# Reformed Presbyterians closer to Reformed Lutherans than Baptists?



## ChristopherPaul

I heard Kim Riddlebarger make the claim that Confessional Presbyterians are more in agreement with Reformed Lutherans (LCMS) than our Calvinist Baptist friends.

What are your thoughts on such a statement?


----------



## Pilgrim

I think that many would disagree with him. Also, there's the issue of the RPW, which many Reformed Baptists would hold to, and I imagine no Lutheran would hold to. Makes me wonder whether he's seen some of the recent shrill denunciations of Calvinism by some LCMS men.

[Edited on 7-26-2006 by Pilgrim]


----------



## Pilgrim

Was this on Riddlebarger's blog, WHI, or somewhere else?


----------



## SRoper

I've never heard the LCMS described as "Reformed Lutheran;" they certainly don't teach limited atonement. They obviously think the gulf is wide enough to exclude us from communion.


----------



## Pilgrim

If he was talking about Luther himself, I might buy it. I think most modern Lutherans don't hold to irresistible grace either and probably wouldn't even qualify as Amaryldian much less Calvinist. But I haven't studied it that much and could be wrong. They also hold to baptismal regeneration and I think most basically reject the third use of the law even thought it is in the Book of Concord. 

I'd like to see the context of Riddlebarger's statement. 

[Edited on 7-26-2006 by Pilgrim]


----------



## Ivan

Well, I know this...I have more in common with you guys here at the PB then I do with probably most Southern Baptists!


----------



## ChristopherPaul

> _Originally posted by Pilgrim_
> Was this on Riddlebarger's blog, WHI, or somewhere else?



Riddlebarger made the statement in the first of 19 lectures on Covenant Theology based on R. Scott Clark's Theses on Covenant Theology.

The lectures were sent to me late last year. I don't know where they are available online. I will check...


----------



## Pilgrim

My understanding is that Lutheranism, holding to baptismal regeneration, doesn't have a well developed covenant theology either.


----------



## Philip A

I would guess that he was referring more to Luteran views of the church, the ministry, and worship, along the lines the high church/low church distinction. This would be in keeping with D. G. Hart's writings, such as the article: Rediscovering Mother Kirk

The other issue that seems to be causing trouble is that most Lutherans of today, even in the LCMS, aren't in line or of the same mind with their tradition.

Relative to the "Reformed" Baptist church I find myself in, I think he is correct.


----------



## AdamM

I think Dr. Riddlebarger is exaggerating a bit.

One thing to note is that among serious Lutherans the Rod Rosenblat sort of irenic approach to Calvinism in my experience is a small minority position. Most LCMS Lutherans that I run into around Concordia STL circles who care, are dead set against most things "Reformed" and rip Calvinism with a vengeance (I think Concordia FW is worse btw). 

I'm also curious where he would find agreement with Lutherans on a listed few things below?

- Eccelsiology (Since when did Lutherans become Presbyterian in Church government?) 
- Sacraments (Lutherans call our position "real absence") and (do Confessional Presbyterians really think baptism is an instrument of conversion?)
- Soteriology - (Confessional Presbyterians have given up on the "I", "L" and "P" in TULIP?)


----------



## Pilgrim

> _Originally posted by AdamM_
> I think Dr. Riddlebarger is exaggerating a bit.
> 
> One thing to note is that among serious Lutherans the Rod Rosenblat sort of irenic approach to Calvinism in my experience is a small minority position. Most LCMS Lutherans that I run into around Concordia STL circles who care, are dead set against most things "Reformed" and rip Calvinism with a vengeance (I think Concordia FW is worse btw).
> 
> I'm also curious where he would find agreement with Lutherans on a listed few things below?
> 
> - Eccelsiology (Since when did Lutherans become Presbyterian in Church government?)
> - Sacraments (Lutherans call our position "real absence") and (do Confessional Presbyterians really think baptism is an instrument of conversion?)
> - Soteriology - (Confessional Presbyterians have given up on the "I", "L" and "P" in TULIP?)



I agree, Adam, that those like Rosenbladt seem to be the minority. You summed it up much more succinctly than I could have. I was thinking of the attacks on Calvinism by Paul McCain late last year that can be found here, here here and here. My guess is that it is probably fairly representative of LCMS views. Perhaps when Riddlebarger said Reformed Lutherans (that's what Christopher put in his post) he meant Lutherans like Rosenbladt and others who are not so antagonistic toward Reformed thought. 

[Edited on 7-26-2006 by Pilgrim]


----------



## Pilgrim

> _Originally posted by Philip A_
> I would guess that he was referring more to Luteran views of the church, the ministry, and worship, along the lines the high church/low church distinction. This would be in keeping with D. G. Hart's writings, such as the article: Rediscovering Mother Kirk
> 
> The other issue that seems to be causing trouble is that most Lutherans of today, even in the LCMS, aren't in line or of the same mind with their tradition.
> 
> Relative to the "Reformed" Baptist church I find myself in, I think he is correct.



The Hart article is certainly an eye opener. I haven't read much of his work on worship. I'm assuming that this article is taken from or is a distillation of his book of the same name. 

He notes that Calvin wrote out prayers for pastors to use in worship and families to use in devotion. The article is essentially a plea for a Presbyterian Book of Common Prayer and asserts that the Puritans overreacted to the Anglican BCP in their fear of Romish forms and that low church Presbyterianism in the tradition of the Puritans, Edwards, Whitefield and Old School Presbyterianism attempt to accommodate both Calvin and Wesley (or Whitefield) and ultimately leads not in a Reformed direction, but in a pentecostal one. 

Evidently Hart continues this line of thought in his recent biography of Nevin.

[Edited on 7-26-2006 by Pilgrim]


----------



## ChristopherPaul

> _Originally posted by Pilgrim_
> Perhaps when Riddlebarger said Reformed Lutherans (that's what Christopher put in his post) he meant Lutherans like Rosenbladt and others who are not so antagonistic toward Reformed thought.



He didn't really qualify what he meant by the Lutheranism he was referring to. I assumed the Rsenbladt Lutheranism. I wish I could find the lectures online. Perhaps Dr. Clark could add some clarity.

I assume that most Reformed people here, if faced with a situation where no Confessional Presbyterian churches were available, they would choose a Calvinistic Baptist church over a LCMS church?


----------



## AdamM

> I agree, Adam, that those like Rosenbladt seem to be the minority. You summed it up much more succinctly than I could have. I was thinking of the attacks on Calvinism by Paul McCain late last year that can be found here, here here and here. My guess is that it is probably fairly representative of LCMS views. Perhaps when Riddlebarger said Reformed Lutherans (that's what Christopher put in his post) he meant Lutherans like Rosenbladt and others who are not so antagonistic toward Reformed thought.



I think you are correct.

I can think of other men who are like Rosenblat in approach, including Gene Edward Veith, but they few and far between in my experience. It's interesting to note that McCain the extreme Calvinism basher, isn't some small fish in the LCMS either, he runs their publishing company. 

They have the same struggles with confessionalism that Reformed folks do , but the ones that give a rip, tend to be very sectarian (by design). Again, these are all my experiences, so feel free to discount them, but once you refuse to acknowledge a local corporal presence in the LS, for most serious Lutherans the conversation is over. They see themselves as charting a midway course between Rome and Calvin (Calvin = radical reformation - I know, but if I had a nickel) and for them at least Rome confesses a real bodily presence. 

This isn't to say that there are not a bunch of real points of agreement we have with the Lutherans, but to say that a Confessional Presbyterian has more in common with an LCMS Lutheran then with a Confessional Reformed Baptist is silly, in my opinion.


----------



## Pilgrim

> _Originally posted by Ivan_
> Well, I know this...I have more in common with you guys here at the PB then I do with probably most Southern Baptists!



