# Law and Gospel by John M. Frame



## AV1611

Has anyone interracted with this?

*Conclusion*
The sharp distinction between law and gospel is becoming popular in Reformed, as well as Lutheran circles. It is the view of Westminster Seminary California, Modern Reformation magazine, and the White Horse Inn radio broadcast. The leaders of these organizations are very insistent that theirs is the only biblical view of the matter. One has recently claimed that people who hold a different view repudiate the Reformation and even deny the gospel itself. On that view, we must use the term gospel only in what the Formula calls the “proper” sense, not in the biblical sense. I believe that we should stand with the Scriptures against this tradition.​


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

AV1611 said:


> Has anyone interracted with this?
> 
> *Conclusion*
> The sharp distinction between law and gospel is becoming popular in Reformed, as well as Lutheran circles. It is the view of Westminster Seminary California, Modern Reformation magazine, and the White Horse Inn radio broadcast. The leaders of these organizations are very insistent that theirs is the only biblical view of the matter. One has recently claimed that people who hold a different view repudiate the Reformation and even deny the gospel itself. On that view, we must use the term gospel only in what the Formula calls the “proper” sense, not in the biblical sense. I believe that we should stand with the Scriptures against this tradition.​



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.


----------



## Philip A

AV1611 said:


> The sharp distinction between law and gospel is becoming popular in Reformed, as well as Lutheran circles.​



That's hilarious  He talks as if it were something that started in the 70's or something.

Maybe he should bemoan the fact that reading the primary sources is becoming popular.


----------



## RamistThomist

I actually liked the article, but this is old hat stuff. It probably means I am not Reformed, but I can live with that. While Frame perhaps overstated his case (e.g., on the Reformers), I liked the rest of it.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Daniel Ritchie said:


> 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.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Contra_Mundum said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


When I say sympathies I mean more with the men than their entire system (though would it not be fair to say that he has some sympathy with certain aspects of their teaching?).


----------



## Theogenes

Marty,
Have you read John Colquhoun's book, "A Treatise on the Law and the Gospel"? It is excellent. It was published by Soli Deo GLoria.
Jim


----------



## Stephen

Yes, John Frame is totally off base on this. I have suspected for years that he is not reformed. The law and gospel distinction is certainly not new and was taught long before Westminster West and Modern Reformation Magazine.


----------



## ADKing

JohnOwen007 said:


> Well I'm currently completing a PhD on basically this topic of the gospel and the law / gospel distinction in reformed thought (with a focus on John Owen). So you can read all about it soon ...
> 
> Frame's conclusions don't have much to do with the FV In my humble opinion. Rather he is rightly noting that there is a difference to how the Lutherans and Reformed construe the law / gospel distinction.
> 
> To be sure certain reformed theologians (e.g. Richard Greenham) had a Lutheran law / gospel distinction. But on the whole there was a basic difference, particularly with the rise of federal theology.
> 
> Lutheranism:
> 
> Law = commands (imperative)
> Gospel = promise (indicative)
> 
> Reformed
> 
> Law = covenant of works ("do then and live" - commands and then promise)
> Gospel = covenant of grace ("live and then do this" - promise and then commands)
> 
> One crux is whether the gospel contains commands. For example, does the gospel call us to repentance? For Lutherans no, for the Reformed yes. But it is a repentance that arises from being justified (not to be justified).
> 
> The gospel commands repentance out of reconciliation with Christ. But my _actual_ repentance is not the gospel.
> 
> However, Frame perhaps is incorrect in this: even if the Reformed tradition defines the law / gospel distinction differently to Lutheranism, let us be sure of one thing: there is a *sharp* distinction between the law and the gospel in _both _traditions. (I perhaps wonder if this is what the WSC guys are attempting to communicate, but at times they sound a little Lutheran--particularly when they use the language of "imperative vs indicative").
> 
> God bless brother.



Please let us know how we may obtain this when it is available! I am not sure I am famliar with how to obtain dissertations from Australia


----------



## Gage Browning

*Clarification*



JohnOwen007 said:


> One crux is whether the gospel contains commands. For example, does the gospel call us to repentance? For Lutherans no, for the Reformed yes. But it is a repentance that arises from being justified (not to be justified)..



Can you explain or clarify further where the gospel contains commands? Are you saying that repentance is gospel or results from believing gospel?


----------



## Stephen

Gage Browning said:


> JohnOwen007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> One crux is whether the gospel contains commands. For example, does the gospel call us to repentance? For Lutherans no, for the Reformed yes. But it is a repentance that arises from being justified (not to be justified)..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you explain or clarify further where the gospel contains commands? Are you saying that repentance is gospel or results from believing gospel?
Click to expand...


The gospel does not command; it is the law that commands. The gospel drives us to Christ where we find grace to repent and obey Him.


----------



## Gage Browning

Stephen said:


> Gage Browning said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JohnOwen007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> One crux is whether the gospel contains commands. For example, does the gospel call us to repentance? For Lutherans no, for the Reformed yes. But it is a repentance that arises from being justified (not to be justified)..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you explain or clarify further where the gospel contains commands? Are you saying that repentance is gospel or results from believing gospel?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The gospel does not command; it is the law that commands. The gospel drives us to Christ where we find grace to repent and obey Him.
Click to expand...


