# How vital is the Law/Gospel distinction to orthodoxy?



## WrittenFromUtopia (Feb 12, 2006)

Speaking in terms of bi and tri covenantal Reformed theology and, really, orthodox Christian theology in general as those who frequent this board would likely align themselves with - How vital and necessary is the Law/Gospel distinction?

In other words, if we throw out the notion of a distinct pre- and post-lapsarian Covenantal paradigm (works/grace), imputation of sin/righteousness, etc., are we abandoning a Scriptural view of theology, Theology, and Covenant Theology in general?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 12, 2006)

Which view of Law/Gospel?

Lutheran
Reformed
??


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Feb 12, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> Which view of Law/Gospel?
> 
> Lutheran
> ...



I know you don't agree with this distinction already, along with your peers and fellows, so I won't bother to humor you.

And, I might add, the original post makes it quite clear I'm speaking of the Reformed view, as I included such words as "Reformed" and "Covenant Theology" in the original post. Also, the references to a bi- or tri-covenantal CT would clearly insinuate Reformed theological viewpoints.

[Edited on 2-13-2006 by WrittenFromUtopia]

Reactions: Sad 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 12, 2006)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> ...



No, seriously, humor me. I agree on one hand that there is a distinction between Law and Gospel, but I don't agree with certain formulations presented. I asked the question because I want to be clear in answering your question.

Also, who are my *peers*?

[Edited on 2--13-06 by Draught Horse]

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Feb 12, 2006)

http://public.csusm.edu/public/guests/rsclark/LawGospel.html

Also,



> .
> Law (covenant of works) and gospel (covenant of grace) may be distinguished historically and hermeneutically (i.e., the relations .
> 
> The hermeneutical distinction between law (covenant of works) and gospel (covenant of grace) is the distinction between our personal and perpetual obligation to keep the law perfectly for justification and the announcement that Christ has kept the law perfectly for us.
> ...



[Edited on 2-13-2006 by WrittenFromUtopia]


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 12, 2006)

Thank you. That is all I asked. I don't have an opinion on it at the moment.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Feb 12, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> Thank you. That is all I asked. I don't have an opinion on it at the moment.



The answer was in the original post.

Reactions: Sad 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 12, 2006)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> ...



Not really, because many systematics mention Law and Gospel and from different perspectives, so I was wondering of which one you spoke.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Feb 12, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> ...



Your question indicated you were unclear as to what theological tradition's view of the Law/Gospel distinction I was coming from, and I made it clear I was speaking of the Reformed/Covenant Theological view (i.e. either bi or tri covenantal, not the neo-orthodox monocovenantal of the FV movement and Shepherdites).

Reactions: Sad 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 12, 2006)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> ...



Sure, ok.


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 12, 2006)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> ...



How are they Neo-Orthodox, being Van Tillian and all?


----------



## JohnV (Feb 12, 2006)

Gabriel:

I would say, in answer to your question, that the danger is surely there that one is abandoning the Scriptural theology of the Covenant. But I would caution here that many hold to the promises of the Covenant with all their heart without ever having thought through such carefully defined distinctions. In fact they are confused by them. 

The question, then, is not whether one holds pre- or post-lapsarian view, but whether one is willing to submit even one's lapsarian views to the theology of Scripture. It is when one of the views takes the lead over Scripture that problems come to be. One must be careful to hold views that result from Scripture, not views that impact upon Scripture. For we hold that Scripture interprets Scripture; not that man's theories interprets Scripture. 

I don't want to have to become an expert on the lapsarian views, or on two covenant vs. three covenant views, in order to be able to say that I believe the theology of Scripture with all my heart.


----------



## TimeRedeemer (Feb 12, 2006)

Louis Berkhof (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, on 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). 

From here.


----------



## TimeRedeemer (Feb 12, 2006)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Speaking in terms of bi and tri covenantal Reformed theology and, really, orthodox Christian theology in general as those who frequent this board would likely align themselves with - How vital and necessary is the Law/Gospel distinction?
> 
> In other words, if we throw out the notion of a distinct pre- and post-lapsarian Covenantal paradigm (works/grace), imputation of sin/righteousness, etc., are we abandoning a Scriptural view of theology, Theology, and Covenant Theology in general?



I actually suspect I don't understand your question because if I do understand it I find it rather astounding. If I understand it it's like asking how important is flesh and blood to my body? If I get rid of my flesh and my blood will it effect my body in any substantial way?


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Feb 12, 2006)

I find it astounding as well, Michael.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Feb 13, 2006)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> ...



As to the fundamental distinction in hermeneutics, i.e., there are two different types of speech, or two words, or two categories of speech, and as to the distinction function of those two words in the application of redemption to the sinner, the Lutherans and the Reformed agree. 

The law (in its first use) always says (where it occurs in the history of redemption) "do and live." It said that before the fall and it said it after the fall: cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the book of the law. 

The gospel is a post-lapsarian word that says: "Christ (the seed of the woman) shall do" or retrospectively, "Christ has done...." 

These two categories have always been recognized as a fundamental distinction in Protestant theology. Our theologians always recognized this and our confessions recognize it also.

Hence the HC catechism says that it is by the preaching of the GOSPEL (which it has already defined to exclude LAW) that we come to faith. So, i the third question it ask, "from where do you know your sin and misery? A: Out of the LAW of God." We don't learn our misery from the gospel but the law.

Luther, Melanchthon, Calvin, Bullinger, Bucer, Beza, Martyr, Ursinus, Olevianus, Zanchi, Perkins, Ames, Wollebius, Polanus, Voetius, Turretin, Owen, Van Mastricht, Witsius, a Brakel, Heidegger etc all affirmed this distinction as essential to Protestant theology.

It was the recovery of this distinction that set the Reformation against the entire medieval hermeneutic and soteriology. This is the linchpin of the Reformation; pull it out and the train starts running downhill, passing through Moscow, ID and stopping in Rome.

We've discussed this many times on the list. There are lots of resources available on the web and in print to verify these claims. There is a chapter on this in the forthcoming _Covenant and Justification_ volume.

That it is no regarded as a novelty or a Lutheran notion shows the decrepit state of the knowledge of Reformed theology in many places.

rsc


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 13, 2006)

So, if I find a quote by Dr Peter Lillback where he says the Law becomes the Gospel, would you say that he is outside Orthodoxy?

I mean, I just hope I am misunderstanding you all.


----------



## TimeRedeemer (Feb 13, 2006)

DraughtHorse, read this page, read it all, and see if you perhaps don't yet understand what is being discussed.

I get a feeling this is one of those breach-points where the Doug Wilson types (and their mentors) have decided to hold their ground no matter how exposed they become. They choose these points in the wall of Reformed doctrine at first because they aren't well understood by the majority of Reformed Christians and so these points can be exploited and put to sophistical treatment -- for a while anyway; then of course they are exposed, yet in this case they can't retreat from this particular point of doctrine because their entire campaign falls to pieces if they do.

So it all becomes Alice-in-Wonderland and the Doug Wilsonites (and mentors) just grin and mock and have a good 'ol time... All the way to hell.


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 13, 2006)

Now for my favorite Wilsonite, Louis Berkhof,



> Yet we cannot separate these two, for the law contains a presentation of the gospel, and the gospel confirms the law and threatens with its terrors..._to teach otherwise would be Lutheran and Arminian_



Systematic Theology, page 490.

