like its blessed Master, is always crucified between two thieves—legalists of all sorts on the one hand and Antinomians on the other; the former robbing the Savior of the glory of his work for us, and the other robbing him of the glory of his work within us.” – J.H. Thornwell, ‘Antinomianism’ in The Collected Writings of James Henley Thornwell (Richmond: Presbyterian Committee of Publication, 1871) p. 386
Doug Wilson etc.
Considered from one angle, this topic might seem a little theology wonkish — three office/four office debate and so on. But considered from another angle it could be considered the more controversial things I have written. (Overheard in the faculty lounge at Westminster West: “We’ll be the judge of that . . .”).
First, let’s get some of the biblical data out of the way. I understand the gifts that Paul describes in Ephesians to be four in number, not five (Eph. 4:11). That means that the fourth is a compound gift, that of pastor/teacher. This means that those who are called to this office should both instruct and shepherd the people of God. All pastors should be teachers.
But it does not follow that all teachers should be pastors. The gift of teaching is mentioned a number of times in Scripture as a stand-alone gift (e.g. 1 Cor. 12:28; Acts 13:1). A man in a seminary classroom, or a scholar devoted to the production of books, or engaged in similar activity, is doing something that is very valuable. But the fact that it is valuable and good does not mean that it is the same thing as a pastor. A screwdriver is valuable, but it is not a hammer.
So here is the difficulty. Because of the high value placed on intellectual rigor in the Reformed tradition, we have drifted into a position where the academic pastor is the highly prized pastor. He has a doctorate, hopefully from somewhere in the UK, he smokes a pipe, and there are bonus points if he sounds like Sinclair Ferguson. This is not a shot at Sinclair Ferguson, incidentally — he’s supposed to sound that way, and I am reading a fantastic book by him right now. So forget I mentioned it.
Teaching is good, and teachers are good, but teachers are not pastors. Big problems come down upon us when we assume that because the teaching is good, the pastoring is covered.
“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works” (2 Tim. 3:16–17).
The man of God here is the minister, the one called to pastoral ministry. He is given the Bible, his tool chest, and why? There are four things he is to do with it — teach doctrine, reprove, correct, and instruct in righteousness. Twenty-five percent of this is something a teacher could do. The rest of it is pastoral. And actually, the teaching of doctrine is, in the hands of a pastor, pastoral also. Continue reading
Tullian Tchividjian writes the following article entitled, Legalism and the Relationship Between Law and Gospel”:
There is some talk these days regarding big terms like antinomianism (a word coined by Martin Luther which simply means “anti-law”) and legalism. I’ve written about that at the center of any discussion regarding antinomianism and legalism is how one understands the Biblical distinction between God’s law and God’s gospel. I hope the following thoughts are helpful and further this important conversation. The theological lifting here is a bit heavy, but I think it’s worth your time and effort to think on these things.
One of the problems in the current conversation regarding the relationship between law and gospel is that the term “law” is not always used to mean the same thing. This is understandable since in the Bible “law” does not always mean the same thing.
For example, in Psalm 40:8 we read: “I delight to do your will, O my God; your law is within my heart.” Here the law is synonymous with God’s revealed will. A Christian seeking to express their love for God and neighbor delights in those passages that declare what God’s will is. When, however, Paul tells Christians that they are no longer under the law (Rom. 6:14) he obviously means more by law than the revealed will of God. He’s talking there about Christians being free from the curse of the law-not needing to depend on adherence to the law to establish our relationship to God: “Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes” (Rom. 10:4).
So, it’s not as simple as you might think. For short hand, I think it’s helpful to say that law is anything in the Bible that says “do”, while gospel is anything in the Bible that says “done”; law equals imperative and gospel equals indicative. However, when you begin to parse things out more precisely, you discover some important nuances that should significantly help the conversation forward so that people who are basically saying the same thing aren’t speaking different languages and talking right past one another.
Discussion of the law and its three uses (1) usus theologicus (drives us to Christ), (2) usus politicus (the civil use), and (3) usus practicus (revealing of God’s will for living) are helpful. But I’ve discovered that this outline all by itself raises just as many questions to those I talk to as it does provide answers. Continue reading