# What is the Reformed view of Law/Gospel?



## JohnOwen007

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.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## mvpol

In response to the claim that "The sharp distinction between law and gospel is becoming popular in Reformed [circles]..." Dr. Clark has posted a plethera of quotes from actual reformers (i.e. Calvin and Ursinus) that pretty much proves the opposite.

On Law and Gospel in Cov't Theology

Mark


----------



## Casey

The word "law" is used in different ways in the Scriptures. The WCF even admits that grace (aka, the covenant of grace) was administered through the law ("law" in the broad sense):


> WCF 7.5. This covenant was differently administered in the time of the law, and in the time of the gospel: under the law, it was administered by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all foresignifying Christ to come; which were, for that time, sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah, by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation; and is called the old testament.


----------



## JohnOwen007

armourbearer said:


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



... and Ulrich Zwingli, Heinrich Bullinger, John Calvin, Zachary Ursinus, William Perkins, William Pemble, John Davenant, John Owen, ...



> John Calvin (_Inst._ 3.3.1, Battles): "With good reason, the sum of the *gospel *is held to consist in *repentance *and *forgiveness *of sins."



Why are we even debating this? The Scriptures (which rule our tradition) are crystal clear:



> Luke 24:46 He told them, "This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, 47 and *repentance *and *forgiveness *of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.





> Acts 11:18 When they heard this, they had no further objections and praised God, saying, "So then, God has granted even the Gentiles *repentance unto life*."





> Acts 20:20 You know that I have not hesitated to preach anything that would be helpful to you but have taught you publicly and from house to house. 21 I have declared to both Jews and Greeks that they must turn to God in *repentance *and have *faith *in our Lord Jesus. 22 "And now, compelled by the Spirit, I am going to Jerusalem, not knowing what will happen to me there. 23 I only know that in every city the Holy Spirit warns me that prison and hardships are facing me. 24 However, I consider my life worth nothing to me, if only I may finish the race and complete the task the Lord Jesus has given me--the task of testifying to the *gospel *of God's grace.





> 1Tim 1:9 "We also know that *law *is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers--and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11 *that conforms to the glorious gospel* of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.



To accuse this of being FV is not helpful.

Every blessing.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Marty,

How many times have I noted here and in articles that the word "gospel" is used in the NT to refer broadly to the entire Christian message but that doesn't eliminate the narrow or strict sense of the word.

This is a false choice. The word law is used in a broad and narrow sense also. It can mean "a divine command" and it can refer simply to revelation. 

If we don't keep this stuff straight you fellows will be fighting off the next wave of whatever the FV calls itself in a few years.

Part of what gave rise to the FV was the "Reformed v the Lutherans" (on justification and L/G) rhetoric common among Reformed folk. 

I'm not saying that we cannot make any distinctions between the confessional Lutheran approach to L/G and the Reformed approach to it but those distinctions have to made very carefully. 

As to John Frame, he's never identified himself completely with the FV but he's also described as "stupid" (in a foreword that he later sort of retracted) who says that Norm Shepherd's doctrine of justification is not the gospel.

As to Rutherford, yes, I've read some of Rutherford. Did I miss a particular citation I'm to have read? 

As to Ursinus:



> 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).



Zacharias Ursinus (1534-83) on the organization of the Heidelberg Catechism. 



> The chief and most important parts of the first principles of the doctrine of the church, as appears from the passage just quoted from the Epistle to the Hebrews, are repentance and faith in Christ, which we may regard as synonymous with the law and gospel. Hence, the catechism in its primary and most general sense, may be divided as the doctrine of the church, into the law and gospel. It does not differ from the doctrine of the church as it respects the subject and matter of which it treats, but only in the form and manner in which these things are presented, just as strong meat designed for adults, to which the doctrine of the church may be compared, does not differ in essence from the milk and meat prepared for children, to which the catechism is compared by Paul in the passage already referred to. These two parts are termed, by the great mass of men, the Decalogue and the Apostles' creed; because the Decalogue comprehends the substance of the law, and the Apostles' creed that of the gospel. Another distinction made by this same class of persons is that of the doctrine of faith and works, or the doctrine of those things which are to be believed and those which are to be done.
> 
> There are others who divide the catechism into these three parts; considering, in the first place, the doctrine respecting God, then the doctrine respecting his will, and lastly that respecting his works, which they distinguish as the works of creation, preservation, and redemption. But all these different parts are treated of either in the law or the gospel, or in both, so that this division may easily be reduced to the former.
> 
> There are others, again, who make the catechism consist of five different parts; the Decalogue, the Apostles' Creed, Baptism, the Lord's Supper, and Prayer; of which, the Decalogue was delivered immediately by God himself, whilst the other parts were delivered mediately, either through the manifestation of the Son of God in the flesh, as is true of the Lord's Prayer, Baptism, and the Eucharist, or through the ministry of the apostles, as is true of the Apostles' Creed. But all these different parts may also be reduced to the two general heads noticed in the first division. The Decalogue contains the substance of the law, the Apostles' Creed that of the gospel; the sacraments are parts of the gospel, and may, therefore, be embraced in it as far as they are seals of the grace which it promises, but as far as they are testimonies of our obedience to God, they have the nature of sacrifices and pertain to the law, whilst prayer, in like manner, may be referred to the law, being a part of the worship of God.
> 
> The catechism of which we shall speak in these lectures consists of three parts. The first treats of the misery of man, the second of his deliverance from this misery, and the third of gratitude, which division does not, in reality, differ from the above, because all the parts which are there specified are embraced in these three general heads. The Decalogue belongs to the first part, in as far as it is the mirror through which we are brought to see ourselves, and thus led to a knowledge of our sins and misery, and to the third part in as far as it is the rule of true thankfulness and of a Christian life. The Apostles' Creed is embraced in the second part inasmuch as it unfolds the way of deliverance from sins. The sacraments, belonging to the doctrine of faith and being the seals that are attached thereto, belong in like manner to this second part of the catechism, which treats of deliverance from the misery of man. And prayer, being the chief part of spiritual worship and of thankfulness, may, with great propriety, be referred to the third general part.
> 
> ...In What Does The Law Differ From The Gospel?
> 
> The exposition of this question is necessary for a variety of considerations, and especially that we may have a proper understanding of the law and the gospel, to which a knowledge of that in which they differ greatly contributes. According to the definition of the law, which says, that it promises rewards to those who render perfect obedience; and that it promises them freely, inasmuch as no obedience can be meritorious in the sight of God, it would seem that it does not differ from the gospel, which also promises eternal life freely. Yet notwithstanding this seeming agreement, there is a great difference between the law and the gospel. They differ, 1. As to the mode of revelation peculiar to each. The law is known naturally: the gospel was divinely revealed after the fall of man. 2. In matter or doctrine. The law declares the justice of God separately considered: the gospel declares it in connection with his mercy. The law teaches what we ought to be in order that we may be saved: the gospel teaches in addition to this, how we may become such as this law requires, viz: by faith in Christ. 3. In their conditions or promises. The law promises eternal life and all good things upon the condition of our own and perfect righteousness, and of obedience in us: the gospel promises the same blessings upon the condition that we exercise faith in Christ, by which we embrace the obedience which another, even Christ, has performed in our behalf; or the gospel teaches that we are justified freely by faith in Christ. With this faith is also connected, as by an indissoluble bond, the condition of new obedience. 4. In their effects. The law works wrath, and is the ministration of death: the gospel is the ministration of life and of the Spirit (Rom. 4:15, 2 Cor. 3:7) (Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, Q. 92).


----------



## MW

R. Scott Clark said:


> As to Rutherford, yes, I've read some of Rutherford. Did I miss a particular citation I'm to have read?



Last year we had a discussion along these same lines, and I quoted from Rutherford's "Spiritual Antichrist" to the effect that the distinction you are making was regarded as Antinomian. http://www.puritanboard.com/f77/believe-law-gospel-18589/.

Reactions: Love 1


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Okay, I re-read your post. I'll take a look at Rutherford. I'm buried now with student papers and booked with writing assignments through August (and a new course) and now a discussion with Bruce McCormack. 

Are we talking past each other?

You're telling me that Rutherford said that there's no hermeneutical distinction between "law" ("do!") and "gospel" ("done for you")?

As I've said, there's no doubt that "repent" is part of the Christian message broadly considered, the evidence that the Reformed distinguished between the indicative and imperative is overwhelming.

If making that distinction makes me antinomian, well, then I'm an antinomian but it's a silly definition of antinomian.

rsc



armourbearer said:


> R. Scott Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> As to Rutherford, yes, I've read some of Rutherford. Did I miss a particular citation I'm to have read?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Last year we had a discussion along these same lines, and I quoted from Rutherford's "Spiritual Antichrist" to the effect that the distinction you are making was regarded as Antinomian. http://www.puritanboard.com/f77/believe-law-gospel-18589/.
Click to expand...

Reactions: Sad 1


----------



## ChristianTrader

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

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Stephen

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.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

No, I'm expecting us to agree with the Reformed confessions and to read them in the light of the context in which they were written. I've compiled (with the help of several others over the years) dozens of quotations from Reformed theologians from various periods illustrating the Reformed distinction between law and gospel and it gets ignored. I've written at length on this issue, in print, and people seem to demand that I reproduce it all here from my keyboard on command.

