Preaching the Law prior to the Gospel - needless or necessary?

[Eoghan]

Reading John Gill's biography I was struck by some of the controversies that were swirling around at the time. One of them was the proclamation of the Law prior to the gospel.

It struck me that most gospel preaching I see is extremely shallow and people respond to the offer of "a better life" and "forgiveness" and "assurance". They become "saved" without any clear idea of what they are being saved from. With the reformed emphasis on believing on the Lord Jesus, there seems little attention to what belief system is set out.

Much preaching seems to focus on "felt needs" (whether openly acknowledged or not), the result is that the gospel is presented very much like RAC/AA membership a useful "add-on" in case of emergency allowing you to travel with confidence. (AA = Automobile Association, a breakdown service)

Can a reformed preacher preach the gospel without the law?

Assuming no, does the gospel need to be preached with the law? I have a feeling that the modern emphasis on a "decision" fails to allow for what I would think of as the more normative "process". I am sure Paul's sermons were much longer than ours (Acts incident) and developed themes in a way our 30 minute slot cannot. I am not sure that it is possible to take a pagan and change them into a born-again christian in 30 minutes. To really understand God's character requires serious exposition! We might use the same word "God" but a Christian invests it with a lot more meaning than your average pagan.

 

[jehough]

I agree with your assessment about "decision." I think if you interviewed most people in the evangelical church today and asked them if they were saved they would say absolutely, but if you follow up with "from what?" They would have no idea. If you have no concept of guilt, then you cannot really grasp the purpose of grace. If we are teaching the Gospel without at least mentioning the depravity of man, i.e. some form of the law, then we are not really preaching the Gospel.

 

[sevenzedek]

The good news is not good news without the bad news. While the goodness of God leads us to repentance, it is godly sorrow that produces repentance. The law is our tutor to lead us to Christ for salvation. Why in the world would anyone go to a doctor for a cure if they are not convinced they have a disease? I say that one of the reasons it is so necessary to preach the law with the gospel is because the pagan hears the good news merely as a message that says, "You get to keep your idols." Hence, the prosperity gospel, which takes many forms in our time, that doesn't lead anyone to Christ; but to the fulfillment of their sinful desires. If God saw fit to show us our sin through the law in order to convince us of our need for a savior, then who are we to change His order of doing things?

 

[Branson]

One writer said, "If I had my way, I would declare a moratorium on the public preaching of the plan of salvation in America. Then I would call on everyone who has use of the airwaves and the pulpits to preach the holiness of God, the righteousness of God, and the Law of God, until sinners would cry out, 'What must we do to be saved?' Then I would take them to a corner and whisper the Gospel to them. Such drastic action is needed because we have gospel-hardened sinners. Don't even use John 3:16. Why? Because you tell a sinner how to be saved before he realized that he needs to be saved, and you have gospel-hardened him."

 

[Eoghan]

There is a puritan quote somewhere which says never trouble a conscience without scriptural warrant and never give assurance without scriptural warrant. I see too much of the latter being broken and the former neglected.

Anyone know where the quote comes from? I am sure it does not originate with me.

 

[GloriousBoaz]

If I had my way, I would declare a moratorium on the public preaching of the plan of salvation in America.

That is classic!

I remember Paul Washer once talking about (I can't remember if it was him, so I'll tell it like it was him) walking into a store that he heard would sell suits to those called to the ministry for half off. And the man came in and told him about tent meetings that used to take place a crossed the street and that, he said he used to preach there and that for weeks they would only preach law, never mentioning grace at all until they knew it was time. Washer asked "how did you know when it was time?" The man said "The day I walked in and the gentleman behind the counter fell to the floor crying out for mercy; I knew it was time."

I am recalling that story from memory probably poorly; I think it was in his sermon "10 indictments to the modern church" a classic sermon, all should listen to it.

Leonard Ravenhill (a fiery Arminian) said "What this generation needs is a baptism in good old fashioned hell fire preaching" I tend to agree fully.