Peter Lillback



> The Old Testament actually became the New Testament when Christ came and ratified the New Testament (153)...It [the Law] is no longer letter, but spirit, or the gospel itself (154)



Listen, disagree with me, fine, but please be consistent and say Peter Lillback is outside of Orthodoxy, and throw me along with him.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Feb 13, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> Now for my favorite Wilsonite, Louis Berkhof,
> 
> 
> ...



Jacob, you are proof-texting a man against himself. In other words, you are either confused and taking Berkhof's statement here to be a support of your viewpoint, making him to be at enmity with himself (you find Berkhof insane perhaps?), or ... well, I don't know what else it could be. Surely you are confused or you simply 'misunderstand' as you yourself might have conceded above. As Dr. Clark quotes in his work above, Berkhof himself stated:



> Louis Berkhof (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, on the one hand, and the function and potency of grace, on the other." (Principles of Conduct: Aspects of Biblical Ethics [GrandRapids: Eerdmans, 1957], 186).



So, like I said - either Berkhof is insane and contradicts himself on such a major and obvious point, or you misunderstand either this discussion and distinction along with its implications or are simply misrepresenting Berkhof, out of the context of this discussion.

Reactions: Sad 1


----------



## crhoades (Feb 13, 2006)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> ...



Just to clarify...I wasn't aware that Berkhof wrote a book Principles of Conduct. I know John Murray did. So was the quote an actual Berkhof quote but the source was wrong, or was it an actual quote from Murray? Or do I have residual effects from stuff I wasn't supposed to do in college still hangin' around?

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 13, 2006)

I know what Berkhof stated. And as I said before, I don't doubt there is a distinction between Law and Gospel, but I also know that on page 490 Berkhof warned we could take it to an extreme. Furthermore, his statemend implied that there was a difference, albeit slight perhaps, between Lutheran and Reformed views on this subject.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Feb 13, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> So, if I find a quote by Dr Peter Lillback where he says the Law becomes the Gospel, would you say that he is outside Orthodoxy?
> 
> I mean, I just hope I am misunderstanding you all.



Well, it's helpful to remember the distinction (and I've said this several times in several places and posts) between the history of redemption and the _ordo salutis_. In the _historia salutis_ the gospel is in the "law" (i.e., the Mosaic epoch generally) and the law is in the gospel (i.e., the NT). 

The distinction in view, however, is not between the OT and NT considered historically or between Moses and Christ _per se_, but the distinction concerns hermeneutical categories and in the distinct roles of the law and the gospel in the _ordo salutis_. 

So, yes, if anyone says that, hermeneutically considered and relative to the _ordo salutis_, the law (meaning "do and live") is gospel or that "Christ has done" is law, then yes, that is a gross error. It is worthy of the same condemnation Paul made against the Galatians. It is "another gospel," i.e., it is not a gospel at all. To say that we can, "do and live," even with the help of the Spirit (condign merit) is semi-Pelagianism and is rejected not only in Holy Scripture but in all the Reformed confessions. 

The gospel is that Christ has done for us and the benefits of his doing for us are received by faith ("resting and receiving") alone.

Remember that many of the fathers and the entire medieval church read the Scriptures as "old law" and "new law." The Reformers and the Reformed (and Lutheran) orthodox did not.

We Protestants proposed a quite different hermeneutic as I've outline here.

What I'm saying is NOT controversial from the pov of Reformed orthodoxy.

So, when you quote Berkhof, you must not make him equivocate when he himself did not. Was Berkhof speaking relative to the _ordo salutis_ in one place and the _historia salutis_ in another? Yes. So he wasn't equivocating. He was using different categories at different times. Calvin and all the Reformed do the same. You can always find Reformed folk speaking this way because it's perfectly true.

This isn't that complicated. Moses is full of gospel and Christ is full of law. That isn't in question. What is in question is whether there is a categorical difference between "do and live" and "Christ has done"?

All the Protestants have seen this categorical difference. It is the difference between Protestants and Papists.

rsc

rsc


----------



## raderag (Feb 13, 2006)

As vital as your heart. Mixing law and Gospel is deadly as it is another Gospel all together.


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 13, 2006)

I have no problem with historia saludis distinctions at the moment. I do want to read up on this. BUt when I get told I am going to hell (not by you) for not agreeing with someone's theological formulations, its hard to stay civil.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Feb 13, 2006)

> When Paul draws a contrast between the law and the gospel, he is thinking of this aspect of the law, the broken law of the covenant of works, which can no more justify, but can only condemn the sinner. From the law in this particular sense, both as a means for obtaining eternal life and as a condemning power, believers are set free in Christ, since He became a curse for them and also met the demands of the covenant of works in their behalf. The law in that particular sense and the gospel of free grace are mutually exclusive.
> _Systematic Theology_, p. 614
> 
> 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.And each one of these two parts has its own proper function in the economy of grace. The law seeks to awaken in the heart of man contrition on account of sin, while the gospel aims at the awakening of saving faith in Jesus Christ. The work of the law is in a sense preparatory to that of the gospel.
> _Systematic Theology_, p. 612



These quotes show what Berkhof means in the quote Dr. Clark shared; that is, the antithesis between law and gospel. As for the quote you shared, Berkhof clarifies several times later in his work (including in the immediate context of the quote, which you failed to share or comment on, dealing with the saving work of God):



> There is another sense, however, in which the Christian is not free from the law [...] The gospel itself consists of promises and is no law; yet there is a demand of the law in connection with the gospel. The law not only demands that we accept the gospel and believe in Jesus Christ, but also that we lead a life of gratitude in harmony with its requirements.
> _Systematic Theology_, p. 614



Now that the late Louis Berkhof has been exonerated of all charges...

The Westminster Confession clearly takes this view of the law and gospel (i.e. the covenant of works and the covenant of grace - a distinction abandoned by FV and NPP proponents, who prefer a Deformation rather than a Reformation and insist on working their way into heaven...):



> I. God gave to Adam a law, as a covenant of works, by which He bound him and all his posterity, to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience, promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatened death upon the breach of it, and endued him with power and ability to keep it.
> 
> II. This law, after his fall, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness; and, as such, was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, in ten commandments, and written in two tables: the first four commandments containing our duty towards God; and the other six, our duty to man.
> 
> ...





> VII. Works done by unregenerate men, although for the matter of them they may be things which God commands, and of good use both to themselves and others; yet, because they proceed not from a heart purified by faith; nor are done in a right manner, according to the Word; nor to a right end, the glory of God; they are therefore sinful and can not please God, or make a man meet to receive grace from God. And yet their neglect of them is more sinful, and displeasing unto God.
> _Westminster Confession of Faith_, Chapter XVI, Of Good Works



And finally, God Himself:



> For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.
> Romans 6:14 ESV
> 
> ... yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.
> ...



This is what the Reformed mean by the distinction between Law (CoW) and Gospel (CoG).


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 13, 2006)

Sure, Gabe. I just saw a quote by Berkhof where he differentiated between Lutherans and Reformed people, in some degree, on the Law and Gospel. That's all. Your above post is nice, I guess. I was just wanting to know if I was outside the bounds of Orthodoxy. I mean, somebody on the other page hinted that I might be headed for hell.