No doubt many Southern Baptists agree!


----------



## Ivan

> _Originally posted by Pilgrim_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Ivan_
> Well, I know this...I have more in common with you guys here at the PB then I do with probably most Southern Baptists!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No doubt many Southern Baptists agree!
Click to expand...


 Indeed. 

Yet I haven't had too much trouble...yet. I think it's just a matter of time. God's will be done.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

> _Originally posted by ChristopherPaul_
> I heard Kim Riddlebarger make the claim that Confessional Presbyterians are more in agreement with Reformed Lutherans (LCMS) than our Calvinist Baptist friends.
> 
> What are your thoughts on such a statement?



If this was on the WHI, I guess Kim said "confessional Lutheran." There isn't any such thing as a "Reformed Lutheran," in any real sense of the word. Some of the neo-Kohlbruggian German Reformed used to describe themselves as "Reformed Lutherans," because they didn't hold to the third part of the Heidelberg Catechism (QQ 86-129). This was almost certainly a disservice to confessional Lutheranism.

I have sometimes said this myself. It's a short-hand way of saying that the ethos, the way of relating to broad evangelicalism, commitment to the Reformation solas, the law/gospel distinction, Christian liberty, repudiation of evangelical/revivalist/pietist excesses among some in the LCMS (there's a fair bit of everything in the LCMS; it's 3 million folk or so!) represented by folk such as Todd Wilken or Rod Rosenblatt or David Scaer or Bob Kolb puts confessional Reformed folk closer to them than to many (if not most) "evangelicals."

Yes, we would continue to have big differences over the RPW - though some Lutherans sing more Psalms than some Reformed folk, some ethical issues (the sabbath). Properly understood, as confessed in the Book of Concord, the Lutheran doctrine of the tertius usus legis isn't very far from our understanding of the role of the law in the Christian life.

Kim is talking about our confessional Protestant co-belligerancy against evangelicalism more than anything else.

As often as we say this, however, it remains true that most confessional Lutherans (even Rod and Todd) would not allow me or Kim at their communion rail, in the same way that I would not invite Calvary Chapel members to communion.

rsc


----------



## R. Scott Clark

If I had to choose between a *confessional* LCMS (not a happy-clappy congregation) and a confessional predestinarian Baptist congregation, I would worship with the Lutherans, even though they won't commune me. At least they recognize my baptism and my children's!

[As it happens, I was baptized by an LCMS minister in 1961]. 

In a confessional LCMS or Wisconsin Synod (where they have a rabid hatred for Calvinists but seem never to have actually met any!) one is sure to find the law and gospel preached and distinguished, the absolution of sins declared and not a shred of moralism.

I love my IRBS friends, and I suspect I would do well by them, judging by Jim Renihan and Earl Blackburn, but I guess I might not do as well outside of the IRBS.

rsc



> _Originally posted by ChristopherPaul_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Pilgrim_
> Perhaps when Riddlebarger said Reformed Lutherans (that's what Christopher put in his post) he meant Lutherans like Rosenbladt and others who are not so antagonistic toward Reformed thought.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He didn't really qualify what he meant by the Lutheranism he was referring to. I assumed the Rsenbladt Lutheranism. I wish I could find the lectures online. Perhaps Dr. Clark could add some clarity.
> 
> I assume that most Reformed people here, if faced with a situation where no Confessional Presbyterian churches were available, they would choose a Calvinistic Baptist church over a LCMS church?
Click to expand...


[Edited on 7-27-2006 by R. Scott Clark]


----------



## AdamM

> If I had to choose between a confessional LCMS (not a happy-clappy congregation) and a confessional predestinarian Baptist congregation, I would worship with the Lutherans, even though they won't commune me. At least they recognize my baptism and my children's!



Dr. Clark,

I have great respect for Lutherans and believe them to be helpful co-belligerents in the Gospel with us confessional Presbyterians, but I have a hard time seeing how a Confessional Reformed Baptist, with large sections of the 1689 London Baptist Confession coming directly from the Westminster Confession isn´t a lot closer in theology and practice to Presbyterianism?

I rejoice in our common commitment to the Solas with our Lutheran brethren, but beyond that there just is not a whole lot of unity with reformed confessionalism. The confessional Reformed Baptist affirms with us the five points of Calvinism, while the Lutherans deny at least three (L, I, & P.) I understand Presbyterian confessionalism is much more then the five points, but it certainly can´t be less and have a rightful claim to being anything close to Presbyterianism. The confessional Baptist has what we view as an incomplete covenant theology, but the Lutherans have none. The Lutherans explicitly deny the RPW, while the confessional Baptist affirms it. Yes, we differ with our Reformed Baptist brothers on the sacraments, but Lutheran sacramental theology is quite different from confessional Presbyterianism too. 

BTW, doesn´t Westminster California have some sort of Reformed Baptist institute and graduate pastors who serve confessional Reformed Baptist churches? I would find that strange that if as claimed that confessional Reformed Baptists are further away from Westminster Confessionalism then are Lutherans.



[Edited on 7-27-2006 by AdamM]


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Adam,

I understand your concerns and share some of them. We're speaking in general terms here.

It's a matter of priority. Lutherans teach an unconditional election. They also confess things that are inconsistent with that conviction. As a practial matter, however, I guess I've never heard a confessional Lutheran preach anything other than law/gospel whereas I've heard RB's preach ignorant, angry, rants (Al Martin) against paedobaptism. I'm thankful for Martin for driving me back to Scripture where having heard him yell "It says 'repent and be baptized'" several times, I found the next verse (Acts 2:39) to which I had not given much attention previously. 

A more profound reason would be Belgic Confession Art 29 which stipulates three marks of a true church. It's true that the descendants of the English Baptists are more like us than the Anabaptists, but part of what made the AB's a "sect" according to the Belgic is their denial of baptism to covenant children. That is a most serious matter and a denial of one of the marks of a true church. In contrast, despite our differences over three of the 5 points of Dort, I'm not aware that the Reformed have ever regarded the confessional Lutherans as anything other than a true church. They have the marks of a true church, however corrupt, in other regards, their doctrine may be. We selected those marks advisedly, after several years of argument and discussion with the Lutherans. 

Reformed Baptists, if they are consistent, cannot regard us a Baptized persons. Therefore, they cannot commune us. So, with the Lutherans, at least -- so far as I know -- I am a baptized person, even if a "crafty sacramentarian." 

Historically, we are organically related to the Lutherans. We regarded ourselves as Luther's children, even if the Lutherans won't acknowledge us as such. The RB's are, I suppose, our rebellious children. 

Yes, we do host the IRBS and Dr Jim Renihan and the Rev Mr Earl Blackburn are good friends. Jim lives only a few yards from me. I've enjoyed their students and they've even asked me to lecture at their annual conference. We get along well. We understand each other. I do my best to win RB students for the paedobaptist view and they try to keep them for the Baptist view. It's not personal. It's a matter of principle. They are principled men and they understand my principles, even if they don't accept them. 

If it's a matter of percentage of the confessional matter that overlaps, well, the RB's win, but I doubt that's the best way to decide where to worship, which is the question I'm trying to answer.