I watched something once on an Amish missionary (of all people lol) to Papa New Guine and they spent 3 months preaching through the Old Testament before mentioning the New. The moment they got to the cross the entire village converted because they knew the depths of their depravity.

I wanted to mention this:

I am not sure that it is possible to take a pagan and change them into a born-again christian in 30 minutes.

Well it is impossible for us to convert anyone, it is up to God to elect and regenerate.

Also

We might use the same word "God" but a Christian invests it with a lot more meaning than your average pagan.

This is very true as the scripture teaches that "knowledge comes after repentance" but we must also be clear that though the pagan's understanding of God is far inferior it is still there, and it is enough to damn them as Romans 1 teaches us that all men know and believe in God but they chose to suppress the truth of God in unrighteousness.

Why in the world would anyone go to a doctor for a cure if they are not convinced they have a disease?

I wanted to add a thought about how on the other hand the gospel is given in such a tacky and gimmicky way sometimes. Sye Ten Bruggencate said this "If a doctor comes to you and offers you a free flat screen tv you would be very happy, but once you show up at his office to get the tv he then tells you that you have cancer you would be pretty upset. And that is how we present the gospel and it is nothing but a gimmick." Sye also said "if you walk up to a man on the street and say 'Hey I am willing to buy you a free triple bypass surgery' he would say 'Get away from me you freak' but if the man was diagnosed with cancer and you then offered to pay for his surgeries the man would embrace you".

I do agree that modern exposition is poor in your average American church and that it is not very well thought out, systematic, or structured, so much so that I the church I used to attend I couldn't follow along and I wouldn't remember anything he said later that day and I have a pretty decent memory (praise God) but I couldn't remember almost everytime he preached. (but it had to be "in the Spirit" you know); no structure.

Lastly Tozer (I believe) said that most modern American Christianity (doctrine) is only fit for one thing. To put on a raft and send it to a dessert island and as it is leaving the dock we all sing the doxology. If you want some anti decisional preaching listen to anything by Paul Washer.

 

[Eoghan]

There is a puritan quote somewhere which says never trouble a conscience without scriptural warrant and never give assurance without scriptural warrant. I see too much of the latter being broken and the former neglected.

Anyone know where the quote comes from? I am sure it does not originate with me.

 

[Eoghan]

My concern is not that people will not be converted but by lowering the bar we sow tares in the church

 

[GloriousBoaz]

Yeah we are commanded not to pluck up tares, but also we are commanded to take the gospel into all the world by equipping the saints in the church, but instead it seems the main mode of evangelism today is ask the unbeliever to come to church with you and let the pastor do the evangelizing, kind different than 1 Cor. 5 huh?

 

[MW]

Concerning the law -- Sin can only be defined in relation to some law; if God's law is not the standard then some other law is taking its place; if some other law is taking its place then some other gospel will be required to answer its demands. The law must be preached as a matter of normal order. Nevertheless, God is sovereign and free to work apart from the normal order. The gospel contains the law within it. Christ Himself magnified the law and made it honourable. If one hears the gospel without the explicit teaching of the law he might still be convinced of sin through its implicit teaching in the gospel. Notwithstanding, as a matter of conscientious fulfilling of duty and seeking unto God to bless the means which He has appointed, the law should be preached.

Concerning the gospel -- to say that a person must have some suitable preparation before the gospel can be preached to him is hyper-Calvinism. The warrant to believe on Christ for salvation is the universal gospel offer that whosoever believes in Him shall be saved and that none are excluded who will come to Him. The offer of the gospel is FREE, without qualification. It does not require some foregoing qualification in the person.

