Doctrine and Doxology

I remember a meeting several years ago with the General Secretary of the World Council of Churches. He told me that the old WCC slogan, "Doctrine Divides, Service Unites," had proven unworkable. "Actually," he said, "it's the other way around. Even when we reach agreement on the meaning of the Apostles' Creed, unanimity falls apart when we talk about political, social, economic, and cultural issues." We know where the WCC has ended up, although it began as a transdenominational, evangelical missionary movement attempting to wed evangelism to social concern. Along the way, it began to think that the gospel was about deeds, not creeds. Despite its good intentions, the assumption that continually makes Evangelicalism a seedbed for liberalism is that doctrine is secondary to life. Today, Evangelicalism is far less divided by doctrine, which is generally treated with indifference, than by the particular ideology that cultural transformation should take. "Deeds, not creeds" has already been tried-many times, and has simply led to ungodly strife and divisions in Christ's body even over matters that are not clearly addressed in Scripture. While church history (and contemporary experience) exhibits evidence of wrangles over doctrinal precision that do not lead to the peace and purity of the church in its mission, the church has demonstrated that it can find plenty of other things to fight about when it looks away from Christ.

It might seem controversial to identify doctrine with "gospel" and deeds with "law," especially since these days we often hear calls to "live the gospel." However, the gospel is not an imperative, but an indicative; not a program to follow, but an announcement to welcome for our own salvation and to herald for the salvation of the world. Does that mean that we do not have imperatives or that we do not follow Christ? As Paul would say, "May it never be!" It simply means that we have to distinguish indicatives and imperatives. The law gives us something to do, and the gospel gives us something to believe. Christians are no less obligated to obey God's commands in the New Testament than they were in the Old Testament, but they are commands, not promises. The imperatives drive us to despair of self-righteousness, the indicatives hold up Christ as our only Savior, and then the imperatives become the "reasonable service" of believers "in view of God's mercies." There is a lot of wisdom to the order of the Heidelberg Catechism: Guilt, Grace, and Gratitude. The commands tell us what we are to do; the gospel tells us what God has done. "Deeds, not creeds" leaves the sinner with the tattered garment of fig leaves rather than robed in the righteousness of Christ.

From Michael Horton's article "Creeds and Deeds" in Modern Reformation

Read the entire article HERE.

The Two Words in the Bible

It has been said that the two words in the Bible are "law" and "gospel." The point is that everything in Scripture can ultimately be placed either in the category of law or gospel. Law is anything that God requires. The law is God's commandments; His righteous demands. The gospel, on the other hand is any promise in Scripture of God's favor based entirely on God's umerited favor. Gospel is forgiveness granted to sinners by God apart from anything the sinner does. It is free grace.

If we are to properly understand the Bible, the character of God, and the nature of salvation then we must maintain a proper distinction between law and gospel. In the church, however, it is all too common for law and gospel to be mixed. Rather than being presented in all its perfection and moral terror, the law is preached as helpful principles for successful living. The Gospel, rather than being radical, undeserved grace is infused with works so that it becomes something we do. In this way, preachers have effectively inoculated men and women from an appropriate terror of the law and an equally appropriate gladness in the gospel.

I have been devouring a wonderful book by John Pless called Handling the Word of Truth. Pless writes:
"To bring the Law into the domain of the Gospel is to undermine the good news of Jesus Christ, transforming a pure gift into a human achievement. Such mingling of Law with Gospel dilutes the precious promises of God with demands for works. In short, the Gospel is polluted and rendered impotent. To use another biblical metaphor, a pinch of yeast of the Law hidden away in the dough of the Gospel ruins the whole lump. We are not left with the bread of life but with stale rations that cannot sustain those who journey through the valley of death's shadow.

"On the other hand, to mix the Gospel into the Law is to create the illusion that the Law offers hope. Inserted into the Law, the Gospel weakens but does not remove the threat of the Law. Such a blending of Law and Gospel invites sinners to place their confidence in their own efforts - 'motivated by the Gospel,' as it is said. The Law is lifted up as a set of principles or rules that may be obeyed and fulfilled with the aid of God's grace. This synthesis of Law and Gospel corrupts both, driving broken sinners either to a false security or to unholy despair...

"The Law has absolutely no power to make human beings righteous. It has nothing to say about God's grace in Jesus Christ. It cannot create faith. The faith that the Law demands is not a work that we can accomplish. Faith is purely passive, completely receptive of the gift of forgiveness bestowed by the Gospel alone...

"The Law never finds righteousness; it only confirms unrighteousness. The Gospel never finds righteousness; it only gives and bestows righteousness. The righteousness imparted by the Gospel is not one of works but of God's grace in the blood of Jesus Christ. It is a righteousness that is not achieved but received by faith alone....It is only when a person sees himself to be a genuine sinner with no hope under the Law that the Gospel will be heard as joyous news of pardon."