PART TWO THE REFORMED CASE 1. CALVIN'S FIRST AND SECOND USES OF THE LAW 2. CALVIN'S THIRD USE OF THE LAW 3. THE BUTTRESS OF THE REFORMED CASE, COVENANT THEOLOGY 4. REFORMED ESCAPE ROUTE CHAPTER FOUR Calvin's first and second uses of the law. The Reformers, retaining the fundamental view of the law as promulgated by the medieval church, but reacting against Romish legalism and the largely imagined antinomianism of the Anabaptists, produced their own threefold use of the law. In particular, Calvin's three uses of the so-called moral law became standard Reformed teaching. Large claims have been made for this system. Well-developed, well-known, a consistent doctrine, and such like. We shall see. The big question, however, is, is it scriptural? Before I examine Calvin's third use, which is the most significant for my book, as it was in his own writings and system, before I examine Calvin's third use, which is the most significant for my book, as it was in his own writings and system, I glance at his first and second uses. First, Calvin claimed the law prepares sinners for Christ and leads them to Him. Secondly, he said, the law restrains sin in the unregenerate. Let me briefly examine these claims. Does the law prepare sinners for Christ? By preparationism, I mean the preaching of the law to sinners. in order to give them an experience to make them fit for faith in Christ. Some argue that although men preach the law, the preparation is all of God's Spirit. Others argue for degrees of self-preparation. Even though Calvin was confusing and ambiguous, if not contradictory, he did teach preparationism. Calvin, of course, did not teach self-preparation, nor did he think preparation merits pardon. The law work, he argued, is the way to Christ, not the warrant for coming. Let me prove that Calvin did indeed sow the seed of preparationism, that the law does prepare sinners for Christ. The first work of the law, he said, is to convict the elect sinner of his sin. his spiritual impotence, and his condemnation, and so drive him to seek for mercy in Christ alone. Sinners, Calvin claimed, fall into two camps. Citing but misunderstanding and misapplying the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, Galatians 3.24, he argued that some sinners are not fit to receive Christ. but need to be made sensible of their misery and to be completely humble while other sinners need a bridle to restrain them to induce fear or terror and despair until they turn to Christ but both cases according to Calvin are met by the law which brings sinners to Christ and prepares them to receive Him The work prepares, casts a long shadow. Although Calvin was not alone in sowing the seed from which preparationism grew, it was his system which played the major part, and grow it did. Not only have immense powers been ascribed to the Lord, Calvin's system has led to far-reaching consequences for sinners and for preaching. In his Institutes, Calvin offered no scripture to support his claim that the law keeps some sinners in fear until they are regenerated. In trying to justify this lack of scripture support, Calvin was patronizing, arguing that there's no need to provide proof since the case he claimed is so obvious. Furthermore, as I've mentioned above, Calvin also misunderstood and misapplied Galatians 3.24, the key verse for his first use of the law. I will not stop to analyze this now, leaving it until the ninth chapter. At this point, I want to deal as briefly as I can with the outworking of Calvin's view of the law as far as it concerns the preparation of sinners for Christ. But why am I doing this? It's not central to my main theme, that is, the believer and the law. So why am I going off on this tangent? In the first place, it involves a misinterpretation of Galatians 3.24. And since Galatians plays a vital role in the biblical understanding of the relationship of the believer and the law, with Galatians 3 at the center of its argument, it's vital not to misinterpret the verse. In addition, a look at the grim effects of the misapplication of the law in the preaching of the gospel to sinners will afford a salutary warning about the dangers of misapplying the law to the believer. and as we proceed I will indicate where preparationism can produce lasting damage in the life of believers no it's not a mistake I said preparationism can damage believers and I meant it it's for these reasons that I spend just a little time on this aspect of Calvin's view of the law and gave a thumbnail sketch of what is given rise to Although Calvin laid out the principle of operationism, it was the Puritans who followed and developed his view of the law work before faith with large consequences. First, the early Puritans began by breaking down a sinner's conversion into legal stages. But this was not enough. The next generation of Puritans took one of these stages and broke this down into sub-stages. The result was that Calvin's initial system was stretched far beyond what he could have imagined. William Perkins, for instance, ended up with four necessary works of preparation, to be followed by four stages of grace, capping it all by specifying five steps in the receiving of Christ. all of these stages being, to quote, precise. David Clarkson specified 15 steps with many subdivisions within his list. Joseph Alain's so-called infallible prescription for a sinner's conversion involved 16 steps, all of which