Editors of the Guardian during its remarkable 43-year publishing history included H. McAllister Griffiths, J. Gresham Machen, Ned B. Stonehouse, Charles J. Woodbridge, Paul Woolley, Leslie W. Sloat, Robert E. Nicholas, John J. Mitchell, and J. Cameron Fraser.

All issues are now published on the official website of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church: http://opc.org/guardian.html

As I noted in Second Thoughts, Edwards looked back on his youthful missteps at Northampton and regretted his emphasis on emotional experiences rather than practical Godliness. His ministry among the Stockbridge was remarkably different than at Northampton, although his concern for souls remained the same.

When Edwards moved to Stockbridge in 1751 he invested himself in the lives of the people and was soon horrified by English injustices toward the Indians. The English traders routinely defrauded them and Edwards devoted himself to opposing such abuses.

Not surprisingly, Edwards believed that a good education was a key to effective missions. He set about reforming the ineffective schools, and established a curriculum that taught the children to “understand things, as well as words” and the children were encouraged “to speak freely and in his turn also to ask questions.” He not only insisted that girls be educated along with the boys, but he also integrated the class with English children. Edwards instituted learning incentives where students would be publicly recognized and awarded prizes for reciting their lessons. He also integrated singing into the curriculum.

Edwards’ preaching in Stockbridge was markedly different than at Northampton. He focused primarily on New Testament narratives and used plain vivid metaphors in his teaching. His Stockbridge sermons did not display his great learning or his fondness for philosophy. Rather he was practical, clear and concise. Once a week he also taught the children the essentials of Christianity – always through Bible stories. Edwards did not alter his theology, nor did he back away from teaching on God’s wrath and judgment. But he tempered these points by emphasizing God’s grace and mercy – much more so than at Northampton.

After his first year at Stockbridge he shied away from his practice of listing catalogs of sins prevalent in the congregation. He became more patient and compassionate when seeking to correct the moral failings of his people.

There was no “revival” at Stockbridge and no reports of remarkable conversions. Yet many adult Indians were already communicant members and many more came to profess their faith in Christ.

In a marked contrast to his time at Northampton, Edwards maintained the respect of his congregation. His family was in daily contact with the Stockbridge families. By the time Jonathan Jr. was six he knew the Stockbridge language better than his native tongue. Historian George Marsden notes that “If all we had were Edwards’ letters from Stockbridge (more than four hundred large pages…), we would know him as a missionary deeply involved in the practical affairs of his day.”

If we evaluate Edwards’ significance only as a figure of American Religious history then it is natural that his time at Northampton would be the period of greatest interest. If we evaluate him as a theologian or a philosopher we should judge him to be both insightful and original (but never at the same time!). If, however, we evaluate Edwards as a pastor, we should judge that his labors at Stockbridge were more fruitful and more faithful than at Northampton.

While I was reading through Iain Murray’s rose-tinted biography of Jonathan Edwards, I began to have second thoughts on the Great Awakening. There were a number of odd facts that didn’t seem to fit the narrative of true Revival. For instance, I thought it was strange that on the heels of the first wave of revival (1734-35) that a spirit of mass depression and even suicidal tendencies (and several actual suicides) came upon the Northampton residents (Faithful Narrative: Works 4: 205-207). Following the second wave of revival (1740-42) Northampton again became a melancholy place and for years no one came forward to become a communicant member of the church. By 1744 Pastor Edwards became a persona non grata among most. Edwards was mired in various controversies his remaining years at Northampton. By 1750 the church members voted 230-23 to give Edwards the boot!

The Wesley brothers (and later, Charles Finney) could interpret such disappointments as due to a lack of perseverance by the people. But Edwards and Whitfield correctly believed that perseverance is a gift of the Holy Spirit. Where there is true conversion, there can be no such falling away. Such dissension and strife in Northampton is hardly compatible with the fruit of the Spirit.