I agree Stephen. Luther may have been right that the distinction is hard to make between Law and Gospel. 

By the way- I was in Nova Scotia two weeks ago. I didn't know the PCA was in NS.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

but the ARP is there as well


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

ADKing said:


> JohnOwen007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I'm currently completing a PhD on basically this topic of the gospel and the law / gospel distinction in reformed thought (with a focus on John Owen). So you can read all about it soon ...
> 
> Frame's conclusions don't have much to do with the FV In my humble opinion. Rather he is rightly noting that there is a difference to how the Lutherans and Reformed construe the law / gospel distinction.
> 
> To be sure certain reformed theologians (e.g. Richard Greenham) had a Lutheran law / gospel distinction. But on the whole there was a basic difference, particularly with the rise of federal theology.
> 
> Lutheranism:
> 
> Law = commands (imperative)
> Gospel = promise (indicative)
> 
> Reformed
> 
> Law = covenant of works ("do then and live" - commands and then promise)
> Gospel = covenant of grace ("live and then do this" - promise and then commands)
> 
> One crux is whether the gospel contains commands. For example, does the gospel call us to repentance? For Lutherans no, for the Reformed yes. But it is a repentance that arises from being justified (not to be justified).
> 
> The gospel commands repentance out of reconciliation with Christ. But my _actual_ repentance is not the gospel.
> 
> However, Frame perhaps is incorrect in this: even if the Reformed tradition defines the law / gospel distinction differently to Lutheranism, let us be sure of one thing: there is a *sharp* distinction between the law and the gospel in _both _traditions. (I perhaps wonder if this is what the WSC guys are attempting to communicate, but at times they sound a little Lutheran--particularly when they use the language of "imperative vs indicative").
> 
> God bless brother.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please let us know how we may obtain this when it is available! I am not sure I am famliar with how to obtain dissertations from Australia
Click to expand...


 Me neither. This sounds like an impressive bit of work. Hope you can get a publisher, and if not please self-publish it.


----------



## Stephen

Gage Browning said:


> Stephen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gage Browning said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you explain or clarify further where the gospel contains commands? Are you saying that repentance is gospel or results from believing gospel?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The gospel does not command; it is the law that commands. The gospel drives us to Christ where we find grace to repent and obey Him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree Stephen. Luther may have been right that the distinction is hard to make between Law and Gospel.
> 
> By the way- I was in Nova Scotia two weeks ago. I didn't know the PCA was in NS.
Click to expand...


Wow, I wish you would have found us. Where were you in Nova Scotia? I live on the southeast end and pastor two congregations. We have six congregations in Nova Scotia and the ARP has three. If you are ever here again, please contact me. The PCA and ARP are small struggling congregations in the midst of strong liberalism and Romanism. Eastern Canada is a spiritual wasteland that is being judged by the LORD.


----------



## JohnOwen007

Dear Stephen,

Thanks for your thoughts.



Stephen said:


> The gospel does not command; it is the law that commands. The gospel drives us to Christ where we find grace to repent and obey Him.



That's what I thought when I began researching. This is basically the Lutheran take on the law / gospel distinction. But now I think differently and that's because the reformed tradition took me back to Scripture (esp. John Owen).

Hence, in Acts 13:49 we find a call to repent in the gospel itself:

"Men, why are you doing this? We are also men, of like nature with you, and preaching the gospel to you, *that you should turn* [i.e. repent] from these worthless things to the living God who made the heaven and the earth and the sea ..."

And in Rev. 14:6-7 we find commands in the gospel to worship, fear God, and give him glory:

"Then I saw another angel flying in midair, and he had the *eternal gospel *to proclaim to those who live on the earth—to every nation, tribe, language and people. And he said with a loud voice, "*Fear* God and *give him glory*, for the hour of his judgment has come; and *worship* him who made heaven and earth, the sea and fountains of water".

If we say that the gospel = covenant of grace, then the covenant of grace contains commands. The issue is the *context* in which these commands arise. Under the gospel commands arise because one is reconciled, not to be reconciled.

In a nutshell, the gospel is about Christ as Lord (hence the demand to repent) and saviour (hence the demand to have faith).

And dear PBers once it's done I'll attempt to make it as available as possible. Australia may be far away geographically but the web makes it possible for us to be quite closely connected.

I'm off to Cambridge in a month for a 6 month Sabbatical to try and nail the thesis. Please pray for me.

Blessings.


----------



## AV1611

Stephen said:


> The gospel does not command; it is the law that commands. The gospel drives us to Christ where we find grace to repent and obey Him.



Have you read Horton's God of Promise as it explains how the gospel commands. 

As an aside, Zacharias Ursinus writes the following in his _Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism_;

“The gospel and the law agree in this, that they are both from God, and that there is something revealed in each concerning the nature, will, and works of God. There is, however, a very great difference between them:

*1. In the revelations which they contain.* Or, as it respects the manner in which the revelation peculiar to each is made known. The law was engraven upon the heart of man in his creation, and is therefore known to all naturally, although no other revelation were given. [Rom 2:15] The gospel is not known naturally, but is divinely revealed to the Church alone through Christ, the Mediator. For no creature could have seen or hoped for that mitigation of the law concerning satisfaction for our sins through another, if the Son of God had not revealed it. [Matt 11:27; 16:17].