----------



## TimeRedeemer (Feb 13, 2006)

Posts like Gabriel's immediately above, and the one's by Dr. Clark and similar ones should be tagged in some way for easy reference and linking. It would be quite a job to go through all the posts on this board to find such posts I realized, but I'm just saying this by way of giving compliments where they are due...


----------



## TimeRedeemer (Feb 13, 2006)

[This quote from Warfield is so basic and to the point it fits into many discussion topics...]

"There are at bottom but two types of religious thought in the world--if we may improperly use the term 'religious' for both of them. There is the religion of faith; there is the 'religion' of works. Calvinism is the pure embodiment of the former of these; what is known in Church History as Pelagianism is the pure embodiment of the latter of them. All other forms of "religious" teaching which have been known in Christendom are but unstable attempts at compromise between the two [ed. - such as Arminianism]. At the opening of the fifth century, the two fundamental types came into direct conflict in remarkably pure form as embodied in the two persons of Augustine and Pelagius. Both were expending themselves in seeking to better the lives of men. But Pelagius in his exhortations threw men back on themselves; they were able, he declared, to do all that God demanded of them--otherwise God would not have demanded it. Augustine on the contrary pointed them in their weakness to God; 'He himself,' he said, in his pregnant speech, 'He himself is our power.' The one is the 'religion' of proud self-dependence; the other is the religion of dependence on God. The one is the 'religion' of works; the other is the religion of faith. The one is not 'religion' at all--it is mere moralism; the other is all that is in the world that deserves to be called religion. Just in proportion as this attitude of faith is present in our thought, feeling, life, are we religious. When it becomes regnant in our thought, feeling, life, then are we truly religious. Calvinism is that type of thinking in which it has become regnant."

- B. B. Warfield
From here.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Feb 13, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> Sure, Gabe. I just saw a quote by Berkhof where he differentiated between Lutherans and Reformed people, in some degree, on the Law and Gospel. That's all. Your above post is nice, I guess. I was just wanting to know if I was outside the bounds of Orthodoxy. I mean, somebody on the other page hinted that I might be headed for hell.



Who is and isn't going to hell isn't our business exactly. It's not that one ought not be concerned, but a discussion board isn't the place to discuss such things. That's serious ecclesiastical business. 

What IS material to this discussion is the repeated and false claim that the Reformed do not make a law/gospel distinction or that its a "Lutheran" distinction. 

From my short collection (it could be much larger) of "sentences" (opinions) from a few Reformed theologians:



> Zacharias Ursinus (1534-83). Q.36 What distinguishes law and gospel? A: The law contains a covenant of nature begun by God with men in creation, that is, it is a natural sign to men, and it requires of us perfect obedience toward God. It promises eternal life to those keeping it, and threatens eternal punishment to those not keeping it. In fact, the gospel contains a covenant of grace, that is, one known not at all under nature. This covenant declares to us fulfillment of its righteousness in Christ, which the law requires, and our restoration through Christ's Spirit. To those who believe in him, it freely promises eternal life for Christ's sake (Larger Catechism, Q. 36).
> 
> Caspar Olevian (1536-87). For this reason the distinction between law and Gospel is retained. The law does not promise freely, but under the condition that you keep it completely. And if someone should transgress it once, the law or legal covenant does not have the promise of the remission of sins. On the other hand, the Gospel promises freely the remission of sins and life, not if we keep the law, but for the sake of the Son of God, through faith (Ad Romanos Notae, 148; Geneva, 1579).
> 
> ...



Now, no one has EVER accused these fellows of being Lutheran. We really need to put to rest the notion that the Reformed do not distinguish between law and gospel (as qualified above). 

That's precisely why we distinguish between the first, second, and third uses of the law, to protect the law/gospel distinction.

The first use convicts.

The second use norms civil life.

The third use norms the Christian life.

When we discuss these things we MUST remember these distinctions. When we're talking about justification, we're speaking about the 1st use. When we're talking about the Christian life, we're speaking about the 3rd use. When we're talking about the natural knowledge of God's moral law common to all humans, on the basis of which we can cooperate in civil life, we're discussing the second use. 

If we remember these distinctions we avoid boatloads of trouble.

rsc


----------



## raderag (Feb 13, 2006)

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> 
> 
> Now, no one has EVER accused these fellows of being Lutheran. We really need to put to rest the notion that the Reformed do not distinguish between law and gospel (as qualified above).



Wow Dr. Clark, I don't think I have seen it said any better. Where does this notion of reformed disagreeing with Lutherans on this come from? Is it our desire to be sectarian, the accusation from SOME sectarian Lutherans, or what?

What I find ironic is that Lutherans are often used as a defense when some of the FV guys defend baptismal regeneration. 

Maybe it is all just polemics.


----------



## TimeRedeemer (Feb 13, 2006)

> So it all becomes Alice-in-Wonderland and the Doug Wilsonites (and mentors) just grin and mock and have a good 'ol time... All the way to hell.



Due to all the mentioning that it is not our business to consign anybody to hell (I agree) I retract the above. Though I claim the mitigating factor that Doug Wilson, like many of his ilk, like to yank chains of Reformed Christians while all along calling themselves Reformed (etc., etc.)...


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Feb 13, 2006)

> _Originally posted by raderag_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> ...



I'm not sure from where this idea comes. I've heard it many times. I have a theory (surprise!) that I spin out in the forthcoming book. I suspect it simply became neglected during the 50 year war with liberalism. 

Because we focused on "the liberals," we were forced to become "conservatives" rather than "confessional." That forced us to become more inclusive of other "conservatives" and "evangelicals." 

For a number years, in confessional Reformed circles, justification didn't seem to be "an issue." I remember hearing, "we all know what we think about justification, let's get on with the Christian life." Just about that time, Norm Shepherd was re-casting the entire doctrine!

We do have genuine disagreements with the Lutherans, but I suspect also that out of our desire to be "distinctively Reformed" we began to neglect our commonality with confessional Lutheranism. With Kevin's indulgence I'll say that our MoSyn and WiscSyn brethren did not help. They did not engage us much in that period. They were reeling from their own encounter with Liberalism and evangelicalism. Because they have thought of us as just another species of "fanatics," they weren't surprised when we began to muddle things or forget key distinctions. They probably didn't notice much. 

At the same time, there began to develop a new interest in "biblical theology" which sometimes has disparaged systematic theology and traditional distinctions. 

Clearly Berkhof taught the distinction at Calvin as did Murray at WTS, but I don't know to what degree it was emphasized. I have the impression that, after Murray, the move to emphasize Biblical theology at WTS probably marginalized such distinctions in the 60's and 70's. Norm Shepherd taught the Holy Spirit (soteriology) course after Murray and, of course, Norm didn't believe the l/g distinction. So it was practically lost for a time.

Berkhof was pushed out at Calvin in the early '50's, I think, and I don't know how much Anthony Hoekema emphasized it in the 60's and 70's there.

So the places where one might have heard it taught and emphasized, probably did not do it. I certainly did not hear it much at WSC in the early 80's. Bob Godfrey used to mention it, but mainly in passing. I might have had a sort of intuitive understanding, but I did not hear explained as I've done here until Mike Horton in 1998. 

