The Law Is Not the Gospel: Adriel Sanchez Responds to Doug Wilson

This transcript has been lightly edited from an automated transcription for clarity and readability. While we've worked to preserve each speaker's words faithfully, errors may remain.

1. 00:00

   Adriel Sanchez

   If you’re a Protestant Christian, you might have heard of the law-gospel distinction. It’s often associated with the Reformers, men like Luther and Calvin, who believed that the ability to distinguish between law and gospel was fundamental to properly understanding the Bible. In fact, Luther said that getting this distinction right was the difference between a good theologian and a bad one. Lecturing on the book of Galatians 2:14, he said, “Everyone who is able to rightly judge between the law and the gospel can give thanks to God and know that he is a theologian.” So in this video, I’m going to interact with some comments made by Doug Wilson about the law-gospel distinction. And along the way, I want to answer three questions: What is the law-gospel distinction? Is there such a thing as a law-gospel hermeneutic? And why does any of this matter? So before I play this clip and get into a critique, I want to say a couple things. Doug Wilson is the longtime pastor of Christ Church in Moscow, Idaho. He’s a prolific writer.

2. 00:58

   Adriel Sanchez

   He has tons of books that have been highly influential in the Reformed world. And so I want to approach this with Paul’s words in mind to Timothy in 1 Timothy 5:1. He said, “Do not rebuke an older man, but encourage him as you would a father.” I hope that what follows is more of an encouragement or exhortation for all of us and less of a rebuke. I want to aim for light, not heat. I’m also cautious because in my own ministry, rarely have I received as much pushback as when I say something critical of Doug Wilson. His books on family and his cultural commentary have made him a champion for Christians looking for guidance on everything from parenting to politics. So because of this, people have a kind of devotion to Wilson.

3. 01:38

   Adriel Sanchez

   Be that as it may, it’s precisely when we view men as heroes that we’re less willing to see their errors, even significant ones. You might love Doug Wilson or be suspicious of him. Regardless of where you stand, I hope you’ll humbly consider what I have to say. Okay, so let’s watch this clip.

4. 01:54

   Unidentified Speaker

   So let’s do law-gospel hermeneutic. This is a big thing, right? This is 52, page 52. I’ll give what you said and then have you explain it. All right. “There is a vast difference between a law-gospel hermeneutic, which I reject heartily and with enthusiasm, and the law-gospel application or use, which is pastoral, prudent, and wise.” That’s one. Here’s another one. “Now, if you have a law-gospel hermeneutic, you have decided going into your exegesis what that exegesis can and cannot reveal to you.

5. 02:30

   Unidentified Speaker

   “So if I produced a verse that said, ‘Thou shalt exercise justifying faith as your evangelical obedience,’ end quote, this would not even be a minor challenge to a law-gospel hermeneutic. A law-gospel hermeneutic would chase the verb around the room until the aorist imperative ran out the door screaming, turning the verse into gospel, remarkably enough.” Now, there’s only a few smart people that still know grammar that can even track with what you’re doing here. So play it back if you need to, but you could explain what are you talking about with the hermeneutic versus application.

6. 03:00

   Doug Wilson

   Okay, so a hermeneutic is a grid for interpretation. Okay, so if you accepted the reality of a law-gospel hermeneutic, it would in principle be legit to print a Bible with law verses in red and gospel verses in blue. Okay, because I want to know how to interpret this. Am I in a law verse or am I in a grace verse? Because hermeneutic is how to interpret. All right.

7. 03:33

   Unidentified Speaker

   And I would just pin in here, I think the tendency, at least in a lot of even Reformed evangelicalism, would be yes, in the Old Testament is the law part —

8. 03:45

   Doug Wilson

   Right. [crosstalk]

9. 03:45

   Unidentified Speaker

   — and the New Testament, it’s the gospel part.