*2. In the kind of doctrine, or subject peculiar to each.* The law teaches us what we ought to be, and what God requires of us, but it does not give us the ability to perform it, nor does it point out the way by which we may avoid what is forbidden. But the gospel teaches us in what manner we may be made such as the law requires: for it offers unto us the promise of grace, by having the righteousness of Christ imputed to us through faith, and that in such a way as if it were properly ours, teaching us that we are just before God, through the imputation of Christ’s righteousness. The law says, “Pay what thou owest.” “Do this and live.” (Matt 18:28; Luke 10:28). The gospel says, “Only believe.” (Mark 5:36).

*3. In the promises.* The law promises life to those who are righteous in themselves, or on the condition of righteousness, and perfect obedience. [Lev 18:5; Matt 19:17] The gospel, on the other hand, promises life to those who are justified by faith in Christ, or on the condition of the righteousness of Christ, applied unto us by faith. The law and the gospel are, however, not opposed to each other in these respects: for although the law requires us to keep the commandments if we would enter into life, yet it does not exclude us from life if another perform these things for us. It does indeed propose a way of satisfaction, which is through ourselves, but it does not forbid the other, as has been shown.

*4. They differ in their effects.* The law, without the gospel, is the letter which killeth, and is the ministration of death. [Rom 3:20; 4:15; 2 Cor 3:6] The outward preaching, and simple knowledge of what ought to be done, is known through the letter: for it declares our duty, and that righteousness which God requires; and, whilst it neither gives us the ability to perform it, nor points out the way through which it may be obtained, it finds fault with, and condemns our righteousness. But the gospel is the ministration of life, and of the Spirit, that is, it has the operations of the Spirit united with it, and quickens those that are dead in sin, because it is through the gospel that the Holy Spirit works faith and life in the elect [Rom 1:6].”​


----------



## Gage Browning

JohnOwen007 said:


> Dear Stephen,
> 
> Thanks for your thoughts.
> 
> 
> 
> Stephen said:
> 
> 
> 
> The gospel does not command; it is the law that commands. The gospel drives us to Christ where we find grace to repent and obey Him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what I thought when I began researching. This is basically the Lutheran take on the law / gospel distinction. But now I think differently and that's because the reformed tradition took me back to Scripture (esp. John Owen).
> 
> Blessings.
Click to expand...


This may be anathema to say to many, but Owen does not always speak for all the Reformed...(I'm ducking now...I know...I know...).
With that said - I don't necessarily buy your premise that the Law and Gospel distinction is basically Lutheran. It seems to me that it was distinctively Calvinistic as well.

Calvin- _For since the teaching of the law is far above human capacity, a man may indeed view from afar the proffered promises, yet he cannot derive any benefit from them... so that we discern in the law only the most immediate death._ (Institutes, 2.7.3). 
Calvin -_Do you see how he makes this the distinction between law and gospel: that the former attributes righteousness to works, the latter bestows free righteousness apart from the help of works? This is an important passage, and one that can extricate us from many difficulties if we understand that that righteousness which is given us through the gospel has been freed of all conditions of the law._ (Calvin commenting on Romans 10:9) (Institutes, 3.11.17) 
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).


----------



## MW

Just a note of clarification. I thanked Marty for his post because he is correct to note a difference between Lutheran and Reformed formulations of the Law/Gospel distinction, and that Prof. Frame has touched on this. (Perkins' Galatians Commentary provides the basic Puritan exposition.) But I seriously doubt if Greenham can be claimed as holding to the Lutheran view.


----------



## JohnOwen007

Dear Gage,

Love the avatar mate. I remember buying "Wide Awake in America" when it first came out (too long ago).



Gage Browning said:


> This may be anathema to say to many, but Owen does not always speak for all the Reformed...(I'm ducking now...I know...I know...).



Well Gage it's not anathema to me. No one person speaks for the reformed tradition as a whole. I certainly don't agree with everything Owen says. The reformed tradition (as Richard Muller has shown us) has lots of room to move on various issues.



Gage Browning said:


> With that said - I don't necessarily buy your premise that the Law and Gospel distinction is basically Lutheran. It seems to me that it was distinctively Calvinistic as well.



Note carefully what I posted above; I didn't say there's no law / gospel distinction in the reformed tradition. There certainly is, and I said it was sharp. However, it is different to the Lutheran construal of the law / gospel distinction.

God bless brother.


----------



## JohnOwen007

armourbearer said:


> But I seriously doubt if Greenham can be claimed as holding to the Lutheran view.



Dear Matthew, thanks as always for your input. Greenham's views are particularly manifest in his _Catechism_. In particular you may wish to look at John Primus' work _Richard Greenham the Portrait of an Elizabethan Pastor_ in which he has a chapter updating some earlier research he did on Greenham's position concerning the law / gospel distinction. (I don't agree with everything Primus says in the book, but on this point he makes a good case).