In the late 80's and early 90's I had read it in the orthodox Reformed and had come to believe it via my own study of Galatians and the orthodox, but Horton really pulled all the pieces together for me.

I remember hearing about Mike about '89 or so, and I remember being told, "but he has Lutheran tendancies," by which I guess they referred to the law/gospel distinction.

I know that I have been too often guilty of preaching the gospel and then contradicting it at the end of the sermon by placing legal conditions on the congregation as the instrument of justification. It wasn't intentional, I was just muddled. I didn't understand the three uses of the law and wasn't clear about what I was doing do I mixed the first and the third routinely without realizing it. 

Finally, I think the Reformed reaction to anything smacking of dispensationalism also pushed us away from such language. Clearly this is what animates Norm Shepherd to this day. I suspect it animates many of those who think of the distinction as solely Lutheran.

Cheers,

rsc


----------



## TimeRedeemer (Feb 13, 2006)

I think you're kind regarding Shepherd's motives. 

Understanding of law and gospel and justification means a truly dangerous Christian (from the devil's perspective). Because it means the crucial internal re-orientation from self-will to God's will has been effected (and from vanity and worldly pride to faith and repentance). Lack of understanding of justification means the devil still has control within one. 

When justification is attacked or defiled by people who are not pure doctrinal neophytes the motivation is a desire to keep people in the darkness and bondage of the Kingdom of Satan.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 13, 2006)

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by raderag_
> ...


Dr. Clark,

I'm just a layman that has been trying to understand this controversy for some time. I've been a bit confused as to what the issues are surrounding it - particularly this Law/Gospel controversy. Forgive any imprecise observations.

1. From what I've seen both written and talked about by its Pastors, Lutherans (LCMS) have such a profound Law/Gospel distinction that I find some of them nearly incapable of understanding the 3rd use of the law. I don't know if their Seminaries are too easy or their examinations are but I've never really been too impressed with Lutheran ministers' knowledge (Globachio excluded) as a general population. It seems like they fall back to "It's found at the Cross" for any substantive discussion like it's the only thing they've been trained to say. I'm being hyperbolic but some might catch my drift.

Anyhow, from Reformed friends who have attended Lutheran Churches, there is practically no sense of the 3rd use of the law. Church discipline and real Covenant discipleship is largely nonexistent. It appears to many of us, from the outside looking in, that they're doing OK with distinguishing Law and Gospel for the first use but then they don't know how to utilize Law in the sense that it is not against the Promise. "It's at the cross man!"  Lost, then, is a true Biblical sense among many of the transforming work of the Holy Spirit whereby true faith clings to Christ in love and then finds joy in the Law, not toward salvation, but because it is a delight. It almost seems like the overpowering Lutheran hermaneutic short-circuits and tells people "No, you cannot delight in the Law...."

Incidentally, my friends report that the average Lutheran also thinks that every theological aberration in Evangelicalism is "Reformed". He used to have to explain to people in Michigan, where he lived, that No, Charismatics and Pentecostals are not Reformed.

2. OK, so now we move into the Refomed community within which we see a stronger sense of the 3rd use of the Law. The Elders practice Biblical oversight and have a very strong sense of nurturing and sustaining Covenantal faithfulness. You even have some quarters of the Reformed community that give tokens to their members to ensure they are fit to receive the Lord's Supper. There are certainly many stripes and degrees but, generally, the third use of the law is more intact and practiced.

As I've seen the criticism among Teaching and Ruling Elders that have expressed it to me is that they find fault with those who begin to neglect the 3rd use of the Law _while preserving the first_. These are men who are very concerned with what some FV guys are saying but they also believe that some of their criticisms regarding neglecting piety are sometimes on the mark.

For my own part, I've never doubted for once the first use of the Law and how it is utterly unable to save. I have seen some expressions that I consider abberations of Redemptive Historical theology where preachers have stated that one should never give application to a text of Scripture but let the Holy Spirit do that. I find it naive and unBiblical and, at least from my own limited way of thinking, like some Lutherans might think where they start moving away from the 3rd use of the Law and biblical responsibility of the Elders to help one grow in the faith.

I'm having a really hard time expressing how the confusion is arising so please forgive me. I'm not criticizing or questioning anything you've written with regard to distinctions. It just doesn't fall out, in the minds of many I've talked to, that the debate is always centered around doing away with the Law/Gospel distinction regarding the first use. In fact, when this thread was originally posted, I thought "Well does he mean the way Lutherans do it...?" not from a historical, confessional _ordo salutis_ thingy but from the practical way that I see that they never have any use for the Law.

A final example would be the debate over whether an Elder should step down if his children are unbelieving. I don't want to divert the intention of this thread but it seems like an emblamatic issue for orhodox Reformed on both sides. Some accuse those who would say he should step down with being an FVer. The concern, from the other side, is that those who believe it is a matter of naked election have a weak sense of Covenant and our responsibilities as parents vis a vis the third use. So, again, to the "more fervent 3rd users" they seem to view the others as either revivalistic or like Lutherans who don't do any Church discipline because of that strong Law/Gospel distinction.

I really wish I could express the complications that have arisen in my mind as this controversy has embroiled regarding the FV and who is really where in the debate. I've never been in a Church that was hard core Redemptive Historical or Theonomic or even FV so my perceptions are not shaped by any excesses that I could detect. Nevertheless, I have seen orthodox and thoughtful ministers of God's Word believe that the issues of debate seem to run deeper than merely the first use of the Law. I've also heard some say "Michael Horton is too Lutheran." I tell them that I don't see it and I love reading Modern Reformation.

I'm just trying to sort through all of it and appreciate these threads to help me figure out what the issues of debate appear to be from each of the standpoints.


----------



## TimeRedeemer (Feb 13, 2006)

FVers think doing the law saves you. Period. When they do away with the Covenant of Works and with law/gospel they do it so as to, like Roman Catholics, conflate justification with sanctification. It is works righteousness and it is pure death.

Lutherans you describe that have no use for the third use of the law sound like antinomians.

Piety in terms of the third use of the law is not a church discipline issue (or solely, let's say), its a matter of following the two great commandments of Christ (foundationally, but they sum up the moral laws). Following them not to be saved (justified) but to grow in sanctification. Justification will already be your foundation when you are regenerated by the Word and the Spirit and you have converted (faith and repentance). 

The third use of the law is to be used (to do and as a guide) for the active element of sanctification. This is where Reformed Christians are asleep, and hence this is where the snakes attack Reformed doctrine.

[Edited on 2-14-2006 by TimeRedeemer]


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 13, 2006)

> _Originally posted by TimeRedeemer_
> FVers think doing the law saves you. Period. When they do away with the Covenant of Works and with law/gospel they do it so as to, like Roman Catholics, conflate justification with sanctification. It is works righteousness and it is pure death.
> 
> Lutherans you describe that have no use for the third use of the law sound like antinomians.
> ...


Right, but if it was that easy to sort out then everybody would be saying: "Oh Yeah!"  I could have written much more on how I see some concerns in some areas move subtly in the wrong direction.

I've said before that one of the problems with the debate right now is that everyone is focused on those who are going too far in the third use to confuse it with the first. Those who, as you say, are asleep with respect to the third use of the Law as an element of sanctification are joining in saying "Yeah! What he said!" and are not convicted of their tendency toward antinomianism. This has the tendency to push their detractors further away because they're turned off by antinomianism and see practioners of it as their most vocal critics.

