# Law and Gospel



## Pergamum

> The Gospel can't be lived. It's the Law that's lived.



I think this phrase deserves it own thread.


----------



## Marrow Man

Pergamum said:


> The Gospel can't be lived. It's the Law that's lived.
> 
> 
> 
> I think this phrase deserves it own thread.
Click to expand...


The WHI guys are against the Emergent Church trend of "living the gospel" (e.g., one statement they are especially critical of is the quote attributed to Francis of Assissi: "Preach the gospel at all times and if necessary use words."). They are attacking the idea of a neo-Social gospel instead of the proclamation of the gospel through preaching.


----------



## Pergamum

Law and Gospel

Last I checked John Frame was not emergent, nor Bridges or Piper or Keller or Mahaney and they all use the same terminology. See the link by Frame.


----------



## CharlieJ

Pergamum said:


> Law and Gospel
> 
> Last I checked John Frame was not emergent, nor Bridges or Piper or Keller or Mahaney and they all use the same terminology. See the link by Frame.


 
Thanks for that link. It really helps crystallize some issues.


----------



## seajayrice

Pergamum said:


> Law and Gospel
> 
> Last I checked John Frame was not emergent, nor Bridges or Piper or Keller or Mahaney and they all use the same terminology. See the link by Frame.


 
Great article, thanks Perg. Does this commentary not describe to some degree the constellation you mention?

6. Law/Gospel and the Christian Life
The Formula’s distinction between law and gospel has unfortunate consequences for the Christian life. The document does warrant preaching of the law to the regenerate, [7] but only as threat and terror, to drive them to Christ Epitome, VI, 4. There is nothing here about the law as the delight of the redeemed heart (Psm. 1:2; compare 119:34-36, 47, 92, 93, 97, 130, 131, Rom. 7:22).
The Formula then goes on to say that believers do conform to the law under the influence of the Spirit, but only as follows:
Fruits of the Spirit, however, are the works which the Spirit of God who dwells in believers works through the regenerate, and which are done by believers so far as they are regenerate [spontaneously and freely], as though they knew of no command, threat, or reward; for in this manner the children of God live in the Law and walk according to the Law of God, which [mode of living] St. Paul in his epistles calls the Law of Christ and the Law of the mind, Rom. 7, 25; 8, 7; Rom. 8, 2; Gal. 6, 2. (Epitome, VI, 5).
So the law may threaten us to drive us to Christ. But truly good works are never motivated by any command, threat or reward.
In my view, this teaching is simply unbiblical. It suggests that when you do something in obedience to a divine command, threat, or promise of reward, it is to that extent tainted, unrighteous, something less than a truly good work. I agree that our best works are tainted by sin, but certainly not for this reason. When Scripture presents us with a command, obedience to that command is a righteous action. Indeed, our righteousness is measured by our obedience to God’s commands. When God threatens punishment, and we turn from wickedness to do what he asks, that is not a sin, but a righteous response. When God promises reward, it is a good thing for us to embrace that reward.
The notion that we should conduct our lives completely apart from the admonitions of God’s word is a terrible notion. To ignore God’s revelation of his righteousness is, indeed, essentially sinful. To read Scripture, but refuse to allow its commands to influence one’s conduct, is the essence of sin.
And what, then, does motivate good works, if not the commands, threats, and promises of reward in Scripture? The Formula doesn’t say. What it suggests is that the Spirit simply brings about obedience from within us. I believe the Spirit does exactly that. But the Formula seems to assume that the Spirit works that way without any decision on our part to act according to the commands of God. That I think is wrong. “Quietism” is the view that Christians should be entirely passive, waiting for the Spirit of God to act in them. This view of the Christian life is unbiblical. The Christian life is a battle, a race. It requires decision and effort. I am not saying that the Formula is quietist (Lutheranism rejected quietism after some controversy in its ranks), but as we read the position of the Formula, it does seem that quietism lies around the corner from it.


----------



## mvdm

Pergamum said:


> Law and Gospel
> 
> Last I checked John Frame was not emergent, nor Bridges or Piper or Keller or Mahaney and they all use the same terminology. See the link by Frame.



From Footnote 7 in the article: 

_But in Lutheranism, it is often said that “the law always accuses.” _

The "law always accuses" would be fairly synonymous with "the law only condemns".