were spelled out once again in precise detail. and so it has gone on in one form or another. New England, too, felt the icy grip of preparation. Such an approach led to an emphasis upon the sensible sinner. Sensible sinners are the regenerate who, conscious of their sin and need of salvation, repent and desire Christ. They are therefore demonstrating that they must be elect. Such sinners, some have claimed, may be invited to trust Christ, but no others. Some Puritans, and others since, have even asserted that the Gospel invitation is to be governed by this precise way and order in which they assert the Spirit brings sinners to Christ. All such conclusions are grievously unbiblical and have produced much damage and misery in the lives of countless men and women. The precise distinction drawn in describing and specifying the nature of sensibility have proved too subtle for many. The notion has erected daunting barriers, with the result that sinners have not always felt able to come directly to Christ without first spending time with Moses at Mount Sinai, and without being able to speak of an experience of a detailed law work preparing them for the Redeemer. Under such a system, sinners are taught to concentrate on whether or not they are sensible. on their sense of the law and its effects in their hearts. And this has effectively kept many from the Lord Jesus, hindering them from trusting the Savior, sometimes imprisoning them in a harrowing anxiety for a considerable period of time, even for years. Not only so, it can also keep believers from a sense of assurance. In fact, under this system, a lack of assurance in the end becomes the best assurance, while the clearest pointer to damnation is a sense of security. Legalism was bound to follow the introduction of such teaching, and this legal system of preparation leading to perpetual doubt, stemming principally from Perkins, became the standard Christian experience for 300 years. To preach the gospel properly, so the theory goes, the preacher must begin with the law. A thorough law work is essential. Essential before a sinner can be invited to trust Christ or has any warrant to trust Christ. Is this right? Certainly not. Leaving to one side consideration of the all-important textual argument, I mean Galatians 3.10 to 4.7, Let me, in a more general way, expose the unscripturalness of preparationism. No such preaching distinction concerning a lawward can be found in the biblical records of gospel addresses to gender or in the doctrinal explanations in the New Testament. True, the sinner needs to be convicted of his sin before he will trust Christ. And the Spirit, said Christ, will do the work. He will convict the world of sin. Of sin, because they do not believe in Me. John 16 But this, according to preparationism, is not enough. The sinner needs to be convinced that he is convicted of sin. and this by the law. He needs to know that he has had a law work, a thorough law work. He needs to be convinced he is prepared, convinced that he is truly convicted. Otherwise he cannot believe. He is not fit for Christ. There is no warrant to expect pardon from Christ. Indeed, there is no warrant or encouragement to trust Christ. In short, until a sinner knows he's truly sensible, he cannot trust Christ. The fact is, some have gone so far as to claim he's not even invited or commanded to trust Christ. This means, of course, that the Spirit must convict a sinner that he is sensible. Otherwise, no sinner will ever be saved. But where in Scripture do we come across a promise that the Spirit will convict of conviction? Or to put it another way, where do we find a promise that the Spirit will assure the sinner that He has led him through all these stages? And don't forget, all this must be so for every sinner. The truth is, when men prescribe specified steps of conviction the sinner must take or experience before he is warranted to come to Christ. before he's warranted to feel he's invited to trust Christ. They contradict the frequent call such preachers make, or ought to make, to the sinner not to look to himself, but to Christ. The preparationist teaches the very opposite. He demands that the sinner be assured he's taken the legally specified steps, many of which are highly spiritual, and has taken them before conversion. Efforts have been made, of course, to mitigate this. But some of these efforts have been bizarre. So much so, they have compounded the problem. Let me make myself clear. In saying this, I am talking about the strange advice which has come, and still comes, from Reformed teachers, including Puritans, not accepting some of the greatest Puritan preachers, Reformed household names, published by top Reformed publishing houses. For instance, sinners have been urged to wait for God to have mercy upon them, meanwhile to cultivate civility and religion. Other ways out of the impasse have involved tortuous, even contradictory, twists of logic, with sinners being told to distinguish between that which is a typical conversion experience and that which is exceptional. God, they are informed, usually brings the sinner to Christ through a law work, usually, but there are exceptions. So, in order to get himself out of the quagmire of preparationism, the trembling sinner has to believe he's an exception to the rule. The sinner who lacks, quotes, legal terrors, that is, lacks clear preparatory evidences, say that again. The