Law and Gospel

Rush Limbaugh reminded the audience the other day of how he came to be a conservative talk show host. When he was younger he intuitively recognized that liberals were wrong, but he could not explain why until he started reading what he calls the "God Fathers" of the conservative movement. Then he was equipped to explain why he thought what he thought.

In the same way, I have noticed an implicit denial of the sufficiency of Scripture among certain Southern Baptist and American Baptist leaders (I am a member of the American Baptist denomination). The problem is that these leaders say things like "Scripture Alone" and the "Bible is the Word of God" and yet denying the Law in the life of the Christian (a form of antinomianism). Over time, it has become obvious to me that they do not mean what the terms have historically meant, but I could not quite figure out why.

In a recent Founders Journal Dr. Tom Nettles wrote an article entitled Recapturing the Complementarity Of Law and Gospel. In the article he states:

Churches of the American Baptists have fallen prey to this annoying error. The 1970-90's saw resolutions on human rights, freedom, Christian unity and human sexuality...Even the greatly agitated controversy over sexuality called for new attempts to "consider prayerfully the mind of Christ..."

Though the Bible provides source material and stands ostensibly as "central to our lives," a clear divide between a settled word and the 'Living Christ' determines the burden of the interpretive task. "The Christian faith is centered in a person," they argue. "It is not a legalistic code which forms our faith; it is the living Christ."

Dr. Nettles is right on. It is not that we all say the "Bible is the Word of God". Even Mormons say that. The question is "what do we mean by that?" But the issue goes even further. The question really becomes, "What is our hermeneutical principle?" or our mode of interpretation. Do we know the mind of Christ apart from studying God's Law? For many American Baptists apparently, the Law is merely a "legalistic code" and that we really should be looking for the "living Christ."

Dr. Nettle goes on to say that "the defining authority of objective truth has no place in their concept of freedom and contradicts, in their opinion, the ongoing work of Christ in His people." This is most certainly a dangerous trend. When "Law and Gospel" are pitted against each other in such a way as to deny the Law of God as having a role in the life of the believing one, antinomianism will surely follow. Hence, the reason why so many deny the Old Testament Law or are ignorant of it.

So how does a church proclaim deliverance from sin when there is no law?