Law and Gospel by John M. Frame

[Casey]

What exactly is useful about this essay?

Dr Clark,

I appreciate your thoughts/analysis in the above post. I likewise do not agree with Frame on many things (and I especially don't like his book on worship). But I am still waiting to see what you consider to be wrong with this essay. You are speaking to the man, and not to his views here. Please forgive me for repeating myself, but what do you find erroneous in this essay? And why do you link it up with the FV?

Thank you, and may the Lord bless you on the Sabbath tomorrow,

 

[ChristianTrader]

MODERATOR VOICE ON

Far enough guys (everybody). Let's stick to discussing the article by Frame. Anything else is off limits for this thread. If you want to talk about Dr. Clark's views etc. start a new thread.

MODERATOR VOICE OFF

Just wondering, has this discussion got confused because Dr. Frame drastically overstated the case in slamming the law/gospel distinction in the OP?

I think it gets confused because there has been simmering dispute on this issue between Rev. W (with Marty more recently) and Dr. Clark for over a year now. It never gets settled just flairs up and then goes away until a new discussion comes up.

Until there is a full drawn out debate on the topic, I do not see it changing very much in the near future.

CT

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

Well then I would suggest a time be set up for proper debate.

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Casey,

No, my comments are not ad hom. I'm not saying x is wrong because JMF says it. I'm explaining why it's dangerous for neophytes to be reading JMF on justification.

I don't know why, but I've read it again. I read it when it first came out. I think I interacted with it back then. It's been a while so I don't recall the exact order, but I think this essay might have been a reply to Frame. Certainly it addresses a number of the same points. I cite it in a fn in CJPM ch 12:

John M. Frame, Law and Gospel....(Chalcedon Foundation, 2005 2004 [cited 13 January, 2005); available from The Chalcedon Foundation - Faith for All of Life.. On the gratuitous identification of this distinction solely with Lutheran theology see I. John Hesselink, “Law and Gospel or Gospel and Law: Calvin’s Understanding of the Relationship,” in Robert V. Schnucker, ed., Calviniana: Ideas and Influence of Jean Calvin. Volume X: Sixteenth Century Essays and Studies (Kirksville: Sixteenth Century Studies, 1988). On the common Protestant heritage of the third use of the law and the “guilt, grace, gratitude” structure see Paul Althaus, The Theology of Martin Luther, trans. Robert C. Shultz (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1966), 272–273, fn. 125. On the contemporary denial of the law/gospel distinction see Michael Horton, “Law, Gospel, and Covenant: Some Emerging Antitheses,” Westminster Theological Journal 64 (2002): 279–287.

Have you read the EVANGELIUM article or the chapter in CJPM? Is it the case that only interaction with this essay on the PB counts for anything?

What's wrong with Frame's essay? It begins with a bit of historical nonsense for starters. JMF says,

It has become increasingly common in Reformed circles, as it has long been in Lutheran circles, to say that the distinction between law and gospel is the key to sound theology, even to say that to differ with certain traditional formulations of this distinction is to deny the gospel itself.

As I've demonstrated to my own satisfaction, if to no one else's, this historical claim is false. It is true that the l/g distinction fell on hard times in NAPARC circles for several years, but Mr Murray was quite clear about it. What JMF means is, "We didn't talk about it much when I was in school and I don't think it's very important, not nearly so important as cultural transformation." It's not the case, however, that the view is either archaic or, as I said before, a boutique view. It's an ancient and widely taught Reformed view. It's the confessional view.

What is at stake is is that Frame fundamentally denies the essence of the l/g distinction.

I do not believe that there are two entirely different messages of God in Scripture, one exclusively of command (“law”) and the other exclusively of promise (“gospel”).

In CJPM I deal with this question extensively. JMF continues:

In Scripture itself, commands and promises are typically found together. With God’s promises come commands to repent of sin and believe the promise. The commands, typically, are not merely announcements of judgment, but God’s gracious opportunities to repent of sin and believe in him. As the Psalmist says, “be gracious to me through your law,” Psm. 119:29.

Again, I deal with this extensively in CJPM.

The view that I oppose, which sharply separates the two messages, comes mainly out of Lutheran theology, though similar statements can be found in Calvin and in other Reformed writers. [1]

This is a canard that I addressed in CJPM. John can't have it both ways. He can't say, "Well this is a Lutheran doctrine, but it does show up in Calvin and other Reformed writers." If it shows up in Calvin and other Reformed writers, then it isn't a Lutheran doctrine. It's a Reformed doctrine.

John quite misunderstands the Formula of Concord. He appears not to understand what the FC means when it says "properly." It means "narrowly."

Narrowly, the gospel is ONLY the announcement of Christ's (forthcoming or accomplished) work for his people. Broadly it can be used to describe the NT or the whole Christian message.

If we don't make the distinction between the gospel defined narrowly and broadly we're right back in the moralist, pre-reformation soup.

Need I go on? Read ch. 12 in CJPM.

Other than the fact that John's essay would fundamentally overturn the hermeneutical breakthrough of the Reformation, it's fine. Or, we could pay attention to these crypto-Lutherans:

Beza:

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 (The Christian Faith, 1558)

William Perkins 1558-1602).

The basic principle in application is to know whether the passage is a statement of the law or of the gospel. For when the Word is preached, the law and the gospel operate differently. The law exposes the disease of sin, and as a side-effect, stimulates and stirs it up. But it provides no remedy for it. However the gospel not only teaches us what is to be done, it also has the power of the Holy Spirit joined to it....A statement of the law indicates the need for a perfect inherent righteousness, of eternal life given through the works of the law, of the sins which are contrary to the law and of the curse that is due them.... By contrast, a statement of the gospel speaks of Christ and his benefits, and of faith being fruitful in good works (The Art of Prophesying, 1592, repr. Banner of Truth Trust,1996, 54-55).