----------



## R. Scott Clark

> From Footnote 7 in the article:
> 
> But in Lutheranism, it is often said that “the law always accuses.”
> 
> The "law always accuses" would be fairly synonymous with "the law only condemns".



Heidelberg Catechism Q/A 115:

Why then does God so strictly enjoin the ten Commandments upon us, since in this life no one can keep them?

_*First, that as long as we live we may learn more and more to know our sinful nature*_, and so the more earnestly seek forgiveness of sins and righteousness in Christ; secondly, that without ceasing we diligently ask God for the grace of the Holy Spirit, that we be renewed more and more after the image of God, until we attain the goal of perfection after this life.


----------



## mvdm

R. Scott Clark said:


> From Footnote 7 in the article:
> 
> But in Lutheranism, it is often said that “the law always accuses.”
> 
> The "law always accuses" would be fairly synonymous with "the law only condemns".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Heidelberg Catechism Q/A 115:
> 
> Why then does God so strictly enjoin the ten Commandments upon us, since in this life no one can keep them?
> 
> _*First, that as long as we live we may learn more and more to know our sinful nature*_, and so the more earnestly seek forgiveness of sins and righteousness in Christ; secondly, that without ceasing we diligently ask God for the grace of the Holy Spirit, that we be renewed more and more after the image of God, until we attain the goal of perfection after this life.
Click to expand...


Please don't tell me you cited this catechism section to support the idea that the "the law always accuses" or the "law only condemns".


----------



## MW

Pergamum said:


> Last I checked John Frame was not emergent, nor Bridges or Piper or Keller or Mahaney and they all use the same terminology. See the link by Frame.


 
No, but he is transformationalist, which creates all kinds of ecclesiological problems, and might be considered as the germ out of which emergent ideas have developed.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

mvdm said:


> R. Scott Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From Footnote 7 in the article:
> 
> But in Lutheranism, it is often said that “the law always accuses.”
> 
> The "law always accuses" would be fairly synonymous with "the law only condemns".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Heidelberg Catechism Q/A 115:
> 
> Why then does God so strictly enjoin the ten Commandments upon us, since in this life no one can keep them?
> 
> _*First, that as long as we live we may learn more and more to know our sinful nature*_, and so the more earnestly seek forgiveness of sins and righteousness in Christ; secondly, that without ceasing we diligently ask God for the grace of the Holy Spirit, that we be renewed more and more after the image of God, until we attain the goal of perfection after this life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please don't tell me you cited this catechism section to support the idea that the "the law always accuses" or the "law only condemns".
Click to expand...


Ursinus, on Q. 115



> III. In nature restored by Christ, or as it respects the regenerate,
> there are many uses of the law.
> 
> 1.The preservation of discipline and outward obedience to the law.
> For although this use has respect chiefly to the unregenerate, as we have already shown, who do not refrain from sin from love to God and righteousness, but only from a fear and dread of punishment and shame, as the Poet says,
> 
> _Oderunt peccare mali formedine pcena_:
> They hate to sin from a dread of punishment;
> 
> yet it in like manner has its use in relation to the godly, because on account of the weakness and corruption of the flesh, it is useful and necessary, even to them, that the threatenings of the law, and the examples of punishment set before them, may keep them in the faithful discharge of their duty. For God threatens severe punishment even to the saints, if they become nature.	"When the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, he shall die in his sin." (Ez. 18 :	24.)
> 
> 2. A knowledge of sin.	This use of the law, although it likewise has
> reference chiefly to the unregenerate, nevertheless, belongs to the godly also.	For the law is to the regenerate as a mirror, in which they may see the defects and imperfection of their own nature, and also leads them to true humility before God, that so they may continually advance in true conversion and faith;	and that whilst the renewing of their nature is going forward, they may become more earnest in prayer and supplication, that they may become more and more conformed to God and the divine law.
> 
> ...The declaration of the Apostle Paul [he quotes Rom 7, "O wretched man that I am...."], that the law is our schoolmaster, to bring us unto Christ, must be understood of both these uses of the law of which we have just spoken, and that in the elect still unregenerate, as well as in those who are already regenerated. To the former it is a preparation to conversion; whilst to the latter it is the carrying forward, or increase of conversion, since faith cannot be kindled, or remain in the heart, unless open and grievous offences, and such as wound conscience, be hated and shunned.