It's a difficult choice, and I would not judge anyone for making a different choice, but those are my reasons.

rsc




> _Originally posted by AdamM_
> 
> 
> 
> If I had to choose between a confessional LCMS (not a happy-clappy congregation) and a confessional predestinarian Baptist congregation, I would worship with the Lutherans, even though they won't commune me. At least they recognize my baptism and my children's!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr. Clark,
> 
> I have great respect for Lutherans and believe them to be helpful co-belligerents in the Gospel with us confessional Presbyterians, but I have a hard time seeing how a Confessional Reformed Baptist, with large sections of the 1689 London Baptist Confession coming directly from the Westminster Confession isn´t a lot closer in theology and practice to Presbyterianism?
> 
> I rejoice in our common commitment to the Solas with our Lutheran brethren, but beyond that there just is not a whole lot of unity with reformed confessionalism. The confessional Reformed Baptist affirms with us the five points of Calvinism, while the Lutherans deny at least three (L, I, & P.) I understand Presbyterian confessionalism is much more then the five points, but it certainly can´t be less and have a rightful claim to being anything close to Presbyterianism. The confessional Baptist has what we view as an incomplete covenant theology, but the Lutherans have none. The Lutherans explicitly deny the RPW, while the confessional Baptist affirms it. Yes, we differ with our Reformed Baptist brothers on the sacraments, but Lutheran sacramental theology is quite different from confessional Presbyterianism too.
> 
> BTW, doesn´t Westminster California have some sort of Reformed Baptist institute and graduate pastors who serve confessional Reformed Baptist churches? I would find that strange that if as claimed that confessional Reformed Baptists are further away from Westminster Confessionalism then are Lutherans.
> 
> 
> 
> [Edited on 7-27-2006 by AdamM]
Click to expand...


----------



## AdamM

Scott, 

Thank you for the interaction. I'm in a weird position because I have great appreciation for Lutherans and make it a point to listen to Todd Wilken's excellent radio program during the drive home almost everyday, so I trust that my comments aren't taken by anyone as bashing Lutheranism. I actually have found Luther's small catechism to be very helpful and believe the law/gospel hermeneutic is at its essence just another way of expressing COW v. COG theology. 

My main point was to counter what I perceive is a tendency among some high church Reformed folk to take gratuitous shots at our Reformed Baptist brothers (which I know you don't do btw.) I think if winsome, gospel loving, Calvinism preaching pastors like Tom Ascol, Sam Waldron, Mark Dever and the Founders are no longer considered near to us as Confessional Presbyterians, then we're going seriously off the tracks and need a course correction.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Dear Adam,

I understand. 

Mark Dever is a terrific fellow and a friend and a great advocate for the gospel. I don't know personally the others you mention, but they are, baptism aside, good men.

That, of course, isn't the point.

My fundamental question is whether they regard us as baptized persons? To say: "You are not baptized" is to say, "You are outside the covenant community." As I understand our confession of the Scriptures, that's a very serious thing to say.

I recognize that there are predestinarian Baptists who regard me as Baptized, for which graciousness I am truly thankful. It's probably not very consistent with their theology and confession, but it's a happy inconsistency.

As to "high church," do you mean Calvin's Strasbourg (or Genevan, though I prefer the Strasbourg because the Genevan civil authorities mucked up the Genevan; stupid city council!) Liturgies? Those are all the "higher" I care to go! 

What constitutes a "high" liturgy?

rsc



> _Originally posted by AdamM_
> Scott,
> 
> Thank you for the interaction. I'm in a weird position because I have great appreciation for Lutherans and make it a point to listen to Todd Wilken's excellent radio program during the drive home almost everyday, so I trust that my comments aren't taken by anyone as bashing Lutheranism. I actually have found Luther's small catechism to be very helpful and believe the law/gospel hermeneutic is at its essence just another way of expressing COW v. COG theology.
> 
> My main point was to counter what I perceive is a tendency among some high church Reformed folk to take gratuitous shots at our Reformed Baptist brothers (which I know you don't do btw.) I think if winsome, gospel loving, Calvinism preaching pastors like Tom Ascol, Sam Waldron, Mark Dever and the Founders are no longer considered near to us as Confessional Presbyterians, then we're going seriously off the tracks and need a course correction.


----------



## Me Died Blue

Dr. Clark,

It seems that we are all agreed on a great deal of the commonalities we have with confessional believers of both Lutheran and Baptist persuasion. And regarding the further issue of external covenant membership, I do see your point in how that is a significant issue weighing in on where one would corporately worship - and that due to the very nature of corporate worship, that doctrine of covenant membership may indeed have a greater type of weight than mere agreement on various other issues would when considering where one would align themselves in such worship.

Even so, regarding the issue of confessional overlap in those "other issues," I wanted to clarify your use of the term "predestinarian Baptist," since you used the term more than once. Even if people disagree as to the historical and theological honesty of the term "Reformed Baptist," if nothing else I assume you would agree that we have much more in common with a true, consistent 1689-confessing Baptist than we do with a mere "predestinarian" Baptist who could believe any number of things on many key issues. As such, even if one does not like some of the implications of the term "Reformed Baptist" (and I could go either way at the time), the simple term "predestinarian Baptist" still does not seem to do justice to the commonality we have with 1689'ers.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Chris,

I'm open to suggestions. It has seemed to me that PB is preferable to RB on the theory that there is much more to being Reformed than predestination and most folk, when they use the term, simply mean "PB." They're not usually invoking all the other loci of theology (doctrines of Scripture, God, Man, Christ etc).

It seems to me that if someone denies that my children are properly members of the covenant of grace and, as such, not eligible for the sign/seal of covenant initiation, they cannot be called Reformed.

We have, with our Baptist friends, a profound difference over the nature of redemptive history. They interject a radical and unwarranted discontinuity between Abraham and Christ/Paul. We do not have this difficulty with the Lutherans. 

It seems to me that it is not really Christology, anthropology, or the like that really get so-called RB's "out of bed" as it were. It's paptism and predestination that get them going. 

Yes, the 1689 borrows much from the WCF. That's fine, but is that what animates them? Is that their ethos? 

With the Lutherans we have a great deal of history regarding distinctions between theology as God knows and as we know it -- they attribute to Christ's humanity archetypal theology, but at least they begin with the TA/TE distinction. 

Is this true of the RB's? Is this part of their ethos, part of what makes them what they are? 

Do they, with the Reformed and the Lutheran speak freely of "the means of grace?"

It seems to me that the Reformed are from a different time and place. Our roots are not quite theirs. They have, as has been noted on this board, ambiguous relations to the Anabaptists. Neither we nor the Lutherans do. 

Other things about which to think.

I thought PD was a friendly term, but if there is an friendlier and more accurate term, let's use it.

rsc



> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> Dr. Clark,
> 
> It seems that we are all agreed on a great deal of the commonalities we have with confessional believers of both Lutheran and Baptist persuasion. And regarding the further issue of external covenant membership, I do see your point in how that is a significant issue weighing in on where one would corporately worship - and that due to the very nature of corporate worship, that doctrine of covenant membership may indeed have a greater type of weight than mere agreement on various other issues would when considering where one would align themselves in such worship.
> 
> Even so, regarding the issue of confessional overlap in those "other issues," I wanted to clarify your use of the term "predestinarian Baptist," since you used the term more than once. Even if people disagree as to the historical and theological honesty of the term "Reformed Baptist," if nothing else I assume you would agree that we have much more in common with a true, consistent 1689-confessing Baptist than we do with a mere "predestinarian" Baptist who could believe any number of things on many key issues. As such, even if one does not like some of the implications of the term "Reformed Baptist" (and I could go either way at the time), the simple term "predestinarian Baptist" still does not seem to do justice to the commonality we have with 1689'ers.


----------



## ChristopherPaul

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by ChristopherPaul_
> I heard Kim Riddlebarger make the claim that Confessional Presbyterians are more in agreement with Reformed Lutherans (LCMS) than our Calvinist Baptist friends.
> 
> What are your thoughts on such a statement?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If this was on the WHI, I guess Kim said "confessional Lutheran." There isn't any such thing as a "Reformed Lutheran," in any real sense of the word.
Click to expand...


