Arminianism and pietism are deadly to orthodox faith. Many, many Christians in our community are tired of compromised, broad evangelical “Churchianity.” The church phone rings weekly from people who have heard about our ministry and are interested in what we are doing. Sadly, they don’t always like what they discover. Sometimes it is tempting to gloss over some things (we’re still a small church and every warm body is welcome!),  but we are obliged to let people know what they are letting themselves in for. Recently a young man called who was looking for a Reformed Church that did not compromise on the Westminster Standards. His main concern was our view of the Law of God. This is a hot topic in reformed circles today. Many Christians have questions regarding the relationship of Old Testament Law to New Testament believers. Many people have opinions about the Law without really thinking through the implications. Many others have a hidden agenda. Thus a brief review of the conversation with this young man regarding the Law is very instructive. 

I began my answer to his queries about the Law by stating that as a PCA elder I had vowed to support and defend the Westminster Confession. Chapter XIX paragraph 4 states, “To them also, as a body politic, he gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the state of that people; not obliging any other now, further than the general equity thereof may require.”  The relevant question is what was meant by the term “general equity.” I understand the Westminster Divines to mean that there are certain, universal moral principles based on the unchanging character of Almighty God. These principles are encapsulated in all three of the classic divisions of the Law, civil, ceremonial and moral. Since these are case laws, even though sections have been fulfilled by Christ (and thus in one sense have passed away), they are still relevant and applicable because they provide practical examples of God’s unchanging nature applied to specific situations (cf. Matt 5:17-19). As we meditate on one specific application of God’s unchanging nature applied to one situation, we gain wisdom to apply the same unchanging principle to other situations not specifically covered (cf. Josh 1:8). Thus the Old Testament Law is still relevant, practical and applicable for New Testament believers.

The young man then said that I was making the Confession speak out of both sides of its mouth, on the one hand saying the judicial law was no longer binding on Christians, and yet on the other also saying that it still did. I responded by giving an analogy; “If I say that no one is allowed into my home except with my permission, I am not saying that all people are excluded from my home, just those that don’t have my permission.” The General Equity clause makes a distinction between certain laws given to Israel, and those that are applicable for all people in all times. The one does not exclude the other.

The young men screamed, “But that’s legalism!” He insisted that the judicial law had nothing of value what so ever for Christians. By judicial law I think he meant the penal sanctions required by God for certain sins. He went on to say that it was serious heresy to hold such a position and that I sounded like one of those “theonomists!”

I replied that I am not a theonomist but rather maintain the same view of the Law of God that has always existed in the Reformed faith. I then asked, “But what do you mean by the term ‘theonomy?’” He could not give an a coherent answer except that he thought they were a bunch of right wing fanatics who wanted to replace the gospel with social action. I replied that an entire chapter of my doctoral dissertation critiqued the modern reconstructionist movement and I had never read or heard of anyone calling himself a theonomist who held to such a view.

I inquired whether he believed in the moral law (i.e., the Ten Commandments). He replied that, “Yes, the moral law was the only part of the law still binding in this age.” I said, “Fine, should the state enforce the 10 Commandments?” He said, “No, of course not, that’s judicial law.” I then asked whether he believed in Romans 13. He was a little vague here, but after I reminded him that this chapter taught that the secular state was a minister of God to avenge evil, he finally admitted “Yes.”

I then asked, “What sorts of things ought to be illegal? Should the State pass laws against murder, adultery, lying, stealing, etc.” To this he replied “Oh yes, because they are in the second tablet of the Law.” So it’s OK for the state to pass laws against some things God condemns? Though he didn’t want to, he finally  muttered an affirmative.

I then asked him what was the one sin specifically mentioned in the New Testament that brings God’s judgment against a nation? He said “unrighteousness.” I said, “Fine, but what specific sin was mentioned in Romans 1:18ff.” After a little prompting he finally remembered that idolatry was the fundamental sin by which God judges all nations. Social, political and economic disaster is God’s inevitable curse on idolatrous nations. Then I asked, “Should the State, to avoid God’s curse, make laws against idolatry?” The young man began hemming and hawing at that point, not wanting to take up any more of my time.

Smelling blood, I pressed the point home. “On the day of judgment when kings, presidents and governors have to give an account to God for how well they fulfilled their duties according to Romans 13, by what standard will God judge them? If God requires the State to be His minister, what is the criteria He will use to determine how well they have done their jobs?” The young man replied, “By the Scriptures!”