10. 03:47

    Doug Wilson

    Right. There is that tendency. But “I’m the Lord your God who brought you out of the house of Egypt, out of the house of slavery, out of the house of bondage.” What is that? What color is that? Well, that sounds like grace to me. Brought you out of bondage, set you free. So “the law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.” What color is that? So I believe that the law-gospel distinction is crucial, because people are in different places. So rather than divide the Word of God up into law parts and gospel parts, I believe that we need to divide the human race up into law hearts and gracious hearts.

11. 04:30

    Unidentified Speaker

    Dead hearts and living hearts.

12. 04:31

    Doug Wilson

    Dead hearts and living hearts. If a man’s heart is dead, then everything about the Bible hits him as law. Everything. Including gospel, right? Because the word that we preach is the stench of death to those who are perishing. So the words of grace, words of gospel are the aroma of death to those who are perishing. And to those who are quickened by the Holy Spirit of God, who have regenerate hearts, “the law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.” So if I’m converted to God by the Holy Spirit of God, everything about the Bible is good and gracious. If I’m unconverted and hard-hearted, everything about the Bible condemns me. Everything. So I don’t think the law-gospel distinction is in the text. I think the law-gospel distinction is in us.

13. 05:27

    Unidentified Speaker

    Right.

14. 05:29

    Adriel Sanchez

    So let me try to summarize Wilson’s view here. One, he’s critical of the law-gospel hermeneutic, which divides every verse of the Bible neatly into law or gospel passages. According to Wilson, we should heartily reject this. Two, he accepts the law-gospel distinction, but he defines it as something that isn’t rooted in the text of Scripture. Instead, for Wilson, this distinction flows out of how we relate to the Bible as regenerate or unregenerate persons. So if you’re not a Christian, the whole thing is law. And if you are a Christian, the whole thing is gospel. This is a quote from his book, Sounds FV, published at the beginning of this year.

15. 06:06

    Adriel Sanchez

    He writes, quote, “Instead of assuming that the Scriptures come in two categories, I prefer to speak of the human race coming in two categories, the regenerate and the unregenerate. For the regenerate, the entire Bible is gospel, good news. I believe that the law is not found in one part of the Bible and the gospel in another. The whole thing is law and the whole thing is gospel. So I reject a law-gospel hermeneutic.”

16. 06:43

    Adriel Sanchez

    Now, with regard to the law-gospel distinction, it’s worth answering the question, is this something in the text of Scripture, or is it something we impose on each verse of the Bible based on whether or not we’re born again? It’s interesting to note that for the Reformers, their elucidation of the law-gospel distinction often came out in their commentaries of the Bible. This was exegesis, drawing something out of the Scriptures, rather than eisegesis, reading something into the Scripture. Now, that doesn’t mean that when we trust in Jesus, our relationship to the law doesn’t change, or that for non-Christians, the gospel might be the aroma of death, as Paul says in 2 Corinthians.

17. 07:09

    Adriel Sanchez

    As Christians, our relationship to the law and the gospel does change based on whether or not we’re in Christ. Paul makes this point, especially with regard to the law, in places like Romans chapter 7, for example. But Paul also makes it clear that the law-gospel distinction isn’t fundamentally in us. It’s something that’s rooted in the text of Scripture itself. A great example of this is in Galatians chapter 4, where Paul distinguished between two covenants.

18. 07:27

    Adriel Sanchez

    “Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not listen to the law? For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave woman and one by a free woman. But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, while the son of the free woman was born through promise. Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar. Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother. For it is written, ‘Rejoice, O barren one who does not bear; break forth and cry aloud, you who are not in labor! For the children of the desolate one will be more than those of the one who has a husband.’ Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise. But just as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so also it is now. But what does the Scripture say? ‘Cast out the slave woman and her son, for the son of the slave woman shall not inherit with the son of the free woman.’ So, brothers, we are not children of the slave but of the free woman.”