Cheers brother.


----------



## DMcFadden

Marty,

Godspeed, brother. You have blessed me on the PB. May the Lord guide your hand on the dissertation.


----------



## MW

JohnOwen007 said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> But I seriously doubt if Greenham can be claimed as holding to the Lutheran view.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Matthew, thanks as always for your input. Greenham's views are particularly manifest in his _Catechism_. In particular you may wish to look at John Primus' work _Richard Greenham the Portrait of an Elizabethan Pastor_ in which he has a chapter updating some earlier research he did on Greenham's position concerning the law / gospel distinction. (I don't agree with everything Primus says in the book, but on this point he makes a good case).
> 
> Cheers brother.
Click to expand...


Brother Marty, Thankyou for the reference; but Primus is really Secundus, and the real Primus is the Works of Greenham, which I have read with much profit over the years. Blessings!


----------



## Semper Fidelis

JohnOwen007 said:


> Well I'm currently completing a PhD on basically this topic of the gospel and the law / gospel distinction in reformed thought (with a focus on John Owen). So you can read all about it soon ...
> 
> Frame's conclusions don't have much to do with the FV In my humble opinion. Rather he is rightly noting that there is a difference to how the Lutherans and Reformed construe the law / gospel distinction.
> 
> To be sure certain reformed theologians (e.g. Richard Greenham) had a Lutheran law / gospel distinction. But on the whole there was a basic difference, particularly with the rise of federal theology.
> 
> Lutheranism:
> 
> Law = commands (imperative)
> Gospel = promise (indicative)
> 
> Reformed
> 
> Law = covenant of works ("do then and live" - commands and then promise)
> Gospel = covenant of grace ("live and then do this" - promise and then commands)
> 
> One crux is whether the gospel contains commands. For example, does the gospel call us to repentance? For Lutherans no, for the Reformed yes. But it is a repentance that arises from being justified (not to be justified).
> 
> The gospel commands repentance out of reconciliation with Christ. But my _actual_ repentance is not the gospel.
> 
> However, Frame perhaps is incorrect in this: even if the Reformed tradition defines the law / gospel distinction differently to Lutheranism, let us be sure of one thing: there is a *sharp* distinction between the law and the gospel in _both _traditions. (I perhaps wonder if this is what the WSC guys are attempting to communicate, but at times they sound a little Lutheran--particularly when they use the language of "imperative vs indicative").
> 
> God bless brother.



Great post.

It's interesting that I just finished reading _Christ of the Covenants_ by O. Palmer Robertson where he interacts with some Klinean views of the Law.

This is bound to open up  but I fear that some of the Klinean presentation of the Covenants tends to agree with the dispensational view that it was a mistake for Israel to accept the Law and leave a Covenant based totally on grace with Abraham. I am more sympathetic to Robertson's view that the Mosaic Covenant was an expansion of the the Covenenant of Grace and not a step backward as some are wont to view it whether they intentionally state it that way or not.

As I was preparing to teach Acts 3 this week it struck me yet again that the Gospel is proclaimed by the words "Repent!" repeatedly by the Apostles but, according to some, they would argue that this is "Law" and not "Gospel" because it is an imperative. Of course, that's not what the Canons of Dordt state but it has become commonplace to fear that any time we talk about a response of man, even if we acknowledge that man is impelled by a regenerated nature born from above, that we're somehow adding our works to the Gospel. I just don't think this sharp Law (imperative)/Gospel (indicative) formula is warranted.


----------



## KMK

armourbearer said:


> Just a note of clarification. I thanked Marty for his post because he is correct to note a difference between Lutheran and Reformed formulations of the Law/Gospel distinction, and that Prof. Frame has touched on this. (*Perkins' Galatians Commentary provides the basic Puritan exposition*.) But I seriously doubt if Greenham can be claimed as holding to the Lutheran view.



Anyone know if this is available online? Andrew?


----------



## KMK

In "Christ Crucified" James Durham makes a good case for 'gospel commands' in Isaiah 53:1: "Who hath believed our report?"


----------



## JohnOwen007

armourbearer said:


> [...] but Primus is really Secundus, [...]



 Marvelous play on words Matthew! 



armourbearer said:


> and the real Primus is the Works of Greenham, which I have read with much profit over the years.



Yes, and again I say yes! Greenham is a figure too neglected. I absolutely love him, and I'm glad to find someone else who's even read him!


----------



## JohnOwen007

Semper Fidelis said:


> As I was preparing to teach Acts 3 this week it struck me yet again that the Gospel is proclaimed by the words "Repent!" repeatedly by the Apostles but, according to some, they would argue that this is "Law" and not "Gospel" because it is an imperative. Of course, that's not what the Canons of Dordt state but it has become commonplace to fear that any time we talk about a response of man, even if we acknowledge that man is impelled by a regenerated nature born from above, that we're somehow adding our works to the Gospel. I just don't think this sharp Law (imperative)/Gospel (indicative) formula is warranted.