sinner who lacks, quotes, legal terrors, that is, lacks clear preparatory evidences nevertheless need not worry so he's told if he sees he has quote a minimum of conviction of sin and he trusts Christ but herein lies the crunch anxious sinners who have been reared under such teaching do doubt they cannot see clear evidences They cannot see that they truly trust Christ, and when they are told legal preparations do not always go before faith, once again, they have to believe they are the exception to the rule. It's like a physician trying to reassure his anxious patient. Your symptoms indicate cancer. But there are exceptions, and you may be one. But usually the conclusion is inevitable. Not always, but usually. Would it be any wonder if the patient thought he had cancer and that his doctor was in a muddle? Similarly, whatever qualifications are invoked to guard the preacher's words, the anxious sinner, listening to the twists and turns of preparationism, would be almost certain to come away thinking, I, at any rate, need the evidences of legal preparation just to make sure. For the fact is, many have been more deafened. A law work is essential, they have declared, before conversion. A sinner must be prepared for the Lord Jesus before he can receive it. Advocates of this system are adamant. Until a sinner by the law has been awakened, convicted and made to feel distress for his sin, he must not be invited to Christ or given the gospel of. As I have already remarked, such a detailed specified process can be drawn out, even over many years. This is not at all surprising. Instead of being concerned with trusting Christ, The sinner is trying to measure his evidences of preparation. Repentance, for example. Am I repentant? Am I sincerely repentant? Am I repentant enough? Have I spent long enough at Sinai? Can I come to Christ yet? Am I sufficiently prepared to come? Such questions are bound to arise in the sinner's mind when reared on a diet of preparationism. And what's the outcome? The sinner probes the law and its work in his heart when all the time he should have been trusting Christ. What is more, if the son... What is more? What is more? If the sinner does need these qualifications, then he must know precisely how much of them he needs, and how to measure them. What suggestions do such teachers have for advising the sinner? How to measure the amount of repentance he is experiencing, and whether or not he has the minimum required? Where can he obtain the necessary dipstick? I agree that much contemporary preaching is feeble. But the remedy is not, as is claimed, to preach the law. We need to preach Christ and Him crucified, with all the power the Sovereign Spirit will give us. 1 Corinthians 2, verse 2. Leaving aside the question of the law, I don't for a moment deny that all who come to Christ must and will have been taught of God before they come. In other words, they must and will have been prepared In addressing sinners, however, we must not confuse the gospel invitation, which is unfettered, with God's secret working within the elect. God's secret decree does not limit the invitation any more than God's general invitation and command to all sinners governs his decree. Let me explain. God will effectually work only in the elect. but he desires and demands that unbelievers be given the gospel invitation and command, universally and promiscuously. We must not try to play God's sovereign decree against his revealed desire to see sinners saved, nor must we eliminate one to lead the other, and so we think preserve our rational credential. Let us, with the utmost confidence, drive this locomotive at full speed along two parallel rails, rails which meet only at infinity. Furthermore, the encouragement God adds to the invitation, addressing the weary, hungry, thirsty, and so on, must not be preached as barriers for the sinner to climb over, but rather as they are intended, namely, encouragement to ease the sinner's doubts and clear the way to Christ. In particular, consider this emphasis upon the law as a preparative for Christ. If the preparationists are right, And a thorough law work is essential before conversion, as a warrant for the issuing of the gospel invitation to sinners. Why do we not read at least one example of it in the New Testament? I admit that Christ and the apostles used the law when addressing Jews. But when did they do the same when addressing Gentiles? There is no evidence whatsoever that the apostles thought they had to preach to give such sinners a thorough law work before commanding them to trust Christ. In fact, never once did any apostle use the law when addressing Gentile unbelievers. Why not? Consider the apostles' words to the church at Corinth. Just as an aside, but what an aside. In a passage dealing with the abuse of gifts, Paul writes thus. If the whole church comes together, and everyone speaks in languages, and some who do not understand or some unbelievers come in, will they not say that you are out of your mind? But if an unbeliever or someone who does not understand comes in while everybody is prophesying, he will be convinced by all that he is a sinner and will be judged by all and the secrets of his hearts. But if an unbeliever or someone who does not understand comes in while everybody is prophesying, But if an unbeliever or someone who does not understand comes in while everybody is prophesying, he will be convinced