This is exactly along the lines of what I was thinking in my message below, although this is probably a better way to put it. The law (the moral law) is part of the unchanging eternal law, for both Christian and non-Christian; but for the former it not a condemnation because of Christ, whereas for the latter it imposes punishment due to sin.

I thought this was a really excellent discussion, but I wonder if the three uses of the law might be simplified a bit by applying Saint Thomas’s division into the three types of law; this was mentioned but not fully exploited. For example, Saint Thomas argues that the moral law remains the basis for all human law, or is this essentially what Calvin is saying. There is one moral law that has different uses—-perhaps this is the point.

Regarding the uses of the law, I would want to distinguish an intrinsic and extrinsic aspect of the moral law. That God reign and that God be glorified seems to be the intrinsic purpose of the law and this does not seem to change whether one is justified or not. Of course, for those outside the new covenant this law “condemns” but in an intrinsic sense the moral law is the same for both justified and non-justified. What do you think?

BLS

“Christ is the end of the law for all those who have faith.”

“3rd use” is really superfluous since what we ought be doing is already made known to us in ‘the 1st use’ (the civil use of the law).

Theologically speaking, the law brings death (St. Paul), and it’s purpose is to kill us off to any self-pretention.

And, since the law is written upon our hearts, we already know what to do, anyway. Trouble is, we just flat out refuse to live under that law and choose to become a law unto ourselves.

Thanks, so much.

The Reformed held a very different view. The political use and the pedagogical use of the law have only become ‘accidentally’ necessary because of sin. Even when these earlier uses cease, the most important one, the didactic or normative use, remains. The law, after all, is an expression of God’s being. As a human being Christ was naturally subject to the law for his own sake. Before the fall the law was inscribed on Adam’s heart. In the case of the believer, it is again engraved on the tables of his heart by the Holy Spirit; and in heaven all its inhabitants will conduct themselves in accordance with the law of the Lord. The gospel is temporary; the law is everlasting and precisely that which is restored by the gospel. Freedom from the law, therefore, does not mean that Christians no longer have anything to do with that law, but that the law can no longer judge and condemn them. Fro the rest they delight in the law in their inmost being (Rom. 7:22) and meditate on it day and night (Ps. 1:2). For that reason that law must always be proclaimed in the church in the context of the gospel. Both law and gospel, the whole Word, the full counsel of God, are the content of preaching. Accordingly, among the Reformed the law occupies a much larger place in the doctrine of gratitude than in that of misery. (Reformed Dogmatics, Vol. 4, pg. 455)

I see in this some important implications in terms of shaping a gospel conditioned attitude toward the law and its role in the life of the believer. I greatly appreciate your collective wisdom and insight. Again, I look forward to your continued discussions on this important subject.

I am looking forward to your discussion on Ross’ book. That book is excellent!

Thanks Rich!

http://grbcav.org/2011/10/three-fold-division-of-the-law-moral-ceremonial-judicial/

“Theophanic lightning-horns.” That does sound Klinean. It made me smile to see the omega. It reminded me of Janet Frazier in youth group 40 years ago. When the discussion leader asked about translations of the Bible Janet stood up and said “I think we should use the King James because that is the way Jesus spoke.” I never forgot that.

You have a great resource here. Thanks!

Kenneth,

That is a helpful thought. It may be that Calvin was thinking in terms of the moral law in the civil sphere in Geneva. This would be a useful study for someone to look into with regard to the Genevan Registry.

In that vein, I think it is wrong to speak of the use of the law for prelapsarian Adam as the “third use.” The law’s use for Adam is essentially different because it is within the redemptive historical context of the covenant of works. IOW, it is outside the context of the work of Christ.

Also, with regard to Calvin’s calling the law’s use as a judicial restraint a schoolmaster, I think we see a reflection of that same teaching in the Larger Catechism Q. 95. The divines write, “and thereby to help them to a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ, and the perfection of his obedience.” So the moral law has use for all men in judicial restraint, both elect and non-elect (1st use in the LC). However, this use is part of God’s redemptive work in the lives of the elect when combined with the law’s second use to drive them to Christ. Of course, it does not achieve that end for the non-elect, because the second use has no effect in the non-elect.

Here is a link to the work. http://www.box.com/s/4f89e37155a00434123e

Anyways, very good and thank you.

In reference to your point regarding Calvin’s second use of the Law as a schoolmaster vs. as guidance for civil law, is it possible that the ambiguity is due to the historical context? Meaning that given the role that the church played in society, as a partner to the civil government, in Calvin’s Geneva and in his Institutes, Calvin would have had the expectation that punishment under the civil law would driven men to Christ and His Church. This of course, would not necessarily hold true today.

Additionally, I think it is important to recognize that the 10 commandments are a manifestation or revelation of the moral law given in the salvation histrorical context of Israel; e.g., establishment of Isreael as a theocracy, the Sabbath – last day of the week principle. The 10 commandments are certainly of value to the NT believer, but there is a danger in making them a-historical. The relationship between Sinai and the law of Christ is more nuanced. I think you alluded to that in your remarks concerning a balanced approach.

I have heard believers say in principle that Christ saves us by grace so that we can return to Sinai or that the 10 commandments are the only valid foundation for contemporary gov’t. I think that’s a concern but I’m probably getting a little off topic.