The material is in print. Read it. 

Agree with Clark? No. Agree with the Reformed churches. That's what I'm trying to do. 

Frame's essay. I've read it. Frame thinks the l/g distinction is some boutique view that can be segregated to a certain segment of the Reformed community. That's historically and confessionally impossible. 

I want to know why on earth anyone thinks his essay is remotely interesting or helpful. 



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

Reactions: Sad 1


----------



## JohnOwen007

Dear Dr Clark,

Thanks for taking the time to reply amidst marking papers. I'm doing exactly the same thing at the moment--it's driving me crazy seeing that pile of essays not getting smaller as quickly as I'd like ...

Just so you know from where I'm coming:

[1] I'm not sympathetic in any way to the FV. Thankfully, it doesn't exist where I live here in Australia.

[2] Norm Shepherd's understanding of justification (in my mind) is very muddled, and guaranteed to be a pastoral disaster. I have seen his teaching mess with sincere people's heads.

[3] I once held to a very Lutheran understanding of the law / gospel distinction, and was horrified with some things that John Owen said. It was then I decided to do a dissertation on the topic to demolish Owen ... and the in the process I was won over to Owen.

[4] Moreover, I'm not saying there isn't a sharp law / gospel distinction in the reformed tradition (like Frame). However, I am saying it's fundamentally different to the Lutheran tradition. The basic difference (as affirmed by Ursinus) is that the call to new life (repentance) _is_ in the gospel.

To put this whole discussion in a nutshell: in the reformed tradition, the gospel actually presents the law *but only in it's third use*--without the condemnation attached for not keeping it fully. That to me is magnificent news!!



R. Scott Clark said:


> How many times have I noted here and in articles that the word "gospel" is used in the NT to refer broadly to the entire Christian message but that doesn't eliminate the narrow or strict sense of the word.



I personally struggle to find any narrow versus broad understanding of the gospel both in the NT and in the reformed tradition; it is in the Formula of Concord. If I understand the point of our disagreement, you wish not to place a call to repentance in (your posited) "narrow" understanding of the gospel but are happy to place it in the "broad" understanding of the gospel.

As I see it, both in the NT and in the mature reformed tradition, all usages of the gospel refer to same thing (namely the covenant of grace, as is explicit in your Ursinus' quotations). However, (and as Owen notes) we can present that same gospel in a summary or expanded form. For example, we can preach the gospel without mentioning repentance (say 1 Cor. 15:3-4). But, when we unpack this summary message the call to repentance (and faith) arises from the heart of this gospel, not least the double grace of justification and sanctification offered in it.

You are concerned that including the call to repentance (and new life) takes us back to the pre-reformation church. I struggle to agree with this. (How could it when this is what Zwingli, Calvin, Bullinger, ... Owen and others believed?). This is because:

[1] The gospel presents the law in it's third use.

[2] The believer's _actual_ repentance and faith is _not _the gospel, even though they are commanded in the gospel. We must distinguish between the commands of the gospel and our actual _doing_ of them. The latter is not the gospel, it's our works. (That's why I don't think feeding the poor is the gospel, however it is the sort of thing the gospel produces). What we do is not the gospel (otherwise we'd be justified by works) but if our lives don't change, it's a sign we have not embraced the gospel (with its double offer of justification and sanctification).

I'm anxious to clarify this because of the history of the Lutheran tradition itself (and my own experience). Lutheranism was (and is) particularly susceptible to dead orthodoxy precisely because of it's excessive focus on "done" with little if any mention of the new life. To be sure, justification is more significant than the new life (so Calvin and Romans 5:9-10), but in Lutheranism the latter tends to be forgotten altogether.

In short, the gospel is: Christ is saviour (hence the demand of faith) and Lord (hence the demand for new life).

God bless you Dr Clark.

Reactions: Love 1


----------



## MOSES

Hope nobody minds  coming from an amatuer

Does not the gospel establish the Law?

*For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law...Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law. Romans 3:28,31*
Is the distinction between Law and Gospel as sharp as some presume or teach?

How about the conclusion to a paper. Should the conclusion be distinct (or contrary) to the body of the paper, or should it strengthen and "fulfill" it?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

JohnOwen007 said:


> In short, the gospel is: Christ is saviour (hence the demand of faith) and Lord (hence the demand for new life).





Is it not the case that when Peter presents the Gospel both in Acts 2 and 3 that "repent and turn" is at the fore of his presentation in the looming shadow of the announcement of the Gospel. There is a real storm cloud of judgment looming in the News that the Son of God was put to death on the Cross at the hands of lawless men who prefer a murderer.

But God, who is rich in mercy, prepared that instrument of the Curse before the foundation of the world to be the place of blessing. Believe upon Him!

The Cross itself is almost like the Law in one sense that it can be a place of great wrath for those that reject the announcement of Christ's suffering or the place of blessing for those that rest in His finished work.

Why do we have to choose to make the Gospel announcement one or the other?


----------



## turmeric

At risk of sounding like a heretic, that's how I've always understood Ps. 119, which may be why it puzzles me so much! What does he mean by "law" then?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

turmeric said:


> At risk of sounding like a heretic, that's how I've always understood Ps. 119, which may be why it puzzles me so much! What does he mean by "law" then?



Meg,

I think Psalm 119 is speaking of the third use of the Law. I don't know how portions of it (verse 97) would make sense if we insist on a Law=Do! in all cases. It seems to me there is a profound difference between when the Scriptures say "Do or Cursed will you be..." and "Therefore, in view of God's mercy...." Both are imperatives but are both really the same thing?


----------



## DMcFadden

Rich,

Thanks! I almost cross posted to remind Meg of the "third use of the law" which Calvin called the "principal use of the law."


----------



## ChristianTrader

My name is Greg Bahnsen, and I approve this message. 



JohnOwen007 said:


> Dear Dr Clark,
> 
> Thanks for taking the time to reply amidst marking papers. I'm doing exactly the same thing at the moment--it's driving me crazy seeing that pile of essays not getting smaller as quickly as I'd like ...
> 
> Just so you know from where I'm coming:
> 
> [1] I'm not sympathetic in any way to the FV. Thankfully, it doesn't exist where I live here in Australia.
> 
> [2] Norm Shepherd's understanding of justification (in my mind) is very muddled, and guaranteed to be a pastoral disaster. I have seen his teaching mess with sincere people's heads.
> 
> [3] I once held to a very Lutheran understanding of the law / gospel distinction, and was horrified with some things that John Owen said. It was then I decided to do a dissertation on the topic to demolish Owen ... and the in the process I was won over to Owen.
> 
> [4] Moreover, I'm not saying there isn't a sharp law / gospel distinction in the reformed tradition (like Frame). However, I am saying it's fundamentally different to the Lutheran tradition. The basic difference (as affirmed by Ursinus) is that the call to new life (repentance) _is_ in the gospel.
> 
> To put this whole discussion in a nutshell: in the reformed tradition, the gospel actually presents the law *but only in it's third use*--without the condemnation attached for not keeping it fully. That to me is magnificent news!!
> 
> 
> 
> R. Scott Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many times have I noted here and in articles that the word "gospel" is used in the NT to refer broadly to the entire Christian message but that doesn't eliminate the narrow or strict sense of the word.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I personally struggle to find any narrow versus broad understanding of the gospel both in the NT and in the reformed tradition; it is in the Formula of Concord. If I understand the point of our disagreement, you wish not to place a call to repentance in (your posited) "narrow" understanding of the gospel but are happy to place it in the "broad" understanding of the gospel.
> 
> As I see it, both in the NT and in the mature reformed tradition, all usages of the gospel refer to same thing (namely the covenant of grace, as is explicit in your Ursinus' quotations). However, (and as Owen notes) we can present that same gospel in a summary or expanded form. For example, we can preach the gospel without mentioning repentance (say 1 Cor. 15:3-4). But, when we unpack this summary message the call to repentance (and faith) arises from the heart of this gospel, not least the double grace of justification and sanctification offered in it.
> 
> You are concerned that including the call to repentance (and new life) takes us back to the pre-reformation church. I struggle to agree with this. (How could it when this is what Zwingli, Calvin, Bullinger, ... Owen and others believed?). This is because:
> 
> [1] The gospel presents the law in it's third use.
> 
> [2] The believer's _actual_ repentance and faith is _not _the gospel, even though they are commanded in the gospel. We must distinguish between the commands of the gospel and our actual _doing_ of them. The latter is not the gospel, it's our works. (That's why I don't think feeding the poor is the gospel, however it is the sort of thing the gospel produces). What we do is not the gospel (otherwise we'd be justified by works) but if our lives don't change, it's a sign we have not embraced the gospel (with its double offer of justification and sanctification).
> 
> I'm anxious to clarify this because of the history of the Lutheran tradition itself (and my own experience). Lutheranism was (and is) particularly susceptible to dead orthodoxy precisely because of it's excessive focus on "done" with little if any mention of the new life. To be sure, justification is more significant than the new life (so Calvin and Romans 5:9-10), but in Lutheranism the latter tends to be forgotten altogether.
> 
> In short, the gospel is: Christ is saviour (hence the demand of faith) and Lord (hence the demand for new life).
> 
> God bless you Dr Clark.
Click to expand...