----------



## MW

R. Scott Clark said:


> Ursinus, on Q. 115


 
Please read on:



> Again, the law alone, without the gospel, is the letter, that is, it is the doctrine which merely teaches, demands obedience, denounces the wrath of God and death to such as are disobedient, without producing the spiritual obedience which it requires. *But when it is joined with the gospel*, which is the Spirit, *it also commences to become the Spirit, which is effectual in the godly*, inasmuch as those who are regenerated commence willingly and cheerfully to yield obedience to the law.


----------



## Pergamum

armourbearer said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Last I checked John Frame was not emergent, nor Bridges or Piper or Keller or Mahaney and they all use the same terminology. See the link by Frame.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, but he is transformationalist, which creates all kinds of ecclesiological problems, and might be considered as the germ out of which emergent ideas have developed.
Click to expand...

 
Rev. Winzer:

I am sorry, I don't know what a 'transformationalist" is. Can you explain?


----------



## mvdm

armourbearer said:


> R. Scott Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ursinus, on Q. 115
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please read on:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, the law alone, without the gospel, is the letter, that is, it is the doctrine which merely teaches, demands obedience, denounces the wrath of God and death to such as are disobedient, without producing the spiritual obedience which it requires. *But when it is joined with the gospel*, which is the Spirit, *it also commences to become the Spirit, which is effectual in the godly*, inasmuch as those who are regenerated commence willingly and cheerfully to yield obedience to the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Thanks, Rev. Winzer for supplying what was left out. Again.


----------



## MW

Michael Doyle said:


> For the sake of this conversation, Horton has responded to the antinomian charges here: the-fear-of-antinomianism from whitehorseinn.org - StumbleUpon


 
Thankyou for pointing this out. Please note that in this repudiation we have an avowal of one of the tenets of Antinomianism. It is in this statement: "The law does what only the law can do: reveal God’s moral will. In doing so, it strips us of our righteousness and makes us aware of our helplessness apart from Christ and it also directs us in grateful obedience. No one who says this can be considered an antinomian." I regret that I have to inform those who strongly advocate Dr. Horton's position that this is precisely what the Antinomians of history have taught. I urge you, Christian brethren, to prove all things. Please compare Dr. Horton's statement with the repudiation of Antinomianism by Zacharias Ursinus which I quoted a few posts ago. He explcitly rejects Dr. Horton's Antinomian tenet and insists that the law joined with the gospel "also commences *to become* the Spirit, *which is effectual in the godly*." There, my dear Christian brethren, is the point at issue. One should be on his guard against being entrapped in an error on a most serious point: "For this is the will of God, even your sanctification." I point it out to you once more, not for the sake of fear-mongering, but in Christian love, that you might be delivered from the counsel which causes to err. What do you believe? Do you hold the antinomian tenet of Dr. Horton that the law does what only the law can do? or do you maintain with reformed theology throughout the centuries, as represented by faithful teachers on many continents, what Dr. Horton considers to be a most serious error, that the law is changed by the Spirit into something that is effectual in the believer's progressive sanctification? They are two different views, repeatedly contrasted, which an individual cannot believe at one and the same time.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

mvdm said:


> Thanks, Rev. Winzer for supplying what was left out. Again.


 

The question was whether there is anything in the HC which is analogous to "_lex semper accusat_." 

According to HC 115, there is clearly a pedagogical aspect to the law, even in the _tertius usus_. Ursinus says as much. 

No question whether, as Ursinus says, the gospel transforms our relation to the law. Amen and amen! 

The law is wonderful, holy, and good but WE SINNERS are not yet, fully sanctified, and therefore the law continues to accuse us sinners, even as the Spirit is at work in us to conform us, to continue our regneration (in the old sense, in which Ursinus was using that term, of sanctification) in the image of Christ. 

It's not an either/or choice. It's a matter of Both/And.

The problem has never been the law.

The problem has always been with sin and with sinners.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Rev. Winzer,

How would question Question 97 of the Larger Catechism fit in this discussion? 

*Q. 97. What special use is there of the moral law to the regenerate?*

A. Although they that are regenerate, and believe in Christ, be delivered from the moral law as a covenant of works, so as thereby they are neither justified nor condemned; yet, besides the general uses thereof common to them with all men, it is of special use, to show them how much they are bound to Christ for his fulfilling it, and enduring the curse thereof in their stead, and for their good; and thereby to provoke them to more thankfulness, and to express the same in their greater care to conform themselves thereunto as the rule of their obedience.