The idea that there should be no preaching of the gospel is not helpful but very damaging to the Christian witness. We should not use, countenance, or support any corrupt teaching, but there are elements of truth even in corrupt teaching which God has been known to use to draw His elect to Himself. Such people are not converted as a result of the corruption but in spite of it, and the Saviour undertakes to correct what is false as He did in the case of Nathanael. I reiterate, that does not justify using, countenancing, or supporting such teachings; but neither should any person presume the place of God to prescribe what can and cannot be providentially used for the salvation of immortal souls.

 

[GloriousBoaz]

Mr. Winzer I was wondering if you could clarify how Galations 3:24 fits into your statement

to say that a person must have some suitable preparation before the gospel can be preached to him is hyper-Calvinism.

Also I hope I did not make it seem that you can preach law without gospel in every circumstance indefinitely, but what I was trying to clarify is that we are not commanded to bring a cure to the well. Who loved more the man forgiven the debt of 50 denarii or 500? The Holy Spirit was sent into this world to convict it of sin and I agree with Paul Washer "A preacher that doesn't make much of sin does not have the work of the Holy Spirit because it is one of the great tasks of the Holy Spirit to convict men of sin." Here this will say it better than I ever could https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOJW2U0ZQLQ

 

[MW]

I was wondering if you could clarify how Galations 3:24 fits into your statement

First, that is redemptive-historical, referring to Israel. Secondly, it is used to set forth the use of the law in normal circumstances to drive a man from his own righteousness that he might be drawn to Christ by the gospel. The operative word, "normal," being the very word I used.

to say that a person must have some suitable preparation before the gospel can be preached to him is hyper-Calvinism.

It is a well known fact that to restrict the universal offer of the gospel is hyper-Calvinism. Christ is freely offered in the gospel. No preacher has a right to determine a person unfit to receive that offer.

Also I hope I did not make it seem that you can preach law without gospel in every circumstance indefinitely

A preacher of the gospel should not withhold the gospel in any circumstance. He is a preacher of the gospel.

 

[Rich Koster]

People must be instructed what they must be saved from, and who can save them, and how it is obtained (or should I clarify by using the word gifted). If you don't understand your status before a Holy God, His sacrifice, and how it is applied to cover you personally, there will be confusion about the truth.

 

[a mere housewife]

A preacher of the gospel should not withhold the gospel in any circumstance. He is a preacher of the gospel.

This is deeply comforting; thank you.

 

[jwithnell]

Eoghan, this makes the case for systematically preaching all of God's word. The 20th-century idea of making a decision after a 10-minute presentation is a distortion of the historic work of the church to faithfully preach all of God's word. As individuals, we should be ready to explain the hope that is within us. I find that comes as people talk about specific incidents in their lives and I can answer -- whether from the law, the prophets, or the history -- because I am fed a rich diet week to week.

 

[Jack K]

Of course, the gospel is most clear and most glorious when the law is most understood. So helping hearers to have an understanding of God's demands is an important part of preaching the gospel.

That said, talk of holding back the gospel until hearers really "get" the law is troublesome.

Several years ago, I was teaching kids from a popular, Calvinistic, published curriculum. The curriculum began with nearly a year's worth of Old Testament lessons. In the introduction, the curriculum's authors warned teachers NEVER to mention Jesus during the Old Testament section of the course. They had good intentions. They were trying to prevent the phenonmenon where teachers soften the law by tacking on some pithy, sweet-sounding stuff about Jesus. Their theory was that kids should first feel the full brunt of the law, the impossibility of satisfying it, and the centuries-long ache for an answer... and only then hear about God's solution in Christ. Get them ready first so that their reaction to the gospel wouldn't be muted by familiarity.

Well, in some ways that sounds wise. But as I thought about it, I realized I couldn't do that. Never mind that, told rightly, the gospel actually makes it more clear how horrendous our sin is. Never mind that Jesus himself presents the law at least as strongly as any prophet who came before him. The chief reason I couldn't hold back is that my job is to teach the gospel. There's nothing more wonderful. How could I possibly know the answer to the problem of sin and not sing it out every week, at every opportunity? If I tried to hold it in, I would burst.

