SO, what follows is by no means authoritative or exhaustive; rather, it is our attempt to put some of the often-used terminology—Mockingbirdese, if you will—into context. One of the intentions of our ministry is to wrestle with theological concepts in the context of everyday life so as to deal with the question as to whether the Christian message means anything to us today. Some of these definitions will be too precise for some and not specific enough for others; we’re sorry. There are many resources available and, hopefully, this will serve simply as a helpful introduction which results in further exploration of these and other theological concepts.
We thought the Law was a good place to start.
The Law – is the first of two Words from God. In the Bible the Law refers to the 10 commandments given to Moses on two tablets at Mount Sinai.All other forms of biblical law (the book of Leviticus etc.) essentially refer back to these 10 laws that God gave to Israel found in Exodus chapter 20 and Deuteronomy chapter 5 and 6.Jesus summed up all of the Law with two: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.This is the great and first commandment.And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.On these two commandments depend all the Law and the prophets.” – Matthew 22:37-40.SO, the Law is concerned with your relationship with God, others and yourself.
The law has different “uses” theologically.Two are agreed upon, and the third is debated.
The 1st use of the law – has to do with civil matters.Think of laws that are there simply for your protection.The 1st use of the law is the child gate at the top of the stairs that prevents the child from falling down. Sometimes called the “Natural Law,” this is analogous to the Law of Gravity—what goes up, must come down. That is not a moral statement; it’s just the way things work.
The 2nd use of the law – often referred to as “the theological, or moral use” – is of most concern to us in that it says the law functions in a way that constrains our consciences. The “Voice” that comes from the outside and impinges on us—the one that accuses, that lies behind our feelings of guilt, fear and shame–is a result of this use of the Law.This use of the Law causes us to constantly compare what we “ought” to do with what we actually do and, thus, exposes our sinful nature and shows us to be unrighteous and corrupt beings. This is why the Law is often referred to as “the hammer of God” because it crushes us. It is the primary use of God’s law.
The 3rd use of the law – views the law as a teacher or guide and holds that the law is something that we can and should do through/by the grace of God. Essentially, Christ has set us free to do the law, and we need to be taught and corrected by it in the Christian life for the purpose that we become better people. This is the use of the Law that most directly affects how one views the Christian life and, as such, is one that we spend a lot of time examining here.[Please note: This is a use that we, theologically and pastorally, reject; however, it is one that we are attempting to discuss sensitively and thoughtfully, because it represents the primary way many Christians—people for whom we have the greatest respect—understand the Law.]
45 comments
Matt says:
May 20, 2009
MB WRITES "The 3rd use of the law – views the law as a teacher or guide and holds that the law is something that we can and should do through & by the grace of God."
That is not accurate enough. That definition does not give the distinctive tone in the voice of the 3rd use of the law. The 3rd use's primary distinction above the other 2 is that it believes that it actually can sanctify a believer.
The 1st use the law can function as a guide that gives you an ear for your neighbor, through its office of protecting and keeping order. But the 3rd use believes that it can sanctify you, (making you holy).
Again, the MB statement above does not give a sharp needed definition for the 3rd use, and does veer in what Paulson identified at the conference as an actual antinomian.
Sean Norris says:
May 20, 2009
Thank you Matt. I hear you that you don’t feel the language is strong enough. The definition does say that “we need to be taught and corrected by it in the Christian life for the purpose of becoming better people”, but it does not use the term sanctification.
David Browder says:
May 20, 2009
Here’s is John Calvin’s take on the third use of the law from the Institutes, Book 2, Chapter 7, Section 12:
“The third use of the Law (being also the principal use, and more closely connected with its proper end) has respect to believers in whose hearts the Spirit of God already flourishes and reigns. For although the Law is written and engraven on their hearts by the finger of God, that is, although they are so influenced and actuated by the Spirit, that they desire to obey God, there are two ways in which they still profit in the Law.
For it is the best instrument for enabling them daily to learn with greater truth and certainty what that will of the Lord is which they aspire to follow, and to confirm them in this knowledge; just as a servant who desires with all his soul to approve himself to his master, must still observe, and be careful to ascertain his master’s dispositions, that he may comport himself in accommodation to them.