Yes indeed and thanks for the input Rich. It's fascinating that Calvin regularly says that the "sum of the gospel is repentance and forgiveness of sins". This, of course, reflects his understanding that what we are offered in the gospel is a new position (justification) before God, *as well as* a new condition (sanctification) in ourselves. Hence, commands to live the new life (in Christ) naturally must be a part of the gospel. Law-commands are done to be justified, gospel-commands are done because we are justified. It's wonderful when you think about it.

Every blessing.


----------



## Staphlobob

JohnOwen007 said:


> Lutheranism:
> 
> Law = commands (imperative)
> Gospel = promise (indicative)
> 
> Reformed
> 
> Law = covenant of works ("do then and live" - commands and then promise)
> Gospel = covenant of grace ("live and then do this" - promise and then commands)
> 
> One crux is whether the gospel contains commands. For example, does the gospel call us to repentance? For Lutherans no, for the Reformed yes. But it is a repentance that arises from being justified (not to be justified).
> 
> The gospel commands repentance out of reconciliation with Christ. But my _actual_ repentance is not the gospel.



Thanks for the post. I was a Lutheran pastor for about 18 years, but became Reformed several years ago and came to the same conclusions regarding the law/gospel distinction. I forget where the question is, but I was asking for any kind of linkage between law/gospel and covenant theology. However, I do think the imperative/indicative distinction to also be quite valid.

I also think it *very* significant to note that "repentance arises from being justified (not to be justified)." This sheer grace is what people so often react - negatively - towards when they first encounter it. 

Thanks again.


----------



## Gage Browning

JohnOwen007 said:


> Dear Gage,
> 
> Love the avatar mate. I remember buying "Wide Awake in America" when it first came out (too long ago).
> 
> 
> 
> Gage Browning said:
> 
> 
> 
> This may be anathema to say to many, but Owen does not always speak for all the Reformed...(I'm ducking now...I know...I know...).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well Gage it's not anathema to me. No one person speaks for the reformed tradition as a whole. I certainly don't agree with everything Owen says. The reformed tradition (as Richard Muller has shown us) has lots of room to move on various issues.
> 
> 
> 
> Gage Browning said:
> 
> 
> 
> With that said - I don't necessarily buy your premise that the Law and Gospel distinction is basically Lutheran. It seems to me that it was distinctively Calvinistic as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Note carefully what I posted above; I didn't say there's no law / gospel distinction in the reformed tradition. There certainly is, and I said it was sharp. However, it is different to the Lutheran construal of the law / gospel distinction.
> 
> God bless brother.
Click to expand...


Marty,
Thanks for the clarification...(missed it- my fault). Also the U2 Avatar...changed it a little to Wide Awake in the Church... I made it my own I guess. God bless your work and research brother.


----------



## MW

JohnOwen007 said:


> Yes, and again I say yes! Greenham is a figure too neglected. I absolutely love him, and I'm glad to find someone else who's even read him!



I much appreciate his meditation on Ps. 119. His explanation of knowledge consisting in generals and practice in particulars is very helpful for understanding Puritan practical divinity:



> Teach me good judgment and knowledge: for I have believed thy commandments.
> 
> He maketh this prayer though he believed; because his knowledge was in generals, but his practice in particulars: therefore if God in the particulars did not direct him, he should fail in doing. Hereof cometh it, that the learnedst men are deceived in particulars, because they rest in their general knowledge.


----------



## Stephen

armourbearer said:


> Just a note of clarification. I thanked Marty for his post because he is correct to note a difference between Lutheran and Reformed formulations of the Law/Gospel distinction, and that Prof. Frame has touched on this. (Perkins' Galatians Commentary provides the basic Puritan exposition.) But I seriously doubt if Greenham can be claimed as holding to the Lutheran view.



Hello. It is good to have you back. You were missed, brother. 

Yes, there is difference between the Lutheran and Reformed view of law/gospel, but how significant is it? I have worshipped in Lutheran Churches (MO Synod only) and always liked how their liturgy emphasised the law and gospel. Timothy Wengert has a great book entitled *Law and Gospel *where he shows how Melanchthon developed the law/gospel distinction. It appears that this distinction was a later developement within Lutheranism.


----------



## ADKing

armourbearer said:


> JohnOwen007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and again I say yes! Greenham is a figure too neglected. I absolutely love him, and I'm glad to find someone else who's even read him!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I much appreciate his meditation on Ps. 119. His explanation of knowledge consisting in generals and practice in particulars is very helpful for understanding Puritan practical divinity:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Teach me good judgment and knowledge: for I have believed thy commandments.
> 
> He maketh this prayer though he believed; because his knowledge was in generals, but his practice in particulars: therefore if God in the particulars did not direct him, he should fail in doing. Hereof cometh it, that the learnedst men are deceived in particulars, because they rest in their general knowledge.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Great quote and point! Where can this be found? Is it in his collected writings?


----------



## dannyhyde

AV1611 said:


> Has anyone interracted with this?
> 
> *Conclusion*
> The sharp distinction between law and gospel is becoming popular in Reformed, as well as Lutheran circles. It is the view of Westminster Seminary California, Modern Reformation magazine, and the White Horse Inn radio broadcast. The leaders of these organizations are very insistent that theirs is the only biblical view of the matter. One has recently claimed that people who hold a different view repudiate the Reformation and even deny the gospel itself. On that view, we must use the term gospel only in what the Formula calls the “proper” sense, not in the biblical sense. I believe that we should stand with the Scriptures against this tradition.​



Back to the original question, this is no surprise coming from the professor who taught us in class: "All the Law is Gospel and all the Gospel is Law."