Thank you Dr. Clark for comments. Kim Riddlebarger may have used the term "confessional Lutheran." The statement was not made on the WHI (I would think it would not be appreciated by Ken Jones). He mentioned this during his presentation of your thesis on CT. I can not locate the lectures online.


----------



## Pilgrim

Predestinarian is not a bad term, just perhaps a little imprecise. As Chris Blum noted above, there are all different types of baptistic folks who could fit under that umbrella, including dispensationalists of the MacArthur/S. Lewis Johnson variety, NCT, 1689ers, those who would identify strongly with the anabaptists and others who would instead identify with the Puritans, to Landmarkers and Primitive Baptists of the Absolute Predestinarian Order. 

That being said, I'm not a big fan of the term Reformed Baptist either since it reflects the common tendency today to reduce Reformed theology to just the 5 points. I would prefer Calvinistic Baptist to Reformed Baptist since it may to some minds focus more narrowly on soteriology, but others would probably disagree with me there. Some use Historic Baptist, but that means different things to different people and can be invoked to support a myriad of different emphases. Perhaps the best term is the old label of Particular Baptist since it identifies with the English Baptists who gave us the 1st and 2nd London Confessions of Faith, but that term seems to have fallen out of general usage some time ago. 

Another thought is to use the term Confessional Baptist for those who hold to the 1689 confession. I don't know that any would be what we would term strict subscriptionists, but it's a term that could perhaps be useful.


----------



## Pilgrim

I (and I think most of us) would identify more with low church Anglican evangelicals like J.C. Ryle than with Lutherans but there don't seem to be many of them around these days.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Confessional Baptist is a fair and useful term. It certainly describes the way the IRBS folk think of themselves.

As you say, it doesn't describe others such as those affiliated with FIRE.

I don't think "Calvinistic Baptist" is appropriate as it reduces Calvin's theology to soteriology and disregards that which the eponym confessed and taught to be of the utmost importance! In short, "Calvinistic Baptist" is an oxymoron. It would cause Calvin to spin in his unmarked grave.

Perhaps "PD" would describe the predestinarian dispensationalists and quasi-dispensationalists who hang around the fringes of Reformed theology?

rsc



> _Originally posted by Pilgrim_
> Predestinarian is not a bad term, just perhaps a little imprecise. As Chris Blum noted above, there are all different types of baptistic folks who could fit under that umbrella, including dispensationalists of the MacArthur/S. Lewis Johnson variety, NCT, 1689ers, those who would identify strongly with the anabaptists and others who would instead identify with the Puritans, to Landmarkers and Primitive Baptists of the Absolute Predestinarian Order.
> 
> That being said, I'm not a big fan of the term Reformed Baptist either since it reflects the common tendency today to reduce Reformed theology to just the 5 points. I would prefer Calvinistic Baptist to Reformed Baptist since it may to some minds focus more narrowly on soteriology, but others would probably disagree with me there. Some use Historic Baptist, but that means different things to different people and can be invoked to support a myriad of different emphases. Perhaps the best term is the old label of Particular Baptist since it identifies with the English Baptists who gave us the 1st and 2nd London Confessions of Faith, but that term seems to have fallen out of general usage some time ago.
> 
> Another thought is to use the term Confessional Baptist for those who hold to the 1689 confession. I don't know that any would be what we would term strict subscriptionists, but it's a term that could perhaps be useful.


----------



## Pilgrim

Sovereign Grace is another term that has been used, especially by those Baptists who would reject (rightly in my opinion) the terms Reformed or Calvinistic because they as Baptists could not identify with all of what those terms imply.


----------



## AdamM

> My fundamental question is whether they regard us as baptized persons? To say: "You are not baptized" is to say, "You are outside the covenant community." As I understand our confession of the Scriptures, that's a very serious thing to say.
> 
> I recognize that there are predestinarian Baptists who regard me as Baptized, for which graciousness I am truly thankful. It's probably not very consistent with their theology and confession, but it's a happy inconsistency.



Hi Scott,

Here are some mostly random thoughts: 

1. In regard to Baptists considering you outside the covenant community, I think you are correct about the happy inconsistency, but I also think we need to honor the fact that as far as I can find their confessional documents and practice most don´t make that leap. I think in some ways its equivalent to the Lutherans denying us table fellowship. What does denying a fellow professing Christian the Lord's Table indicate? Happily, but perhaps also inconsistently, I´m sure most Lutherans consider me a covenant member although they deny me the covenant meal for which I have a right to eat. 

2. I wonder in regard to confessional Baptists, if it´s really fair to bring up subjective judgments about emphasis of some pastors and letting those trump the many points of agreement we find between Westminster and the 1689 LBC? It seems to me that fairness demands that "œconfessional" Baptist theology ought to be judged by the objective standards that they confess, not the failure of some to properly apply the theology they confess. 

3. Yes, I agree that it´s helpful to look back at the historical streams, but don´t think the current situation can necessarily be fit into a static model. From my observation we are seeing the confessional Baptist camp moving more toward our "œcovenantal" direction (www.founders.org), due to many Baptist ministerial students graduating from the same seminaries that are preparing most PCA/OPC/URCNA candidates (if the gap between confessional Baptists and confessional Presbyterians is so wide that would hardly make sense.) Confessional Baptists and confessional Presbyterians have for many years worked closely together as co-belligerents in organizations such as the Banner of Truth and the cross pollination of theological writing between both camps is extensive. I can´t think of a Lutheran in our circles that has the influence of D.A.Carson, Doug Moo, Tom Schreiner or Ron Nash and I doubt many Lutherans would think of using Hodge´s systematic as their primary textbook like confessional Baptist J.P. Boyce, a former student of Charles Hodge did with his own students. I could just be blind to all the links we as Presbyterians have with confessional Lutherans, but I just don´t see them? 



> As to "high church," do you mean Calvin's Strasbourg (or Genevan, though I prefer the Strasbourg because the Genevan civil authorities mucked up the Genevan; stupid city council!) Liturgies? Those are all the "higher" I care to go!





> What constitutes a "high" liturgy?



No, I wasn't referring to Calvin's Strasbourg. I was thinking more along the lines of the modern Mercersburg approach, where the Lord's Supper supplants the preaching of the Word as the primary focus of worship, along with vestments (I am not meaning Geneva gowns) and etc.

I enjoy and appreciate the interaction Brother and pray you are doing well!

[Edited on 7-28-2006 by AdamM]


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Adam,

You raise interesting points.





> 1. In regard to Baptists considering you outside the covenant community, I think you are correct about the happy inconsistency, but I also think we need to honor the fact that as far as I can find their confessional documents and practice most don´t make that leap.



Can you clarify? Do you mean to say that because the LBC etc do not explicitly say "those baptized as infants aren't really baptized" that this is not an RB conviction?



> I think in some ways its equivalent to the Lutherans denying us table fellowship.



Some confessional Lutherans, as I understand them, won't necessarily commune other Lutherans, though they recognize them as fellow believers. 

The CanRC's require a letter from one's consistory to commune; no letter, no communion.

I think we agree that to refuse to commune someone is not the same as saying they are not a Christian. 

To deny one's baptism when administered in the name of the Trinity is to say that one has never been initiated into the covenant community. These denials are on two different orders.



> 2. I wonder in regard to confessional Baptists, if it´s really fair to bring up subjective judgments about emphasis of some pastors and letting those trump the many points of agreement we find between Westminster and the 1689 LBC?



It isn't entirely fair. I admit that, but we're not talking about merger here, we're talking about where to worship. One draws from a variety of places to make such prudential judgments. 



> It seems to me that fairness demands that "œconfessional" Baptist theology ought to be judged by the objective standards that they confess, not the failure of some to properly apply the theology they confess.



Would it help if I've often sat in so-called "Reformed" services (on the road) and wished that I'd sought out the local LCMS or WELS? Angry "Reformed" ranting and appalling liturgics is just as disheartening.