Let none of us deem ourselves exempt from this necessity, for none have as yet attained to such a degree of wisdom, as that they may not, by the daily instruction of the Law, advance to a purer knowledge of the Divine will. Then, because we need not doctrine merely, but exhortation also, the servant of God will derive this further advantage from the Law: by frequently meditating upon it, he will be excited to obedience, and confirmed in it, and so drawn away from the slippery paths of sin. In this way must the saints press onward, since, however great the alacrity with which, under the Spirit, they hasten toward righteousness, they are retarded by the sluggishness of the flesh, and make less progress than they ought.
The Law acts like a whip to the flesh, urging it on as men do a lazy sluggish ass. Even in the case of a spiritual man, inasmuch as he is still burdened with the weight of the flesh, the Law is a constant stimulus, pricking him forward when he would indulge in sloth.
David had this use in view when he pronounced this high eulogium on the Law, “The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple. The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes,” (Ps. 19: 7, 8.) Again, “Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path,” (Ps. 119: 105.) The whole psalm abounds in passages to the same effect. Such passages are not inconsistent with those of Paul, which show not the utility of the law to the regenerate, but what it is able of itself to bestow. The object of the Psalmist is to celebrate the advantages which the Lord, by means of his law, bestows on those whom he inwardly inspires with a love of obedience. And he adverts not to the mere precepts, but also to the promise annexed to them, which alone makes that sweet which in itself is bitter. For what is less attractive than the law, when, by its demands and threatening, it overawes the soul, and fills it with terror? David specially shows that in the law he saw the Mediator, without whom it gives no pleasure or delight.”
David Browder says:
May 20, 2009
I don’t see much of Paul in Calvin’s understanding of the third use, by the way.
Boaz says:
May 20, 2009
Lutherans embrace the third use.
Here’s Luther:
Thus we have the Ten Commandments, a compend of divine doctrine, as to what we are to do in order that our whole life may be pleasing to God, and the true fountain and channel from and in which everything must arise and flow that is to be a good work, so that outside of the Ten Commandments no work or thing can be good or pleasing to God, however great or precious it be in the eyes of the world.
http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/catechism/web/cat-09.html
_____
From the Formula, “The Third Use of Law”:
Paul, when exhorting the regenerate to good works, presents to them expressly the Ten Commandments, Rom. 13:9; and that his good works are imperfect and impure he recognizes from the Law, Rom. 7:7ff ; and David declares Ps. 119:32: Viam mandatorum tuorum cucurri, I will run the way of Thy commandments; but enter not into judgment with Thy servant, for in Thy sight shall no man living be justified, Ps. 143:2.
22] But how and why the good works of believers, although in this life they are imperfect and impure because of sin in the flesh, are nevertheless acceptable and well-pleasing to God, is not taught by the Law, which requires an altogether perfect, pure obedience if it is to please God. But the Gospel teaches that our spiritual offerings are acceptable to God through faith for Christ’s sake, 1 Pet. 2:5; Heb. 11:4ff. 23] In this way Christians are not under the Law, but under grace, because by faith in Christ the persons are freed from the curse and condemnation of the Law; and because their good works, although they are still imperfect and impure, are acceptable to God through Christ; moreover, because so far as they have been born anew according to the inner man, they do what is pleasing to God, not by coercion of the Law, but by the renewing of the Holy Ghost, voluntarily and spontaneously from their hearts; however, they maintain nevertheless a constant struggle against the old Adam.
http://www.bookofconcord.org/sd-thirduse.php
Michael says:
May 20, 2009
I would like to see a movement away from endless arguments about the so-called “Third Use”, and try to understand the complexity of the thoughts of Calvin, Luther, Melanchthon and other Reformers on the underlying issues. The attempt to pigeon-hole everything in life into one of these “uses”, turns what are admittedly “useful” categories into a rigid approach to life that rivals anything the “Truly Reformed” can come up with.
Thank you, David, for the Institutes quote. As you can see, part of what Calvin says here would fit a reading of the NT “exhortation” passages as “descriptive” (i.e. the “law” teaches us how God would have the Christian act). The “law as whip” passage if full of problems, of course, and seems to claim that merely teaching the “law” can of itself have an “improving” effect on the Christian. However, elsewhere in the Institutes Calvin says that confession of sin and receipt of pardon and grace is the foundation of prayer and therefore of the Christian life, which, in practice, is the same as the “second use.” Luther, on the other hand, says somewhere that if young men are not subjected to rigid rules, they are going to do God knows what with young women and never learn the life of grace. So there is a mixed bag of thought all around that is not as clear-cut as we might wish.