He's a philosopher by training who should have made a good career doing philosophy and apologetics, but all too often involves himself in discussions of which he has no knowledge.


----------



## Stephen

dannyhyde said:


> AV1611 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has anyone interracted with this?
> 
> *Conclusion*
> The sharp distinction between law and gospel is becoming popular in Reformed, as well as Lutheran circles. It is the view of Westminster Seminary California, Modern Reformation magazine, and the White Horse Inn radio broadcast. The leaders of these organizations are very insistent that theirs is the only biblical view of the matter. One has recently claimed that people who hold a different view repudiate the Reformation and even deny the gospel itself. On that view, we must use the term gospel only in what the Formula calls the “proper” sense, not in the biblical sense. I believe that we should stand with the Scriptures against this tradition.​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Back to the original question, this is no surprise coming from the professor who taught us in class: "All the Law is Gospel and all the Gospel is Law."
> 
> He's a philosopher by training who should have made a good career doing philosophy and apologetics, but all too often involves himself in discussions of which he has no knowledge.
Click to expand...


Thank you for the clarification. Others have made that same statement, "All the law is gospel and all the gospel is law."


----------



## Casey

dannyhyde said:


> Back to the original question, this is no surprise coming from the professor who taught us in class: "All the Law is Gospel and all the Gospel is Law."
> 
> He's a philosopher by training who should have made a good career doing philosophy and apologetics, but all too often involves himself in discussions of which he has no knowledge.


Rev. Hyde,

I only read the article once, but I didn't see Frame saying "All the Law is Gospel and all the Gospel is Law" (I know you said you heard that in class, not necessarily the article). To be honest, I found little to quibble with in this article, and generally agreed with the sentiments expressed. Could you explain what you believe is erroneous in _this_ article?

Thanks.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

I have great respect for Timothy Wengert's work. Nevertheless, there is considerable evidence in Luther between 1513-19 that he was beginning to work out this distinction before Melanchthon had great influence on his hermeneutic. No doubt there was mutual interchange and influence, but drawing clear lines in such investigations, esp. when the development of L's theology in that period was so fluid, is difficult.

As to covenant theology and law and gospel, I wrote a book on Olevianus, part of the burden of which, was to argue that the Reformed adopted and adapted covenant theology to express essentially the same L/G distinction as found in L and M. Olevianus had no idea that he was advocating an utterly distinct view of L/G over against Luther or Melanchthon. Neither did Calvin. The sharp lines we draw between Lutheran and Reformed were forming in this period but they were still fluid and they frequently used the adjective "evangelical" to encompass L, M, C, and Bucer among many others. 

In the confessional period things became clear and lines harder, but even so I doubt that the L/G hermeneutic in the Book of Concord or in Lutheran orthodoxy is fundamentally different from that which one finds in Reformed orthodoxy. 

I don't dispute that there are differences, but if anyone says that the Reformed don't say that "do" is law and "done" is gospel, I say that one doesn't know the sources or the history of the doctrine.

I thought this dragon was slain during the FV controversy. Do we have to do it all over again? Do all the quotations from Beza, Ursinus, Perkins et al mean nothing?

Didn't we analyze Frame's essay years ago on the PB?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

armourbearer said:


> JohnOwen007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> But I seriously doubt if Greenham can be claimed as holding to the Lutheran view.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Matthew, thanks as always for your input. Greenham's views are particularly manifest in his _Catechism_. In particular you may wish to look at John Primus' work _Richard Greenham the Portrait of an Elizabethan Pastor_ in which he has a chapter updating some earlier research he did on Greenham's position concerning the law / gospel distinction. (I don't agree with everything Primus says in the book, but on this point he makes a good case).
> 
> Cheers brother.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Brother Marty, Thankyou for the reference; but Primus is really Secundus, and the real Primus is the Works of Greenham, which I have read with much profit over the years. Blessings!
Click to expand...


 Who but an Australian would have the audacity to say such a thing.


----------



## MW

ADKing said:


> Great quote and point! Where can this be found? Is it in his collected writings?



That is in his Works, in the meditations on Ps. 119, under the verse cited. I'm surprised the meditations are not generally quoted in dealing with the subject of practical divinity, seeing it is such a succinct example of it.


----------



## MW

Stephen said:


> Hello. It is good to have you back. You were missed, brother.
> 
> Yes, there is difference between the Lutheran and Reformed view of law/gospel, but how significant is it? I have worshipped in Lutheran Churches (MO Synod only) and always liked how their liturgy emphasised the law and gospel. Timothy Wengert has a great book entitled *Law and Gospel *where he shows how Melanchthon developed the law/gospel distinction. It appears that this distinction was a later developement within Lutheranism.



Thanks. I'm glad to have a little more strength so I can interact here.