----------



## MW

R. Scott Clark said:


> You're telling me that Rutherford said that there's no hermeneutical distinction between "law" ("do!") and "gospel" ("done for you")?



He held the distinction of law and gospel, but he did not define the distinction as "do" and "done;" nor has any writer from the reformed tradition. This distinction makes a mockery of an important phrase which is clearly maintained by all reformed teachers, namely, "evangelical obedience." On the basis of your formulation of law and gospel such a phrase would be a contradiction in terms; and yet it constantly appears in reformed theological teaching when expressing the nature of Christian action and effort as that which flows from gratitude for what God has done for the believer in Christ, so that such obedience is regarded as flowing from the gospel in distinction from legal obedience or that which is offered in service to the law.

In a later post you speak of following the reformed Confessions. The Westminster Confession quite clearly states that there are things to be *observed* for salvation, 1:7. The Shorter Catechism answer 85 speaks of faith and repentance as things which God *requires* to escape His wrath and curse. The Confession and Catechisms describe faith and repentance as *saving* and *evangelical* graces in distinction from non-saving and legal requirements. The Confession affirms of "*good works*, done in obedience to God's commandments," that they are "*fruits* and *evidences* of a true and lively faith," and that they "adorn the profession of the *gospel*" (16:2). The Larger Catechism answer 32 explicitly states that faith is the *condition* which interests one in the *covenant of grace*, and that all other saving graces and all holy obedience is the "*way* which He hath appointed them to *salvation*," and that the Holy Spirit's enabling of the believer to do these things is a manifestation of the *grace* of God in the *second* covenant.

It is quite evident that your law-gospel formula of "do" and "done" is not merely extra-confessional but contra-confessional, and one which requires reformulation in order to conform to reformed confessional standards. I have no doubt that there is a genuine sense in which "do" and "done" correctly describe the law-gospel distinction, namely, when applied in the more narrow context of covenant "conditions." Herein it is undoubtedly true that the grace of God fulfils all conditions; regrettably, though, you broaden its use so as to relegate all conditions to "law" and divine fulfilments to "gospel" -- which is a virtual denial of the outward administration of the covenant, and therefore to be classified as unreformed as equally as the FV with its denial of the inward and unconditional promise of that covenant.

Reactions: Like 1 | Love 1


----------



## R. Scott Clark

*What the Law and Gospel Have in Common*

Joshua Lim posted some stuff from CJPM on his blog.

Law and gospel do not denote absolutely separate parts of Scripture. Moses and Jesus both preached law and gospel. This is why Reformed theologians consistently quoted Jesus’s response to the lawyer in Luke 10:28–”do this and live”–as the prototypical example of law. One could just as easily cite the prologue to the Decalogue (Exod 20:2) as the prototypical example of the gospel word: “I am Yahweh your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.” The question is not so much where these words occur in the canon, but the mood (imperative or indicative) with which they speak and the conditions attached to their promises.

As Wollebius noted, both the law and the gospel urge obedience using promises and curses. They differ in their “proper material” (propria material). That is, the stuff of gospel is not stuff of law. The law is about our “doing” (facienda), and the gospel is about our “believing” (credenda).
It is not that the law is strict and the gospel is lax. Rather both law and gospel require “perfect obedience.” The law demands it of us, and the gospel announces that Christ has accomplished it.

Both words are directed at sinners, but, again, with different consequences and conditions or instruments.

Both moods glorify God, and both seek to foster Christian virtue in believers. The law, however, is powerless to justify or sanctify; only the gospel achieves those ends. For the unregenerate, law and gospel are antithetical. To believers, however, for whom Christ has satisfied the righteous requirements of the law, the law is “subordinate” to the gospel. In other words, the gospel is the power of life and sanctity, and the law serves to structure Christian sanctity.

- R. Scott Clark, “Letter and Spirit,” in Covenant, Justification and Pastoral Ministry (ed. R. Scott Clark, Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing Company), 349-50.

Reactions: Sad 1


----------



## Casey

For those who hold to/agree with the WSC view of the law/gospel distinction, do you essentially agree with the Lutheran view, or are there places you differ? For example, (1) do you agree with or take issue with the Lutheran symbols on this distinction? And (2) do you basically hold to what C.F.W. Walther says in his lectures/book _The Proper Distinction Between Law and Gospel_?


----------



## Casey

R. Scott Clark said:


> This is why Reformed theologians consistently quoted Jesus’s response to the lawyer in Luke 10:28–”do this and live”–as the prototypical example of law.


But, according to the WCF, "do this and live" is not law _per se_, it's the covenant of works. The law itself has no promise of life attached to it; there is a "reward" only in the context of covenant:
*WCF 7.1.* The distance between God and the creature is so great, that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience unto him as their Creator, yet they could never have any fruition of him as their blessedness and reward, but by some voluntary condescension on God's part, which he hath been pleased to express by way of covenant.

*WCF 19.1.* God gave to Adam a law, as a covenant of works, by which he bound him and all his posterity to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience, promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatened death upon the breach of it, and endued him with power and ability to keep it.​Sure, we can speak of law generally as an imperative/"do", but as soon as life is attached as a promise for obedience, then it's no longer law in the strict sense, at least, if we're going to be confessional.


----------



## Poimen

Calvin, _Institutes_, 2.9.4



> For Paul often means by the term “law” the rule of righteous living by which God requires of us what is his own, _giving us no hope of life unless we completely obey him_, and adding on the other hand a curse if we deviate even in the slightest degree. This Paul does when he contends that we are pleasing to God through grace and are accounted righteous through his pardon, because nowhere is found that observance of the law for which the reward has been promised. Paul therefore justly makes contraries of the righteousness of the law and of that of the gospel [Romans 3:21 ff.; Galatians 3:10 ff.; etc.].



Ursinus, _Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism_



> _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.


----------



## py3ak

Here is John Brown of Haddington.



> Q. How may the scriptures be more generally distinguished?
> A. Into the Law and the Gospel.
> 
> Q. What is the _Law_ of God?
> A. It is that declaration of his will to reasonable creatures, whereby he shows them their duty and binds them to it.
> 
> Q. What parts of scripture belong to the law?
> A. All these that require any duty to be performed by men, Exodus 20:3-17; 1 John 3:23; Isaiah 55:6,7.
> 
> [Then follow some questions distinguishing the law into ceremonial, judicial, and moral categories. -RZ]
> 
> Q. How is the _Gospel_ usually distinguished?
> A. Into _the gospel largely taken_, and the _gospel strictly taken_, Acts 16:31, Isaiah 55:4.
> 
> Q. What is the _gospel strictly taken_?
> A. It is the glad tidings of salvation to lost sinners through Christ.
> 
> Q. What parts of Scripture belong to this?
> A. All these that offer Christ, or promise any good thing through him to sinful men, Revelation 22:17.
> 
> Q. Wherein do the law and the gospel _strictly taken_ agree?
> A. God is the Author; his glory is the end; and Christ is the confirmer of both, Psalm 147:19,20.
> 
> Q. Wherein do they differ?
> A. The law requires good in and from us; but the Gospel declares Christ hath done, and will do all for and in us, and freely brings all good things to us, Romans 10:4,5.
> 
> Q. Do not the law and the gospel concur with, and promote the honour of one another?
> A. Yes, Luke 2:14.
> 
> Q. How doth the law concur with the gospel?
> A. It drives men to embrace the grace of the gospel, and teaches them how to improve it; and it condemns them to more dreadful wrath if they slight it, Romans 3:20.
> 
> Q. How doth the gospel honour the law?
> A. It brings in Christ as perfectly fulfilling it as a covenant; and it strengthens and encourages us to obey it as a rule.
> 
> Q. If the law and gospel so well agree, how is it that men, by cleaving to the law as a covenant, slight the grace of the gospel?
> A. Because they abuse the law, in seeking justification by the works of it, Romans 9:31,32.
> 
> Q. Are not both law and gospel sometimes contained in one and the same sentence of scripture?
> A. yes, as Genesis 3:15.
> 
> Q. What is the _gospel largely taken_?
> A. The whole word of God, 1 Corinthians 9:14.
> 
> Q. How can the whole word of God be called _gospel_ or _good tidings_, since it brings many sad tidings to sinners, in requiring duties which they cannot perform, and threatening wrath which they cannot bear?
> A. Because all these tend to promote and maintain the honour of the free grace of the gospel, Hebrews 10:29 and 2:3; 2 Thessalonians 1:7-9.
> 
> [Then follow questions distinguishing the scriptures into histories, prophecies, threatenings, promises, commands, and doctrines.]



Dr. Clark, is this amenable to your point of view? I see the distinction between the gospel considered largely or narrowly; I see the law defined as whatever requires; I see the gospel defined as offers or promises through Christ. Is this what you are driving at?

Marty and Mr. Winzer, do you think that on this point John Brown is a good representative of confessional orthodoxy?

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## MW

py3ak said:


> Marty and Mr. Winzer, do you think that on this point John Brown is a good representative of confessional orthodoxy?



A very good representative. Note what the gospel does -- besides setting forth Christ as perfectly fulfilling the law, it also strengthens and encourages us to obey the law as a rule. That is something the gospel enables the believer to do. Hence gospel is not all "done."