I replied, “But which Scriptures? Careful, now you’re sounding like one of those ‘theonomists!” Where are the Scriptures that tell a king how to govern, what sorts of laws to pass, what types of sanctions to bring against sin, evil, idolatry and iniquity? Doesn’t the Law of God give us His standards of righteousness and justice?” He said he didn’t know but then retorted “Well, are you saying the State should execute homosexuals and adulterers!”

The cat is finally out of the bag! Here is the problem again and again when talking with people who are vehemently against “theonomy” and “reconstructionism” but who really just hate the Law of God. When it finally comes down to it, modern day churchmen think that God’s Law is too harsh, His judgments too cruel and His sanctions against sin, barbaric and uncivilized. They think they are more compassionate, more loving and more forgiving than God. Even though they know that law breakers are going to spend an eternity in Hell for their sins, they refuse to think through the implications. Sin is really bad, Hell is real and evil will be punished eternally. All earthly pain is a reminder and warning of the eternal consequences of sin. The modern day church is appalled by God’s law because it does not want to face the eternal sanctions that God requires. And thus in fleeing from the Law, they flee from God’s righteousness. But the Bible says that the Christian is one who loves the Law of God (Psa 119:97). Jesus said that He did not come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it (Matt 5:17). Heaven and earth will pass away, but not the smallest letter of the Law shall pass away until it is all fulfilled (Matt 5:18). The Law of God is a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ (Rms 7:7).

For the Christian to be under grace not law means that the law no longer has the power to send God’s elect to Hell. It does not mean that we are free to make up our own rules and standards of righteousness. Though Jesus kept the whole law for us and no one can be saved by keeping the Law, can a Christian murder, fornicate, steal, lie, covet with impunity? NO (Rms 6:15)! Are any of God’s commandments, principles, statutes, laws negotiable? What kind of son willingly and knowingly and consistently rebels against his father? Can he expect to escape discipline (Hebs 12:5ff)? A true Christian loves the Law of God because it is the definition of God’s holiness. We want to obey God. Yes, we sin and need to repent of that  sin. But we still want to obey Him! The law of God is the standard of holiness. You cannot have Jesus as savior if you do not acknowledge Him as Lord (Rms 10:10). And to acknowledge Him as Lord means keeping His commandments (or Law; cf. Lu 6:46).         

I’d like to say that the penny dropped for this young man and he had a sudden change of heart. Maybe he just needs a little time and a lot of study and then he’ll come around. But most people will not thank you for exposing their inconsistencies. Only God in His grace and mercy can grant repentance and make the scales fall from rebellious eyes. Like Adam in the garden, we sit in judgment on God, and cover it up with pious platitudes and aberrant theology. As Christendom suffers its most ignoble defeat in two thousand years of Church history, the average “believer” refuses to acknowledge his responsibility to be a law-keeper because at heart he is in rebellion to God.

People who call themselves “Reformed” ought to know better! They know that theology is crucial. They know they have to be consistent in their theology which is why we have confessional standards by which we judge orthodoxy. While the standards never replace Scripture, they are a reliable summary of Scripture. We must think through the implications of our faith. Christians who refuse to be consistent with their own theology, reveal that at heart, they are really syncretists, mixing humanism and paganism with Biblical truth. Syncretism brought God’s judgment against  Israel and is bringing God’s judgments against us. Van Til was right; there is no neutrality.

But there is hope. There is always a remnant. Persecution, affliction and adversity are God’s tools to bring about repentance. God is doing a great house cleaning in our era. Those who say they love Him are being tested. “If you love me, keep my word (Jn 14:23-24).” Not everyone who says “Jesus is Lord” really means it. Just as God winnowed Israel to sift the wheat from the tares, so also is mainstream evangelical Christianity be tested. Sadly, rather than gold being refined as fire, the modern church is like fool’s gold; it looks pretty but it can’t take the heat. And as Christians fail to act as salt and light in our world, society crumbles around us. Eventually, when believers a hundred years from now look back on what we lost, and how we lost it, they will undoubtedly shake their heads in amazement at our stiff necked, suicidal rebellion. We had it all, but lost it because we stopped obeying Jesus. It really is easier to obey God and be blessed then to rebel and suffer His discipline. They’ll know that from our experience. Our discipline will be their instruction.

The Western world is suffering a nasty hang over from over a century of hating and breaking God’s Law. Our spiritual ancestors loved the Law of God and sought to order every aspect of life according to it. They built the freest, most prosperous and stable societies that ever existed. But like the prodigal son, we have squandered our inheritance. For more than a hundred years now, antinomianism (i.e., against the law) has flourished in the church and destroyed Christian civilization. It has reduced the Christian faith from a complete world and life view to a harmless, spare time philosophy, personally engaging but socially irrelevant.