I'm fully committed to Reformed confessionalism and could never be a Lutheran for a variety of reasons, but Reformed nuttiness does wear on me and I see more than enough in RB circles to make me cautious. 

3.


> From my observation we are seeing the confessional Baptist camp moving more toward our "œcovenantal" direction (www.founders.org), due to many Baptist ministerial students



Well, they're becoming more predestinarian and I do see some good things in the ARBCA, but do you really want to say "more covenantal"? 

I've commented on the ARBCA (very much from the outside) on this list. I'm impressed with their confessionalism and the degree to which they agree with us, but they still won't baptize their children!



> .... Confessional Baptists and confessional Presbyterians have for many years worked closely together as co-belligerents in organizations such as the Banner of Truth and the cross pollination of theological writing between both camps is extensive.



Yes, this is true, but it hasn't always been a good thing has it? Don't we sometimes treat baptism as if it were a sort of second blessing? Isn't this the sort of approach to the sacraments that helps fuel deviant movements such as the Fed Vis?



> I can´t think of a Lutheran in our circles that has the influence of D.A.Carson, Doug Moo, Tom Schreiner or Ron Nash



This hasn't always been to our benefit. Here's a counter argument: Where would we be without Mike Horton, Kim Riddlebarger et al? From where did they get their start? From a crusty, cranky, (I must be forgetting something) confessional Lutheran: Rod Rosenblatt. We didn't recover our own tradition re law and gospel without a lot of help from the Lutherans.



> and I doubt many Lutherans would think of using Hodge´s systematic as their primary textbook like confessional Baptist J.P. Boyce, a former student of Charles Hodge did with his own students.



This isn't entirely fair. The Baptists in view are our rebellious children. Of course they read their parents' books. 

There isn't quite the same relation to the Lutherans. We have our own books, though we used to read and use theirs quite frequently. We don't do that much any more, but I would like us to re-engage with the Lutherans. They could help us and, if they'll let us, I think we could help them. 

If I could make Presbyterians and Reformed folk do one thing, it's this: READ LUTHER! We used to do all the time. I get the impression that we don't much and that's to our shame and hurt.

As I say, I'm not trying to impose my views on anyone else. I would if I could, but I can't so I don't.



> I could just be blind to all the links we as Presbyterians have with confessional Lutherans, but I just don´t see them?



Could it be that you don't give enough weight to the past?



> No, I wasn't referring to Calvin's Strasbourg. I was thinking more along the lines of the modern Mercersburg approach, where the Lord's Supper supplants the preaching of the Word as the primary focus of worship, along with vestments (I am not meaning Geneva gowns) and etc.



Who, among the confessional Reformed folk, is arguing for a renewal of the Mercersburg Liturgies? Certainly neither I nor Hart. Sure, Jeff Myers, Lusk et al are using Mercersburg romantically as a paradigm, but they're not confessional. 

Mercersburg seems to me to be a red herring. I would just like to re-appropriate our tradition. I want to worship with digntiy according to our confession. 

Can you give an example of confessional folk turning to "high church" liturgies?

peace

rsc


----------



## Hungus

*Dr. Riddlebarger\'s Reply to Me*



> _Originally posted by ChristopherPaul_
> I heard Kim Riddlebarger make the claim that Confessional Presbyterians are more in agreement with Reformed Lutherans (LCMS) than our Calvinist Baptist friends.
> 
> What are your thoughts on such a statement?


My statement to Dr Riddlebarger followed by his reply:
1). "Reformed Presbyterians closer to Reformed Lutherans than Baptists? I heard Kim Riddlebarger make the claim that Confessional Presbyterians are more in agreement with Reformed Lutherans (LCMS) than our Calvinist Baptist friends. What are your thoughts on such a statement?" I was wondering if I could get an answer straight from the horses 
mouth so to speak?

Reply:
The Lutheran law/gospel distinction is very similar in terms of emphasis to classic covenant theology, which is the architecture of Reformed/Presbyterian theology. Take a guy like John MacArthur, who is a five-point Calvinist and a dispensationalist. While we have the five points in common, we really do have a different hermeneutic Thus MacArthur will reject paedobaptism and Reformed eschatology, even while being a "five point" Calvinist. The Lutherans will read the Bible in a way much like the Reformed (although they have their own errors--baptismal regeneration, rejection of perseverance and so on).

If you've heard me on KFUO with Todd Wilken, you can see this in practice. Now, there are baptists with a Reformed hermeneutic (Ken Jones, Mark Dever), and these guys are much closer.


----------



## Pilgrim

> _Originally posted by Hungus_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by ChristopherPaul_
> I heard Kim Riddlebarger make the claim that Confessional Presbyterians are more in agreement with Reformed Lutherans (LCMS) than our Calvinist Baptist friends.
> 
> What are your thoughts on such a statement?
> 
> 
> 
> My statement to Dr Riddlebarger followed by his reply:
> 1). "Reformed Presbyterians closer to Reformed Lutherans than Baptists? I heard Kim Riddlebarger make the claim that Confessional Presbyterians are more in agreement with Reformed Lutherans (LCMS) than our Calvinist Baptist friends. What are your thoughts on such a statement?" I was wondering if I could get an answer straight from the horses
> mouth so to speak?
> 
> Reply:
> The Lutheran law/gospel distinction is very similar in terms of emphasis to classic covenant theology, which is the architecture of Reformed/Presbyterian theology. Take a guy like John MacArthur, who is a five-point Calvinist and a dispensationalist. While we have the five points in common, we really do have a different hermeneutic Thus MacArthur will reject paedobaptism and Reformed eschatology, even while being a "five point" Calvinist. The Lutherans will read the Bible in a way much like the Reformed (although they have their own errors--baptismal regeneration, rejection of perseverance and so on).
> 
> If you've heard me on KFUO with Todd Wilken, you can see this in practice. Now, there are baptists with a Reformed hermeneutic (Ken Jones, Mark Dever), and these guys are much closer.
Click to expand...


Ok, I'll buy that. Thanks for getting that clarification. But I think it's worth continuing to point out that Wilken's and Rosenbladt's irenic posture toward Calvinism appears to be about as representative of the LCMS as Mark Dever and the Founders are of the Southern Baptist Convention.


----------



## crhoades

> _Originally posted by Pilgrim_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Hungus_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by ChristopherPaul_
> I heard Kim Riddlebarger make the claim that Confessional Presbyterians are more in agreement with Reformed Lutherans (LCMS) than our Calvinist Baptist friends.
> 
> What are your thoughts on such a statement?
> 
> 
> 
> My statement to Dr Riddlebarger followed by his reply:
> 1). "Reformed Presbyterians closer to Reformed Lutherans than Baptists? I heard Kim Riddlebarger make the claim that Confessional Presbyterians are more in agreement with Reformed Lutherans (LCMS) than our Calvinist Baptist friends. What are your thoughts on such a statement?" I was wondering if I could get an answer straight from the horses
> mouth so to speak?
> 
> Reply:
> The Lutheran law/gospel distinction is very similar in terms of emphasis to classic covenant theology, which is the architecture of Reformed/Presbyterian theology. Take a guy like John MacArthur, who is a five-point Calvinist and a dispensationalist. While we have the five points in common, we really do have a different hermeneutic Thus MacArthur will reject paedobaptism and Reformed eschatology, even while being a "five point" Calvinist. The Lutherans will read the Bible in a way much like the Reformed (although they have their own errors--baptismal regeneration, rejection of perseverance and so on).
> 
> If you've heard me on KFUO with Todd Wilken, you can see this in practice. Now, there are baptists with a Reformed hermeneutic (Ken Jones, Mark Dever), and these guys are much closer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, I'll buy that. Thanks for getting that clarification. But I think it's worth continuing to point out that Wilken's and Rosenbladt's irenic posture toward Calvinism appears to be about as representative of the LCMS as Mark Dever and the Founders are of the Southern Baptist Convention.
Click to expand...