I think you are right about the formulation being a later development, and it is also true that the Antinomian controversies forced Luther himself to give greater weight to the regulative use of the law. Nevertheless, the distinction as it stands today leaves us with two views, and it is undoubtedly the case that the reformed view contains a use of the law in Christian sanctification which is more conscious and normative than the Lutheran view.


----------



## MW

R. Scott Clark said:


> I don't dispute that there are differences, but if anyone says that the Reformed don't say that "do" is law and "done" is gospel, I say that one doesn't know the sources or the history of the doctrine.



Prof. Clark, Have you had the opportunity to read Samuel Rutherford yet?


----------



## Casey

R. Scott Clark said:


> I thought this dragon was slain during the FV controversy. Do we have to do it all over again?


What is the connection, specifically, between the ideas in Frame's essay and the FV? Dr. Clark, do you see this essay as upholding an inherently FV position on L/G?


> Didn't we analyze Frame's essay years ago on the PB?


I don't remember this -- can anyone find the thread that this was discussed on?


----------



## Casey

R. Scott Clark said:


> As to John Frame, he's never identified himself completely with the FV . . .


So, do you see FV ideas in _this_ article by Frame?  I'm looking forward to a response to my above post. Thanks, Dr. Clark.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Casey, 

do YOU think there are any FV ideas in Frame's article?

You clearly care about it more than I do!

Why don't you teach me? I have very little interest in re-reading this piece. Life is short and getting shorter. I'm all eyes.

rsc



CaseyBessette said:


> R. Scott Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> As to John Frame, he's never identified himself completely with the FV . . .
> 
> 
> 
> So, do you see FV ideas in _this_ article by Frame?  I'm looking forward to a response to my above post. Thanks, Dr. Clark.
Click to expand...


----------



## Casey

R. Scott Clark said:


> Casey,
> 
> do YOU think there are any FV ideas in Frame's article?
> 
> You clearly care about it more than I do!
> 
> Why don't you teach me? I have very little interest in re-reading this piece. Life is short and getting shorter. I'm all eyes.
> 
> rsc


With all due respect, why are you posting on a thread that is intended to interact with this _specific_ article, if you won't read it?

And on top of that, you suggest a connection with the FV and are unwilling to explain yourself? 

I don't understand the reason for the apparent abrasiveness of your response. Was there something inappropriate about my question to you?


----------



## Casey

ChristianTrader said:


> Dr. Clark,
> It seems to be your view that either we accept your view of law and gospel or we might as well go ahead and embrace FV and/or go back to Rome?
> 
> Am I reading you correctly?
> 
> CT


Perhaps your (our) question was already answered on another thread? (see red bolded part)


R. Scott Clark said:


> Are we in a time warp? Have the last 8 years not happened? Have the OPC, URCs, and PCA not spoken with one voice on this (not to mention the OCRCs and the RPCGA)?
> 
> Why are we starting from scratch, as if there were no books, articles, and denominational documents on this matter?
> 
> Note to the Mods: I thought the PB had some sort of official position contra the FV and its promulgation on the site? Has there been a policy shift?
> 
> *It seems that the law/gospel distinction is up for grabs, so perhaps the FV is back on the table again.* If so, I'd like to know about it.


----------



## Stephen

Staphlobob said:


> JohnOwen007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lutheranism:
> 
> Law = commands (imperative)
> Gospel = promise (indicative)
> 
> Reformed
> 
> Law = covenant of works ("do then and live" - commands and then promise)
> Gospel = covenant of grace ("live and then do this" - promise and then commands)
> 
> One crux is whether the gospel contains commands. For example, does the gospel call us to repentance? For Lutherans no, for the Reformed yes. But it is a repentance that arises from being justified (not to be justified).
> 
> The gospel commands repentance out of reconciliation with Christ. But my _actual_ repentance is not the gospel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the post. I was a Lutheran pastor for about 18 years, but became Reformed several years ago and came to the same conclusions regarding the law/gospel distinction. I forget where the question is, but I was asking for any kind of linkage between law/gospel and covenant theology. However, I do think the imperative/indicative distinction to also be quite valid.
> 
> I also think it *very* significant to note that "repentance arises from being justified (not to be justified)." This sheer grace is what people so often react - negatively - towards when they first encounter it.
> 
> Thanks again.
Click to expand...


Marty, what you have stated does not convince we there is a difference between the Lutheran and Reformed understanding of the law/gospel.


----------



## RamistThomist

Stephen said:


> Scott Clark has a great chapter on the law/gospel in his book *Covenant, Justification, and Pastoral Ministry*. On page 340 he rejects the idea that the distinction is Lutheran and not Reformed. If you take the time to read his book it is apparent that the FV does reject the Reformed understanding of the law/gospel hermeneutic. I found this chapter to be very helpful.



We know that. We know what RSC's position is. We are simply stating that one can disagree with RSC and still be Reformed.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## ChristianTrader

Ivanhoe said:


> Stephen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Scott Clark has a great chapter on the law/gospel in his book *Covenant, Justification, and Pastoral Ministry*. On page 340 he rejects the idea that the distinction is Lutheran and not Reformed. If you take the time to read his book it is apparent that the FV does reject the Reformed understanding of the law/gospel hermeneutic. I found this chapter to be very helpful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We know that. We know what RSC's position is. We are simply stating that one can disagree with RSC and still be Reformed.
Click to expand...