by all that he is a sinner and will be judged by all, and the secrets of his heart will be laid bare. So you will fall down and worship God, exclaiming, God is really among you. Leaving to one side the issue of gifts, the point I wish to bring out is this. an unbeliever comes into the meeting. If he finds a babble, everybody speaking, nobody listening, nobody even understanding what everybody else is saying, what will he think? It's a madhouse. And he's right, too. If he finds a babble, everybody speaking, nobody listening, nobody even understanding what anybody else is saying, What will he think? It's a madhouse. And he's right, too right. If, on the other hand, he finds orderly, clear teaching and instruction, it might well be by God's grace that he's convicted of his sin, that he's cut to the heart, and his innermost thoughts are revealed to him. It might be that he gets a real sense of God's presence. It might even be that he is convert, But at the very least, he is convicted of his sin. Very well. My question is this. Are we to understand that what Paul wanted at Corinth was for the entire church to meet and instruct each other in an orderly manner? Yes, that's what he wanted. But that the subject matter should be the law. Specifically the Ten Commandments. Strange he didn't specify it here. Ah well. Even so, preparationists must think it must be so. Ah well. Even so, preparationists must think it to be so. How else, according to their theory, could any sinner be convicted of a sin? It wouldn't be any use speaking on Christ and His cross, would it? That wouldn't do the job. It has to be the law. If any preparationist thinks that the subject matter at Corinth was the law, and that at every meeting, then with apologies to Lewis Carroll in borrowing Alice's expostulation to the Queen of Hearts, what a strange world they must live in. Where is the evidence that the Samaritans, the Ethiopian eunuch, Cornelius, the people of Lystra, Iconium and Antioch, the Philippian jailer, the people of Athens, to name but a few non-Jews, and the Samaritans were a special case, and it's probable that the eunuch and Cornelius were proselytes, had the moral law preached to them. Where do we read of Christ, or the apostles preaching the law to Gentiles? Since the establishment of the new covenant, Preaching the law had been the work of Judaizers, not the apostles. Let me draw on something I said in chapter 2. Think of the apostles' experience at Lystra. The Gentiles were about to worship him and Barnabas. How did the brothers stop the pagans? What arguments did they use? Did they cite the first and second commandments? They didn't. Instead, from nature, they challenged pagan folly in trying to worship them. In effect, they asked, does not nature teach it? If the Gentiles have been given the law, why did Paul not quote it against them? The fact is, since the Gentiles didn't have the law, Paul couldn't use it in his approach to them, and he made no attempt to do so. The same goes for his preaching to the Athenians. The same goes for his preaching to the Athenians in the Areopagus. Paul, confronting the Greeks over their superstitious idolatry, did not apply the law to them. The fact is, his words had a very different ring. He used what the pagans were familiar with, quoting a Greek poet. He told them that God had overlooked these times of ignorance in the past, but now commands all men everywhere to repent. I don't say these passages contain no allusions whatever to the Old Testament. Certainly Paul thought in such terms and argued from it. His sermons are full of it. But he didn't explicitly quote the law to Bacon, who had no knowledge of it. In case there should be any doubt, Paul was not preaching the law to Gentile sinners in the opening chapters of Romans. As I've already remarked, Law does not make an appearance in Romans until we reach chapter 2 and verse 12. What is more, the Apostle's different approach to Gentiles and Jews in Romans 1 18 to 320 stands out a mile. When addressing Gentiles, observe how he tackles them on their inward light or conscience. which they suppress, the works of nature, creation, which they see and enjoy, the obvious deductions which they stifle, and their natural appetites, which they pervert. But he does not use the law. Finally, to make the eschatological point once again, note the now of Acts 17 verse 30. Despite this clear evidence, When the Reformed lay out what is required of preachers when attempting to bring sinners to Christ, they are not averse to making large claims for the law. They even put the law on a par with the gospel itself. If truth be told, they sometimes give it a more important. Law and grace, the pair of them. are described as the two principal weapons in the Spirit's armory, with the Law always, always at the very core of the sinner's conviction, regeneration, repentance and faith. It's no use preaching mercy through Christ, so it's said, unless it's preached with the Law. As for the Cross, it's but a quaint story, one which incites curiosity and promotes miserable feelings in the sinner, but really does precious little good to modern man. To preach the gospel without the law is to offer the sinner nobody knows what. What is the great need? How will sinners find Christ? Preach the law. This is the panacea. Only when the law has had its effect, then and then only will Christ's attractiveness and justifying