Here's a solution that would solve a lot of confusion...

Have Rosenbladt, Wilken, and Dever go presbyterian and we call it a day!


----------



## ChristopherPaul

Thanks R Kelly!



> _Originally posted by Hungus_
> If you've heard me on KFUO with Todd Wilken, you can see this in practice. Now, there are baptists with a Reformed hermeneutic (Ken Jones, Mark Dever), and these guys are much closer.



For those who are interested, you can listen to Todd Wilken and Issues etc. at http://www.kfuo.org/ie_main.htm

Kim was a guest on the following brodcasts:

http://www.kfuo.org/Issues_ETC/ie_05_25_06.htm
http://www.kfuo.org/Issues_ETC/ie_06_02_06.htm
http://www.kfuo.org/Issues_ETC/ie_06_06_06.htm
http://www.kfuo.org/Issues_ETC/ie_06_07_06.htm
http://www.kfuo.org/Issues_ETC/ie_06_12_05.htm
http://www.kfuo.org/Issues_ETC/ie_06_18_06.htm
http://www.kfuo.org/Issues_ETC/ie_08_22_04.htm

[Edited on 7-31-2006 by ChristopherPaul]


----------



## ChristopherPaul

> _Originally posted by crhoades_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Pilgrim_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Hungus_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by ChristopherPaul_
> I heard Kim Riddlebarger make the claim that Confessional Presbyterians are more in agreement with Reformed Lutherans (LCMS) than our Calvinist Baptist friends.
> 
> What are your thoughts on such a statement?
> 
> 
> 
> My statement to Dr Riddlebarger followed by his reply:
> 1). "Reformed Presbyterians closer to Reformed Lutherans than Baptists? I heard Kim Riddlebarger make the claim that Confessional Presbyterians are more in agreement with Reformed Lutherans (LCMS) than our Calvinist Baptist friends. What are your thoughts on such a statement?" I was wondering if I could get an answer straight from the horses
> mouth so to speak?
> 
> Reply:
> The Lutheran law/gospel distinction is very similar in terms of emphasis to classic covenant theology, which is the architecture of Reformed/Presbyterian theology. Take a guy like John MacArthur, who is a five-point Calvinist and a dispensationalist. While we have the five points in common, we really do have a different hermeneutic Thus MacArthur will reject paedobaptism and Reformed eschatology, even while being a "five point" Calvinist. The Lutherans will read the Bible in a way much like the Reformed (although they have their own errors--baptismal regeneration, rejection of perseverance and so on).
> 
> If you've heard me on KFUO with Todd Wilken, you can see this in practice. Now, there are baptists with a Reformed hermeneutic (Ken Jones, Mark Dever), and these guys are much closer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, I'll buy that. Thanks for getting that clarification. But I think it's worth continuing to point out that Wilken's and Rosenbladt's irenic posture toward Calvinism appears to be about as representative of the LCMS as Mark Dever and the Founders are of the Southern Baptist Convention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's a solution that would solve a lot of confusion...
> 
> Have Rosenbladt, Wilken, and Dever go presbyterian and we call it a day!
Click to expand...


You mean go _Reformed_ right? Same thing


----------



## AdamM

> Reply:
> The Lutheran law/gospel distinction is very similar in terms of emphasis to classic covenant theology, which is the architecture of Reformed/Presbyterian theology. Take a guy like John MacArthur, who is a five-point Calvinist and a dispensationalist. While we have the five points in common, we really do have a different hermeneutic Thus MacArthur will reject paedobaptism and Reformed eschatology, even while being a "five point" Calvinist. The Lutherans will read the Bible in a way much like the Reformed (although they have their own errors--baptismal regeneration, rejection of perseverance and so on).



Kelly thank you doing the leg work to contact Dr. Riddlebarger and getting some further clairification. 

If you've heard the WHI much you know that the law/gospel distinction is what drives them (and me too, btw), but I wonder if it's accurate to say that a sharp law/gospel distinction as you find in Lutheranism is really distinctive of all or most Reformed Theology? If it is, then Dr. Riddlebarger's original statement that got this thread going makes more sense to me, because most everything for Lutherans is sharp law/gospel, whereas I think many branches of Reformed theology with the greater emphasis on the third use of the law have tended to not make such a sharp distinction between the two. I'm not arguing that the sharp law/gospel distinction isn't very helpful, but rather even as one sympathetic to it, that to say that if a sharp law/gospel distinction (as you find in Lutheranism) is what determines the closeness to Reformed theology then Dr. Riddlebarger has tossed perhaps the majority of Presbyterian and Reformed folk today and historically out of the camp.

[Edited on 7-31-2006 by AdamM]


----------



## AdamM

> Would it help if I've often sat in so-called "Reformed" services (on the road) and wished that I'd sought out the local LCMS or WELS? Angry "Reformed" ranting and appalling liturgics is just as disheartening.



Hi Scott,

I understand and I think that judgments about attending a particular church at the local level are a much more complicated then working in theoretical categories (since I make it a point to avoid ranters, nuts and kooks, I would probably be in the pew beside you.) 




> Yes, this is true, but it hasn't always been a good thing has it? Don't we sometimes treat baptism as if it were a sort of second blessing? Isn't this the sort of approach to the sacraments that helps fuel deviant movements such as the Fed Vis?



On the whole I think the Banner "œproject" was a helpful undertaking, they published some excellent books, got wider exposure for a number of godly men who have blessed the church, but I admit that the recent essay in the NTJ on the aftereffects of the Cambridge Declaration raised some interesting points. Perhaps our expectations are too high for these sorts of LCD ministries, publishers and radio/tv programs? 

I think there is no doubt that one component of the FV is an overcorrection to some real problems related to low views about the sacraments in our circles, but you could also lay the FV at the feet of the various BT/ RH developments gone to seed. 



> If I could make Presbyterians and Reformed folk do one thing, it's this: READ LUTHER! We used to do all the time. I get the impression that we don't much and that's to our shame and hurt.



Amen! As I indicated earlier, I listen to Todd Wilken´s show most days driving home and enjoy occasionally trading some e-mails with him, so I wouldn´t want anyone thinking I am bashing Lutherans in the slightest. 



> Who, among the confessional Reformed folk, is arguing for a renewal of the Mercersburg Liturgies? Certainly neither I nor Hart. Sure, Jeff Myers, Lusk et al are using Mercersburg romantically as a paradigm, but they're not confessional.
> 
> Mercersburg seems to me to be a red herring. I would just like to re-appropriate our tradition. I want to worship with dignity according to our confession.
> 
> Can you give an example of confessional folk turning to "high church" liturgies?



I apologize for not wording my previously reply better. I find a lot of really good stuff in the return to the more historic Reformed and Presbyterian liturgies; I am in no way against that. The reading of more scripture, the corporate confession of creeds and the weekly confession and hearing forgiveness are great blessing and to the extent that we reform the worship in our churches in that direction I am all for it. The only aspect I find troubling in some quarters seems to be the deliberate move to replace the preached Word with the Lord´s Table as the primary element in our worship. I don´t see how that can be squared with historic Presbyterian and Reformed worship. You certainly don´t do that, neither does Daryl Hart or anyone in your circles, so please forgive me if that´s how it came across. 

I hope your week is off to a good start!

[Edited on 7-31-2006 by AdamM]


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Lutherans confess, in the Book of Concord, the third use of the law.

I don't think there is as much difference between them and us on this as folk often say.

The fact that we quit, for a variety of reasons, talking about the law/gospel distinction doesn't mean it's not as foundational for us as for the Lutherans.