Reactions: Love 1


----------



## Archlute

armourbearer said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marty and Mr. Winzer, do you think that on this point John Brown is a good representative of confessional orthodoxy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A very good representative. Note what the gospel does -- besides setting forth Christ as perfectly fulfilling the law, it also strengthens and encourages us to obey the law as a rule. That is something the gospel enables the believer to do. Hence gospel is not all "done."
Click to expand...


If the Gospel is defined as the finished work of Christ then you are wrong. It is complete. That is why it is good news. I don't see why we continue to have this discussion, or why some ministers seem to love mixing the law back in with the Gospel in some sort of "reformed" self-flagellation. It seems to be the basic problem of trying to shove a discussion of sanctification back where it doesn't belong. Personally, if you want to call that anti-nomianism, then there are those such as myself who will have no problem at all with tossing the terminology of neo-nomian right back the other way.


For what it's worth, I wouldn't consider John Brown of Haddington to be an outstanding representative of anything (no offense meant, Ruben). There are better theologians and better exegetes than he on just about every subject imaginable. Just look at how he misuses Rom. 3:20 as a prooftext in his catechism answer. That verse says nothing about improving grace by law, nor about inducing a dread fear in those who reject it; it has everything to say about a clear law/Gospel distinction. Just a quick sampling of his use of Luke 2:14 or 1 Cor. 9:14 is enough to establish that he has some questionable and unhelpful exegetical procedures in place. Saying that Brown is an outstanding example of theological and exegetical reflection is like trying compare Matthew Henry's work with Ridderbos on John's Gospel, or with Motyer on Isaiah (my apologies if that hurts anybody's feelings).


----------



## MW

Archlute said:


> If the Gospel is defined as the finished work of Christ then you are wrong. It is complete. That is why it is good news. I don't see why we continue to have this discussion, or why some ministers seem to love mixing the law back in with the Gospel in some sort of "reformed" self-flagellation.



The "gospel" described here is all impetration and has no point of application. This evidences that it is not the gospel of the apostles and reformers, because both insisted that redemption has been accomplished and must be applied. In the gospel is revealed the righteousness of God from faith to faith, Rom. 1:17; and now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested ... even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe, Rom. 3:21, 22. Without the condition of faith to interest sinners in the Saviour's work there is no real conversion but a mere cosmic reconciliation. If calling faith a gospel condition is reformed self-flagellation, then I will gladly choose it rather than fall for an unreformed self-deception.

Reactions: Love 1


----------



## JohnOwen007

Dear Ruben,

Thanks for your question, it's a good one:



py3ak said:


> Marty and Mr. Winzer, do you think that on this point John Brown is a good representative of confessional orthodoxy?



With Matthew I agree that this is an excellent example of the reformed tradition.

[1] The distinction between the "strict" and "largely" gospel is in agreement with the tradition. We find it in writers such as Junius, Polanus, Pemble etc., even through to John Gill.

[2] Brown's presentation of the "strict" gospel is consonant with the tradition:



> Q. Wherein do they differ?
> A. The law requires good in and from us; but the Gospel declares Christ hath done, and will do all for and in us, and freely brings all good things to us, Romans 10:4,5.



Here we see it's not simply a matter of "done" but what God will do both _for_ and _in_ believers. This then includes the call to repentance and new life. It is on *this point* that Matthew and I differ with Dr. Clark.

[3] The law / gospel distinction was considerably clarified in the Antinomian controversy in England from the 1620s (or so) till the late 1640s. Here we find Antinomian authors, particularly John Eaton and Robert Towne, appealing to Luther's distinction between "do" and "done". For example, Towne says:



> God by his Gospel requireth nothing of man to Salvation; but abundantly testifieth, and promiseth to doe all himselfe, that so his promise may be every way firme and free. (_The Assertion of Grace_ (1645), pp. 16-17.



The Puritans responded by explaining that the law / gospel distinction was:
*law:* do and live (not simply "do")
*gospel:* live and do (not simply "done")

However, this point was clarified by the reformed divines prior to the Antinomian controversy. For example, in a work of direct response to the _Formula of Concord_, Jerome Zanchi explained that the gospel demands three things: faith, repentance, and a sanctified life (_De Religione Christiana Fides_ ch. 13).

[4] A personal note: I struggle with the tradition when it speaks of the gospel "largely" understood for _all_ doctrine. I can't find a use of the word in the NT to fit this. The verse John Brown appeals to, 1 Corinthians 9:14, doesn't (it seems to me) mean this, nor do the other verses frequently used such as Rom. 2:16 and Mark 1:1-2.

Every blessing Ruben.

Reactions: Love 1


----------



## Casey

Archlute said:


> If the Gospel is defined as the finished work of Christ then you are wrong. It is complete. That is why it is good news. I don't see why we continue to have this discussion, or why some ministers seem to love mixing the law back in with the Gospel in some sort of "reformed" self-flagellation. It seems to be the basic problem of trying to shove a discussion of sanctification back where it doesn't belong. Personally, if you want to call that anti-nomianism, then there are those such as myself who will have no problem at all with tossing the terminology of neo-nomian right back the other way.


Does the good news include our sanctification, perseverance, and glorification? Or is the Gospel only about justification? How is it mixing in law to say that we aren't fully sanctified yet, or that the application of Christ's work is still being worked out? How can you equate that with "self-flagellation"? I thought the Reformed understanding of the gospel includes the twin graces of justification and sanctification? Sanctification is just as much an application of Christ's work as justification, right? And so how can you say that this is in any sense neo-nomian?
*WCF 14.2.* . . . But the principal acts of saving faith are accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification, *sanctification*, and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace.

*WCF 19.7.* Neither are the forementioned uses of the law contrary to the grace of the gospel, *but do sweetly comply with it*; the Spirit of Christ subduing and enabling the will of man to do that freely, and cheerfully, which the will of God, revealed in the law, requireth to be done.​

Reactions: Love 1


----------



## JohnOwen007

ChristianTrader said:


> My name is Greg Bahnsen, and I approve this message.



You are right Bahnsen could agree with the post! However, the post doesn't mention the great point of contention: the third use of the law for new covenant believers: what is abrogated and what is not? I won't address this question because it will open a pandora's box and a !

Blessings CT.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Archlute

armourbearer said:


> Archlute said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Gospel is defined as the finished work of Christ then you are wrong. It is complete. That is why it is good news. I don't see why we continue to have this discussion, or why some ministers seem to love mixing the law back in with the Gospel in some sort of "reformed" self-flagellation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The "gospel" described here is all impetration and has no point of application. This evidences that it is not the gospel of the apostles and reformers, because both insisted that redemption has been accomplished and must be applied. In the gospel is revealed the righteousness of God from faith to faith, Rom. 1:17; and now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested ... even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe, Rom. 3:21, 22. Without the condition of faith to interest sinners in the Saviour's work there is no real conversion but a mere cosmic reconciliation. If calling faith a gospel condition is reformed self-flagellation, then I will gladly choose it rather than fall for an unreformed self-deception.
Click to expand...



I'm not sure what you are getting at. I did not deny that faith was the instrument by which the Holy Spirit applies the benefits of the Gospel.


----------



## MW

Archlute said:


> I'm not sure what you are getting at. I had not said that faith was not the instrument by which the Holy Spirit applies the benefits of the Gospel.



Your words: "If the Gospel is defined as the finished work of Christ then you are wrong." Do you now wish to include in that definition the work of the Holy Spirit in bringing sinners to faith? If so, then your previous minimalist definition cannot be used to prove my position wrong.


----------



## Archlute

CaseyBessette said:


> Archlute said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Gospel is defined as the finished work of Christ then you are wrong. It is complete. That is why it is good news. I don't see why we continue to have this discussion, or why some ministers seem to love mixing the law back in with the Gospel in some sort of "reformed" self-flagellation. It seems to be the basic problem of trying to shove a discussion of sanctification back where it doesn't belong. Personally, if you want to call that anti-nomianism, then there are those such as myself who will have no problem at all with tossing the terminology of neo-nomian right back the other way.
> 
> 
> 
> Does the good news include our sanctification, perseverance, and glorification? Or is the Gospel only about justification? How is it mixing in law to say that we aren't fully sanctified yet, or that the application of Christ's work is still being worked out? How can you equate that with "self-flagellation"? I thought the Reformed understanding of the gospel includes the twin graces of justification and sanctification? Sanctification is just as much an application of Christ's work as justification, right? And so how can you say that this is in any sense neo-nomian?
> *WCF 14.2.* . . . But the principal acts of saving faith are accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification, *sanctification*, and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace.
> 
> *WCF 19.7.* Neither are the forementioned uses of the law contrary to the grace of the gospel, *but do sweetly comply with it*; the Spirit of Christ subduing and enabling the will of man to do that freely, and cheerfully, which the will of God, revealed in the law, requireth to be done.​
Click to expand...


Strictly speaking, the good news of the Gospel is the finished work of Christ. However, that work is the foundation which leads on to all of those great things that you have mentioned. I don't see them as law or the object of the Gospel (although they are part of it's objective!), but rather the benefits of that Gospel.

WCF 14.2 - saving faith is not the Gospel, but is the instrument that lays hold of the Gospel.