I agree with Dr. Clark's great observation that we tend to jump from one extreme to another in another thread. What we need is more study in classic Reformed theology and get good at it. Those who need to be brought back from the brink of FV and those who need to be brought back from the brink of antinomianism are both worthy of consideration in the debate as a whole because they are mutually fueling each other's excesses.


----------



## TimeRedeemer (Feb 13, 2006)

What I wrote is on the mark. I've been debating these folks for awhile. I also have a background that gives me some insight into issues surrounding the active element of sanctification. I can see where genuine Reformed Christians are legitimately weak in their understanding, and I can see where the various snakes exploit that weakness to - usually - attack and defile the Reformed (the biblical) doctrine of justification. They're default Roman Catholics working as fifth columnists in the camp of Reformed/Calvinists. Because that is where the truth is. 

FVers aren't legalists in the traditional, historical sense of that. They are, doctrinally, more sinister (at worst) and mischievous (at best) than that. 

Legalists are moralists and are wrong, but they don't necessarily want to pull people into the darkness and bondage of the Kingdom of Satan like the FVers. There is a conscious mischievousness in the FV camp that historically mere legalists have not had. 

The reason the Puritans were the greatest Christians is because they knew true doctrine (they were Calvinists, they knew pure religion: five solas, doctrines of grace) while at the same time they understood the active element in sanctification. They were complete in their understanding of the Faith. Not all Puritans, obviously, yet when you speak of the Puritans in general you can speak of them at their highest point as a movement, or as an ideal which really existed.


----------



## JohnV (Feb 13, 2006)

There are a lot of things that need to be addressed. The one thing that Dr. Clark mentioned that seems to get overlooked somewhat is that the gospel is the good news. And that is not being preached as it should. It is not the gospel, for example, if some other thing is mixed in with it. It sounds like, it looks like it, but it is not it. 

In addressing what is wrong in our Christian communities we must be careful not to go into factions about what we see as most important, or the things that we would like to have fixed first. It's all or nothing when it comes to the gospel. Its never been any other way. And there has never been a human-made theory undergirding the gospel. If that is how we understand Covenant Theology, as a human-made theory for interpreting the Scriptures, then we haven't read passages like Eph. 2 carefully enough. It comes out of Scripture in its entirety. 

Calvinism does not stand on Calvin. It is not loyalty to Calvin and his theology. Westminsterian Presbyterianism does not stand on Westminster; nor Continental Reformed on Dordt. All these make it very, very clear that they stand on Scripture alone, and nothing else. Their intent was to bequeath that to us, not themselves.

I agree with Rich here, that we need a lot more study on the classic Reformed theology. But it has to be more than mere head knowledge. Because it is primarily "good news" for the sinner. And it has to be our good news, good news for us first, before we can hope that the Spirit will work through us to make it good news for others as well. So it begins right at the pulpit in our own churches. The pure gospel, and nothing else. Lets not split into factions, but allow the Spirit to address all these things, all our concerns, in His time. 

But also, let us not throw stones at each other either just because we have weaknesses in our theologies. Let us be benevolent and forgiving; and allow each one to come to terms in his faith as he should. For each of us it will take either longer or shorter. None of us should be proud of ourselves, or think to lord it over another. We are dealing with those upon whom Christ has set His seal through baptism; let us deal with each other, then, in deep respect of that. For it is love that fulfills the law.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 13, 2006)

Thanks John.

[Edited on 2-14-2006 by SemperFideles]


----------



## Myshkin (Feb 13, 2006)

I'd just like to say that Dr. Clark articulates this topic extremely well. And I agree with every word (and theory). 

For my money, nobody speaks as much or as clearly as Mike Horton does on this topic. I am as perplexed as he is that most reformed authors don't even have this issue on their map for discussion.

Count me in as one of the "lutherans".


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Feb 13, 2006)

Amen to everything Dr. Clark said, as usual. I find it humorous and sad at the same time to see so many FV/NPP proponents quoting people such as Calvin in support of their heterodox views, as if Calvin agrees with them. But, as Dr. Clark pointed out above, they simply quote out of context - every single time - likely because of ignorance. I believe the same thing happened in this thread with Louis Berkhof. Whoever originally decided that quote of his about the law/gospel distinction supported their confounding of those concepts completely ignored the theological context of the quote and proof-texted Berkhof against himself. This happens a lot on the internet, though, when there is no one to hold you accountable for what you say or ask for your credentials. That is why I am so thankful for the Pastors and Teachers on this board, and the great theologians of the past whom I can refer to and learn from as I study doctrine and other spiritual matters - I don't have to be, or act like I am, an expert in theology (or any other field I'm not well educated in, whether officially or unofficially).


----------



## raderag (Feb 13, 2006)

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by raderag_
> ...


----------



## TimeRedeemer (Feb 13, 2006)

Legalism and antinomianism do indeed sit at two extremes of a spectrum.

FVism is not a part of that. FVism exists to attack the Reformed doctrine of justification. This is why FVism is in the category of sinister, similar to Roman Catholic doctrine. It keeps, and desires to keep, people in the darkness and bondage of the Kingdom of Satan. (Harsh statements? Not really, just true.) 

Legalists and antinomians are innocent church ladies and flower children by comparison. They are wrong, but not in a necessarily sinister way. 

Antinomians are wrong in that they desire sex, drugs, and rock and roll more than they desire the Kingdom of God. They don't like the idea of being in the world but not of the world. They don't like the idea of mortifying the 'old man' within them. They can be saved! don't get me wrong, but their interests don't give evidence of it. Any saved Christian can be tempted by a beautiful woman (to a degree, anyway), but to desire a lifestyle devoted to sexual activity and numbing of the senses and conscience is like the difference between having a drink of alcohol and being a drunkard. Drunkard's don't get into the Kingdom of God, but a person who has drank some beer or wine is not necessarily a drunkard. 

Where Reformed Christians are currently weak in their understanding of the faith is in historically being so intent to keep any notion of effort out of justification that they carry that over into sanctification as well (and it doesn't help that RCs conflate sanctification with justification which is further reason for Reformed Christians to not want to think in terms of effort regarding sanctification). 

This stunts the experience and even the life and drive and goal of a Christian. Once regenerated and you convert you are then justified. It's done. You have that as your foundation. It is fast and sure and won't go away. God did it. It is based on Christ's work, not yours. It's there in you. You are a new person and justified in the sight of God. 

At that point sanctification has to be seen as both passive (what God does in you) and active (what you do by your own effort, which is effort you CAN make because you are a new man, you are regenerate). Before, any effort you made to develop was worthless. Even if it was 'good' it just made you a 'good' person going to hell. Once regenerate your efforts actually have effect regarding your reward in heaven. They actually mean something.

But your efforts regarding sanctification have NOTHING to do with your justification. 1 Cor. 3:10-15 is a subtle passage getting at this. Even if what you build in your sanctification - the structure - is rubbish and doesn't survive the smallest test of fire you STILL have the foundation of justification which CAN'T be burned. You are still saved. 