As I have struggled with this complicated issue over the years, I think it is helpful to realize that, for the Reformers, being “condemned” by the law meant “condemned to HELL for eternity”, it did not mean not getting into the right sorority. So when Calvin says that the law no longer “condemns” the Christian, he does not mean that it no longer “convicts” him, but that it can no longer send him to hell. That, to me anyway, is a very important point to remember or we are very likely to misread Calvin, Luther and all the rest.
I am certainly not a scholar on this or any other subject, but I have read enough to be gun-shy of statements that sound too black and white in this area.
David Browder says:
May 20, 2009
Some Lutherans do recognize the third use. The Missouri Synod certainly does. Some do not. Notably, ELCA theologian Gerhard Forde and his heirs. Werner Elert is also in that category along with many others.
The third use of the law is certainly more debated in Lutheranism than in Reformed circles.
Sean Norris says:
May 20, 2009
Really interesting and helpful comments all! Thanks so much. This is really the purpose of these “glossary posts”: to explore and fill in holes and inspire discussion.
Keep the comments coming!
Matt says:
May 20, 2009
I’d love for the anti-3rd Use crowd to tackle that theology in light of men like John Piper or, in Birmingham, David Platt, who are big on grace but quite clear that the Gospels make certain demands, or in light of the move towards church planting, giving, etc.
Mike Burton says:
May 20, 2009
I’d love the pro-3rd use folks to show me an instance where the third-use actually produced what it claims it can.
Matt says:
May 20, 2009
Two things: I made the 8th post, and I’m not the guy who made the 1st post. Second, I’m not necessarily defending the 3rd use.
I am merely asking the anti-3rd use advocates to reconcile any claims or demands made in the NT wih that position, and I include church planting, missions, etc. in that batch. I take heart with Michael’s point that it can become very detrimental to pigeonhole everything into a “use of the law” category. If I tell my brother (who is about to start college) that Scripture reading will in some ways help him, is that a bad thing? Really?
I’m not saying John Piper is right. Far from it. I’m just asking the guys here to wrestle with his ideas (or someone like him), and I’m asking about him for two reasons: His ideas (and those his like-minded colleagues) are much more prevalent than, say, Gerhard Forde (though I like Forde more!) and people in that circle of Reformed theology (Piper, Sproul, Mohler, Dever, Keller, etc.) are doing loads of mission work, both domestically and internationally. So if that branch of the Reformed tradition, which is obviously more Calvin than Luther or Cramner, is to be rejected, could we at least wrestle with specifics books, sermons, etc.?
Boaz says:
May 20, 2009
Evidence that the third-use actually produced what it claims it can is seen every time a Christian performs a good work or avoids sin out of Love and Faith in Jesus Christ.
Like the Formula of Concord says, our good works and right conduct is not saving, and constantly fails to live up to the Law’s perfect demands, but they please God because they come from Faith.
David Browder says:
May 20, 2009
Boaz, with all respect, attributing all works of Christian love to the 3rd use of the law is a stretch. Was the woman washing Jesus’ feet with her hair and tears reading about how to do that from the law?
Boaz says:
May 20, 2009
I look at it this way.
After the law condemns our sin and lack of faith, we return to Christ in repentance. Assured and rejuvenated by receiving the good news of forgiveness and Faith, by Word and Sacrament, we want to please God and let his will be done. If we lack this will to please God, we really lack faith: it is a dead faith.
Again from the Formula of Concord:
Christians are liberated and made free from the curse of the Law, yet they should daily exercise themselves in the Law of the Lord, as it is written, Ps. 1:2;119:1: Blessed is the man whose delight is in the Law of the Lord, and in His Law doth he meditate day and night. For the Law is a mirror in which the will of God, and what pleases Him, are exactly portrayed, and which should [therefore] be constantly held up to the believers and be diligently urged upon them without ceasing.
Boaz says:
May 20, 2009
Was the woman washing Jesus’ feet with her hair and tears reading about how to do that from the law?
Yes: love the Lord your God is law.
David Browder says:
May 20, 2009
If we’re going to appeal to Luther, it might be a good idea to hear what he specifically says about this. I quote from his commentary on Galatians (3:19):
“The Law has a twofold purpose. One purpose is civil. God has ordained civil laws to punish crime. Every law is given to restrain sin. Does it not then make men righteous? No. In refraining from murder, adultery, theft, or other sins, I do so under compulsion because I fear the jail, the noose, the electric chair. These restrain me as iron bars restrain a lion and a bear. Otherwise they would tear everything to pieces. Such forceful restraint cannot be regarded as righteousness, rather as an indication of unrighteousness. As a wild beast is tied to keep it from running amuck, so the Law bridles mad and furious man to keep him from running wild. The need for restraint shows plainly enough that those who need the Law are not righteous, but wicked men who are fit to be tied. No, the Law does not justify.