As for WCF 19.7 - "complying with/not being contrary to" the Gospel is not the same thing as being the essence of the Gospel.


----------



## Archlute

armourbearer said:


> Archlute said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what you are getting at. I had not said that faith was not the instrument by which the Holy Spirit applies the benefits of the Gospel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your words: "If the Gospel is defined as the finished work of Christ then you are wrong." Do you now wish to include in that definition the work of the Holy Spirit in bringing sinners to faith? If so, then your previous minimalist definition cannot be used to prove my position wrong.
Click to expand...


"Faith" is not the Gospel, but the instrument that lays hold of it, as I mentioned to Casey. The Gospel is a message about the person and work of Christ, not the "mechanism" of applied soteriology.


----------



## fredtgreco

Archlute said:


> CaseyBessette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Archlute said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Gospel is defined as the finished work of Christ then you are wrong. It is complete. That is why it is good news. I don't see why we continue to have this discussion, or why some ministers seem to love mixing the law back in with the Gospel in some sort of "reformed" self-flagellation. It seems to be the basic problem of trying to shove a discussion of sanctification back where it doesn't belong. Personally, if you want to call that anti-nomianism, then there are those such as myself who will have no problem at all with tossing the terminology of neo-nomian right back the other way.
> 
> 
> 
> Does the good news include our sanctification, perseverance, and glorification? Or is the Gospel only about justification? How is it mixing in law to say that we aren't fully sanctified yet, or that the application of Christ's work is still being worked out? How can you equate that with "self-flagellation"? I thought the Reformed understanding of the gospel includes the twin graces of justification and sanctification? Sanctification is just as much an application of Christ's work as justification, right? And so how can you say that this is in any sense neo-nomian?*WCF 14.2.* . . . But the principal acts of saving faith are accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification, *sanctification*, and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace.
> 
> *WCF 19.7.* Neither are the forementioned uses of the law contrary to the grace of the gospel, *but do sweetly comply with it*; the Spirit of Christ subduing and enabling the will of man to do that freely, and cheerfully, which the will of God, revealed in the law, requireth to be done.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Strictly speaking, the good news of the Gospel is the finished work of Christ. However, that work is the foundation which leads on to all of those great things that you have mentioned. I don't see them as law or the object of the Gospel (although they are part of it's objective!), but rather the benefits of that Gospel.
> 
> WCF 14.2 - saving faith is not the Gospel, but is the instrument that lays hold of the Gospel.
> 
> As for WCF 19.7 - "complying with/not being contrary to" the Gospel is not the same thing as being the essence of the Gospel.
Click to expand...


The finished work of Christ includes sanctification (which is both definitive and progressive) and glorification. The gospel is not just that I am forgiven, but that I am adopted, made holy and remade into the image of Christ.

Reactions: Love 1


----------



## Archlute

fredtgreco said:


> Archlute said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CaseyBessette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does the good news include our sanctification, perseverance, and glorification? Or is the Gospel only about justification? How is it mixing in law to say that we aren't fully sanctified yet, or that the application of Christ's work is still being worked out? How can you equate that with "self-flagellation"? I thought the Reformed understanding of the gospel includes the twin graces of justification and sanctification? Sanctification is just as much an application of Christ's work as justification, right? And so how can you say that this is in any sense neo-nomian?*WCF 14.2.* . . . But the principal acts of saving faith are accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification, *sanctification*, and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace.
> 
> *WCF 19.7.* Neither are the forementioned uses of the law contrary to the grace of the gospel, *but do sweetly comply with it*; the Spirit of Christ subduing and enabling the will of man to do that freely, and cheerfully, which the will of God, revealed in the law, requireth to be done.​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Strictly speaking, the good news of the Gospel is the finished work of Christ. However, that work is the foundation which leads on to all of those great things that you have mentioned. I don't see them as law or the object of the Gospel (although they are part of it's objective!), but rather the benefits of that Gospel.
> 
> WCF 14.2 - saving faith is not the Gospel, but is the instrument that lays hold of the Gospel.
> 
> As for WCF 19.7 - "complying with/not being contrary to" the Gospel is not the same thing as being the essence of the Gospel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The finished work of Christ includes sanctification (which is both definitive and progressive) and glorification. The gospel is not just that I am forgiven, but that I am adopted, made holy and remade into the image of Christ.
Click to expand...


I would agree with that. However, that still falls under the realm of "done" (or at least something so certain as glorification as to be considered "done", although the second advent is still future).


----------



## MW

Archlute said:


> "Faith" is not the Gospel, but the instrument that lays hold of it, as I mentioned to Casey. The Gospel is a message about the person and work of Christ, not the "mechanism" of applied soteriology.



If faith lays hold of the gospel, then the requirement to believe must be a gospel imperative, not a law imperative.

Further, Christ is not only made our righteousness, but also our wisdom, sanctification, and redemption, as the apostle teaches.

Finally, without applied soteriology you are left with cosmic reconciliation. Hence the gospel must include personal imperatives which reveal how individuals come to be made partakers of the redemption purchased by Christ.

Reactions: Love 1


----------



## fredtgreco

Archlute said:


> fredtgreco said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Archlute said:
> 
> 
> 
> Strictly speaking, the good news of the Gospel is the finished work of Christ. However, that work is the foundation which leads on to all of those great things that you have mentioned. I don't see them as law or the object of the Gospel (although they are part of it's objective!), but rather the benefits of that Gospel.
> 
> WCF 14.2 - saving faith is not the Gospel, but is the instrument that lays hold of the Gospel.
> 
> As for WCF 19.7 - "complying with/not being contrary to" the Gospel is not the same thing as being the essence of the Gospel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The finished work of Christ includes sanctification (which is both definitive and progressive) and glorification. The gospel is not just that I am forgiven, but that I am adopted, made holy and remade into the image of Christ.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would agree with that. However, that still falls under the realm of "done" (or at least something so certain as glorification as to be considered "done", although the second advent is still future).
Click to expand...


Sanctification is not just "done." It is in fact the classic example of this issue: sanctification is definitive (accomplished by the work of Christ applied by the Spirit) and progressive (worked out in the Christian by the Spirit).

Just because something is being worked out in the Christian and is not already accomplished and requires obedience does not make it "not gospel" or non-gracious. It is the mistake of the FV to see human work/faithfulness in this; the Reformed view is that the obedience of the Christian is the sphere in which the Holy Spirit works. Owen is excellent on this (Vols. 3 & 4).

Reactions: Love 1


----------



## Archlute

fredtgreco said:


> Archlute said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fredtgreco said:
> 
> 
> 
> The finished work of Christ includes sanctification (which is both definitive and progressive) and glorification. The gospel is not just that I am forgiven, but that I am adopted, made holy and remade into the image of Christ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would agree with that. However, that still falls under the realm of "done" (or at least something so certain as glorification as to be considered "done", although the second advent is still future).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sanctification is not just "done." It is in fact the classic example of this issue: sanctification is definitive (accomplished by the work of Christ applied by the Spirit) and progressive (worked out in the Christian by the Spirit).
> 
> Just because something is being worked out in the Christian and is not already accomplished and requires obedience does not make it "not gospel" or non-gracious. It is the mistake of the FV to see human work/faithfulness in this; the Reformed view is that the obedience of the Christian is the sphere in which the Holy Spirit works. Owen is excellent on this (Vols. 3 & 4).
Click to expand...


Although sanctification is an ongoing work in the life of the Christian, it has been certainly procured by the work of Christ, and is being certainly applied by the work of the Holy Spirit. I would consider that application as "done" (even while ongoing) rather than "do" (which is a command of the law to be met by our own strength). This is what I was attempting to get across by my initial use of that term. Even Christian obedience is a fruit of the Spirit of Grace and not of the bare application of the law.

I think we are getting at the same thing here.

I will have to read those volumes of Owen; it has been a good couple of years.


----------



## py3ak

Archlute said:


> Strictly speaking, the good news of the Gospel is the finished work of Christ. However, that work is the foundation which leads on to all of those great things that you have mentioned. *I don't see them as law or the object of the Gospel (although they are part of it's objective!), but rather the benefits of that Gospel.*
> 
> WCF 14.2 - saving faith is not the Gospel, but is the instrument that lays hold of the Gospel.
> 
> As for WCF 19.7 - "complying with/not being contrary to" the Gospel is not the same thing as being the essence of the Gospel.



Adam, I emphasized the part above in your post because I think it may give a hint of a potential ambiguity. According to what I've read so far, I thought that when the Scripture was divided into "law" and "gospel" that included everything in the Scripture. There is nothing that doesn't fall into one or the other of those two categories. Your post above suggests that possibly "law" and "gospel" might have to be supplemented by other terms. Am I misunderstanding you?

No offense was taken with regard to John Brown, although it seems unlikely that his contemporaries would have agreed with your assessment!


----------



## Archlute

armourbearer said:


> Archlute said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Faith" is not the Gospel, but the instrument that lays hold of it, as I mentioned to Casey. The Gospel is a message about the person and work of Christ, not the "mechanism" of applied soteriology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If faith lays hold of the gospel, then the requirement to believe must be a gospel imperative, not a law imperative.
> 
> Further, Christ is not only made our righteousness, but also our wisdom, sanctification, and redemption, as the apostle teaches.
> 
> Finally, without applied soteriology you are left with cosmic reconciliation. Hence the gospel must include personal imperatives which reveal how individuals come to be made partakers of the redemption purchased by Christ.
Click to expand...


