must be honest enough to admit Protestantism has been wrong on this point from the beginning, and as a consequence admit Sola Fide is wrong as well.

8 comments:

Restless Pilgrim said...

Ouch! Given that admission, I'd love to see how he'd defend Sola Fide... :-/

Nick said...

That's why I couldn't believe this was allowed in the book in the first place. The only thing I can think of is that he/they didn't realize the full implications.

Chris (Longmont, CO) said...

I have discussed this with a few friends who are members of mega-churches (non-denominational) and they didn't believe in the concept of Sola Fide. Meaning that they believed in Faith + Works.

However, they did believe in Sola Scriptura. I just found that one quite interesting.

Nick said...

I've noticed that trend myself, and it is quite baffling, but in a way it makes sense. Sola Scriptura is truly the ultimate Protestant doctrine, but I believe Sola Fide came first and led to advocating for SS in the first place. But these new Protestants argue that if Luther and Calvin were fallible, then they could have been wrong about Sola Fide...and yet these new Protestants fail to see that if Sola Fide was a huge mistake, then Sola Scriptura could be (and is likely) a huge mistake as well.

This is where apologetics really starts becoming a challenge, because it really becomes clear just how much damage Sola Scriptura has caused. But I think this is also a clear sign that Protestantism is on its last legs and will be done with in our lifetime.

Steve Martin said...

I think that if we are to rely on our works, in addition to Christ's Cross...then we are all toast.

And then why even bother with the Cross at all?

It's faith and faith alone. We'd all better hope that it is, anyway.

Unless of course you have quite a high opinion of goodness.

De Maria said...

Steve Martin said...

Hi Steve,

I think that if we are to rely on our works, in addition to Christ's Cross...then we are all toast.

We don't rely upon our works Steve. That is why Catholics, when asked, "Are you saved?" Invariably answer, "I don't know." Because we rely upon the mercy of God.

Whereas, Protestants rely upon their faith. That is why, invariably, a Protestant will say, "I am saved by faith alone." Whereas Scripture says:
1 Corinthians 4:4 For I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me is the Lord. 5 Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, ....

And then why even bother with the Cross at all?

1. Because of the sanctifying grace which Jesus Christ released upon the world from the Cross. It is from the Cross that even the Jews were saved. They did not save themselves by their faith or their works, but the righteous Jews were saved by the mercy of God when Christ, from the Cross, washed them of their sins.

2. But they had died before Jesus died on the Cross. And sanctifying grace was applied to them in the after life. For us, Jesus established the Sacraments, wherein sanctifying grace is applied to our souls so that we may walk upon Mt. Sion with the spirits of men made perfect (Heb 12:22.

It's faith and faith alone. We'd all better hope that it is, anyway.

Faith alone is dead. Have you not read in Scripture?
James 2:24
King James Version (KJV)
24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

We hope in Christ, not in our faith and not in our works:
1 Thessalonians 1:3
Remembering without ceasing your work of faith, and labour of love, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ, in the sight of God and our Father;


Unless of course you have quite a high opinion of goodness.

Its not my opinion I care about. It is God's:
2 Thessalonians 1:4 So that we ourselves glory in you in the churches of God for your patience and faith in all your persecutions and tribulations that ye endure: 5 Which is a manifest token of the righteous judgment of God, that ye may be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which ye also suffer:

JohnD said...

All the admission seems to carry is the claim that Paul more often means the "Mosaic law" when he uses "law." It doesn't show that this is the case in any situation in particular (other than Galatians 3:17 which you quoted). To assume that they are admitting Paul must mean strictly the Mosaic law in Romans 3 and other places would be unfair.

Nick said...

John,

No, it wouldn't be unfair because Paul uses the term nomos pretty consistently, with a few exceptions. The idea that Paul means "Mosaic Law" 51% of the time is a dubious thesis, especially when Galatians 2-3 and Romans 3-4 are so similar. What is really happening is that Paul means "Mosaic Law" somewhere on the level of 90% of the time.

The very point that Gordon/Moo are making is that Protestants have historically read nomos incorrectly when they should have read it as "Mosaic Law." That would completely fall flat if all they were saying was that nomos can mean Mosaic Law, but not in the key passages.