See this page.

rsc



> _Originally posted by AdamM_
> 
> 
> 
> Reply:
> The Lutheran law/gospel distinction is very similar in terms of emphasis to classic covenant theology, which is the architecture of Reformed/Presbyterian theology. Take a guy like John MacArthur, who is a five-point Calvinist and a dispensationalist. While we have the five points in common, we really do have a different hermeneutic Thus MacArthur will reject paedobaptism and Reformed eschatology, even while being a "five point" Calvinist. The Lutherans will read the Bible in a way much like the Reformed (although they have their own errors--baptismal regeneration, rejection of perseverance and so on).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kelly thank you doing the leg work to contact Dr. Riddlebarger and getting some further clairification.
> 
> If you've heard the WHI much you know that the law/gospel distinction is what drives them (and me too, btw), but I wonder if it's accurate to say that a sharp law/gospel distinction as you find in Lutheranism is really distinctive of all or most Reformed Theology? If it is, then Dr. Riddlebarger's original statement that got this thread going makes more sense to me, because most everything for Lutherans is sharp law/gospel, whereas I think many branches of Reformed theology with the greater emphasis on the third use of the law have tended to not make such a sharp distinction between the two. I'm not arguing that the sharp law/gospel distinction isn't very helpful, but rather even as one sympathetic to it, that to say that if a sharp law/gospel distinction (as you find in Lutheranism) is what determines the closeness to Reformed theology then Dr. Riddlebarger has tossed perhaps the majority of Presbyterian and Reformed folk today and historically out of the camp.
> 
> [Edited on 7-31-2006 by AdamM]
Click to expand...


----------



## AdamM

> Lutherans confess, in the Book of Concord, the third use of the law.
> 
> I don't think there is as much difference between them and us on this as folk often say.
> 
> The fact that we quit, for a variety of reasons, talking about the law/gospel distinction doesn't mean it's not as foundational for us as for the Lutherans.



It seems to me that the issue in Reformed circles isn't so much whether there is a distinction between law/gospel, but how sharp that distinction is to be made. The Lutherans see law/gospel as black and white in every passage, while it seems to me that the Reformed have been comfortable seeing something like the Mosaic covenant as a dispensation of the Covenant of Grace that contains elements of the Covenant of Works. I can't imagine under their sharp law/gospel distinction that a Lutheran would find that acceptable. In other words, C.F. Walther doesn't end up reading like BB Warfield, Dabney or Sinclair Ferguson even though both traditions acknowledge a distinction between land and gospel.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Adam,

Historically, the Reformed made EXACTLY the same distinction as the Lutherans. It's not an historical distinction (Moses v Christ) but a HERMENEUTICAL distinction between different types of speech.

Please read the quotations that I provided.

I have a chapter on this in the forthcoming volume on Covenant and Justification from P&R, Dv.

See also Mike Horton's essay in the WTJ a couple of years ago where he discussed this. See also his essay re Calvin and the Law/Gospel distinction.

There are differences between the way the Lutherans speak of Law and Gospel and the way we have done, but I doubt very much the differences are as you put them.

In fact, when I preach, I ask myself how law and gospel function in the passage I am preaching. I learned this from Theodore Beza and William Perkins -- those Lutherans.

Some passages are Law and some are Gospel and some are both. Asking this question doesn't make the hermeneutical question easier and it's not a cookie cutter.

I appreciate the fact that the Lutherans have held our feet to fire on this. We have a tendency to wander into moralism, to start with the 3rd use. I have often been guilty of this. I have also been guilty of confusing the 1st and 3rd uses and essentially contradicting the gospel with the wrong use of the law.

Given the current controversy over it seems to me that we cannot be too clear about this!

This has been discussed this board many times. 

This  thread might be a good place to start. 

I'm not sure what it means to ask "how sharp?" Such a question implies premises that are not true.

Touching justification the law is nothing but "do" and the gospel is nothing but "done" (or prospectively: "shall do").

Distinctions don't t come any "sharper" than that do they? Where is there a gradation here?

Luther certainly saw Moses, in certain respects, as an administration of the covenant of grace. I'm not sure what you're saying here.

See the links I provided re Warfield et al.

rsc




> _Originally posted by AdamM_
> 
> 
> 
> Lutherans confess, in the Book of Concord, the third use of the law.
> 
> I don't think there is as much difference between them and us on this as folk often say.
> 
> The fact that we quit, for a variety of reasons, talking about the law/gospel distinction doesn't mean it's not as foundational for us as for the Lutherans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It seems to me that the issue in Reformed circles isn't so much whether there is a distinction between law/gospel, but how sharp that distinction is to be made. The Lutherans see law/gospel as black and white in every passage, while it seems to me that the Reformed have been comfortable seeing something like the Mosaic covenant as a dispensation of the Covenant of Grace that contains elements of the Covenant of Works. I can't imagine under their sharp law/gospel distinction that a Lutheran would find that acceptable. In other words, C.F. Walther doesn't end up reading like BB Warfield, Dabney or Sinclair Ferguson even though both traditions acknowledge a distinction between land and gospel.
Click to expand...


----------



## MW

Reformed theologians have generally regarded the law/gospel distinction, when made to consist in doing and not doing, as Antinomianism. So Samuel Rutherford:

For the promissory part of the law, it promiseth life and reward to no obedience, but to perfect and absolute obedience. If there be the least defect in the least jot, the garland and crown promised is forfeited, so as there is no regaining of it for ever by that bargain. But the gospel promiseth to the least sincere obedience, were it but a cup of cold water to a disciple, a reward of glory. Therefore the difference standeth not as Antinomians dream, between the covenants chiefly in doing and not doing, as if the gospel or covenant of grace did not also command doing, in relation to life eternal; yea, and with a promise, as well as the law doth, but in a far other way: for godliness hath the promises of the life that now is, and that which is to come (1 Tim. 4:8); and to the followers of Christ (and though they halt in their walking) and such as forsake all for Christ´s name, is promised sitting on thrones, and a hundred fold in this life, and in the life to come, life eternal (Matt. 19:28, 29). -- Survey of the Spiritual Antichrist, 2:9.

The proper distinction between law and gospel, as Prof. Rutherford proceeds to clarify, is between doing oneself and doing in Another. "But the difference is, 1. That no obedience is accepted in the gospel without a Mediator; not so in the law." (Ibid.)

[Edited on 8-1-2006 by armourbearer]


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Rev Winzer,

When I said "do" and "done," my doing, as distinct from the Mediator's doing for me was implied. I assumed that the many posts I've written here (and things I've written elsewhere such as on my website and in EVANGELIUM) were the context for the very shorthand expression I used.

For what it's worth, I've seen virtual replicas of the "do" / "done" formulation in some of the orthodox. I suspect that Prof. Rutherford would understand what I meant. 

To be clear, I agree entirely with Rutherford as he agreed with the mainstream of the Reformed tradition as summarized in the many quotations I've gathered and provided on my website and described elsewhere.

He is quite right. The law must be "done," and its "doing" is performed by the Mediator Jesus for us. The gospel is that the "doing" of the law has been done for us by our Mediator!

A couple quotations:



> John Calvin. But they observe not that in the antithesis between Legal and Gospel righteousness, which Paul elsewhere introduces, all kinds of works, with whatever name adorned, are excluded, (Galatians 3:11, 12. For he says that the righteousness of the Law consists in obtaining salvation by doing what the Law requires, but that the righteousness of faith consists in believing that Christ died and rose again, (Romans 10:5-9.) Moreover, we shall afterwards see, at the proper place, that the blessings of sanctification and justification, which we derive from Christ, are different. Hence it follows, that not even spiritual works are taken into account when the power of justifying is ascribed to faith (Institutes, 3.11.14).
> 
> 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).
> 
> 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 tot he 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 righteousness? 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).



rsc


----------



## MW

Prof. Clark,

If you look a little more at the Prof. Rutherford quotation you will see that the doing he is referring to is not Christ's but the believer's through Christ. Thus his references to promises made to godliness and self-denial in 1 Tim. 4:8 and Matt. 19:28, 29. Law does not equate to obligation and Gospel to promise, in reformed theology.