----------



## MW

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> How would question Question 97 of the Larger Catechism fit in this discussion?


 
The Standards are a unit. The Catechism must be read in the light of the Confession and as a teaching instrument of it. Westminster Confession 19.6, after declaring the use of the law to a believer in the same sense as Larger Catechism 97, proceeds to state, "The promises of it, in like manner, show them God’s approbation of obedience, and what blessings they may expect upon the performance thereof; although not as due to them by the law, as a covenant of works. So as, a man’s doing good, and refraining from evil, because the law encourageth to the one, and deterreth from the other, is no evidence of his being under the law; and not under grace." Promises, God's approbation of obedience, blessings -- UNDER GRACE. That is the point which needs to be rediscovered today.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Thanks Rev. Winzer!


----------



## mvdm

R. Scott Clark said:


> mvdm said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks, Rev. Winzer for supplying what was left out. Again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The question was whether there is anything in the HC which is analogous to "_lex semper accusat_."
> 
> According to HC 115, there is clearly a pedagogical aspect to the law, even in the _tertius usus_. Ursinus says as much.
> 
> No question whether, as Ursinus says, the gospel transforms our relation to the law. Amen and amen!
> 
> The law is wonderful, holy, and good but WE SINNERS are not yet, fully sanctified, and therefore the law continues to accuse us sinners, even as the Spirit is at work in us to conform us, to continue our regneration (in the old sense, in which Ursinus was using that term, of sanctification) in the image of Christ.
> 
> It's not an either/or choice. It's a matter of Both/And.
> 
> The problem has never been the law.
> 
> The problem has always been with sin and with sinners.
Click to expand...


No, the question was NOT whether there is a pedagogical or first use of the law. The question was whether the law "only condemns". That is your theological proposition. Just by the mere light shed by the section of Ursinus which you curiously omitted, it does no good for you to continue to pretend "only" doesn't mean "only". Better that you recover the Reformed confession and amend your theological proposition: The law and gospel are NOT always opposed. The law does NOT only condemn.


----------



## MW

mvdm said:


> Better that you recover the Reformed confession


 
Yes, and that would mean that we recover the old confession, not write a new one. The cloudiness with which this subject is being enveloped is argument enough why the reformed are not in suitable circumstances under Providence to write a new confession of faith.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Dr. Clark,

This is the theological propostion Elder Van Der Molen is responding to. 


THESES THEOLOGICAE (Theological Propositions)


> 36. The Law and the Gospel are necessarily dichotomous since the former *only* condemns and the only justifies.



It is on this page under Soteriology.
Westminster Seminary California


----------



## VictorBravo

To be fair, Randy, # 6 Under Ethics in the same link states this: 



> "God's law (whether expressed in the Old or New Testament) is the norm for the Christian's moral life."



I've read elsewhere that Dr. Clark has held to the three uses: The Three Uses of the Law « Heidelblog

Note in the above link Dr. Clark says, "We don’t say that it only accuses, however! There’s a difference."

There is much value in this thread, but it shouldn't be sidetracked by arguments born from misunderstanding. I may have missed it, but when I read through this thread I don't see Dr. Clark asserting what mvdm is stating: 



> No, the question was NOT whether there is a pedagogical or first use of the law. The question was whether the law "only condemns". That is your theological proposition. Just by the mere light shed by the section of Ursinus which you curiously omitted, it does no good for you to continue to pretend "only" doesn't mean "only". Better that you recover the Reformed confession and amend your theological proposition: The law and gospel are NOT always opposed. The law does NOT only condemn.



I note that “lex semper accusat” is not really the same thing as "the law only condemns." I think one can say, on one hand, "the law always condemns" and also say that the law is the norm for Christians. 

So, if there are to be accusations, let them at least be accurate.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

mvdm said:


> No, the question was NOT whether there is a pedagogical or first use of the law. The question was whether the law "only condemns".



I didn't realize that you were responding to the _theses theologicae_. I thought we were discussing the HC 115 and Ursinus' interpretation. 

My concern here is with the claim that there is nothing in Reformed theology like _lex semper accusat_. There is. The teaching of HC 115 is that, even in the third use, the law continues to accuse. That doesn't mean that is _all_ that the law does.