So I'm not sure I could trust a preacher who held back the gospel, whatever his motives. I'd wonder how he could stand it. I'd wonder if it had really captured his heart.

 

[GloriousBoaz]

Its not "either/or", it is "both and".

I reflected on this more and I definitally want to clarify.

I have heard of churches that do that for a year say you can't mention Jesus Christ's name, which in light of, there is only one name by which men can be saved, seems just outright unbiblical.

I do however think the law must but properly exposited in a " puttting the cookies on the bottom shelf manner" or the gospel has no meaning, its like telling someone they need a cure to a disease they do not think they have.

I also think there are times where the Gospel Preacher should not run to coddle someone under the terrors of the law, maybe this is more the point that is pertinent. like when people say "You know we are all sinners right" in a tone of voice that doesn't seek to isolate the sinner when in fact the sinner must be isolated. And I repeat again the sinner must see his need or the gospel has not been preached correctly if you do not do this. Do not with hold the name of Christ but do not in any measure withhold the law either, it is not either/or it is both/and.

Mr. Winzer I think I understand your concerns now, I just wish you had phrased

to say that a person must have some suitable preparation before the gospel can be preached to him is hyper-Calvinism.

differently because it sounded more like you were saying something to the effect of"that to preach the law at all, is adding something to Christ", or in cookies on the bottom shelf language: "is Jesus plus".

 

[MW]

Mr. Winzer I think I understand your concerns now, I just wish you had phrased

to say that a person must have some suitable preparation before the gospel can be preached to him is hyper-Calvinism.

differently because it sounded more like you were saying something to the effect of"that to preach the law at all, is adding something to Christ", or in cookies on the bottom shelf language: "is Jesus plus".

I am sorry if anything I said gave this impression. I had hoped the first paragraph in my first post made it clear that preaching the law is the norm. In case that has somehow been obscured by anything else I wrote please let me emphasise it and put it beyond doubt -- preaching the law is the norm.

 

[Herald]

Of course, the gospel is most clear and most glorious when the law is most understood. So helping hearers to have an understanding of God's demands is an important part of preaching the gospel.

That said, talk of holding back the gospel until hearers really "get" the law is troublesome.

Several years ago, I was teaching kids from a popular, Calvinistic, published curriculum. The curriculum began with nearly a year's worth of Old Testament lessons. In the introduction, the curriculum's authors warned teachers NEVER to mention Jesus during the Old Testament section of the course. They had good intentions. They were trying to prevent the phenonmenon where teachers soften the law by tacking on some pithy, sweet-sounding stuff about Jesus. Their theory was that kids should first feel the full brunt of the law, the impossibility of satisfying it, and the centuries-long ache for an answer... and only then hear about God's solution in Christ. Get them ready first so that their reaction to the gospel wouldn't be muted by familiarity.

Well, in some ways that sounds wise. But as I thought about it, I realized I couldn't do that. Never mind that, told rightly, the gospel actually makes it more clear how horrendous our sin is. Never mind that Jesus himself presents the law at least as strongly as any prophet who came before him. The chief reason I couldn't hold back is that my job is to teach the gospel. There's nothing more wonderful. How could I possibly know the answer to the problem of sin and not sing it out every week, at every opportunity? If I tried to hold it in, I would burst.

So I'm not sure I could trust a preacher who held back the gospel, whatever his motives. I'd wonder how he could stand it. I'd wonder if it had really captured his heart.

Jack,

I agree with you. I can see the wisdom in starting a message off with the Law, only to provide the remedy at the end. That is quite different than just presenting the Law and concluding without the hope of the gospel. Of course there may be exceptions, but that is why they call them "exceptions".