Nope, if I am reading this thread properly; the discussion is whether RSC's position is in fact reformed or antinomian?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Well if that is the discussion it merits its own thread not hijacking one on John Frame


----------



## RamistThomist

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Well if that is the discussion it merits its own thread not hijacking one on John Frame



It is not hijacking. Frame explicitly disputes the "Luthero-Reformed" view. Clark defends it.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

I agree but the discussion has moved away from how Frame describes it and to how RSC does.


----------



## Poimen

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


----------



## ChristianTrader

Poimen said:


> 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. the thread has been cited here - follow that up if you will.
> 
> MODERATOR VOICE OFF



Don't you have to unlock the other thread first?

CT


----------



## Poimen

ChristianTrader said:


> Poimen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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. the thread has been cited here - follow that up if you will.
> 
> MODERATOR VOICE OFF
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you have to unlock the other thread first?
> 
> CT
Click to expand...


Hey man you don't have to make me look like an idiot! 

If a thread has been locked down I am hesitant to open it. Just start a new thread with the appropriate title then. 

*I have edited the original post for graphic display of ignorance.*


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Poimen said:


> 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?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Poimen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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?
Click to expand...


Perhaps. What this is coming down to is really a matter of who's view of the Reformed Confessions is idiosyncratic.

I will be the first to admit that Dr. Frame writes and says some things that I don't believe are Confessional but that doesn't make it a maxim that every critique he utters is, _a priori_, false. I actually believe there is a kernel of truth to what he states and you don't have to become a neo-nomian to agree with the critique as far as it goes.

It doesn't really help the case of truth when those in error see a large crowd of those who reject their views and a small percentage are actually orthodox but a vast majority are criticizing them because they clash with their own idiosyncratic views. It doesn't give the FV any excuse for their own error but I imagine it must be galling when you are condemned for being un-Confessional and a great number of those raising their hand represent Churches where the charge of being un-Confessional could strike them from another corner. There are many more warts than the FV on the hide of NAPARC congregations.


----------



## py3ak

Semper Fidelis, I thank you for this useful post.


----------



## Poimen

Moderator voice on

Okay I have created a new post to deal with the issue that some would like to continue to discuss. Please take it up there.

http://www.puritanboard.com/f31/what-reformed-view-law-gospel-33247/

If I missed a post that you think is relevant to the issue please let me know and I will be happy to ignore your pleas for help.

Moderator voice off


----------



## R. Scott Clark

What exactly is useful about this essay? What do we learn from JMF here that we can't or haven't learned from those who are not pluralist when it comes to the doctrine of justification?

Am I intolerant of the FV? You bet I am. I just spend 8 years doing little else but dealing with the academic and ecclesiastical consequences of the FV. 

The FV is a profoundly dangerous movement because it corrupts the gospel and corrupts Reformed theology. I think John is dangerous because I think he's a sort of theological gateway drug to moralism. Like the moderates (e.g. Charles Eerdman) at Princeton leading up to 1929 John is a facilitator. He may be personally orthodox but he's quite critical of confessionalists like me who insist that everyone in our churches be orthodox. 

In the long run its the facilitators that do the real damage. Without the Charles Eerdmans and the others like him, maybe the confessionalists wouldn't have been routed the way they were. The moderates made it possible for error to win because they were tolerant of error. 

In its most extreme forms the FV is fairly easy to spot as serious error. In more moderate forms its harder to spot. It took me a while to figure out what John Barach was doing with baptism and union with Christ.

People reading JMF on justification might come to think that well, perhaps the FV isn't so bad after all. No, it's really bad. It's as bad as the PCA, the OPC, and the URCs, and the RCUS, the RPCGA, and the OCRCs say it is -- but what do they know, most of them (except the PCA) are just small churches (says JMF) and their views don't count.

Yes, we can learn from everyone but I guess I take the view that, in a place like the PB, readers, especially those who are new to the Reformed faith, ought not to be encouraged to read writers such as JMF or those with whom he keeps literary company. 

It seems to me that it is a fundamental, sacred duty of a Reformed minister to be absolutely clear and unequivocal about what the gospel is. The gospel is good news, that Christ has accomplished something for us and that is received through faith (trusting, resting, receiving) alone. 

The gospel is not that we all baptized persons are united to Christ in baptism and therefore historically, conditionally elect, justified, adopted and that those benefits must be retained by grace, through faith and works. This is not a message that should be tolerated or encouraged in the least. 

John Frame has tolerated and encouraged the FV. Yes he dissents personally from this view or that (e.g. Shepherd's denial of the imputation of the active obedience of Christ) but he doesn't think that we ought to be critical of those who advocate them. 

I appreciate John's apologetics and his staunch defense of the inerrancy of Scripture. His writing on justification hasn't been nearly as helpful, however. Indeed, it's been less than helpful.


----------



## Casey

R. Scott Clark said:


> 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

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Poimen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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?
Click to expand...


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

R. Scott Clark said:


> 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*



Contra_Mundum said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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.


----------