It would be helpful if distinctions were more clearly and consistently made. A "gospel imperative" is not the same thing as the gospel itself.


----------



## fredtgreco

Archlute said:


> fredtgreco said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Archlute said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would agree with that. However, that still falls under the realm of "done" (or at least something so certain as glorification as to be considered "done", although the second advent is still future).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sanctification is not just "done." It is in fact the classic example of this issue: sanctification is definitive (accomplished by the work of Christ applied by the Spirit) and progressive (worked out in the Christian by the Spirit).
> 
> Just because something is being worked out in the Christian and is not already accomplished and requires obedience does not make it "not gospel" or non-gracious. It is the mistake of the FV to see human work/faithfulness in this; the Reformed view is that the obedience of the Christian is the sphere in which the Holy Spirit works. Owen is excellent on this (Vols. 3 & 4).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Although sanctification is an ongoing work in the life of the Christian, it has been certainly procured by the work of Christ, and is being certainly applied by the work of the Holy Spirit. I would consider that application as "done" (even while ongoing) rather than "do" (which is a command of the law to be met by our own strength). This is what I was attempting to get across by my initial use of that term. Even Christian obedience is a fruit of the Spirit of Grace and not of the bare application of the law.
> 
> I think we are getting at the same thing here.
> 
> I will have to read those volumes of Owen; it has been a good couple of years.
Click to expand...


The thing to be careful about is when you characterize sanctification as all "done" it stultifies Christian obedience - which is actually combating the work of the Spirit. That is why Rev. Winzer's comments about "do and live" vs. "live and do" are a better assessment that "do" and "done."

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## fredtgreco

Archlute said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Archlute said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Faith" is not the Gospel, but the instrument that lays hold of it, as I mentioned to Casey. The Gospel is a message about the person and work of Christ, not the "mechanism" of applied soteriology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If faith lays hold of the gospel, then the requirement to believe must be a gospel imperative, not a law imperative.
> 
> Further, Christ is not only made our righteousness, but also our wisdom, sanctification, and redemption, as the apostle teaches.
> 
> Finally, without applied soteriology you are left with cosmic reconciliation. Hence the gospel must include personal imperatives which reveal how individuals come to be made partakers of the redemption purchased by Christ.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It would be helpful if distinctions were more clearly and consistently made. A "gospel imperative" is not the same thing as the gospel itself.
Click to expand...


A gospel imperative is part and parcel of the gospel. When a man asked Paul what the gospel was ("What shall I do to be saved?" - a gospel question if ever there was one) the response was _"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ (imperative) and you and your house shall be saved."_

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## MW

Archlute said:


> It would be helpful if distinctions were more clearly and consistently made. A "gospel imperative" is not the same thing as the gospel itself.



I never claimed that it was. The call to believe is a part of the gospel, not the gospel itself.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Archlute

py3ak said:


> Archlute said:
> 
> 
> 
> Strictly speaking, the good news of the Gospel is the finished work of Christ. However, that work is the foundation which leads on to all of those great things that you have mentioned. *I don't see them as law or the object of the Gospel (although they are part of it's objective!), but rather the benefits of that Gospel.*
> 
> WCF 14.2 - saving faith is not the Gospel, but is the instrument that lays hold of the Gospel.
> 
> As for WCF 19.7 - "complying with/not being contrary to" the Gospel is not the same thing as being the essence of the Gospel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Adam, I emphasized the part above in your post because I think it may give a hint of a potential ambiguity. According to what I've read so far, I thought that when the Scripture was divided into "law" and "gospel" that included everything in the Scripture. There is nothing that doesn't fall into one or the other of those two categories. Your post above suggests that possibly "law" and "gospel" might have to be supplemented by other terms. Am I misunderstanding you?
> 
> No offense was taken with regard to John Brown, although it seems unlikely that his contemporaries would have agreed with your assessment!
Click to expand...


Well, one of the reason that ambiguity is creeping into this thread is due the fact that we are mixing a discussion of hermeneutics with a discussion of systematic categories. Usually when one speaks of dividing scripture into law and gospel they speak of evaluating commands and promises given therein. When we begin to speak of the _ordo salutis_ as we have been, then we have moved from evaluating the verbal pronouncements of God (whether in the OT or NT) and the apostles into the territory of conceptual constructs.

The law/gospel distinction, as I understand it, is a method of dividing up the pronouncements of Scripture, and was never meant to apply to a discussion of soteriological concepts.


----------



## Archlute

armourbearer said:


> Archlute said:
> 
> 
> 
> It would be helpful if distinctions were more clearly and consistently made. A "gospel imperative" is not the same thing as the gospel itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never claimed that it was. The call to believe is a part of the gospel, not the gospel itself.
Click to expand...


This is probably where our disagreement is found then, as I am not "parting out" the Gospel, but speaking of the Gospel itself -its essence, which is Christ and his redemption. I agree that we are called to believe, but I would not identify that command to believe with the Gospel itself.

I'm not sure that it is fruitful to spend too much more of my time debating this point.


----------



## py3ak

Adam, isn't "done" a soteriological concept?

Would you identify the command to believe with law?

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Archlute

fredtgreco said:


> Archlute said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fredtgreco said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sanctification is not just "done." It is in fact the classic example of this issue: sanctification is definitive (accomplished by the work of Christ applied by the Spirit) and progressive (worked out in the Christian by the Spirit).
> 
> Just because something is being worked out in the Christian and is not already accomplished and requires obedience does not make it "not gospel" or non-gracious. It is the mistake of the FV to see human work/faithfulness in this; the Reformed view is that the obedience of the Christian is the sphere in which the Holy Spirit works. Owen is excellent on this (Vols. 3 & 4).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Although sanctification is an ongoing work in the life of the Christian, it has been certainly procured by the work of Christ, and is being certainly applied by the work of the Holy Spirit. I would consider that application as "done" (even while ongoing) rather than "do" (which is a command of the law to be met by our own strength). This is what I was attempting to get across by my initial use of that term. Even Christian obedience is a fruit of the Spirit of Grace and not of the bare application of the law.
> 
> I think we are getting at the same thing here.
> 
> I will have to read those volumes of Owen; it has been a good couple of years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The thing to be careful about is when you characterize sanctification as all "done" it stultifies Christian obedience - which is actually combating the work of the Spirit. That is why Rev. Winzer's comments about "do and live" vs. "live and do" are a better assessment that "do" and "done."
Click to expand...


I do not disagree with the "third use", but when Christ pronounced on the cross "it is finished" that statement included the entirety of our salvation. It is worked out in our lives, yes, but it has also been certainly accomplished.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I appreciate this interaction. A Mod noted in another thread that there is a bit of "talking past each other" but I think the clarity on how we speak on the question of "The Gospel" goes to the perspicuity of what it is.

I don't think anybody here would disagree with the fact that the Work that merits salvation is completely Christ's own and it is Accomplished. The real question is whether or not when we're talking about "The Gospel" if we think that we're somehow adding "Law" to it when we call men to respond to it.

There's no question what Christ accomplished on the Cross when He died for sinners. Yet that once-for-all fact has to be acknowledged and responded to by men. Is it Law when we're announcing that event and calling men to repentance and belief upon it? Is it Law when we're reminding Christians that they render loving and reasonable service to God upon the basis of it?

I'm just trying to get my arms around what it is people are saying. The idea that Gospel = "Only Done" and that there is no imperative seems alluringly simple at first but we're seeing how it is hard to stuff "Repent!" and "Believe!" into that suitcase so they are trimmed off as "not Gospel".

Dordt states:


> Article 3: The Preaching of the *Gospel*
> 
> In order that people may be brought to faith, God mercifully sends proclaimers of this very joyful message to the people he wishes and at the time he wishes. By this ministry *people are called to repentance and faith in Christ crucified*. For how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without someone preaching? And how shall they preach unless they have been sent? (Rom. 10:14-15).


Did the Reformers at Dordt wish to state that the Preaching of the Gospel calls them to Law since people are being called to repentance and faith in Christ (two imperatives)?

Reactions: Love 1


----------



## JohnOwen007

Archlute said:


> I do not disagree with the "third use", but when Christ pronounced on the cross "it is finished" that statement included the entirety of our salvation. It is worked out in our lives, yes, but it has also been certainly accomplished.



Dear Archlute,

I suspect you may be failing to distinguish between the *commands* of the gospel and the *application* of the gospel. The gospel contains commands (to repent and believe etc.) based on the finished work of Christ. However, the _actual application_ of Christ's finished work by the Spirit in people is *not* the gospel.

In other words, the works I do as a believer are _not_ the gospel. But the commands I follow (that arise from Christ's finished work) are.

It's an important distinction because:

[1] Without it we end up with justification by works or something *neonomistic.*

[2] But on the other hand, if we simply make the Lutheran do / done distinction, and say there are no commands in the gospel, then we make the equal and opposite error of *antinomianism.*

I've suffered from both errors in my own life at different times!