How did Jonathan Edwards interpret being fired by his spiritual children? In 1751 Edwards wrote a letter to Scotsman Thomas Gillespie that contained his own reevaluation of the Northampton debacle. Edwards traced much of the problem to the well-intentioned but misguided theology of Northampton’s previous minister, his grandfather, Solomon Stoddard. Pastor Stoddard was possessed “of a dogmatical temper” and had inculcated “certain wrong notions and ways in religion” among Northampton’s residents. Particularly, they were too ready to stress the “impressions on the imagination” that they took to be their conversion experiences and too unwilling to see “the abiding sense and temper of their hearts” and the “exercises and fruits of grace” as the true evidences of regeneration. Edwards confesses that he too was swept up in these notions and that being young, “I was not thoroughly aware of the ill consequences of such a custom.” He further admitted, “The number of true converts was not so great as was then imagined.”

I began to suspect that the true significance of the Great Awakening was not in bringing a revival of religion, but rather it signaled a new way Christians interpreted their Christian faith, piety and practice. Perhaps it was not so different from the second Great Awakening after all.

Part 2: The Forgotten Edwards

Another way Reformed theologians described the teaching of double imputation is by affirming that both the active and passive aspects of Christ’s obedience were for our redemption (‘passive’ is antiquated language. Originally it meant “suffering” as in “passion”). We cannot separate these two aspects of Christ’s obedience. Throughout the entire life of Christ his suffering and obedience were intertwined – but it is particularly through his propitiation on the cross (passive obedience) that our sins were imputed to his account, and through the resurrection that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us (these benefits being received in time by faith alone).

The seventeenth century Arminians attempted to separate the inseparable by denying that the active obedience of Christ had redemptive significance. They argued that Christ needed his obedience for himself as a man; it cannot therefore be imputed to us. The consequence is that Christ procures for us only the forgiveness of sins through his sacrificial death. By faith we receive nothing more than a pardon, a gracious relaxing of the perfect demands of the law.

It is correct to say that Christ’s obedience qualified him as the perfect sacrifice. Some wonder what Christ could gain by his obedience, since by virtue of his divinity he is morally impeccable. Christ, by his obedience, of course gained nothing for himself. The purpose of the incarnation was not for his sake, but for ours! By assuming a human nature he became subject to the law in its federal aspect, the law as the condition of life in the covenant of works. As the last Adam he took the place of the first. When Christ voluntarily entered the federal relationship as the last Adam, keeping of the law naturally acquired the same significance for him. If Jesus merely paid the penalty for our sin without also imputing to us his righteousness, we would be left in the position of Adam before the fall, still confronted with the task of obtaining eternal life by way of obedience (with the help of forgiveness).

Can it be shown from Scripture that Christ’s entire life is redemptive? Yes. This is evident, first of all, in summary statements about the redemptive work of Christ that are general, which embrace the totality of his earthly ministry. For example, Gal 4:4-5, states that Christ was “born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.” Thus, Christ’s entire life of obedience is brought to bear on our redemption.

Second, this is evident from the Scriptural teaching on the resurrection. Romans 4:25 brings both his active and passive obedience together in our redemption by declaring that Jesus our Lord “was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification.” Thus Paul connects our pardon specifically with the suffering of Christ and God’s decree of Justification with the resurrection of Christ. Why does Paul connect Jesus’ resurrection with our justification? It is because the resurrection was Jesus’ justification – it was God’s declaration that his Son was righteous and therefore death had no hold on him. As Paul says in another place “he was justified [vindicated] by the Spirit” (1 Tim 3:5: i.e. when, by the Holy Spirit, Christ was raised from the dead). Why was Jesus declared to be righteous in the resurrection? Because he was righteous! Born under the law, he perfectly obeyed the law and therefore death did not have a legitimate claim on him.

Third, and most important, this is evident from the Scriptural teaching on the justification of the wicked. The word “justify” means “declare righteous/just.” Justification is not the same thing as pardon. It is one thing for a judge to acquit a defendant, declaring him clear of all charges, and quite another for a judge to issue a pardon. Yet Scripture states that God declares the wicked, righteous (Rom 4:5). He does this by imputing righteousness apart from works (4:6). This righteousness comes by the obedience of Christ, as Paul says. “By the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous” (The significant point here is not so much that this is brought about by Christ’s obedience; rather it is the result of being declared righteous).