righteousness make any sense to sinners today. All this is claimed for the law. This is breathtaking. If we adopt this program, we must, I suppose, tell sinners that Christ is hard to understand, unattractive, but never fear, Moses will prepare you, and Moses will show you the way. Simply to preach Christ is not enough, however. Moses must come first. If this is so, then we may expect a new version of the Bible to appear. which version would tell us, I suppose, I determine not to know anything among you except Moses and Jesus Christ and Him crucified. And in that order, I am determined to preach Christ, but only after preaching Moses. Again, we shall have to listen to the apostle stating, we preach Christ crucified, but only after we have fully set out the law. Away with this. Let us stay with what Paul actually wrote in 1 Corinthians 2 and 1. The same goes for John 14, verse 6. I am the way, said Christ. No one comes to the Father except through me. Apparently, so we are told, it is through Christ, first, having gone through Moses, and being prepared by his good office. How all this can be made to fit with the signal lack of law in the following passage, one which deals specifically with gospel addresses, I am at a loss to comprehend. Now all things are of God, who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation. That is, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation. Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ. as though God were pleading through us, we implore you on Christ's behalf, be reconciled to God. For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him. We then, as workers together with Him, also plead with you not to receive the grace of God in vain. For He says, In an acceptable time I have heard you, and in the day of salvation I have helped you. Beholden now is the accepted time. Beholden now is the day of salvation. Don't miss the Apostle's passionate stress on grace, going hand in hand with the conspicuous absence of any talk of the law. These are vital considerations. All talk of the law preparing sinners for Christ is wide of the mind. As I will show, Galatians 3, 24-25 certainly does not teach it. What is more, John 16, 8-11 teaches that the Spirit convicts men of sin on the grounds of their attitude to Christ, not on the basis of the law. and John 3.18 and 8.24 teaches that ultimately sinners are condemned for not trusting Christ, not for breaking the law. The law does not open sinners' eyes to their sins in Christ. Christ alone does that. It is His preciousness that shows our worthlessness, His holiness our sin. His grace, our pride, His love, our hatred, His submission to the Father's will, Our inbred, habitual rebellion, And self-seek. His sweet, our bitter, and so on. As John Beres put it, The law provokes men oft to ill, And churlish hearts makes harder still, But gospel acts a kinder part. And melts a most obdurate heart. And what about John Newton? What was it that convicted that hardened slaver of his sin? Was it the threatenings of the law? Let him tell us in his own word. In evil long I took delight, And awed by shame or fear, Till the new objects struck my sight, And stopped my wild career. I saw one hanging on a tree in agony and blood, Who fixed his languid eyes on me as near his cross I stood. Sure never till my latest breath can I forget. It seemed to charge me with his death, though not a word he spoke. My conscience felt and owned the guilt and plunged me in despair. I saw my sins his blood had spilt, and helped to nail him there. A second look he gave, which said, I freely all forgive. This blood is for thy ransom paid. I die that thou mayst live. Thus while his death my sin displays in all his blackest hue. Such is the mystery of grace. It seals my part, too. And of course, we have the well-known hymn by Joseph Hart. Come, ye sinner, poor and wretched, weak and wounded, sick and sore, Jesus ready stands to save you, full of pity, joined with power. He is able, he is able, he is willing, doubt no more. Come, ye needy, come and welcome, God's free bounty glorify. True belief and true repentance, every grace that brings you nigh without money, without money come to Jesus Christ and buy. Let not conscience make you linger, nor of fitness fondly dream. All the fitness he requireth is to feel your need of him. This he gives you, this he gives you, tis the Spirit, rising beam. Come ye weary, heavy laden, bruised and mangled by the fall. If you tarry till you're better, you will never come at all. Not the righteous, not the righteous sinners, Jesus came to cause. of all the many excellent things in heart's hymn don't miss all the fitness he requireth is to feel your need of him just so say the reform just so and he gives it by the law oh where did heart say that heart described conviction of sin as christ did to christ by his spirit this he gives you this he gives you tis the spirits arising be I see no mention of Moses or the law, whatever. The consequences of all this legal preparationism, however, do not fall only upon the unconverted sinner, as I have indicated the believer too can suffer, and how. And it's this which impinges on my main discussion in this book, namely the believer and the law. Note the word legalism I used a few moments ago. How can the notion that the law prepares sinners for Christ, that it makes them fit to receive him, affect the believer? By storing up years of