God bless you dear brother.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Semper Fidelis said:


> I'm just trying to get my arms around what it is people are saying. The idea that Gospel = "Only Done" and that there is no imperative seems alluringly simple at first but we're seeing how it is hard to stuff "Repent!" and "Believe!" into that suitcase so they are trimmed off as "not Gospel".



That basically explains why I retracted my comments about John Frame in the other thread; he is right to assert that the particular law/gospel distinction WSC and others are making is not Biblical. This became abundantly clear to me when I read Michael Horton's essay "Which Covenant Theology" in CPJM on the Sabbath.


----------



## Casey

Archlute said:


> It would be helpful if distinctions were more clearly and consistently made.


Thank you for your posts -- I appreciate the discussion, brother. 

The thread asks which view is the Reformed view. Do you believe the law/gospel distinction that you are trying to uphold is clearly and consistently made in the Westminster Standards? Do you believe the they teach the law/gospel distinction (as you understand it)? As imperative/indicative? As "do"/"done"? I take it for granted that the Reformed view on the law/gospel distinction could be demonstrated from the Standards.

Let me quote a Lutheran on this issue:


> *Thesis 1*
> The doctrinal contents of the entire Holy Scriptures, both of the Old and the New Testament, are made up of two doctrines differing fundamentally from each other, viz., the Law and the Gospel.
> 
> *Thesis 2*
> Only he is an orthodox teacher who not only presents all the articles of faith in accordance with Scripture, but also rightly distinguishes from each other the Law and the Gospel.
> 
> *Thesis 3*
> Rightly distinguishing the Law and the Gospel is the most difficult and the highest are of Christians in general and of theologians in particular. It is taught only by the Holy Spirit in the school of experience.
> 
> C.F.W. Walther, _The Proper Distinction Between Law and Gospel_​


Obviously the Lutheran view is that orthodoxy depends on this distinction, that Scripture fundamentally contains two different messages ("doctrines"), and that maintaining this distinction is the highest goal of Christian theologians. (I'd be interested to know how much you agree with these points.)

Interestingly, the Westminster Standards do make a distinction regarding the Old and New Testaments, not that it is law/gospel, but that contained in Scripture are things to be believed and things to be done:


> SC Q. 3. What do the scriptures principally teach?
> A. The scriptures principally teach what man is to believe concerning God, and what duty God requires of man.


I think at this point the Lutheran would be quick to say, "one is gospel and one is law!" But the Standards don't jump to clarify this. I don't recall the Standards ever equating "things to be believed" as gospel and "things to be done" as law (WCF 3.8 speaks of those who "obey the gospel"), as though the Christian life was inherently dualistic on account of a do/done paradigm.

The gospel includes the call to repentance (we could also compare the call to faith), but according to the indicative/imperative distinction this cannot be so, because "Repent!" is an imperative. Compare the Lutheran view (which is clear and consistent at maintaining the law/gospel distinction) with that of the Reformed view (which has neglected the distinction):


> *Thesis 15.* In the eleventh place, the Word of God is not rightly divided when the Gospel is turned into a preaching of repentance.
> 
> *WCF 15.1.* Repentance unto life is an evangelical grace, the doctrine whereof is to be preached by every minister of the gospel, as well as that of faith in Christ.


Lutherans believe the law/gospel distinction is fundamental to the faith (and they uphold it rather consistently!). Some have suggested on this (or the other) thread that if the distinction is neglected, then that's going in the direction of the FV. Okay, if it's such a fundamental distinction (and to be understood in the way WSC understands it), then where do the Westminster Standards teach it? That would be quite the omission if it's so fundamental to the Christian faith.

I'm not denying there is such a thing as a law/gospel distinction, I just don't believe it is to be defined as imperative/indicative. I think the more important distinction for the Reformed is that of the two covenants (CoWs, "do this and live"; CoG, "live and do this"), and included in both of these covenants is the law (the difference is the individual's relationship to the law). These covenants are weaved throughout the Standards in a clear and consistent way, while it seems to me the Standards fail at upholding your view of the law/gospel distinction. Jesus didn't seem to clearly and consistently uphold the law/gospel distinction either, as he told the woman caught in adultery, "Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more" (John 8:11).


----------



## JoelYrick

I don't want to jump in on the conversation, but I think that this is beginning to come full circle. I wonder if it might be helpful to handle a few Biblical cases to see whether this is difference here is coming out in the handling of various texts. Is everyone agreed that the Reformed view of the passage on the rich, young ruler that Jesus preached the law, gospel, or both? Also, perhaps as in Casey's post the woman caught in adultery could be handled, etc.

(Please ignore this if it's too off track)


----------



## Casey

Joel, I was just trying to turn the discussion to the Confession to see which view can claim that of being confessionally Reformed. Of course, I think asking about how Scripture handles this is important, too -- indeed, foundationally important -- but that's different from asking which is the Reformed view. Hypothetically, the Reformed view could be wrong and not in line with Scripture. I think the Standards have faithfully summarized the Scriptures, though.


----------



## Casey




----------



## py3ak

Here is a link to a blog which seems to argue that the Marrowmen take up the position espoused by Dr. Clark, viz., that the command to believe and repent is not a part of the gospel strictly taken, but a part of the law.

Some Marrow to accompany your Law and Gospel, Sir?

Reactions: Wow 1


----------



## Archlute

py3ak said:


> Here is a link to a blog which seems to argue that the Marrowmen take up the position espoused by Dr. Clark, viz., that the command to believe and repent is not a part of the gospel strictly taken, but a part of the law.
> 
> Some Marrow to accompany your Law and Gospel, Sir?



The author makes good note of the fact that the Gospel may be understood in two senses, either as the "good news" alone (which is what some of us here have been attempting to defend) or as the broader understanding of comprehensive doctrine given by Christ and the apostles. I believe Sinclair Ferguson has some lectures/essays on the Marrow Controversy, and makes a defense in support of the Marrow Men. If anyone knows where that stuff is located, it may be helpful to post it here for discussion.


----------



## ChristianTrader

Archlute said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a link to a blog which seems to argue that the Marrowmen take up the position espoused by Dr. Clark, viz., that the command to believe and repent is not a part of the gospel strictly taken, but a part of the law.
> 
> Some Marrow to accompany your Law and Gospel, Sir?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The author makes good note of the fact that the Gospel may be understood in two senses, either as the "good news" alone (which is what some of us here have been attempting to defend) or as the broader understanding of comprehensive doctrine given by Christ and the apostles. I believe Sinclair Ferguson has some lectures/essays on the Marrow Controversy, and makes a defense in support of the Marrow Men. If anyone knows where that stuff is located, it may be helpful to post it here for discussion.
Click to expand...


SermonAudio.com - Search Results


----------



## MW

The Marrow of Modern Divinity, 'The Difference Between The Law and the Gospel,' in Thomas Boston, Works, 7:461-462.



> Briefly, then, if we would know when the law speaks, and when the gospel speaks, either in reading the word, or in hearing it preached; and if we would skillfully distinguish the voice of the one from the voice of the other, we must consider:—
> 
> Law. The law says, "Thou art a sinner, and therefore thou shalt be damned," (Rom 7:2, 2 Thess 2:12).
> 
> Gos. But *the gospel says*, No; "Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners"; and therefore, "*believe on the Lord Jesus Christ*, and thou shalt be saved, (1 Tim 1:15, Acts 16:31).



Clearly the issue is not as straightforward as quoting a portion of text from a respected author and supposing that settles the matter. When the author himself makes a statement which contradicts one's interpretation of him it is obviously the case that the subject is more complex than the interpreter is allowing for.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

py3ak said:


> Here is a link to a blog which seems to argue that the Marrowmen take up the position espoused by Dr. Clark, viz., that the command to believe and repent is not a part of the gospel strictly taken, but a part of the law.
> 
> Some Marrow to accompany your Law and Gospel, Sir?



Well, if the Marrowmen taught such (which I doubt) that would be contrary to the Westminster Standards, which teaches that repentance unto life is an evangelical grace.

Shorter Catechism Q. 87. What is repentance unto life?
A. Repentance unto life is a *saving grace*, whereby a sinner, out of a true sense of his sin, and apprehension of the mercy of God in Christ, doth, with grief and hatred of his sin, turn from it unto God, with full purpose of, and endeavor after, new obedience. 

I think it was Hermonta (Christian Trader) who said in the other thread that the WSC Law/Gospel distinction was antinomian. The more I read these posts, the more I am inclined to agree.

Reactions: Wow 1


----------



## py3ak

Yes, so far it does seem quite clear that "do this and live" vs. "live and do this" has far more historical support as a summary of Law/Gospel than imperative vs. indicative.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Semper Fidelis

py3ak said:


> Yes, so far it does seem quite clear that "do this and live" vs. "live and do this" has far more historical support as a summary of Law/Gospel than imperative vs. indicative.



At the very least, can it really be argued that this distinction _is_ a Reformed Law/Gospel distinction?

Marty and Matthew have presented a pretty compelling positive case that the Puritan Law/Gospel distinction was a distinction between the CoW (Do this and live) and the CoG (Live and do this).

Conversely, it seems that those who are arguing in this thread for a Law/Gospel distinction of Imperative/Indicative have only presented quotes of several Reformers who insist upon a Law/Gospel distinction. The mere existence of a Law/Gospel distinction, though, hardly establishes the case if the author quoted was not arguing for the Imperative/Indicative distinction.