And what (whose) righteousness is this? It is not the righteousness of the penitent, for it is said to be “apart from works.” It is the righteousness of Christ (his entire obedience) that is imputed to the believer. This is the import of Phil 3:9, “and being found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith.” Also relevant is 2 Cor 5:21, the classic text on “double imputation,” which states that Christ was made sin (i.e. condemned as a sinner) “so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” That is, God declares us to be righteous because he regards his righteous Son as our substitute. Therefore, Calvin says in his Institutes (3.11.2) that “A man will be justified by faith when, excluded from the righteousness of works, he by faith lays hold of the righteousness of Christ, and, clothed in it, appears in the sight of God, not as a sinner, but as righteous.”

Today many argue that such theories of imputation and the righteousness of Christ are not part of the Gospel message. On the contrary, this truth relates directly to our understanding of justification and is most certainly an indispensable part of our gospel proclamation. The Reformed Symbols also left no doubt as to the importance of Christ’s obedience and double imputation.

Westminster Larger Cat q. 70, “Justification is an act of God’s free grace unto sinners, in which he pardoneth all their sins, accepteth and accounteth their persons righteous in his sight; not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but only for the perfect obedience and full satisfaction of Christ, by God imputed to them [my emphasis], and received by faith alone” (Compare also L. Cat q. 77, S. Cat. Q. 33, WCF 11.1).

Heidelberg Catechism q. 60. Q. How are you right with God? A. Only by true faith in Jesus Christ. Even though my conscience accuses me of having grievously sinned against all God’s commandments and of never having kept any of them, and even though I am still inclined toward all evil, nevertheless, without my deserving it at all, out of sheer grace, God grants and credits to me the perfect satisfaction, righteousness, and holiness of Christ, as if I had never sinned nor been a sinner, as if I had been as perfectly obedient as Christ was obedient for me” (Compare also Belgic Confession Articles 20, 22, 23).

Finally, this doctrine is of enormous practical benefit because it teaches us that that Christ’s obedience is the grounds of our justification and we can therefore be confident of passing through God’s judgment because we are clothed in the righteousness of Christ. Thus, as J. Gresham Machen was dying of pneumonia he sent a final telegram to John Murray containing these words: “so thankful for the active obedience of Christ. No hope without it.”

If we were to apply this generally unhelpful distinction to the doctrine of “Law and Gospel” we must say that such a distinction is “first order.” It is drawn from explicit statements of Scripture. It does not require the assistance of philosophy, nor does it invite metaphysical speculation. “For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law” (Rom 3:28); “But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace” (11:6, et al).

Especially in the writings of the Apostle Paul we find that law-merit-works is continually set against grace-promise-faith. This contrast must mean something.

Before proceeding further it is helpful to note that the terms “law” and “gospel” are sometimes used in a wide and in a narrow sense. In the wide sense “law” often denotes the entire teaching of Scripture. In the wide sense “gospel” refers to all that God has revealed in Scripture concerning our salvation, which message begins with the threat of judgment (e.g. Rom 1:18).

It is the narrower, more theological sense of law and gospel that concern us when coming to grips with the Pauline theology. I suggest that Paul’s distinction between law and gospel is not one of continuum (e.g. a difference in emphasis), nor a dispensational difference (e.g. law, then gospel). Rather, the distinction is functional. The doctrinal contents of Scripture are made up of two doctrines fundamentally distinct from each other: the law and the gospel.

Having defined the distinction in this way I suggest that there are at least four ways in which the doctrine of the law and the gospel agree, and then at least four ways in which they are contrasted.

(1) First, they are both revelation from God. They do not originate in the minds of the creatures, but come from the creator. This point should not be controversial, but some suggest that Paul’s contrast of law with grace concerns human traditions and the legalistic miss-application of the law by the Pharisees. When Paul writes in 2 Cor 3:7-11 that the law is a “ministry of death” there is no suggestion that he refers to the “tradition of the elders” nor Pharisaic miss-interpretations of the law. Similarly in Rom 7 he writes that the law was “ordained to life” that it is “holy, righteous and good,” and that it is “spiritual” (10-14). But what was “ordained to life actually brought death” and it “produced death in me through what was good” for though the law is spiritual we are “unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin.”