harrowing gloom and torment for him. Even though he has come to Christ, preparation by law can play havoc with the believer's sense of assurance. Written history records many examples of those who suffered under it. What is more frightening, unwritten history must obscure a much larger number of damaged souls. Take Jonathan Embers. He suffered under it. At one stage he doubted his conversion. As he recorded in his diary for December the 18th, 1722, he couldn't testify to having had a preparatory work. nor to having been regenerated. Take Jonathan Edwards. He suffered under it. At one stage he doubted his conversion. As he recorded in his diary for December the 18th, 1722, he couldn't testify to having had a preparatory work, nor to having been regenerated precisely as the Puritans had specified. On November the 6th, 1724, he felt some relief concerning his doubt as to whether or not he trusted Christ. Yet on May 28th, 1725, he was still doubting if he was truly converted. For help, he vowed to turn back to those very Puritans who had led him into the doubt in the first place. Richard Baxter had trudged precisely the same depressing path a hundred years before. His doubts over many years arose because he couldn't detect evidences in his life that he'd taken the steps of preparation delineated by earlier Puritan. As a result, he was forever poring over his sins and deficiencies or doubting his sincerity. Baxter eventually got release by seeing that all the time his eyes should have been on Christ and not on his own heart. Thomas Goodwin said similar things. These men in the first place should have been sent to Christ and not to the law. And when they found they were in trouble they should have gone to Christ and not to the law. The preparation men ought to have listened to John Wheelwright John Cutton's only ministerial supporter in the 1636-37 New England crisis over antinomianism. Wheelwright, Anne Hutchinson's brother-in-law, had spelled it out, to preach the gospel is to preach Christ, and nothing but Christ. But the preparationism of Thomas Hooker and Thomas Shepherd won the day. And as a result, preparationism for conversion became the hallmark of New England theology, with severe consequence. Nathaniel Ward warned the arch-preparationist Hooker he had gone too far. You make as good Christians before men are in Christ as ever they are after. Would I but Would I were but as good a Christian now as you make men, well they are but preparing for Christ." Spurgeon in his sermon, The Warrant of Faith, which he preached in 1863 on 1 John 3, 23, strongly criticized some of the Puritans for their emphasis upon preparationism. As he argued, we should tell a sinner that whatever his condition, He requires no preparation or qualification, but he must at once trust Christ and take Him to be his all in all. The sinner does not need, quotes, months of law work. Spurgeon was blunt with his hearers. If they were trusting in the fact that they had felt the terrors of the law, they were mistaken. They must trust Christ and not their feelings. Preparationists, in their delineation of what a sinner must be and experience before he may come to Christ, actually describe what a saint is after he has come to Christ. Preparationists, with their talk of the law, discourage sinners from going straight to Christ. As the particular Baptist Confession of 1644, expressly denying Calvin's position, put it, the tenders of the gospel to the conversion of sinners is absolutely free, no way requiring, as absolutely necessary, any qualifications, preparations, terrors of the law, or preceding ministry of the law. Sadly, not all the spiritual descendants of the 1644 Particular Baptists have kept to this Biblical position. Not only were there differences in the 1677 or 1689 Particular Baptist Confession, when the Particular Baptists in part for political reasons adopted the Reform stance on the law, but some Particular Baptists developed the disastrous doctrine that a sinner must be sensible before he can be invited to Christ. As a consequence of the views of John Gill, J.C. Philpott, William and John Gadsby, crippling limitations were imposed upon the preaching of the gospel, as can be seen in the Gospel Standard article. Notice, can be seen. I am talking about that which is going on today. Not all the Reformed have adopted a full-blown preparationism, of course, but many have. In any case, the seeds of it are there in their system of law. They must not be surprised that, from time to time, those seeds germinate, grow and bear fruit, and when they do, the cost paid by the souls of men and women is frightening. Furthermore, many Reformed teachers are calling for the preaching of the law today. It may sound biblical, but biblical is precisely what it's not. As I said right at the beginning, we suffer too often from legal preaching these days, both overt and incipient. We need gospel preaching. We must have Christ. Who was it advised a would-be preacher? Whatever you do, young man, preach Christ. And what of the man who complained of a sermon he had sat under? not enough of Christ in it for me." Above all, we know what Paul would have said in response to law preachers today. I determine not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified. Christ and Him preached both convicts and converts the sinner. So much for Calvin's first use of the law. Now for the second. Does the law