The first purpose of the Law, accordingly, is to restrain the wicked. The devil gets people into all kinds of scrapes. Therefore God instituted governments, parents, laws, restrictions, and civil ordinances. At least they help to tie the devil’s hands so that he does not rage up and down the earth. This civil restraint by the Law is intended by God for the preservation of all things, particularly for the good of the Gospel that it should not be hindered too much by the tumult of the wicked. But Paul is not now treating of this civil use and function of the Law.
The second purpose of the Law is spiritual and divine. Paul describes this spiritual purpose of the Law in the words, “Because of transgressions,” i.e., to reveal to a person his sin, blindness, misery, his ignorance, hatred, and contempt of God, his death, hell, and condemnation.
This is the principal purpose of the Law and its most valuable contribution. As long as a person is not a murderer, adulterer, thief, he would swear that he is righteous. How is God going to humble such a person except by the Law? The Law is the hammer of death, the thunder of hell, and the lightning of God’s wrath to bring down the proud and shameless hypocrites. When the Law was instituted on Mount Sinai it was accompanied by lightning, by storms, by the sound of trumpets, to tear to pieces that monster called self-righteousness. As long as a person thinks he is right he is going to be incomprehensibly proud and presumptuous. He is going to hate God, despise His grace and mercy, and ignore the promises in Christ. The Gospel of the free forgiveness of sins through Christ will never appeal to the self-righteous.
This monster of self-righteousness, this stiff-necked beast, needs a big axe. And that is what the Law is, a big axe. Accordingly, the proper use and function of the Law is to threaten until the conscience is scared stiff.”
David Browder says:
May 20, 2009
Remember, there was quite the debate that produced the Formula of concord. The Phillipists and the Gnesios. The Phillipists won. It’s important to distinguish what is Luther and what is Phillipist.
Boaz says:
May 20, 2009
We don’t “attribute” works of Christian love to the Law.
Good works are attributed to Faith by the Holy spirit, which makes our feeble attempts to follow the law pleasing in God’s eyes.
I should also add that Lutherans should not add anything to Law that is not in Scripture. No Law can be made about fasting or contraception or liturgy or other aspects that Scripture does not clearly address. Everything must flow from loving God and loving neighbor and because of that love, we try to determine what his will is for how we should show that love. Disagreements on these things should be charitably resolved by resort to Christian freedom.
Matt McC says:
May 20, 2009
Just to clarify I wrote the 1st comment but nothing afterwards until now. I changed my alias from “Matt” to “Matt McC” to clear up any confusion. Maybe I’ll switch it again to JDK 🙂
Sean Norris says:
May 20, 2009
Browder,
Very helpful and clarifying comment. It’s always good to hear from the horses mouth as it were:)
And McCormick thank you for clearing up which Matt you are:)
Great comments everyone!
Michael says:
May 20, 2009
David,
This portion of your quote from Luther illustrates perfectly my earlier comment concerning the law’s so-called second use of “condemnation” for Luther being the condemnation of hell:
“The second purpose of the Law is spiritual and divine. Paul describes this spiritual purpose of the Law in the words, “Because of transgressions,” i.e., to reveal to a person his sin, blindness, misery, his ignorance, hatred, and contempt of God, his death, hell, and condemnation.”
Luther seems to be talking here about the non-Christian having his condemnation to hell revealed to him by God’s law. The Christian is not condemned to hell by the law for Luther, or, I hope, for anyone else. We are not talking about a psychological “hell” or a “hell” of broken dreams here, we are talking about a good, old fashioned hell hell. So, I can see that some would argue that Luther was not rejecting a “Third Use” for the Christian in the passage at all, he was simply talking about the way the law functions for the non-believer. I think the argument is that Luther was not arguing for or against a “Third Use” as that term later came to be used, he just did not address it at all in a systematic way. That being said, I do think Paul in Romans 7:24 is talking about himself as a believer, and he is talking about the “convicting” function of the law and the gospel relief to which it points (“Who will deliver us from this body of death? Thanks be to God, through Jesus Christ our Lord!”)