(2) Second, the law and the gospel agree in that they operate in concert with each other. The gospel saves from wrath (Rom 1:16-18) but there is no wrath where there is no law (Rom 4:15; 7:8-11). Paul’s words are plain: “the law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, that we may be justified by faith” (Gal 3:24). The law apart from the Gospel leads to despair (or self righteousness), while the gospel without the law is meaningless.

(3) Both the law and the Gospel contain the promise of life (Rom 7:10, Gal 3:11-12 et al). The former grants life by the doing and the latter by the believing (Rom 10:1-10).

(4) Fourth, they agree in that it is Christ’s obedience to the law of God that is the grounds of our salvation. Through the substitutionary death and resurrection, the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us and our sins forgiven so that we stand before God in the righteousness of Jesus Christ (Rom 5:12-21, Gal 4:4-5, etc.).

There are at least four was that the law and the gospel are contrasted

(1) They differ in the mode of their revelation. Although both the law and the gospel are revealed in Scripture, the law is also given through nature and inscribed on the heart of mankind (Rom 2:14-15). The gospel, on the other hand, comes only by special revelation (Rom 16:25-26). Any conflation of law and gospel has as its consequence the belief that this gospel-law is written on every heart, opening up a path of salvation for those who follow the light that is in them, but who have no knowledge of Christ.

(2) The law and the gospel differ in the contents of each. The law is summarized in the command to love your God and our neighbor with our whole being (Matt 22:37-40). But in the Gospel we believe in Christ our mediator who justifies those who are lawbreakers (Rom 4:5). In this sense faith excludes law and law excludes faith, for “the law is not of faith” (Gal 3:12); “for if inheritance is based on the law, it is no longer based on a promise” (Gal 3:18); “for you are not under law, but under grace” (Rom 6:14); “but if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace” (Rom 11:6).

Again, some will object that Paul is speaking about the ceremonial law – the Old Covenant – when he is contrasting faith and grace? But examine the context. Paul writes that the law brings a curse for those who do not keep it fully (Gal 3:10). For the Jewish people this naturally included the ceremonial law, and circumcision had become the chief symbol of one’s consignment to that law. But how does this relate to Gentile Christians? Paul further teaches that Christ redeems us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us (Gal 3:13). This cannot mean simply that his atoning death simply freed us from the Mosaic ordinances. Christ redeemed us from the curse of God’s law when he was made sin on our behalf and suffered the full weight of God’s wrath that was due us, that we might have his righteousness imputed to our account, just as our sins were imputed to him (2 Cor 5:21).

When Paul speaks of the law as that by which sin is aroused and by which death receives its potency (Rom 7:5 ff), which condemns Jews and Gentiles alike (Rom 3:19-20), he cannot be speaking of ceremonies. Rather it is the law that states “you shall not steal” “you shall not commit adultery” (Rom 2:21-22) “you shall not covet” (Rom 7:7). It is the moral law summarily comprehended in the Decalogue; the same law that is “holy and righteous and good” (Rom 7:12).

(3) Third, the law and the gospel differ as to the conditions of their promises. The law says that those who perfectly fulfill its demands in toto will be justified (Matt 19:17; Rom 2:7-13; Gal 3:10, 12, Js 2:10). But the condition of the Gospel is that we believe in Jesus Christ and we will be justified apart from works of the law (Rom 3:38; 4:13-14; Gal 2:!6; Eph 2:8-9; Phil 3:9; Col 2:13-14; Tit 3:5). As Paul put it, these two ways constitute two types of righteousness: one of works, the other of faith (Rom 3:21-22; 10:1-10; 11:6)
John Calvin explains these two types of righteousness in his definition of Justification,

“He in whose life that purity and holiness will be found which deserves a testimony of righteousness before God’s throne will be said to be justified by works, or else he who, by the wholeness of his works, can meet and satisfy God’s judgment. On the contrary, justified by faith is he who, excluded from the righteousness of works, grasps the righteousness of Christ through faith, and clothed in it, appears in God’s sight not as a sinner but as a righteous man” (Inst 3.9.2).