Thesis 5.36, 



> "The Law and the Gospel are necessarily dichotomous since the former only condemns and the only justifies"



comes under the heading _soteriology_, or the doctrine of salvation. Relative to soteriology, that's a true statement. Relative to our justification, narrowly and our salvation broadly, the law does not and cannot help us. It's got no power to help us. It's not the intended function of the law to deliver sinners from the judgment of the law. The law says: do and live. The law gives us sinners no power to do and live.

There is an entire section of the theses devoted to the Christian life and the function of the law. Clearly any reasonable person who reads through the theses and reads 5.36 in context and continues to section 8 would see that the "only" of 5.36 is not intended to be taken absolutely but relative to section 5.

Here are some selected theses from section 8:



> The decalogue is the general equity of God's law. Christ summarized the decalogue in Matthew 22.37-40.
> 
> The law of nature is substantially identical to the decalogue and was revealed in Eden and is known naturally by all humans such that all are without excuse before God.
> 
> God's law (whether expressed in the Old or New Testament) is the norm for the Christian's moral life.
> 
> There are three types of law in the Old (Mosaic) Testament: moral, civil and ceremonial.
> 
> Because civil and ceremonial law were specifically and intentionally tied to the Old (Mosaic) covenant, they were fulfilled in the Kingly and Priestly work of Christ and are therefore no longer binding on the Christian.
> 
> The Mosaic civil law, because it was specifically and intentionally tied to the temporary and typical Old (Mosaic) covenant, it was never intended to serve as norm for any other state than Mosaic-Davidic theocracy.
> 
> Any attempt to reimpose the Mosaic civil laws or their penalties fails to understand the typological, temporary, national character of the Old (Mosaic) covenant.
> 
> The moral law, to the degree it expresses the substance of God's moral will and is not tied to the ceremonies of the Old covenant continues to bind all human beings.
> 
> There are three uses of the Law: the pedagogical, the civil and the normative.
> The pedagogical use drives sinners to Christ.
> 
> The civil use norms the state.
> 
> In the New Covenant, only the second table of the Law can be said to bind the
> state.
> 
> There are two kingdoms: that of the right hand and that of the left.
> 
> Both kingdoms are under the authority of Christ, but are administered in diverse ways.
> 
> In each Christians live under Christ's lordship according to the nature of that kingdom.
> 
> The kingdom of the Right hand describes the ministry of Word and sacrament.
> 
> The kingdom of the left hand describes the exercise of power in the ecclesiastical and civil realms.
> 
> Because of the distinction between the two kingdoms and because the Decalogue is substantially identical with natural law, Christians should advocate laws and policies in the civil realm on the basis of the universal, natural knowledge of the second table of the law.
> 
> The third use of the law norms the Christian life.
> 
> Denial of the third use of the Law (tertius usus legis) leads to antinomianism.
> The third use of the law, like the first use, also drives us to Christ.
> 
> Because it cannot be known apart from divine revelation in Holy Scripture, no one may bind our conscience with any law other than that revealed by God.
> 
> Sanctification is as gracious as justification.
> 
> Sanctification is the result of justification.
> 
> The revelation of God's moral will in Scripture does not eliminate the need for wisdom in the interpretation and application of divinely revealed moral norms
> in the Christian life whether in the church or in civil life.
> 
> The Christian life flows from the right use of the means of grace.
> 
> There is a proper distinction between God's hidden (decretive) and revealed (moral) will. The latter has been revealed in Holy Scripture and must be known and obeyed. The former is only known ex post facto.
> 
> There is no secret revelation of God's decretive will.
> It is more helpful to consider that prayer is the chief part of thankfulness than a means of grace considered narrowly.
> 
> Broadly considered, prayer may be described as a means of grace since it is a divinely instituted element of worship through which God has promised to operate.
> 
> Theonomy is not a Reformed ethical system.
> 
> Only that should be done in worship which is explicitly taught or implicitly required by Scripture.
> 
> The Christian life flows from and is impossible without theology.
> 
> The Spirit must never be divorced from the Word. Any such separation is fanaticism.
> 
> Inasmuch as modern evangelicalism (from c. 1720) is driven primarily by religious experience and not objective revelation as revealed in Scripture and confessed by the church, the Reformed may be described as evangelical but we are not modern evangelicals.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