When you see the active element of sanctification in this way you begin to come alive to all the teaching in the New Testament of what you are to do to awaken and to struggle and gain, by degree, inner control over all the features of the 'old man' in you. You learn about the Holy Spirit and how it wars with the 'flesh', or the old man. You begin to see how your warfare against yourself, the world, and the devil is part of the active element of sanctification. How prayer and fasting is. How the two great commandments of Christ are the foundation regarding practices you do. All this aspect of the Word of God comes alive in a real way. You actually begin doing it. And wanting to do it. And you then, in that process, start seeing more and more in it all. 

Basically you learn how to recover, by degree, the very image of God in you that fell in the Garden. You learn aspects of your inner being that are involved with developing you literally into a prophet, a priest, and a king. (The New Testament is radical, accept what it says.) 

Legalism and antinomian no longer are a rut and a temptation but you transcend both by living out true Christian liberty engaging in spiritual warfare running the race to the end. And you have a vision of that end that transcends anything this world has to offer. (This is a big theme with Calvin: you have to get over the hump where you no longer see anything of worth in this world and live a stranger and pilgrim in this world, and live for the higher world. No talk of "but God created this beautiful world for our enjoyment" and all that. That's all OK, Calvin tells us to take care of our bodies and to not despise God's creation, but he's talking about separation from the world as it exists as the kingdom of Satan. You have to get to that hardcore point and not be ashamed of living for the future and for the better to come. You'll be taunted (maybe you'll taunt yourself) that you are a coward or a loser actually which is why you separate from the world (or whatever), but don't allow that to tempt you. You don't have to become a hobo. That's not what separation means. Separation means acknowledging the enemy in the three-front war (yourself, the world, the devil) and declaring yourself in the camp of God. Not being afraid to mark yourself in the eyes of the enemy. But separation is separation. Calvin himself was on a course, in his eyes, of success and fame as either a lawyer or a scholar when God effectually called him and he, against his will and desires, turned a different direction. Became an enemy to all the forces of the world he before wanted to be celebrated by.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Feb 14, 2006)

> 1. From what I've seen both written and talked about by its Pastors, Lutherans (LCMS) have such a profound Law/Gospel distinction that I find some of them nearly incapable of understanding the 3rd use of the law. I don't know if their Seminaries are too easy or their examinations are but I've never really been too impressed with Lutheran ministers' knowledge (Globachio excluded) as a general population. It seems like they fall back to "It's found at the Cross" for any substantive discussion like it's the only thing they've been trained to say. I'm being hyperbolic but some might catch my drift.



I agree that, on a lay level, there is probably not a very confessional understanding in either Reformed or Lutheran churches. Just as we're concerned that the Lutherans don't get the 3rd use, they look at us and see moralists. Frankly, they would be right about a lot of us.

I can't speak to the level of piety among the Lutheran churches, but I do know that among some (maybe many) Lutheran pastors/theologians, there is a misunderstanding of their own confessions. The expression "third use" is in the Book of Concord! They confess it just as we do. 

Theologians such as Werner Elert and his followers, however, have succeeded in associating the third use with "Reformed fanatics." The LCMS and WiscSyn are quite reactionary in this regard. 

Yes, they associate us with all the evangelical nutballs. It's tragic, but then they look at Bahnsen (don't send me hate mail; try to imagine how theonomy looks to the Lutherans) and Rushdoony and they say, "Well, those guys are Reformed" and then they look at the FV etc and say the same thing. What can we say? How many Lutherans built a bunker in Arkansas for y2K etc? 

Re: preaching. Any one who says that the text should not be applied, isn't Reformed. Full stop. I know what you're saying re Biblical-Theological excesses, I've seen it first-hand, but those excesses are not Vos' fault and those excesses are not confessional. It's an over reaction to "three steps to a successful marriage" preaching.

Most Reformed folk have never heard of the law/gospel distinction. As I say, I don't think it has been taught widely for a long time. It's going to be a while before everyone is (if ever) is on the same page.

I think folk can disagree about the ethical implications of the faith or the proper application of the the moral law without disqualifying our theology.

We really need to try to distinguish ethics and theology. They are closely related, but they are not identical. The law/gospel distinction is a theological distiction. 

Our ethics (i.e., our exposition of the 10 commandments) are pretty clearly expressed in our confessional documents, but there is room for differences. I would rather be precise about those things and discuss the ethical issues.

I must admit my ignorance here. I know that there is a school of thought that says that men with unbelieving children are ipso facto disqualified to be elders. I've searched the Westminster Standards and the Form of Presbyterian Church Gov't and I don't see any such clear requirement. Perhaps I missed it. If I haven't missed it, however, might not this be a case of putting the ethical cart before the theological horse? Couldn't good men disagree over this whereas they really can't disagree over such a fundamental issue as law/gospel and justification.

You suggested that appealing to election is a sort of cop-out, but I'm not so sure. If a man catechized his children faithfully and they rebel, it might be wise for him not to be elder, but that's another sort of question. 

The folks who call Mike Lutheran are just confused or ignorant or malevolent or all three. In my experience it seems to me that most Reformed folk would not know a Lutheran confessional document or Lutheran systematic theology if it bit them in a tender spot. Most Reformed folk are talking through their hats when it comes to "the Lutherans." Just as they do to us, we often make bogey men of them. I'm not saying that you're guilty of this, but trying to explain why folk speak as they do.

rsc


----------



## TimeRedeemer (Feb 14, 2006)

There's been a spat lately of Lutherans attacking Calvinists on the internet and their main line of attack is: "Where is Jesus? where is Jesus? where is Jesus, O Calvinist, where is the cross?"


----------



## Formerly At Enmity (Feb 14, 2006)

good thread.......there are certain pepole on this board that one can hardly appreciate because of their desire to constantly stay in some sort of "attack mode".......it makes it quite difficult. I'm certain I am not the only one who senses this and I don't want to hinder the fluidity of the thread but I had to briefly respond....


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 14, 2006)

Thanks Dr. Clark.

I appreciate you clearing up that Lutheran confessions recognize the 3rd use. I confess to never having read it and am one of those guilty of making generalizations (albeit anecdotal evidence from many different points of contact). It is helpful to know what they confess. I understand that lay people often speak un-confessionally. I just wish fresh grads of Concordia seminary didn't turn green when one talked about the 3rd use of the Law.

Regarding ethics, I wasn't sure if I was speaking in a precise way to keep referring to everything in a 3rd use sense. Thanks for pointing that out. I guess I figured insofar as we understand the the Law guides our sanctification it would inform our ethics but I figured I was probably being squishy in my terminology.

Mike is a great teacher. Very gracious in his writing and in person. I am very blessed to call him a friend.

[Edited on 2-14-2006 by SemperFideles]


----------



## TimeRedeemer (Feb 14, 2006)

For the record, I skimmed through Grudem's _Systematic Theology_ to see if he covers 'law/gospel' in a direct way. He doesn't have a chapter, and doesn't seem to have a section devoted to it, which surprises me. He of course touches on the subject of necessity in the chapter on God's covenants with man, and probably some in the chapter on sin (though I skimmed those and didn't see a direct focus on the rather big subject). He of course discourses on grace vs. works in the chapter on justification, yet still he doesn't focus in a direct way on the general topic of law/gospel. This suprised me. Grudem is not my main ST (I tend to always gravitate towards Berkhof), but I've been impressed with Grudem and have found him to cover most anything that comes up, so I'm surprised he doesn't take on this topic directly... I note this just to give some evidence that perhaps the subject IS somewhat neglected by Reformed theologians of recent times.