We went to a service this Sunday where we were being “told what to do” to get in a “Christian” frame of mind before the service ever started, and it never let up from there. Of, course, I sat there mad as hell the whole time! The gospel message of repentance and forgiveness and the life-giving word of “Jesus and His love” was stated, but in tiny doses and “too little, too late.” I think that is the real problem–the gospel message is not seen as crucial to actually living a real Christian life of love, it is mainly just a “get you saved and in the door” message.
If they could get a lot more gospel into that mix, I wouldn’t care if they had 5,000 programs for “Christian discipleship” (I wouldn’t go to any of them) and sang praise songs to the “Third Use” (I would remain silent or sing “Lay Lady Lay under my breath). After all, we sing “Come Labor On”, which makes me feel like I am a member of a Christian chain-gang.
Peace to all, even the “Third-Users”
Michael Cooper
David Browder says:
May 20, 2009
Michael,
But he said “twofold use”. And he didn’t qualify it. Calvin said “third use” which is seen by many scholars of this particular debate as a concious polemic against Luther. As Brisco Darlin would say, “More power to ya, Calvin”, but I’ll go with Luther on this one.
As an extra, Paul doesn’t seem to have much to say about the Law with Christians either. “Christ is the end of the Law.” He doesn’t qualify that either.
The only thing I can make of that is that the paraclesis must not be the Law. It might look like the Law but if the Law is over, the later exhortations must be enabled by something else.
One thing that Rod Rosenbladt taught me in that Father/Son talk is that grace can be analagous (sp?) from the father to the son. I have found this to be true. On the other end, the law can certainly function in the same way. “Not getting into the sorority” for an 18 year-old girl can be just as condemning and destructive to her as Luther’s ruminations on hell. Now, we know it isn’t the same rationally, but in her mind it might be.
In that sense, the law functions as analogy and permeates human existence totally. Everyone has idols, as Calvin said. And those idols always carry their own laws. And those laws, thankfully, are just as defeating as the Law.
David
Michael says:
May 20, 2009
David,
The point is that Luther’s “two-fold use” should be read within the context he used it in this passage(i.e. the function of God’s law for the non-believer) not as “two-fold use” vs. “three-fold use.” If I recall, the whole “Third Use” issue had not even come up in a formalized way during Luther’s life, and this led to the debate you mentioned after his death. If Luther had been clear on this issue, there would have been no debate.
Not to dare speak for him, but I doubt that Luther would equate not getting into the right sorority with “hell” or buy the notion that “if it’s hell to you, then it’s hell.” I think Luther might make some distinction between the consciousness of being justly condemned by a holy God and those who suffer from upper middle-class performance anxiety.
David Browder says:
May 20, 2009
The way Luther set that up in the book was almost as an aside. It was very systematic the way he argued it. Therein lies the debate, I suppose. I think if he thought there was a third use, he would have hastened to add it to avoid confusion. He was not one to be ambiguous.
As for the analogy stuff, there is no question Luther or anyone else would in no way equate the sorority thing with actual hell. I really wasn’t trying to do that.
Michael says:
May 20, 2009
My point is that, to me at least, the “Third Use” issue is not as cut and dried as I would like it to be. So a hefty dose of humility on both sides of the issue goes a long way, and the shared belief in the gospel of Jesus Christ should help.
David Browder says:
May 21, 2009
The 2nd use of the law brings humility 😉
Michael says:
May 21, 2009
Amen!!! And God uses the “Second Use” on us all, like it or not, believe in it or not.
Todd says:
May 21, 2009
At the risk of jumping in on others’ discussion, I’ll say that Melanchton and Calvin do not understand the third use in the same way…
Calvin understood the third use of the law in two ways. First, the law for Christians is didactic and enables one “to make fresh progress toward a purer knowledge of the divine will” (Calvin 2.7.12). Secondly, “the servant of God will also avail himself of this benefit of the law: by frequent meditation upon it to be aroused to obedience (Calvin 2.7.12).” It seems that this enabling of the law is an effect of didactic nature. Contrary to Calvin, Melanchthon speaks of the third use of the law both didactically and accusatorily. The law does not propel one toward righteousness, but causes one to “lament [their] false security and impurity” and “the converted be strengthened in the fear of God” (Melanchthon Loci Communes 127). It seems that Melanchthon speaks of a three-fold use of the law to speak of the different realms of the law’s validity, while Calvin speaks of the law’s three-fold function.