In other words, my perception of this interchange has been that the response to challenging that the Law/Gospel distincition is Imperative/Indicative is the suggestion that the Law/Gospel distinction is being denied and nobody is interacting with the suggestion that the Law/Gospel distinction has a different Reformed pedigree. At the very least, it seems honesty in the _substance_ of the discussion would be to interact on that point rather than accusing others of denying the distinction altogether.


----------



## DMcFadden

Have any of you who have actually read Muller, checked to see how he handles the "pedigree" of the Law/Gospel discussion in post-reformation dogmatics? I would think that he might be illuminating on the subject???


----------



## JohnOwen007

DMcFadden said:


> Have any of you who have actually read Muller, checked to see how he handles the "pedigree" of the Law/Gospel discussion in post-reformation dogmatics? I would think that he might be illuminating on the subject???



Yes, Dennis, it certainly would be but, alas, I can't find anything Muller has written on it. Looks like we'll have to go back and listen to some _Steely Dan_ while we wait.


----------



## a mere housewife

I have been trying to locate a discussion where I think Ernest Kevan's _Grace of Law _came up in connection with a disagreement over the reformed view of law/gospel, but can't find it. I was wondering if it is a good representation (I remember the 'do this and live'/'live and do this' distinction). I found it extremely helpful at one time but afterwards was told that it confused the categories and not to rely on it. He made a point of the giving of the law being gracious -- I understood the graciousness to be most of all because it ultimately leads us to Christ -- but does this smudge the law/gospel distinction between the two covenants?

Also:


JohnOwen007 said:


> I suspect you may be failing to distinguish between the *commands* of the gospel and the *application* of the gospel. The gospel contains commands (to repent and believe etc.) based on the finished work of Christ. However, the _actual application_ of Christ's finished work by the Spirit in people is *not* the gospel.
> 
> In other words, the works I do as a believer are _not_ the gospel. But the commands I follow (that arise from Christ's finished work) are.
> 
> It's an important distinction because:
> 
> [1] Without it we end up with justification by works or something *neonomistic.*
> 
> [2] But on the other hand, if we simply make the Lutheran do / done distinction, and say there are no commands in the gospel, then we make the equal and opposite error of *antinomianism.*



I have never made this distinction so clearly in my thinking as it is in this post; it's revolutionary. Thank you.


----------



## MW

a mere housewife said:


> I have been trying to locate a discussion where I think Ernest Kevan's _Grace of Law _came up in connection with a disagreement over the reformed view of law/gospel, but can't find it. I was wondering if it is a good representation (I remember the 'do this and live'/'live and do this' distinction). I found it extremely helpful at one time but afterwards was told that it confused the categories and not to rely on it. He made a point of the giving of the law being gracious -- I understood the graciousness to be most of all because it ultimately leads us to Christ -- but does this smudge the law/gospel distinction between the two covenants?



It is a useful book for understanding the Puritan teaching on two uses of the law, namely, as a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ and as a rule of Christian obedience; but it does fail to show the fundamental distinction between law and grace in Puritan thought and neglects the first use of the law as regulating natural man and society. Samuel Rutherford suffers some unjustified criticism for his staunch attack of Antinomians and strong defence of divine authority over liberty of conscience.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## a mere housewife

> ...but it does fail to show the fundamental distinction between law and grace in Puritan thought



I do remember a strong impression that law is something of a of sub-category or arm of gospel grace (not just 'voluntary condescension'). As a believer it was a tremendous help to loving the law. But .... the whole subject has turned into an area of confusion, specifically as to how the covenant of works is functioning in the old testament (or old covenant, if I'm remembering correctly) administration of the covenant of grace. I was wondering if there is there a better book you would recommend that would help clear up further questions? Thank you very much.


----------



## MW

a mere housewife said:


> I was wondering if there is there a better book you would recommend that would help clear up further questions? Thank you very much.



I can't recall a better secondary resource, but so far as primary sources go, Anthony Burgess' Vindicae Legis and Samuel Rutherford's Spiritual Antichrist make for excellent reading, and the latter also provides a genetic description of Antinomianism which is very helpful for understanding its historical development and idealogical affinities.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Just a quick observation that one of the things I've noted in my limited readings and study of Puritan works is an emphasis on training the conscience of a believer that you don't encounter today.

The Imperative/Indicative distinction tends to foster a fear that any meditation of the Law will turn you into a neonomian.

Reading Durham on the 10 commandments is an excellent example of how a Puritan will disect the Law to get behind the positive and negative injunctions of the Command that help the believer understand more fully the character of God and neighbor.

As Luther put it briefly, we've been freed to obey. Paul fleshes out our reasonable service in Romans 12-16 and points out that the aim of a redeemed man is love of God and love of neighbour on the basis of his spiritual inheritance fully received at the point of trust in Christ.

One of the things that always strikes me is how our theology can cause us to live spiritually schizophrenic lives. For instance, I had friends who were just crazy for Lee Irons' preaching when he was still a minister in the OPC. In their mind, a person was preaching Law if any imperative of the Epistles was ever mentioned - Romans 12-16 were quite off limits. Yet, these same people didn't hesitate to tell their children what to do. They didn't hesitate to discipline and reprove. Why, I wondered, was it not sufficient to tell a 10 year old about what Christ has done in order to train him in the fear and admonition of the Lord if it was sufficient for an adult? Of course these parents were sane enough to realize that simply telling their children about the finished work of Christ was not going to train their consciences.

I don't know why we think so highly of ourselves as adults as well. For some, it seems that sanctification merely comes by a meditation of Christ's finished work with no reference to any instruction the Law might have to offer. Whatever one might mention of the benefits of meditating on God's Law are greeted with the charge of legalism or neonomianism.

I, again, repeat my concern that some of the views of the Law as some sort of "bad deal" that the Israelites got when they could have just stuck with Abraham's promise are reminiscent of dispensational thinking on the topic. I think a redeemed individual should be able to see the Law as a reflection of God's Holy Character and love it without falling prey to the deceit that His love of the Law is what saves Him. I love the Law because of the evangelical faith in Christ that I have - born from above.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## RTaron

> The Imperative/Indicative distinction tends to foster a fear that any meditation of the Law will turn you into a neonomian.




I agree Rich. 
I have the same opinion about the teaching which says that the covenant of works was republished in the Covenant at Sinai. As if the Israelites actually got into Canaan on the basis of works. How absurd! The COW requires perfection apart from Christ, how could they atone for their original sin in Adam. Foolishness! And confusion! That is what Grandpa says.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## JohnOwen007

armourbearer said:


> I can't recall a better secondary resource, but so far as primary sources go, Anthony Burgess' Vindicae Legis and Samuel Rutherford's Spiritual Antichrist make for excellent reading, and the latter also provides a genetic description of Antinomianism which is very helpful for understanding its historical development and idealogical affinities.



Yes, Burgess is excellent and Rutherford's actual discussion of the law / gospel distinction is very good. However, Rutherford's depiction of the Antinomians leaves much to be desired. He doesn't distinguish carefully enough between the different streams of thought in the Antinomian camp, some absolutely crazy others a little more orthodox. Hence, he makes certain authors say things they do not.

It's interesting but the definitive study on English Antinomianism has yet to be written--it's a story waiting to be told (anyone looking for a thesis topic?). The more recent books on the topic by David Como and Theodore Bozeman are a good start but there's so much no told by them.


----------



## MW

JohnOwen007 said:


> However, Rutherford's depiction of the Antinomians leaves much to be desired. He doesn't distinguish carefully enough between the different streams of thought in the Antinomian camp, some absolutely crazy others a little more orthodox. Hence, he makes certain authors say things they do not.



This is Kevan's criticism, and unsubstantiated. Reductio ad absurdum was an accepted logical device of the day. It doesn't equate to putting words in the mouths of opponents.


----------



## ChristianTrader

Couple Questions
1) Has the notion that Law/Gospel distinction of Imperative/Indicative is THE classic Reformed position been put to bed? It seems that it is hard to call it Reformed at all.
2)Is this quote by Marty a consensus on the topic:


JohnOwen007 said:


> [2] But on the other hand, if we simply make the Lutheran do / done distinction, and say there are no commands in the gospel, then we make the equal and opposite error of *antinomianism.*


CT

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Is Faith a Work? « Heidelblog


R. Scott Clark on Heidelblog said:


> ...The imperative “believe in Christ and in his finished work” is a gospel imperative. Ursinus acknowledged that the law requires a general sort of belief, “by requiring us to give credit to all the divine promises, precepts and denunciations, and that with a threatening of punishment, unless we do it” but the gospel imperative urges us to trust, receive, and rest in Christ and his finished work and out of that faith to “commence new obedience.” The gospel imperative “commands us expressly and particularly to embrace, by faith, the promise of grace.”


----------



## MW

Semper Fidelis said:


> Is Faith a Work? « Heidelblog



This is much better than an earlier article, and refreshing to read. Here he states the matter with reformed precision:



> The false premise is this: if imperative, then law. This doesn’t follow. Yes, both the law and the gospel have conditions and imperatives but they are not the same conditions nor are they the same imperatives.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------