(If it turns out Grudem addresses the topic of law/gospel directly somewhere in his ST and I just missed it then delete the above of course...)

[Edited on 2-14-2006 by TimeRedeemer]


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Feb 14, 2006)

> _Originally posted by TimeRedeemer_
> For the record, I skimmed through Grudem's _Systematic Theology_ to see if he covers 'law/gospel' in a direct way. He doesn't have a chapter, and doesn't seem to have a section devoted to it, which surprises me....I note this just to give some evidence that perhaps the subject IS somewhat neglected by Reformed theologians of recent times. [Edited on 2-14-2006 by TimeRedeemer]



Actually Grudem's treatment is typical in modern systematics. Few of them address the distinction directly. This is why it seems to odd to so many now.

As to the Lutherans on the law/gospel distinction and the third use here are some relevant passages from the _Epitome of the Book of Concord_. I suspect one sticking point for _some_ Reformed folk might be V.6 below (and elsewhere) where they deny that the preaching of repentance = the preaching of the gospel. Many of our Reformed theologians, however, make the same distinction. Indeed, among the classic Reformed the language below is not (to my knowledge) controversial. 



> *V. OF THE LAW AND THE GOSPEL.*
> 
> ----------
> 
> ...



This seems like a pretty strong affirmation of the Third Use. 

NB: They order the three uses differently. The Civil use is the first, the pedagogical/elenctic use is the second. In substance, however, it's the same stuff.

rsc


----------



## crhoades (Feb 14, 2006)

First want to thank everyone for this thread - especially JohnV's post as well as all of Dr. Clark's. Couple of questions to help me out.



> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> Yes, they associate us with all the evangelical nutballs. It's tragic, but then they look at Bahnsen (don't send me hate mail; try to imagine how theonomy looks to the Lutherans) and Rushdoony and they say, "Well, those guys are Reformed" and then they look at the FV etc and say the same thing. What can we say? How many Lutherans built a bunker in Arkansas for y2K etc?


No hate mail coming your way - Bahnsen and Rushdoony are despised so badly in a lot of Presbyterian/reformed circles I can't begin to imagine how they sound to our Lutheran brothers. In fact, I've never discussed it with one. Sounds like a fun interview though. 

Seriously though, are there standard works in Lutheran theology regarding the 2nd use of the law (norm for civil life)? Looking for historical development, confessional, systematic - whatever. 

I've got tons of books and dissertations regarding the political ethics of Calvin, Bucer, Viret, Vermigli, Bullinger, Rutherford, Gillespie et.al. but do not have a hardly any Lutheran works outside of the standard dogmatics and Luther's Works on CD. 



> Re: preaching. Any one who says that the text should not be applied, isn't Reformed. Full stop. I know what you're saying re Biblical-Theological excesses, I've seen it first-hand, but those excesses are not Vos' fault and those excesses are not confessional. It's an over reaction to "three steps to a successful marriage" preaching.



Definitely don't want to lay anything at the feet of Vos, but am I correct in remembering that Jay Adams poked at him a bit in the Pattern of Sound Doctrine book regarding the R/H hermeneutic and preaching? If I remember right, Adams said that the collected sermons in Grace to Glory were nice but they were not sermons as they neglected application. Was Adams being fair or a bit unbalanced?


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Feb 14, 2006)

> _Originally posted by crhoades_
> First want to thank everyone for this thread - especially JohnV's post as well as all of Dr. Clark's. Couple of questions to help me out.
> 
> ...Seriously though, are there standard works in Lutheran theology regarding the 2nd use of the law (norm for civil life)? Looking for historical development, confessional, systematic - whatever.



I don't know off hand. There were several 16th century works by Lutherans arguing the case for overthrow of unjust or tyrannical magistrates. That argument became associated with the Reformed, but we learned it from the Lutherans. 

Given the Lutheran approach to two kingdoms (which is perhaps little different from the Reformed) I don't know that they've written a great deal on this, but I can't say. The way to find the material would be to search "Lutheran" and "two kingdoms" in library databases.



> Definitely don't want to lay anything at the feet of Vos, but am I correct in remembering that Jay Adams poked at him a bit in the Pattern of Sound Doctrine book regarding the R/H hermeneutic and preaching? If I remember right, Adams said that the collected sermons in Grace to Glory were nice but they were not sermons as they neglected application. Was Adams being fair or a bit unbalanced?



It was with Jay in mind that I made that comment. He doesn't care much for much contemporary BT preaching. He didn't much like Ed Clowney's homiletic method. He certainly doesn't like Jim Dennison's. He blames Vos for the hyper-BT approach to homiletics. The sermons in _Grace and Glory_ were chapel talks for sem students not sermons to laity on the Sabbath. The air in the Princeton chapel was fairly rare, I guess. I have benefited from _Preaching with Purpose_ (known, when I was in school as _Preaching with Porpoises_) but I think his proposed method assumes that every text has a sort of moral point or some behavior purpose. That isn't necessarily so. I agree that there's an application of every text, but sometimes the application is to "trust Christ" or the like. 

When Paul speaks (contra some hyper-BT folk; I was once asked by a student, years ago, if I had "tested positive for BT"!) about husbands and wives, he's speaking about husbands and wives. He isn't *just* speaking about Christ and his church.

The application must flow out of the text. R B Kuiper used to say that there are three points to every sermon: the text, the text, the text. The text must drive the sermon. The preacher must die to his own interests (be they eschatological or moral or doctrinal) and live to the text, as it were. The sermon is about the text. What is the point of the text? That is the point of the sermon.

rsc


----------



## crhoades (Feb 14, 2006)

Will do. Thanks. Would the Lutheran's two kingdom view be considered a negation of the 2nd use of the law as reformed understand it, complimentary to, or a subset of? Don't worry about writing a huge explanation - will research fully on my own...

Jay Adams...
Helpful - thanks. Has Dennison written about his homiletic methodology anywhere?


[Edited on 2-14-2006 by crhoades]


----------



## crhoades (Feb 14, 2006)

Some resources regarding Luther's two kingdom view...