David Browder says:
May 21, 2009
Todd, great clarification. I don’t think I hear Melanchthon’s version of the third use anymore. Actually, I never heard it from anyone but Melanchthon. Maybe the Formula of Concord.
Calvin’s version is the overwhelmingly dominant version.
Boaz says:
May 21, 2009
It seems like the problem with the Third Use is when it is defined, as Calvin seems to, so that the Law becomes a motivation to do good works.
NO! Love and Faith must be the motivation. Our desire to do good comes from Faith and Love. But these are motivations, and we need instruction and training to understand what God sees as good. Lutherans will say that we look to the law (in the third sense) and love the law because it tells us what God sees as good.
But if Law is used to motivate good works, the works are no longer good and the Pure Gospel is corrupted. Any use of the law in this fashion must be rejected.
A bunch of wise Lutherans discuss the Third Use here:
http://www.ctsfw.edu/ctq/ctq.php?ctq_id=116
David Browder says:
May 21, 2009
Very nice link, Boaz. Thanks for that.
Michael says:
May 21, 2009
Calvin never, to my knowledge, says that meditation on the law is the ONLY motivation to do good, and he never says the “Third Use” of the law is the primary motivation for the Christian life rather than the gospel. It is a gross distortion of Calvin’s thought to suggest that he sees the third use of the law as the only or the primary motivation for the Christian.
The fact that Calvin sees the “Third Use” as “the primary use of the law” does not mean that for Calvin the “third use of the law” overrides the gospel in the Christian’s life. Nor does meditation on the law as a motivation mean that for Calvin the law no longer convicts us of our continuing need of a Savior.
Read what Calvin has to say about prayer and repentance and forgiveness in the Christian life in the Institutes if you really want to get a feel for his complete thought on living the Christian life. One just can’t get that from reading only the parts that explicitly mention “Third Use.”
Michael says:
May 21, 2009
As an example of what I am talking about, this is from the Institutes, 3.20.12:
“Here let my readers recall what I said before: that faith is not at all overthrown when it is joined with the acknowledgment of our misery, destitution, and uncleanness. For however much believers may feel pressed down or troubled by a heavy weight of sins, not only bereft of all things that might obtain favor with God, but laden with many offenses that justly render him terrifying, nevertheless they do not cease to present themselves; and this feeling does not frighten them from betaking themselves to him, since there is no other access to him. For prayer was not ordained that we should be haughtily puffed up before God, or greatly esteen anything of ours, but that, having confessed our guilt, we should deplore our distresses before him, as children unburden their troubles to their parents. Moreover, the boundless mass of our sins should amply furnish us with spurs or goads to arouse us to pray, as the prophet also teaches us by his examble: “Heal my soul, for I have sinned against thee” [Ps. 41:4]. I, indeed, confess that in these darts there would be deadly stings if God did not help us. But according to his incomparable compassion, our most gracious Father has added a timely remedy, by which, calming all perturbation, asssuaging cares, casting out fears, he may draw us gently to himself–nay, removing all rough spots, not to mention hindrances, he may pave the way.”
And at 3.20.11:
“But for the saints the occasion that best stimulates them to call upon God is when, distressed by their own need, they are troubled by the greatest unrest, and are almost driven out of their senses, until faith opportunely comes to their relief. For among such tribulations God’s goodnesss so shines upon them that even when they groan with wearinesss under the weight of present ils, and also are troubled and tormented by the fear of greater ones, yet, relying upon his goodness, they are relieved of the difficulty of bearing them, and are solaced and hope for escape and deliverance.”
Todd says:
May 21, 2009
Michael, I don’t consider myself to be a Calvin buff, so I’m open to correction- in a third use kind of way. When I find some time, I hope to read up Michael Horton’s article titled “Calvin and the Law-Gospel Hermeneutic.” It is comforting to know that Calvin does not promote the law for those in distress or tribulation.
The trouble with Calvin and the Law is that he said that the third use was the “the principal use, and more closely connected with its proper end (2.7.12).”
I don’t think I’ve misquoted Calvin when he understands meditation upon the law as that which propels one toward good works.