In his commentary on Rom 10:6 and 9 Calvin writes:

“Do you see how he makes this the distinction between law and gospel: that the former attributes righteousness to works, the latter bestows free righteousness apart from the help of works? This is an important passage, and one that can extricate us from many difficulties if we understand that the righteousness which is given us through the gospel has been freed of all conditions of the law. Here is the reason why he so often opposes the promise to the law, as things mutually contradictory: “If the inheritance is by the law, it is no longer by promise” [Gal 3:18]; and passages in the same chapter that express this idea.”
“Now, to be sure, the law itself has its own promises. Therefore, in the promises of the Gospel there must be something distinct and different unless we would admit that the comparison is inept. But what sort of difference will this be, other than that the gospel promises are free and dependent solely upon God’s mercy, while the promises of the law depend on the condition of works? And let no one here snarl at me that it is the righteousness which men, of their own strength and free will, would obtrude upon God that is rejected – inasmuch as Paul unequivocally teaches that the law, in commanding, profits nothing [cf. Rom. 8:3]. For there is no one, not only of the common folk, but of the most perfect persons, who can fulfill it.”

(4) Finally, the law and the gospel differ in their effects. The law “brings knowledge of sin” (Rom 3:20), produces and excites sin (7:5, 8), is “the cause of death” (7:13), the “ministry of death” and of “condemnation” (2 Cor 3:7, 9). The Gospel, on the other hand, is the “ministry of righteousness,” of the Spirit and of Life, (2 Cor 3:9), and in it there is “no condemnation” (Rom 8:1).

Understanding the proper distinction between law and grace is fundamental to the Protestant doctrine of justification by faith alone. Only a faith that clings to Christ alone sets us on firm ground. For not one or two good works are sufficient to justify, neither is every good work imperfectly done enough to put our consciences at rest. As the Belgic Confession rightly states, it is only when we refuse to consider any grounds of justice or love in ourselves and cling only to the imputed righteousness of Christ alone, “that is enough to cover all our sins and to make us confident, freeing the conscience from the fear, dread, and terror of God’s approach… In fact, if we had to appear before God relying – no matter how little on ourselves or some other creature, then, alas, we would be swallowed up” (Article 23).

Those who suggest that we are justified through our faithful obedience or through love are teaching that the sinner is justified by works. The result from this way of thinking is that “we would always be in doubt, tossed back and forth without any certainty, and our poor consciences would be tormented constantly if they did not rest on the merit of the suffering and death of our Savior” (Article 24). The law is a beautiful thing, for love is beautiful and love is the sum of the law. But even more beautiful is the free promise of forgiveness for lawbreakers, which Christ gives to us through faith in the gospel apart from works of the law.

Properly interpreting this verse does not depend so much on the grammar as it does on the context and it illustrates how far afield we can go by viewing verses as mere proof-texts without proper consideration for their context. Paul is not here discussing the relationship of works and saving faith. He approaches this subject in chapters 6 and 7. His topic is the condemnation of the law and verse 13 does not represent a parenthetical comment on another subject, but it is rather the crux of the matter.

To understand Paul’s argument we must follow it from the beginning. In Romans 1:16-17 Paul states his purpose in giving a full presentation of the Gospel and presents his thesis statement, “the just shall live by faith.” The section that follows, however, does not speak of the grace of Jesus Christ, but of “the wrath of God” (v. 18). God’s mercy has no meaning if it were not for God’s holiness and his righteous judgment and wrath against sin. Grace is nonsense without law.

As the first chapter unfolds Paul parades the sins characteristic of the gentiles. When he wraps up his case against the heathen he then rather surprisingly states that this sinful condition belongs to all people universally. “You who judge practice the same things. And we know that the judgment of God rightly falls upon those who practice such things” (2:1-2). Such a bold statement needs explanation, so he continues by quoting the Old Testament: God “will render to every man according to his deeds.” That is, one’s works, or obedience to the law determines where one will be for eternity. He will “render” as a waged earned. This is what he explains later, “now to the one who works, his wages is not reckoned as a favor, but what is due” (Rom 4:5).

Paul continues to tighten the screws – “to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life; but to those who are selfishly ambitions and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation” (7-8). These verses present parallel ellipses. This suggests that we must supply the same word/concept for both. We know that God graciously grants eternal life to those who believe, but we cannot say that he graciously grants wrath and indignation. It should be clear that the word to be supplied is “earn” or “merit.” By our deeds we will either merit eternal life or eternal death. Paul is not here speaking of “evangelical obedience” as verse 12 makes clear with its emphasis on the law which will judge both Jew and gentile.