From:

The context of natural law: John Calvin's doctrine of the two Kingdoms
Date: 6/22/2004; Publication: Journal of Church and State; Author: Vandrunen, David 

Martin Luther famously propounded a doctrine of the two kingdoms that defined his understanding of civil life and the Christian's relationship to it. (37) Luther was not entirely original ill pursuing this line of thought. (38) 

(37.) Luther sets forth his views on these issues, for example, in "Temporal Authority: To What Extent it Should be Obeyed," in Luther's Works, vol. 45, ed. Walther I. Brandt (Philadelphia, Pa.: Muhlenberg, 1962), 81-139. For poignant examples of how his two kingdoms theology applies to Christians, see his Sermons on the Sermon on the Mount, in Luther's Works, vol. 21, ed. Jaroslav Pelikan (Saint Louis, Mo.: Concordia, 1956), 3-294. An excellent exposition of Luther's two kingdoms view is found in William H. Lazareth, Christians in Society: Luther, the Bible, and Social Ethics (Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress, 2001). The theme is also fruitfully explored recently in John Witte, Jr., Law and Protestantism: The Legal Teachings of the Lutheran Reformation (Cambridge, Mass.: Cambridge University Press, 2002). 
(38.) For example, the fifth century Pope Gelasius established a view of twofold authority that resembled Luther's; see the writings of Gelasius included in Brian Tierney, The Crisis of Church and State 1050-1300 (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1964), 13-15. In the Middle Ages, a similar perspective is reflected in Ockham's dualist approach, in which the jurisdictions of pope mad emperor were seldom to overlap or interfere with each other; see McGrade, The Political Thought, esp. chapters 3 and 5. Scholars have also identified other late medieval figures who inclined in a similar direction, such as Peter d'Ailley, Gratian, Aquinas, Huguccio, and John of Paris; see Oakley, The Political Thought, ch. 2; and Tierney, The Idea, 170.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Feb 15, 2006)

> _Originally posted by crhoades_
> Will do. Thanks. Would the Lutheran's two kingdom view be considered a negation of the 2nd use of the law as reformed understand it, complimentary to, or a subset of? Don't worry about writing a huge explanation - will research fully on my own...
> 
> Jay Adams...
> ...



Jim publishes a journal called KERUX that is online. He has written about it at some length.

I don't know that the Lutheran civil use is fundamentally different from the Reformed civil use (avoiding the confusion over the different numbering). 

Everyone's civil use is a little different post Christendom. No one (except the covenanters and the theonomists and some theocrats) expects the magistrate to enforce the first table. 

In my view, such enforcement is actually a violation of the Reformed two kingdoms theory. 

Thanks for the bibliography from Dave Van Drunen. He's doing excellent work on this. I didn't know it was online.

rsc


----------



## fredtgreco (Feb 15, 2006)

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> The application must flow out of the text. R B Kuiper used to say that there are three points to every sermon: the text, the text, the text. The text must drive the sermon. The preacher must die to his own interests (be they eschatological or moral or doctrinal) and live to the text, as it were. The sermon is about the text. What is the point of the text? That is the point of the sermon.
> 
> rsc



Amen, amen and Amen!!!


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 15, 2006)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> ...




I have great affinity for WTS and the Pastors it produces. I got to Southern CA in late 1999. My new Pastor was a recent grad of WTS in Escondido and had a very balanced and mature view of theology. From 2000-2003 it seemed the SoCal OPC was pretty embroiled in BT/Theonomy divisions. Because of that, and the nature of men to like to be "banner followers" I immediately noticed camps within my Church.

The BT folks who were enamored with a certain hyper-BT preacher would regularly complain that the sermon had too much law in it. They could never articulate how it was that he was too legalistic. He would reliably exegete a passage as to the requirements of a passage (Husbands love your wives) but would always conclude with a very Pastoral and "Gospel" affirmation that Christ is our righteousness even when we fail in the Law of Love. I would ask: "How was that legalistic?" and they would say "Just give me Christ. Just give me Christ...." It took me a while to figure out where they were getting the idea from that you should never expound Scripture with any application. Needless to say such ideas infect outside of Church walls when the poorly trained get a hold of them. Unfortunately, they thought they were informed enough to tell the Pastor they his preaching wasn't enough like the hyper BT guy.

Of course, making the Pastor's life even more pleasant were those that insisted he wasn't theonomic enough. He wasn't speaking out enough about the plight of Christians in Indonesia or how we needed to transform our culture.

A pastor once pointed this out with respect to the issue:


> (2 Timothy 3:16-17) All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.


Nothing bugs me more when people either ignore application when it's warranted because their hermaneutic prohibits it or when they preach application when its unwarranted because they were taught "...you always have to give application...." 

I even had a Preacher that gave application to narratives that just described where Paul was journeying in the book of Acts. I can't remember what he said but it was laughable how he turned a narrative of Paul being on a road somewhere into some strained "...do likewise...." He told me his Reformed Seminary trained him to always give application and, boy, did he ever _always_ give application.

[Edited on 2-15-2006 by SemperFideles]


----------



## JohnV (Feb 15, 2006)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> ...



In don't know how many of us can squeeze into the Ditto corner, but I want to be right there with ya'all, holding the big . 

Can you tell that Fred still has some Baptist tendencies in him? Three amens. Rich is more Pentecostal, holding signs during the service, also three. 

But I'm all for it this time, and want to add my own. I want to put this into bold print, and print it out onto a poster. Its the first rule and the last rule of the preacher, and everything that doesn't fit in between just doesn't fit.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 15, 2006)

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> ...


 I even bring my own tamborine to Church with me!


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Feb 15, 2006)

In Romans 6, we see a transition Paul makes between two of the three uses of the Law which Berkhof outlines as a representative of the Reformed tradition, and as Dr. Clark has mentioned as well in this thread.



> 13 Do not present your members to sin as instruments for unrighteousness, but present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments for righteousness. 14 *For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace*.
> 
> 15 What then? *Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means!* 16 Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness? 17 But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, 18 and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness. 19 I am speaking in human terms, because of your natural limitations. For just as you once presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, *so now present your members as slaves to righteousness leading to sanctification*.



Paul explains throughout Romans how we are not JUSTIFIED by the works of the law, and can never be, because of sin. He then explains how Christ fulfilled the law FOR US, becoming OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS. However, he then goes into explaining another use of the law (i.e. not for justification AT ALL IN ANY WAY... FAITH + NOTHING!!!) - sanctification.

If you throw out the Covenant of Works and even the Covenant of Redemption, you confound the covenantal theme throughout Scripture into nonsense.

God decreed to redeem for Himself a people through the merit and work of Jesus Christ in the Covenant of Redemption. Adam and all mankind are born into the CoW, obligated to perfect obedience in order to be in glory and communion with God. Man, post-adam are born into the CoW as covenant breakers (Rom 1-3), and have no hope of fulfilling the demands of the Law. Christ, as the second Adam, fulfills the demands of the CoW for the elect, and we receive grace through this by means of the Covenant of Grace. However, only those who are in communion with God - those who have the demands of the CoW fulfilled for them in Christ - are partakers of all the spiritual blessings in Christ in the CoG. FV goons would have us believe that simply being in covenant with God is enough to partake of all the benefits of Christ - minus perseverance - and that you can lose all of those benefits (including justification!) if you are not "covenantally faithful." Thankfully, the picture Paul gives us in Scripture, taking ALL of Scripture into account, is a much better one.

[Edited on 2-15-2006 by WrittenFromUtopia]


----------



## TimeRedeemer (Feb 15, 2006)

And to get a right 'feel' for the new relationship to the law post-regeneration and once already justified think of the different feel these terms have:

legalism, chain, can't do that

vs.

new birth, Christian liberty, spiritual warfare

We associate spiritual warfare as a positive thing that we DESIRE to do, and it's here that our new relation to the law exists as well. It's something we desire to do (and it's tempered by our new birth which gives us ability to do it, and by our Christian liberty which frees us from it as a means of justification and hence as a curse).


----------



## Pilgrim (Jul 2, 2006)

> _Originally posted by crhoades_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> ...



This is indeed a quote from John Murray. I was going to email Dr. Clark about it before noticing the corrected page here.


----------