He’s the lengthy quote in its (general) entirety:
“For [the law] is the best instrument for enabling them daily to learn with greater truth and certainty what that will of the Lord is which they aspire to follow, and to confirm them in this knowledge; just as a servant who desires with all his soul to approve himself to his master, must still observe, and be careful to ascertain his master’s dispositions, that he may comport himself in accommodation to them. Let none of us deem ourselves exempt from this necessity, for none have as yet attained to such a degree of wisdom, as that they may not, by the daily instruction of the Law, advance to a purer knowledge of the Divine will. Then, because we need not doctrine merely, but exhortation also, the servant of God will derive this further advantage from the Law: by frequently meditating upon it, he will be excited to obedience, and confirmed in it, and so drawn away from the slippery paths of sin. In this way must the saints press onward, since, however great the alacrity with which, under the Spirit, they hasten toward righteousness, they are retarded by the sluggishness of the flesh, and make less progress than they ought. The Law acts like a whip to the flesh, urging it on as men do a lazy sluggish ass. Even in the case of a spiritual man, inasmuch as he is still burdened with the weight of the flesh, the Law is a constant stimulus, pricking him forward when he would indulge in sloth.”
the law is a whip and a stimulus; it urges, pricks, and excites!
JDK says:
May 22, 2009
For what its’ worth, that article by Michael Horton is pretty much the only one I’ve ever read from him that I disagree with. . .
I also think that its meet and right (and a good although (perhaps) not joyful thing) to acknowledge a genuine difference of emphasis and even belief between Luther and Calvin when it comes to this quesiton—both are supported by scripture, but still, a decision has to be made. . .
just my three cents:)
John Zahl says:
May 22, 2009
I agree Jady. There’s reading here that clarifies your point about Horton and differences b/w Calvin and Luther on this one:
http://johncampoxford.blogspot.com/2005/10/for-those-interested-in-differences.html
JDK says:
May 22, 2009
thanks for this John. . . I think we should work it up as a post. .
Michael says:
May 22, 2009
I agree with the general statement that there is a difference in emphasis with Luther and Calvin when it comes to the place of “the law” in the Christian life. But Luther has many positive things to say about God’s law as well. My problem is with the tendency to “throw the baby out with the bath water” when it comes to Calvin, and to treat him as if he had no understanding of the power of the gospel in the life of a Christian. That is far from the truth, and misses the many beautiful expressions of the gospel in Calvin. I do not take quotes from Luther’s “On the Jews And Their Lies” and then argue that this represents Luther, and all that he wrote should be read through that hate-filled lens. I am just asking for the same when it comes to poor Mr. Calvin.
JDK says:
May 22, 2009
Dear Michael,
I hear you, and nobody says that Calvin is completely wrong, nor does anyone try to defend Luther’s more ahem. . questionable choices in writing.
That being said, when it comes to the particular and specific theological exposition in regards to this question of the Law, then there is not much Calvin has to say that I find very helpful. . . We are, after all, talking about the “uses of the Law” and trying to analyze what the two of them said, respectively. But certainly, he has a lot of other things that can definitely be commended.
Like the Geneva gown. . . got to love that:)
Michael says:
May 22, 2009
JDK,
When Luther talks of a “second use”, comparing the law to a hammer or an axe to “kill”, it seems that he is talking about the unconverted, not the Christian, since he clearly states that the law condemns a person to hell and death and thereby drives him to a gospel hope in Christ. That is why I think it may be important to understand that “condemnation” for Luther and Calvin meant condemnation to hell; it was not merely conviction of sin. When Calvin posits a “Third Use” he is dealing with the fact that the law no longer condemns the believer to hell, that is, it is no longer an axe bringing death and condemnation, but the law still convicts the believer of his continuing sin (the whip)and drives him to seek refuge in the forgiveness of his Father. That is why I quoted the passage below:
“For however much believers may feel pressed down or troubled by a heavy weight of sins, not only bereft of all things that might obtain favor with God, but laden with many offenses that justly render him terrifying, nevertheless they do not cease to present themselves; and this feeling does not frighten them from betaking themselves to him, since there is no other access to him. For prayer was not ordained that we should be haughtily puffed up before God, or greatly esteem anything of ours, but that, having confessed our guilt, we should deplore our distresses before him, as children unburden their troubles to their parents.”
Now, that is good law and gospel theology, in my opinion, even though Calvin does not use the words “law” or “gospel” in the passage. You say that you haven’t found Calvin’s writing on the law to be helpful. I don’t know how much Calvin you have read, maybe loads, but that passage above is mighty helpful to this sinner.