At last we arrive at verse 13 where Paul argues that it is the “doers of the law who will be justified.” Paul’s point here is not to safeguard the doctrine of justification by faith from the error of antinomianism. Paul has not even mentioned justification by faith! He does not even begin to address the gospel in general, the atonement of Christ, or justification by faith until the pivotal point in chapter three.

Paul makes a play on the verbs of hearing and doing. Many of you are probably aware that “to hear” in Hebrew idiom is a synonym for “to do.” If you hear the word of God, then you do the word of God. Paul is saying “it is not those who make a solid effort to do the law, but those who REALLY DO the law – as in every jot and tittle, in thought word and deed, perfectly and perpetually – who will be justified.”

James makes the same point when he writes “for whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at one point, he has become guilty of all” (James 2:10). The point Paul and James are making is that the law is rigid, and in its very nature excludes grace.

Paul continues by addressing how it is that gentiles are condemned under this law. They did not receive it engraved on tablets of stone as the Jews did, but God wrote the law on their hearts. God will judge those who know right and wrong from nature by what they know and did not do (2:14-15).

Here we understand clearly the nature of the relationship that God established with Adam in the beginning. “God gave to Adam a law, as a covenant of works, by which he bound him and all his posterity to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience, promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatened death upon the breach of it, and endued him with the power and ability to keep it” (Westminster Confession of Faith 19.1). Although we no longer have the power and ability to keep God’s law, yet, by virtue of our creation, we – with Adam – have the law written on our heart, and this law will accuse or defend us on the Day of Judgment.

Everything in Paul’s argument is driving to the conclusion that “we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all are under sin” (3:9), that “there is none righteous, not even one” (3:10), so that “every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God” (3:19). The law brings only wrath and condemnation. Although “the law promised life” (Rom 7:10), as sinners we can never cash in on that promise. Commenting on Romans 2:13, John Calvin writes,

That if righteousness be sought from the law, the law must be fulfilled; for the righteousness of the law consists in the perfection of works. They who pervert this passage for the purpose of building up justification by works, deserve most fully to be laughed at even by children. For the Apostle only urges here on the Jews what he had mentioned, the decision of the law, – That by the law they could not be justified, except they fulfilled the law, that if they transgressed it, a curse was instantly pronounced on them. Now we do not deny but that perfect righteousness is prescribed in the law: but as all are convicted of transgression, we say that another righteousness must be sought. Still more, we can prove from this passage that no one is justified by works; for if they alone are justified by the law who fulfill the law, it follows that no one is justified; for no one can be found who can boast of having fulfilled the law (Commentary on Romans).

Paul still holds in his mind what he wrote earlier, that “the doers of the law will be justified” when he states the conclusion of the matter, “by works of the law no flesh will be justified in his sight; for through the law comes the knowledge of sin” (3:20).

The next verse represents the pivot point. When Paul writes “but now apart from the law” (3:21) he begins his exposition of another way of salvation, which is by grace. Even as the law excluded grace, so grace now excludes the law. “For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the law” (3:28). As the corollary to law is merit, the corollary to faith is grace. The law is not of faith, and grace is opposed to merit. “If it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works” (Rom 11:6).

If anyone should keep the law then they are rightly said to merit God’s approbation. “The one who works, his wages is not reckoned as favor, but as what is due” (4:5). God would justify such a person according to their righteousness. But as sinners we have no claim to such a reward. But by faith we receive the grace of God through Jesus Christ. “To the one who does not work, but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness” (4:5).

The corollary to the covenant of works/grace is this sharp distinction between law and gospel. The law through its doing promised life on the basis of merit. The gospel through faith promises life on the basis of grace. Such a distinction between law and gospel is essential for our understanding of the gospel, and why the Protestant Reformers taught it as such.

For further study on Romans 2:13 see the commentaries on Romans by John Calvin, Charles Hodge and Robert Haldane, and Geerhardus Vos, “Alleged Legalism in Paul’s Doctrine of Justification.”