19. 08:48

    Adriel Sanchez

    In this passage, Paul contrasts the law given through Moses with the promise that was given to Abraham. At the heart of the Galatian controversy was a failure to understand the purpose and relationship between these two covenants, one corresponding to law, promising life on the basis of our perfect obedience, the other corresponding to gospel, the free gift of life on the basis of Christ’s righteousness. The Galatians were confused about law and gospel. And as they were being drawn back to the Mosaic covenant, Paul doesn’t say, “Hey, for you guys, it’s all gospel. You’re believers now.” No, he says, if you go back to the law as a means of justification, you will be cursed. God has granted you the Spirit apart from the works of the law. Now, by the way, it wasn’t just the Reformed who saw this distinction in the text of Scripture.

20. 09:34

    Adriel Sanchez

    Theologian Mike Horton writes, “Even non-Reformed biblical scholars specializing in the treaty covenants of the ancient Near East emphasize the difference in form and content between law covenants and promise covenants in the biblical text.” Indeed, he continues, “Pope Benedict XVI makes the same observation drawing on this research.” So seeing this distinction in the text isn’t some idiosyncratic Lutheran or Reformed thing. It’s what biblical scholars of various traditions have picked up on.

21. 10:10

    Adriel Sanchez

    Especially with regard to the doctrine of justification, the Reformers argued that there were two diametrically opposed ways of being right with God. One, on the basis of your own perfect obedience to the law of God, which ultimately no one can fulfill. The other, on the basis of Christ’s righteousness imputed to us and received by faith alone, the promise of the gospel. Now, to be fair, I don’t think Wilson disagrees with that statement.

22. 10:25

    Adriel Sanchez

    But to the extent that he fails to see this distinction arising out of the text and instead roots it in our own experience as believers or unbelievers, he departs from the Reformed tradition. For the Reformed, the law functioned in part as a works covenant promising life on the basis of perfect and perpetual obedience. It’s not different from the gospel in terms of what it promises. It is different in that it doesn’t give what it promises. “Is the law then contrary to the promises of God?” said Paul. “Certainly not. For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law. But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.” Galatians 3:21–22.

23. 11:09

    Adriel Sanchez

    So you see, the law functions differently from the gospel with respect to how one is made right with God. If you want to be justified, don’t run to the law, because it will condemn and kill you. Run to Jesus.

24. 11:21

    Adriel Sanchez

    Hence, John Calvin: “A man may raise this objection: the law was given by God, so that it cannot be placed in opposition to faith, which also proceeds from God. The answer to this is simple. God made both the day and the night, water and fire, cold and heat. Surely the day is not in opposition to the night, but rather God in his goodness and wisdom has arranged that they appear in a suitable order. Every created thing has its function. And fire and water complement each other very well. However, if we were to mix them together, then they would indeed clash. This is true of the law and the gospel.”

25. 11:58

    Adriel Sanchez

    Or consider the Italian reformer Zanchi: “We do not confuse the law with the gospel, for although we bear witness that God is as much the law’s author as he is the gospel’s, and that the law itself is as wholly righteous and good as the gospel, we nevertheless believe that the difference between the two is great. The gospel and the law agree in this, that they are both from God, and that there is something revealed in each concerning the nature, will, and works of God. There is, however, a very great difference between them. Hence the law of works comprised in the Decalogue is everywhere contradistinguished by Paul from the law of faith and the promise of grace. For as the law is not of faith, so neither is faith of the law. So great is the contrariety between these two means that they are wholly incompatible with each other.”

26. 12:55

    Adriel Sanchez

    Lastly, the Princeton theologian Geerhardus Vos: “In Scripture, then, the antithesis between law and gospel is meant such that the law as the condition of the covenant of works and the gospel exclude each other. Thus, if in Scripture the law as such occurs, then that is not the gospel. When Christ said, ‘You know the laws,’ et cetera, he did not speak as a preacher of the gospel, but as exponent of the law. Likewise Moses, when he said, ‘The one who does them shall live by them.’” What Vos said there is precisely what Wilson denies.