JDK says:
May 23, 2009
Michael,
I think that the way that you (and Mike Horton for that matter) understand Calvin, and particularly the fact that you find him inspiring and helpful, is wonderful.
I think what we have here is a good example of how you can be in 90% agreement with someone while believing that the 10% you disagree about is actually what’s 100$ important. In other words, the underlying hermeneutic we’re dealing with here–the Law as death or the Law as guide–is really much more than semantic and, in my opinion, the most important quesiton.
There is no shortage of information on this question and, as has been said, is certainly still up for discussion within Reformed and Lutheran circles; however, since I”m neither Reformed nor Lutheran, the specific appeals to each don’t really carry the day for me in the end. But, I do appreciate the theologians on both sides who try and maintain the divide between the two, not because I have a strong need for division (but I am a divider, not a uniter:) but because it is by the distinctions that the two theologies take shape.
We’ll definitely keep talking about this. . . and I certainly don’t have the particulars figured out and appreciate your hesitation about the “uses” language; nevertheless, as imperfect as that is, it does give us a starting place to hang some ideas on–hopefully in an ironic and funny way:)
So, I look forward to continuing to work out this quesiton of “Third use” with you and the rest on here and hey, who knows, maybe there are some undiscovered “uses” that we will run across!:)
fondly,
jady
Michael says:
May 23, 2009
JDK,
I want to be clear that I do not at all go for the use of “the law” as merely a guide and I certainly do not see the law as the moving force in a Christian’s life now that he has the power of the Holy Spirit to boost him along. The gospel is the one and only source of all love in the life of the Christian.
But I do think that there is a trend here to have a very shallow view of Calvin, and to pigeon hole everything in a nanosecond. It reminds me, unfortunately, of the “Truly Reformed” crowd, but on the other end of the spectrum.
My point in the Calvin passage I quoted was that “the law as guide” is not in that passage. The law is crushing the believer, driving him in his weakness and need to seek the grace and forgiveness of his Father in prayer. But that does not fit the stereotype of Calvin that seems so ingrained here that it is impossible to dislodge. So, applying good theology, I give up.
StampDawg says:
May 23, 2009
Hello all. You guys are probably all talked out here.
🙂
In case you want some more, however, you can see a few posts I just made this morning on the much more modest subject of the First Use. It’s at the end of the thread called FORGIVING MICHAEL VICK.
My own feeling is that the definition of the First Use that started this thread wasn’t quite right — you can see my revision of it there if you like.
Hope everyone has a great weekend….
George says:
Jul 19, 2009
Luther says that the law is the most salutary doctrine of life, and he also says in his commentary on Galatians that with respect to God Christians need to open their ears to the gospel, and with respect to the world, open their ears entirely to the law.
The one thing that seems to get to the heart of the matter, for me at least, is when some claim that there is no longer any imperative or command left for the Christian after the curse of the law has been vanquished by Christ on the cross. I think clearly the command still remains, and the command is love, above all, but also moves into the many hundreds of other imperatives listed in the NT. To say there are no imperatives left, as some of my friends are fond of thinking, is to totally break the unity of scripture.
Additionally, Paul Zahl, in his Grace in Practice, points to the salutary nature of God's law with his example at the end of Chapter One when two cops are placed at an intersection to signal the danger of the place, that all who approach are warned. This seems to be more in line with the salutary nature of the law, and more in line with Psalm 119. I don't see why the third use of the law is not perceived as more salutary, and less threatening, by those who have been redeemed and can truly see that their rebellion led to truly awful places, places they could have avoided if God's voice had been heeded–and especially heeded now that sin's dominion is broken under Christ's rule. And Christ is not a cruel master, 1 John describes his commandments as "not burdensome."
Luther and Calvin were the same when it came to the first and second use of the law at the legal level of justification. It seems to me that sanctification, so dangerous a term to some!, could be better understood and examined by those who seek liberty in the cross. Lutherans and Calvinists alike should be wary of tearing down their weaker brother over debates like this!
I sure hope this is contributory! Thanks for publishing.
Ethan says:
May 11, 2010
There have been so many good posts on this topic that my point may well have been said by someone else.
While I do not deny the reality that the law has an instructive function (i.e. it informs my concience about certain truths), I do deny that the Law does so without accusation.
I guess you could say that I do not believe in a 'naked' third use. So long as we are sinful by nature and action, the Law is always accusatory even if it instructs. We never hear it 'neutrally.' The 3rd use is always necessarily laced with the 2nd use in all cases.