If there ever was a sincere inquirer after truth it was Jonathan Edwards… And yet his great work on the Freedom of the Will is, in one respect, a signal failure. He has indeed abundantly proved that man is a free agent, as also that all his actions are foreknown and fore-determined by his Maker. But their needed no long train of philosophical reasoning to prove these doctrines — the Bible had already done it before him. Yet in his attempt to reconcile these great truths to each other he has entirely failed. And if he failed, who shall succeed?

…Now here lies the great error of too many men. Instead of being satisfied with ascertaining the existence of a truth, they must needs determine the mode of its existence. But this is an abuse of their powers of reasoning, and it is of such very persons that Paul speaks, when he says, ‘ Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools…

The Being and attributes of God may be learned from the Book of Nature, but of his purposes we can know nothing, except by revelation! And it is equally an abuse of this revelation and our own faculties, if we seek to know farther than the simple facts revealed. Here it is that “Men rush in where Angels fear to tread”…

But secondly, it is presumption in the highest degree, because we cannot understand the reasons of a revealed truth, therefore to reject it altogether. In very few instances, indeed, has God condescended to explain the reasons of his moral enactments, and in none have we a right to require them. “Thus saith the Lord,” should at once put to rest the impertinent curiosity of man…

Again, if we cannot reconcile two revealed truths so as to make them consistent with each other, we have not, in consequence, any right to conclude that their agreement is impossible. Yet how often has this been done to the shipwreck of faith as of souls. The doctrines of the Trinity, of Election, &c. are beyond our reason, but what right have we to say, that they are contrary to it? Who, of mortal man, or of created beings, is authorized to pronounce upon the possible limitations of the Uncreated One? …We are finite, and how can we expect to fathom and comprehend the questions of Freedom, Necessity, and die Origin of Evil, which reach through Infinitude, and take hold of the very Throne of God?

…We were sent into this world not to dispute about the next, but to prepare for it. Of the next world we can know nothing but by revelation from Him who made it. That revelation has been given us, and now let us not seek to be wise above what is written…as we journey towards our heavenly home…”

]]> http://discoveredeemer.com/?feed=rss2&p=212 1 http://discoveredeemer.com/?p=201 http://discoveredeemer.com/?p=201#comments Thu, 21 Jan 2010 02:56:15 +0000 Joshua Martin http://discoveredeemer.com/?p=201 In antebellum South there were many ministers and Christian scholars who defended at length the unity of the human race. They spoke passionately about how we are all children of Adam with immortal souls, sinners estranged from God and in need of salvation through Jesus Christ. Unfortunately the only application most were willing to draw from their theological formulations was that white men ought to treat their human property with respect and instruct them in the Christian faith.

There was broad agreement that all were created in God’s image, but few challenged the institution of racial slavery because, in part, few challenged the assumption that the black man was less capable of self-governance than the white man.

One man who championed the cause of emancipation was Princeton Theological Seminary alum Rev. Elijah Lovejoy (1802-1837). Theologically he stood in the tradition of Luther, Calvin and President Edwards. His was the editor of the St. Louis Observer, and the Alton (Il) Observer, which he used as a platform to speak out against slavery. Although he received many threats and endured mobs destroying his printing press three times, he continued to denounce slavery as piracy. On Nov 7, 1837 a pro-slavery mob set on fire the shed that contained his fourth printing press and shot Rev. Lovejoy five times with a shotgun.

Lovejoy frequently lamented that Christians were too often accustomed to twisting Sacred Scripture to fit the prevailing philosophies and social mores of the culture. Those who expect Christianity to be comfortable and endorse the status quo do not see themselves as pilgrims who are in the world but not of it.

In a sermon on missions, Lovejoy noted that “Thus, most or all of the benevolent efforts of the human mind have been confined to one’s own kindred.” But the Christian “moves in a far higher sphere of action. All men are his brethren, in each he sees a soul for which Christ died; and looking to the immortal destinies of that soul, all earthly distinctions vanish. Here is neither rich nor poor, nor bond nor free, nor black nor white, but all are one in his view…. In all plans that are laid, and all the deliberations that are held, this is the end kept in view, the regeneration of every son and daughter of Adam” (Memoirs, p 79).

]]> http://discoveredeemer.com/?feed=rss2&p=201 0