The Marrow of Modern Divinity

Now, the law is a doctrine partly known by nature, teaching us that there is a God, and what God is, and what he requires us to do, binding all reasonable creatures to perfect obedience, both internal and external, promising the favour of God, and everlasting life to all those who yield perfect obedience thereunto, and denouncing the curse of God and everlasting damnation to all those who are not perfectly correspondent thereunto. But the gospel is a doctrine revealed from heaven by the Son of God, presently after the fall of mankind into sin and death, and afterwards manifested more clearly and fully to the patriarchs and prophets, to the evangelists and apostles, and by them spread abroad to others; wherein freedom from sin, from the curse of the law, the wrath of God, death, and hell, is freely promised for Christ's sake unto all who truly believe on his name (The Marrow of Modern Divinity; 1645, repr. 1978, 337-38.

William Twisse (1578-1646).

How many ways does the Word of God teach us to come to the Kingdom of heaven?

Two.

Which are they?

The Law and the Gospel.

What says the Law?

Do this and live.

What says the Gospel?

Believe in Jesus Christ and you shall be saved. Can we come to the Kingdom of God by the way of God's Law? No.Why so? Because we cannot do it. Why can we not do it? Because we are all born in sin.

What is it to be none in sin?

To be naturally prone to evil and ...that that which is good.

How did it come to pass that we are all borne in sin?

By reason of our first father Adam.

Which way then do you hope to come to the Kingdom of Heaven?

By the Gospel?

What is the Gospel?

The glad tidings of salvation by Jesus Christ.

To whom is the glad tidings brought: to the righteous? No.

Why so?

For two reasons.

What is the first? Because there is none that is righteous and sin not.

What is the other reason?

Because if we were righteous, i.e., without sin we should have no need of Christ Jesus.

To whom then is this glad tiding brought? To sinners.

What, to all sinners? To whom then? To such as believe and repent.

This is the first lesson, to know the right way to the Kingdom of Heaven.: and this consists in knowing the difference between the Law and the Gospel.

What does the Law require?

That we should be without sin.

What does the Gospel require? That we should confess our sins, amend our lives, and then through faith in Christ we shall be saved.

The Law requires what? Perfect obedience.

The Gospel what? Faith and true repentance. (A Brief Catechetical Exposition of Christian Doctrine, 1633).

NB: He distinguishes between what the gospel is and what the law is (hermeneutically) and what the gospel requires or entails.

Louis Berkhof

The Churches of the Reformation from the very beginning distinguished between the law and the gospel as the two parts of the Word of God as a means of grace. This distinction was not understood to be identical with that between the Old and the New Testament, but was regarded as a distinction that applies to both Testaments. There is law and gospel in the Old Testament, and there is law and gospel in the New. The law comprises everything in Scripture which is a revelation of God's will in the form of command or prohibition, while the gospel embraces everything, whether it be in the Old Testament or in the New, that pertains to the work of reconciliation and that proclaims the seeking and redeeming love of God in Christ Jesus (Systematic Theology, [Grand Rapids, 4th edn. 1941], 612).

John Murray

John Murray (1898-1975) ...the purity and integrity of the gospel stands or falls with the absoluteness of the antithesis between the function and potency of law, one the one hand, and the function and potency of grace, on the other (Principles of Conduct: Aspects of Biblical Ethics [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957], 186).

Good night fellows and have a blessed Sabbath.

rsc

 

[ChristianTrader]

If we don't make the distinction between the gospel defined narrowly and broadly we're right back in the moralist, pre-reformation soup.

Is this distinction really as major as Dr. Clark as making it?

If it is, then how does it play out in the non internet world?

Lastly, how does this discussion relate to the third use of the law?

CT

 

[Casey]

Dr Clark, thank you for taking the time to respond to my question.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Retraction

I think that reveals Dr. Frame's FV-sympathies (even though he is not a Federal Visionist himself). In an endnote to Salvation Belongs to the Lord, he said that the views of Norman Shepherd were within the Reformed tradition, even though they were wrong.

I disagree. I disagree that this quote, or the allusion of a comment of his re. NS, indicates of themselves sympathy with the FV. That may or may not be demonstrable from other places. And I certainly believe that any seeking of division within a tradition at its very root (as I think NS, et al have done) puts them outside the Reformed tradition. So, I think Frame is just wrong, but it would be unwarranted to draw the inferences above from a footnote.

RichardMuller, in RPRRD has offered the fair conclusion (I think) that Amyraldianism belongs to no other tradition than ours. I think 4-point-Calv. is a big mistake; I think such a division on the intent of the atonement is a center-line division, even if it isn't a foundational division. The implications of the view are far-reaching. But I can say that it is a malformed species of Reformation thought without being sympathetic to it.

In Frame's case, it would appear he is extending (as always) his rather stout olive branch of charity to a man he knows, and probably loves, and thinks is in error.

Having just read Michael Horton's article "Which Covenant Theology" in CJPM, I would probably agree with what Rev. Buchanan has written above. It seems that Dr. Frame has overstated his case somewhat, but he is really getting at a view of Law/Gospel which is more Lutheran than Reformed. I though Dr. Horton's treatment of the Mosaic covenant was not very good, and can understand where Prof. Frame is coming from.

So apologies to John Frame if he is reading.