 

[GloriousBoaz]

I was wondering what you guys thought of Jesus hiding the gospel in parables to people if that qualified at all as preaching law and withholding the gospel. I know this must include the fact that Christ knew who His sheep, His elect were and obviously had the right to do it, a right we don't have, but I'm still wondering if that qualified as preaching law but withholding grace. Because they knew they were guilty from His wisdom but they couldn't make out the cure because they couldn't understand Him. Something like that. And i'm wondering how the well meant offer fits into Jesus Christ's use of parables.

 

[SinnerSavedByChrist]

I was wondering what you guys thought of Jesus hiding the gospel in parables to people if that qualified at all as preaching law and withholding the gospel. I know this must include the fact that Christ knew who His sheep, His elect were and obviously had the right to do it, a right we don't have, but I'm still wondering if that qualified as preaching law but withholding grace. Because they knew they were guilty from His wisdom but they couldn't make out the cure because they couldn't understand Him. Something like that. And i'm wondering how the well meant offer fits into Jesus Christ's use of parables.

Yes!!! The way Jesus preached in the gospels would actually be labeled "Legalism" and "Do-Goodism" by many of our leaders today. Why? He didn't always systematically spell out "the Great exchange" of 2 Cor 5:21, nor repeat over and over again Ephesians chapter 2!!! Jesus sometimes just said "Pluck your eye out. It's better that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be thrown into hell where the worm never dies and the fire never quenches."

Would you let Jesus preach in your church?

 

[GloriousBoaz]

That's what i'm curious about does that mean it is wrong for us to leave someone sweat it out over night without preaching the other half of the message, the great exchange as you out, since we are not Christ. As long as the intent of our heart isn't to withhold the kingdom from someone. I wonder if this might be relevant. I have a general rule that I use for myself when it comes to witnessing and relationship etc that if I talk to a person on the street that it is very likely I will never see again I give them as much light as possible, that means as much of the law and of grace as they will allow me to speak to them, but if it is someone else I might interact with more, an acquittance or friend, or family etc I just take it in more of a one step at a time fashion, just being prayerful and waiting for opportune timing.

Would you let Jesus preach in your church?

I'm pretty sure Jesus Christ is already head pastor at my church lol.

 

[py3ak]

I was wondering what you guys thought of Jesus hiding the gospel in parables to people if that qualified at all as preaching law and withholding the gospel. I know this must include the fact that Christ knew who His sheep, His elect were and obviously had the right to do it, a right we don't have, but I'm still wondering if that qualified as preaching law but withholding grace. Because they knew they were guilty from His wisdom but they couldn't make out the cure because they couldn't understand Him. Something like that. And i'm wondering how the well meant offer fits into Jesus Christ's use of parables.

It's not the same thing at all. First of all, the parables contain gospel as well as law. Second, the parables reveal truth to those who have ears to hear it. Consider the parable of the Pharisee and the Publican. It is specifically directed against those who were self-righteous. And yet, as the most telling point against them, the way of salvation is clearly explained: to look only to the mercy of God upon helpless sinners. Had the self-righteous desired to hear, they could have learned from that enough to convict them, and enough to bring them to call upon the name of the Lord; if they did not desire to hear, the parable would bear convicting testimony against them.

 

[Peairtach]

Their theory was that kids should first feel the full brunt of the law, the impossibility of satisfying it, and the centuries-long ache for an answer... and only then hear about God's solution in Christ. Get them ready first so that their reaction to the gospel wouldn't be muted by familiarity.

The obvious problem here is that none of us, even children, are promised centuries, or even tomorrow.

I'm all for Gospel sermons, addresses, and articles, etc, majoring on the law, and awakening people to the wickedness of sin.

I need hardly say that the preaching of the broken Covenant of Works, its law and curse, and its now hypothetical means of salvation, along with the nature of sin and why it is so awful, unclean and wicked, is much neglected in our day, but the message of free salvation in Jesus Christ should always also be brought in.

The Lord Himself didn't tarry in bringing the message of the Gospel to fallen humanity (Gen 3:15).

The preacher does not know the day nor the hour when his congregation or a member or members thereof, will be called away to give his account.