27. 13:29

    Adriel Sanchez

    Now, I think what Wilson is attempting to do is retain a positive view of the law for the believer. As Christians, we should delight in and do God’s law. Luther says as much throughout his antinomian disputations. Wilson isn’t wrong when he says that the believer’s relationship [to] the law is transformed through Christ, but he is wrong to subjectivize the distinction between the law and the gospel and to collapse the whole Bible into law or gospel depending on whether or not you’re a Christian. This isn’t how the Lutherans or the Reformed understood the distinction.

28. 14:06

    Adriel Sanchez

    Now, what about the law-gospel hermeneutic? Wilson embraces a redefined law-gospel distinction, but he’s highly critical of a law-gospel hermeneutic. Now, if you aren’t familiar with that word, it has to do with how we interpret the Bible or texts in general. Think of it as a grid for biblical interpretation. So we might ask, do these categories of law and gospel help us to interpret the Bible? Admittedly, on this question, there’s more diversity in the Reformed tradition, but note again what the Princeton theologian Geerhardus Vos said: “We saw earlier that there is a sharp division, indeed an antithesis made in Scripture, especially by Paul, between law and promise. Proceeding from this, many theologians say that everything in Scripture that relates to demands and commandments belongs to the law. Everything that relates to unconditional promises belongs to the gospel.” Here, Vos is simply making a historical observation that many Reformed theologians had no problem talking about law or gospel passages in precisely the way that Wilson objects to as a kind of hermeneutic. Now, Vos does note that this is a more complex question due to several factors, but it seems like many of the Reformers had no problem thinking along these hermeneutical lines.

29. 15:07

    Adriel Sanchez

    John Calvin’s handpicked successor in Geneva, for example, wrote, “We divide this word into two principal parts or kinds. The one is called the law, the other the gospel, for all the rest can be gathered under the one or other of these two headings. Ignorance of this distinction between law and gospel is one of the principal sources of the abuses which corrupted and still corrupt Christianity.” That’s Theodore Beza.

30. 15:33

    Adriel Sanchez

    Additionally, there’s a close tie between the law-gospel distinction and the covenants of works and grace. This means that hermeneutics must be wrapped up into this question to some degree. The Bible is a covenantal book made up of two testaments. As Reformed or federal theology developed, it saw the organic unity of the Bible held together by how God administered his promises and his law throughout redemptive history. He made a covenant of works in the garden with Adam, promising him life on the basis of perfect obedience. And then when Adam fell, he extended to Adam the promise of the gospel, this hope that a child would crush the head of the serpent. These overarching covenantal categories are the undergirding basis for the objective distinction between the law and the gospel.

31. 16:16

    Adriel Sanchez

    Now, can we misapply a law and gospel hermeneutic? Absolutely. A basic error here would be to read every imperative as a pedagogical or first use of the law, rather than seeing that many of the New Testament imperatives flow out of the gospel indicative. We should be able to critique historical or contemporary hermeneutical approaches without redefining the law-gospel distinction or completely abandoning the idea of a law-gospel hermeneutic. Instead, and I say this with all due respect, Wilson has done both. When every passage is law or gospel based on whether or not you’re regenerate, then no passage is objectively law or gospel. This is why it’s good to have this conversation. If men like Luther and Beza were correct that this basic distinction is key to properly understanding the story of the Bible, then getting it right is crucial. We’re trying to provide the correct answers to questions like, how can a sinful man be right in God’s sight? Now, to his credit, Wilson points to Jesus here in his writings. I suspect his aversion to the law-gospel distinction in the text of Scripture or as a hermeneutical principle is an overreaction to abuses he’s encountered.

32. 17:24

    Adriel Sanchez

    And we have to address those legitimate abuses, but not by subjectivizing or minimizing the scriptural distinction between law and gospel. When we do, we run the risk of turning the law into the gospel or the gospel into the law. And that, says Calvin, is to mix fire and water or to cause heaven and earth to collide.