What follows are my notes so that I could helpfully bring some issues that Paul deals with in Romans 3 to my bible study group.
Notes on Thomas Boston's Note about "the Law of Works", "the Law of Faith", and "the Law of Christ".
Relevant texts: Romans 3:27 ("law of works", "law of faith"); 1 Corinthians 9:21, Galatians 6:2 ("law of Christ").
Meaning of the terms under consideration: Boston gives the following definitions for the three phrase under consideration according to their biblical and systematic usage throughout the Bible:
- Law of Works - The law of the Ten Commandments, as the Covenant of Works.
- Law of Faith - The gospel, or the covenant of grace.
- Law of Christ - The same law of the Ten Commandments, but as a rule of life.
The use of the term "law".
The term "law" is not used by Paul in these two passages in the same sense in all three instance where the term "law" is used. The "law of faith" is not used in the sense of a law to be obeyed. The "law of faith" is not a properly a preceptive - meaning "instructive" - law. Boston argues the Paul uses the phrase only in imitation of the Jews manner of speaking, who had the law continually in their mouths.
The term "law" as used in the phrases "law of works" and "law of Christ" is used in both phrases to mean preceptive law, but their is a difference, but the terms "law" is used in the same sense with both of these laws.
"The law of Works" vs. "the Law of Faith".
Paul says in Romans 3:27:
Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith.From this statement by Paul, Boston concludes that in the case of Romans 3 where Paul is speaking of his hearers justification before God, Paul states these two laws in opposition to each other.
Boston's Proof: Paul says that the "law of works" says that anyone who keeps it can boast of their ability to keep it; but, the "law of grace" does not allow for any boasting, because by the "law of grace" the sinner is justified before God.
The "law of works" is the law to be done, that one might be saved if they follow it; whereas, the "law of faith" is the law to be believed, that one may be saved.
Similarity between "the law of Works" and "the law of Faith".
Boston really doesn't address any similarities between "the law of Works" and "the law of Faith" in his note, but I can think of one: they both come from God.
"The law of Works" and "the law of Christ".
"The law of works" and "the law of Christ" are in substance one law. That shared substance is called "the moral law". The phrase "moral law" is defined in all three documents that make up the Westminster Standards in the following places: the Westminster Confession 19.3; the Westminster Shorter Catechism questions 40 - 41; and in the Westminster Larger Catechism questions 92 - 98. For the purposes of this post, I will only quote the question and answer for question 93 of the Larger Catechism, which says,
Q. 93. What is the moral law?According to Boston, "the law of Christ" is not a new, proper, preceptive law, but the old (a.k.a. moral), proper preceptive law, which was from the beginning, under a new accidental form. The word "accidental" is being used by Boston in a philosophical Aristotelian sense and means that the form of 'the law of Christ' is not the same as the nature of the law.
A. The moral law is the declaration of the will of God to mankind, directing and binding every one to personal, perfect, and perpetual conformity and obedience thereunto, in the frame and disposition of the whole man, soul and body, and in performance of all those duties of holiness and righteousness which he oweth to God and man: promising life upon the fulfilling, and threatening death upon the breach of it.
Therefore, Boston is teaching that the moral law is the nature of the one law that God has given to his creatures. However, from this one law (or property) there are two accidental forms. One form is known in Scripture as "the law of works". The other accidental form is known as "the law of Christ". These two forms point back to the moral law, which is the same property.
Regardless of the form that moral law takes the following points are in common:
- The law is perfect.
- Sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of the moral law.
- All commands of God are comprehended under the one moral law, particularly:
- The command to repent is common to all including pagans to turn from sin to God.
- The command to believe in Christ.
"The law of Works" vs. "the law of Christ".
"The law of Works" is a covenant of works. Whereas, "the law of Christ" is a rule of life to believers. The law stands under different forms to those who are in a state of union with Christ by faith, and those who are not united with Christ by faith who are still under the covenant of works.
As a result, the following points can be said of those are believers by their union with Christ, which cannot be said of those under the covenant of works by not being united with Christ:
- Believers are dead to the law of works.
- "The law of Christ" is an "easy yoke", and a "light burden".
"The law of Christ" vs. "the law of Faith".
The distinction between "the law of Faith" and "the law of Christ" is that "the law of Christ" severs "the law of Faith".
Relating these three "laws" to each other
In conclusion, "the law of Works" is the law to be done, that one might be saved if they follow it; "the law of Faith" is the law to be believed, that one may be saved; "the law of Christ" is the law of the Savior, binding His saved people to acts of obedience (Gal. 3:12; Acts 16:31).
Every person is under "the law of works" by nature; but by taking the benefit of "the law of faith", by believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, they are set free from "the law of works", and brought under "the law of Christ" (Matt. 11:28-29).
2 comments:
I've noticed what you say about New Covenant Theology here in some of the reading I'm doing as I preach through the Sermon on the Mount. I find this tendency in some of Lloyd-Jones sermons, such as when he calls it "heresy" to insist that unbelievers are obligated by Jesus' commands, reasoning that they cannot be so obligated because they do not have the power to fulfill his "spiritual" law. I've also found hints of this thinking, more contemporaneously, in D. A. Carson's Commentary, and elsewhere. Thank you for pointing out an older resource that brings systematic theological light to this confusion.
I'm glad you were able to find it of use Steven!
I only recently made the connection between NCT and Boston's note even though about 300 years separates Boston from the NCT movement. I'm not too surprised to hear that D.A. Carson may have some views that either are, or sound similar to NCT.
Post a Comment