restrain sin in the unregenerate? Calvin, in his second use of the law, said it does. Stressing the part played by fear, even terror, Calvin declared that the law restrains the unregenerate, even though they, quote, rage and boil, and, quote, are inflamed by this restraint. And not only the unregenerate, The children of God also benefit from this legal regime, even though they gain little from it. So ambiguously asserted Calvin. There's not much to say on this. Since Calvin quoted only one scripture to support his case, 1 Timothy 1, 9-10, which says nothing, nothing about restraining sin, and because I'm not able to deal with human philosophy, I leave his statement as it stands. It's without scriptural foundation. Even so, Calvin has been followed by many who have tried harder than he to prove it from scripture, but have fared no better. Yet some have gone as far as to assert that the main end of the law is to restrain transgression. The so-called supporting passages cited say no such thing. Take Galatians 3.19. It says nothing to support the claim. Let me remind you of what it does say about the law. It was added because of transgression. This of course is a fact. But it certainly does not say it was added to restrain transgression. The law revealed and aroused sin, but it didn't restrain them. And this is admitted even by some who quote the verse. In any case, all this misses the point entirely. Paul was speaking of the historical role of the law, and its temporary nature. It was added because of transgressions till the seed should come to whom the promise was made, not of its supposed role in restraining sin in the unregenerate. The idea that the law exists today to do something which was ended nearly 2,000 years ago by the coming of Christ is remarkable, to say the least. coming from the other direction. If the law was given to deter men from sin, to bring them to Christ and so on, why was it limited to the time that the seed should come? Surely Calvin and those who follow him argue that the law restrains sin and brings men to Christ nowadays, don't they? Above all, of course, Romans 7 destroys the case for the law restraining sin in the unregenerate. leaving detailed comment on it till a later chapter. For now I let Paul's words, recording his own experience of the law before he was regenerate, speak for themselves. For when we were in the flesh, the sinful passions which were aroused by the law were at work in our members to bear fruit to death. I would not have known sin except through the law, but sin, taking the opportunity by the commandment, produced in me all manner of evil desire. For apart from the law, sin was dead. I was alive once without the law. But when the commandment came, sin revived and I died. And the commandment, which was to bring life, I found to bring death. For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me and by it killed me. That the law does not restrain sin is perfectly clear. The law certainly didn't restrain poor sin. In fact, The law revealed and above all aroused it. The law doesn't make a man stop sinning. Only Christ does that. Only Christ can make a sinner holy. He is all. Anticipating just a little. As we shall see, there is a link between Romans 4, 5, 7 and Galatians 3. The pedagogue, the child custodian disciplined a minor, but his instruction could actually goad the minor to do the very thing he was forbidden. Forbidden fruit fascinates. Adam and Eve found it so. Doesn't every parent know the natural reaction of a child to a command not to do something? And it's not only a child. Even Calvin himself destroyed his own doctrine. The law makes the same problem worse in me than regenerates it. Let me go back a bit then. Forbidden fruit fascinates. Adam and Eve found it so. Doesn't every parent know the natural reaction of a child to a command not to do something? And not only a child. Even Calvin himself destroyed his own doctrine. The law makes the sin problem worse in the unregenerate. It certainly doesn't restrain it. The philosophers, as Calvin said, might teach that the law restrains sin. The scriptures do not. Again, as Calvin said, until a man is regenerate and has the law written on his heart, the law actually tends to increase transgression and not restrain it. This, I realize, will sound preposterous to many. Could Calvin be this self-contradicting? After all, he was explicit. The second use of the law is to restrain sin in the unregenerate. As I say, what a self-contradiction. But I'm not making it up, and I give the references. Thus, Calvin enunciated his first two uses of the law. to repair sinners for Christ and restrain sin in the unregenerate. He was sadly mistaken on both accounts. Say that again. He was sadly mistaken on both counts. Even so, he has been followed by many. What can the law do for a sinner? Let me conclude with a biblical summary. Unlike Calvin's first and second uses, it is all negative. The law does not restrain sin in a natural man. On the contrary, it excites it in him. The law cannot regenerate a sinner dead in sin. A sinner cannot receive the Spirit by the works of the law, but only by the hearing of faith. The law cannot justify a sinner. The law cannot restrain sin in the sinner, nor does it prepare the sinner for Christ. Calvin was wrong on both counts. So much for Calvin's first and second uses of the law. Now for his third use. Would he do any better with that?