“Certainly we must never preach the commands of Scripture as a means of justification. Woe to us if we do! But I’m curious as to where this is going on within confessionally reformed churches. I’m not asking if there is any bad preaching out there. We know there is. I’m not asking if there is any moralistic preaching out there or if any preachers veer off dangerously close to legalism. That’s true enough. My interest is in the charge I hear from Pastor Tchividjian that many reformed preachers are grossly confusing law and gospel and are preaching that the law has the power to make us righteous.”

Now that Kevin DeYoung has weighed in quite effectively on the most recent flap over the justification/sanctification debate I suppose any words from me would be superfluous. However, I am a preacher so silence is not an option. But given DeYoung’s excellent post I have greatly altered what I had originally written.

Like many others, I was thankful for Jen Wilkin’s recent post over at TGC entitled “Failure Is Not a Virtue.” She expresses appropriate concern over what she calls “celebratory failurism” – the tendency to excuse our sins by casting them as means by which we experience more grace. Tullian Tchividjian fired back with a strongly worded response accusing Wilkin of muddy theology and confusing theological categories. Dr. Michael Kruger responded with understandable dismay given the fact that Pastor Tchividjian never actually responds to Wilkin’s article and even accuses her of assertions she did not make. To Dr. Kruger’s response (are you following this?) Pastor Tchividjian did not yield the point but dug in by asserting that he knows of no one guilty of “celebratory failurism.” I actually have seen quite a bit of it. Jared Oliphint effectively pushes back on Pastor Tchividjian’s objection. But I digress.

One thing that concerns me in this discussion about the law, sin, and sanctification is the tendency by some to force an antithesis where there is only a distinction. In other words, law/gospel and indicative/imperative are very helpful, yea, necessary distinctions. But they are not antitheses. They are not enemies. And perhaps I’m way off but it seems to me that Pastor Tchividjian at least comes close to forcing an antithesis where a distinction is called for. My question for him would be, “What place does the preaching of biblical imperatives have in the life of the church?” or “What function does preaching the biblical imperatives serve in the life of the Christian?” Perhaps I am misreading him completely, but it seems to me that Pastor Tchividjian sees the preaching of imperatives as useful merely to teach us that only Jesus obeyed perfectly. So, for instance, in his schema the parable of the Good Samaritan was given merely to prove to us that we cannot obey perfectly. This seems to be terribly truncated and therefore misleading. The fact is the parable of the Good Samaritan was given in answer to the question, “Who is my neighbor?” Is Jesus the ultimate Good Samaritan? Absolutely. Is that the only function of Jesus’ parable? Of course not. To deny the salutary function of that parable is to rob Christians of a God-given means toward their sanctification.

Certainly we must never preach the commands of Scripture as a means of justification. Woe to us if we do! But I’m curious as to where this is going on within confessionally reformed churches. I’m not asking if there is any bad preaching out there. We know there is. I’m not asking if there is any moralistic preaching out there or if any preachers veer off dangerously close to legalism. That’s true enough. My interest is in the charge I hear from Pastor Tchividjian that many reformed preachers are grossly confusing law and gospel and are preaching that the law has the power to make us righteous.

I grew up Southern Baptist. And while I never heard the phrase “law/gospel distinction” or “imperative/indicative” I never once (I repeat: never once) heard that justification before God came by way of obedience to the law. Did I hear moralistic sermons? Unfortunately, yes. Plenty of them. Did I hear “Dare to be a Daniel” types of sermons? Again, yes. But I was never taught that the law is the gospel and therefore has the power to save. I never heard a sermon instructing that justification before God was gained through obedience to God’s law.

Those of us who are gratefully reformed must be very careful to avoid elitism in our assumptions. While our non-reformed brethren may not have the helpful but somewhat sophisticated categories of “law/gospel” and “indicative/imperative” they may still actually be able to preach the gospel without promising justification by works of the law. Imagine.

The imperatives in Scripture do more than simply point out to us that we cannot obey perfectly. Without a doubt the law of God reveals to us the full extent of our sin. The law proves to the sinner that all his “righteousness” is as filthy rags before a holy God. But the law of God is so much more, as David professes in Psalm 119. For Christians, the law of God is a lamp for our feet and a light for our path. While we can never be justified by the law, certainly God uses its proclamation as a means to sanctify us.

Read More