I wouldn’t have thought just a couple of years ago that a post like this would have been needed; after all, I came to Christ from such a legalistic background that the very concept of antinomianism was completely foreign to me.
But more and more I am coming across posts like this one, which misunderstands the Christian’s relation to the Law so badly that I feel compelled to correct the misconceptions that are so rampant amongst those whom are antinomians (whether they be doctrinal antinomians or practical antinomians). Actually correcting such misconceptions is easier said than done, however, since the problem runs deeper than just a misunderstanding of the Christian’s relation to the Law; it includes a misunderstanding of God’s covenants with man, and a deeply defective and unbiblical view of sanctification.
Here’s a quote from the post I’ve linked to above, which is in the context of a book review:
Do you need to read this book? Well that depends on your response to the following statement (check all that apply):
Christians should look to the law;
(a) for salvation
(b) as a moral compass
(c) to define sin
(d) for growth in Christ
(e) for none of the aboveIf you selected any response from (a) to (d), then you need to read this book! It’ll set you free. The punch-line of this book is that Christians should have no spiritual relationship with the 10 commandments or indeed any rules or regulations. – boldface emphasis mine.
Is this true? Are those whom have received and rested in Christ alone for salvation to have “no spiritual relationship with the 10 commandments”? Let’s examine this question to see what we might find…
Historically, Protestants have understood the law to have three uses:
- The usus primus, or first use of the law, is its evangelical use. This is the use of the law that teaches men of sin in the process of conversion unto God.
- The usus secondus, or second use of the law, is its civil use, whereby the law is used in the life and affairs of the state and society.
- The usus tertius, or third use of the law, is the most misunderstood and often controversial of the three uses of the law. This is the didactic use of the law as a rule of thankful obedience on the part of the believer.
This third use of the law is what Reformed believers sing of in Psalm 119D:
A life of falsehood take from me,
Your law now give me in your grace.
I choose the life of faithfulness;
Before me I your judgements place.
LORD, let me not be put to shame;
Your testimonies I hold fast.
I’ll run the way of your commands;
My mind you will enlarge at last.
But before we can discuss the tertius usus legis, we have to begin by summarizing the first two uses of the law.
Thanks for this post. I’ve just published a historical study of the topic titled, Friends of the Law: Luther’s Use of the Law for the Christian Life, which traces the distinctions back into the Church Fathers.
Dear RR,
Since I am one of the supposed antinomians that prompted you to write, permit me to ask a question: Referring to Christians, Paul said “You are not under law.” These 5 words were recorded three times (Rom 6:14, 15, Gal 5:18). Paul also said we “died to the law” – 4 short words in Rom 7:4. Paul needed only 4 words and 5 words to say we have no relationship to the law. How many words do you need to show that Paul was wrong?
Mr. Ellis,
If you can hold your horses until the rest of the series is done, specifically the posts dealing with the alleged “negative passages” in Paul, you’ll have something to chew on. Paul’s so-called “negative statements” regarding the law have jack squat to do with sanctification, which is what the tertius usus legis is all about.
The Reb.
Pingback: Antinomianism and the “Tertius Usus Legis” (A Belated Preface) | Semper Reformanda
Pingback: Antinomianism and the “Tertius Usus Legis” (Part 2) | Semper Reformanda