 

[GloriousBoaz]

Another question: are there people out there that once you preach the law to them reveal themselves to be swine by their fruits to which we are commanded not to cast pearls too, are we to still then give them the gospel message?

 

[py3ak]

I think we may take it that Christ, knowing what was in men, knew who were dogs and swine. Knowing that, did he withhold the gospel message? On the contrary, he preached it promiscuously. Take John 6 for an illustration: the message that so offended many who followed him for bread that they turned away is full of gospel truth. It seems clear enough that it was Christ's intention to put the reality of their discipleship to a severe test; and it was in that context that some of the most precious and (in a good way) popular gospel promises were uttered.

 

[Jack K]

Another question: are there people out there that once you preach the law to them reveal themselves to be swine by their fruits to which we are commanded not to cast pearls too, are we to still then give them the gospel message?

Nah, you'd end up with a situation where one has to show fruit of repentance first (be good enough) in order the be worthy of hearing the gospel. That's WAY messed up. It is the gospel, not the law, which we are to believe to be saved. How can you know they've rejected Christ if you've not preached the gospel to them?

 

[GloriousBoaz]

Jack I was wondering if you have ever spent time on the streets witnessing to people?

 

[SinnerSavedByChrist]

Another question: are there people out there that once you preach the law to them reveal themselves to be swine by their fruits to which we are commanded not to cast pearls too, are we to still then give them the gospel message?

First, you need to exegete that verse (Matthew 7:6?) and then apply it systematically. Because I can also just take a random proverb "In the multitude of words sin is not lacking, but a man who restrains his lips is wise". And say - you should only use very few words in evangelism, lest you be a fool. On Sunday morning, preach short 2 minute sermons lest you should be foolish and sin.

And lastly, I AM a swine and I AM a dog, yet Jesus still reached out to me through His faithful servants and pleaded with me to repent. I had scoffed at these servants of Christ in the past, but now I thank them. Give them the gospel as Jesus told everyone. Jesus stood and cried out saying "IF ANYONE THIRSTS LET HIM COME TO ME AND DRINK. HE WHO BELIEVES IN ME AS THE SCRIPTURES HAS SAID, OUT OF HIS HEART WILL FLOW RIVERS OF LIVING WATER!!"

Tell them about this living water. Yes use the law to stop their mouths and describe their wretched state before God. But do not withhold the only remedy. Then tell them the divine cure though they might scorn it. For I too scoffed at such a free offer of salvation for many years.

 

[SinnerSavedByChrist]

That's what i'm curious about does that mean it is wrong for us to leave someone sweat it out over night without preaching the other half of the message, the great exchange as you out, since we are not Christ. As long as the intent of our heart isn't to withhold the kingdom from someone. I wonder if this might be relevant. I have a general rule that I use for myself when it comes to witnessing and relationship etc that if I talk to a person on the street that it is very likely I will never see again I give them as much light as possible, that means as much of the law and of grace as they will allow me to speak to them, but if it is someone else I might interact with more, an acquittance or friend, or family etc I just take it in more of a one step at a time fashion, just being prayerful and waiting for opportune timing.

Would you let Jesus preach in your church?

I'm pretty sure Jesus Christ is already head pastor at my church lol.

Amen. I wholeheartedly agree with you in preaching the law + grace as much as I can to someone I am witnessing to on the streets. Truth is such a sharp razor edge.

We must not simply proclaim the free-grace of Jesus Christ without stating why such a free grace is so essential, beautiful, and glorious.

But we also must not only preach the law apart from grace, to demonstrate the wretchedness of man and man's just condemnation to eternal hell, without then giving them a FREE invitation to FREELY feast on Christ who FREELY gave Himself to all. Much prayer and dependence on the Holy Spirit, as well as a constant meditation of the word of God is required for anyone who preaches the gospel. It's so easy to be imbalanced and distort the glorious gospel!!!!