[Edited on 8-1-2006 by armourbearer]


----------



## MW

I have corrected the reference in the quoted portion of Rutherford to Matt. 19:28, 29, where I had mistakenly typed Mark 19:28, 29.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

> _Originally posted by armourbearer_
> Prof. Clark,
> 
> If you look a little more at the Prof. Rutherford quotation you will see that the doing he is referring to is not Christ's but the believer's through Christ. Thus his references to promises made to godliness and self-denial in 1 Tim. 4:8 and Matt. 19:28, 29. Law does not equate to obligation and Gospel to promise, in reformed theology.
> 
> [Edited on 8-1-2006 by armourbearer]



I will take a look at Rutherford this fall as part of another project. 

As to your claim, we shall have to disagree quite sharply.

There is far too much evidence to the contrary for me to concede this claim.

Indeed, I woke up this morning thinking that I had been too concessive last night. 

There's nothing wrong with "do" and "done" for "law" and "gospel" as heremeneutical categories.

Here I stand Rev Winzer.

If that makes me antinomian, well, there it is. Of course, no reasonable definition of antinomian would include my view.

As your language stands, one could easily describe it as moralist, confusing law and gospel. Now we have duelling epithets.

Antinominianism, carefully defined, is denial of the third use of the law; the doctrine that because Christ has obeyed the law, one is no longer morally obligated to obey it; and one cannot find that either in the orthodox whom I'm following, in our confession, or in anything that I've written. Belgic Confession Art 24; Heidelberg Catechism 86-129 and the Westminster Standards make it clear that we must say both:

Christ has obeyed the law _for_ believers relative to justification but the law continues to obligate believers in sanctification _because_ they have been justified on the basis of Christ's law-keeping, which and whom they have received and in whom they rest by true faith.

rsc

[Edited on 8-1-2006 by R. Scott Clark]


----------



## AdamM

> I appreciate the fact that the Lutherans have held our feet to fire on this. We have a tendency to wander into moralism, to start with the 3rd use. I have often been guilty of this. I have also been guilty of confusing the 1st and 3rd uses and essentially contradicting the gospel with the wrong use of the law.
> 
> Given the current controversy over it seems to me that we cannot be too clear about this!



Amen! & Amen!

Scott, thank you for investing the time to participate in this thread. I have thoroughly enjoyed our interaction and I think you have made some excellent points. 

Your observation about folk in our circles beginning with (and frequently never getting past) the third use of the law rings so true. One of the things that I most appreciate about listening to the Lutherans is that after days where I've fouled up just about everything that I could, I know if I tune them in while driving home, that this sinner is going to hear the gospel. I love them for that. 

Thank you again!


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

Very interesting thread.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Adam,

Thanks.

I'm arguing that we should be zealous to press on folk all three parts of the Heidelberg Catechism: 

Guilt/Law
Grace/Gospel
Gratitude/Sanctification

Problems come when we lose or confuse any of these.

rsc



> _Originally posted by AdamM_
> 
> 
> 
> I appreciate the fact that the Lutherans have held our feet to fire on this. We have a tendency to wander into moralism, to start with the 3rd use. I have often been guilty of this. I have also been guilty of confusing the 1st and 3rd uses and essentially contradicting the gospel with the wrong use of the law.
> 
> Given the current controversy over it seems to me that we cannot be too clear about this!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amen! & Amen!
> 
> Scott, thank you for investing the time to participate in this thread. I have thoroughly enjoyed our interaction and I think you have made some excellent points.
> 
> Your observation about folk in our circles beginning with (and frequently never getting past) the third use of the law rings so true. One of the things that I most appreciate about listening to the Lutherans is that after days where I've fouled up just about everything that I could, I know if I tune them in while driving home, that this sinner is going to hear the gospel. I love them for that.
> 
> Thank you again!
Click to expand...


----------



## MW

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> There's nothing wrong with "do" and "done" for "law" and "gospel" as heremeneutical categories.



The grace of God, i.e., the Gospel, teaches us to live righteously, Titus 2:11, 12. That requires "doing." Hermeneutical categories which cannot accept this truth should be abandoned.



> Antinominianism, carefully defined, is denial of the third use of the law; the doctrine that because Christ has obeyed the law, one is no longer morally obligated to obey it; and one cannot find that either in the orthodox whom I'm following, in our confession, or in anything that I've written. Belgic Confession Art 24; Heidelberg Catechism 86-129 and the Westminster Standards make it clear that we must say both:



If one accepts the tertius usus legis as normative for Gospel-life then I am in full agreement; but then the terminology of doing and not doing (or done) will need to be abandoned. Certainly it should be retained so far as justification is concerned, but the Gospel teaches more than justification, as your quote below suggests.



> Christ has obeyed the law _for_ believers relative to justification but the law continues to obligate believers in sanctification _because_ they have been justified on the basis of Christ's law-keeping, which and whom they have received and in whom they rest by true faith.



With which I am in full agreement. But it should be noted that a believer's sanctification is not carried out under the Law, but under Grace, or the Gospel, Rom. 6:14.

Many blessings!


----------



## R. Scott Clark

I don't think we disagree. "Do" and "done" have to do with justification. 

See this essay  for more explanation.

As I've argued elsewhere on this board, the word gospel can be used narrowly and broadly.

Narrowly, it has nothing to do with sanctification, but broadly it does; as Calvin and Olevianus (and Ursinus et al) always said, we are justified in order that we might be sanctified. Horton argues this in the lastest MR. 

Confessional Lutherans, as a rule, aren't very happy with this language as it seems to them to make works righteousness possible again.

Yes, the law must be "done," but not by sinners for justification. This is one of the great issues in the current controversy with the FV folk. They cannot accept this distinction. They can't or won't accept sanctity as logically and morally necessary fruit and evidence of justification.

Relative to justification, "doing" and "done" are useful pedagogically. 

Yes, we agree, sanctification is under gospel. Amen.

rsc



> _Originally posted by armourbearer_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> There's nothing wrong with "do" and "done" for "law" and "gospel" as heremeneutical categories.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The grace of God, i.e., the Gospel, teaches us to live righteously, Titus 2:11, 12. That requires "doing." Hermeneutical categories which cannot accept this truth should be abandoned.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antinominianism, carefully defined, is denial of the third use of the law; the doctrine that because Christ has obeyed the law, one is no longer morally obligated to obey it; and one cannot find that either in the orthodox whom I'm following, in our confession, or in anything that I've written. Belgic Confession Art 24; Heidelberg Catechism 86-129 and the Westminster Standards make it clear that we must say both:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If one accepts the tertius usus legis as normative for Gospel-life then I am in full agreement; but then the terminology of doing and not doing (or done) will need to be abandoned. Certainly it should be retained so far as justification is concerned, but the Gospel teaches more than justification, as your quote below suggests.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christ has obeyed the law _for_ believers relative to justification but the law continues to obligate believers in sanctification _because_ they have been justified on the basis of Christ's law-keeping, which and whom they have received and in whom they rest by true faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> With which I am in full agreement. But it should be noted that a believer's sanctification is not carried out under the Law, but under Grace, or the Gospel, Rom. 6:14.
> 
> Many blessings!
Click to expand...


----------



## MW

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> I don't think we disagree. "Do" and "done" have to do with justification.


----------