VictorBravo said:


> To be fair, Randy, # 6 Under Ethics in the same link states this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "God's law (whether expressed in the Old or New Testament) is the norm for the Christian's moral life."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've read elsewhere that Dr. Clark has held to the three uses: The Three Uses of the Law « Heidelblog
> 
> Note in the above link Dr. Clark says, "We don’t say that it only accuses, however! There’s a difference."
> 
> There is much value in this thread, but it shouldn't be sidetracked by arguments born from misunderstanding. I may have missed it, but when I read through this thread I don't see Dr. Clark asserting what mvdm is stating:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, the question was NOT whether there is a pedagogical or first use of the law. The question was whether the law "only condemns". That is your theological proposition. Just by the mere light shed by the section of Ursinus which you curiously omitted, it does no good for you to continue to pretend "only" doesn't mean "only". Better that you recover the Reformed confession and amend your theological proposition: The law and gospel are NOT always opposed. The law does NOT only condemn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I note that “lex semper accusat” is not really the same thing as "the law only condemns." I think one can say, on one hand, "the law always condemns" and also say that the law is the norm for Christians.
> 
> So, if there are to be accusations, let them at least be accurate.
Click to expand...

 
I think I am trying to be fair Vic.

I think I understand what you are saying at the same time. I am not declaring that they deny the third use of the law. I am not declaring them to be antinomian either. I am thinking that the Gospel is being dumbed down to just the doctrine of justification. Some of what they are saying can lead to it. Just as anything I say can lead to something that is wrong. 

Vic, In my previous post I was only trying to clarify where the word *only* was coming from. It was brought up in another place on this topic. Dr. Clark noted that it was under the topic of soteriology. Is Soteriology solely concerned with the doctrine of Justification? I don't believe it is. Am I incorrect here? That proposition is listed under soteriology. It does say the Law *only *condemns in the proposition. Maybe Dr. Clark hasn't been clear enough and needs to restate the proposition in the context of justification. After all the sentence itself is incomplete and needs correction. At least it appears that way to me. 



> 36. The Law and the Gospel are necessarily dichotomous since the former only condemns and the only justifies.
> 36. The Law and the Gospel are necessarily dichotomous since the former only condemns and the [there is a word missing here] only justifies.



So maybe he needs to be more clear. Maybe he just needs to be more definitive concerning the distinct use of the Law as it relates to justification by faith alone instead of making this blanket statement as it relates to the whole subject of Soteriology. Sorry I am not making sense. I need to get to bed. I had a busy day.

Anyways, I am have to get up early and go get some medical tests run. I have more to ask and state. But I just don't have the time. *I will say that Dr. Cornelius P. Venama's review of 'The Law Is Not of Faith' is very enlightening and there are some strong questions that I am obtaining for the Westminster California guys.* I wish I had more time to spend on this but I don't.
https://d3ecc98b-a-62cb3a1a-s-sites...DxYnBq4MsNrOkc_w0bwYLPlAKhg4Q=&attredirects=1


----------



## proregno

Here is my 2 cents 

Along comes the theonomist and see the danger of 'antinomianism' and therefore emphasize 'sanctification' while acknowledging justification by grace through faith alone, the first impossible without the latter. 

Some do not like this (personality clashes from 'both' sides maybe ?), and therefore blame and brand them as being 'legalist', because they do not 'emphasize' justification 'enough' (WTSC/WHI group?)

The latter group see the dangers of 'legalism', and therefore emphasize 'justification' while acknowledging the necessity of sanctification as the result/fruit of justification by grace through faith alone. 

But, some do not like this and label them as 'antinomian' ... etc etc etc ... 

David wrote: "I long for Your salvation, O LORD, And Your law is my delight." (Ps.119:174)

Gospel and Law, distinct but unbreakably linked together, are both the delight of the Christian man and the true Church of our Saviour and King, Jesus Christ. 

Someone else wrote it already: if someone emphasizes some specific doctrine, then it does not necessarily mean they reject another important doctrine. Maybe it is all about 'balance', teaching all the doctrines as faithfully as possible (Acts 20:27), but I think no man on earth, not the best of our theologians could ever do it. Therefore we need to be understanding and careful with all the 'labels', both the 'legalist' and 'antinomian' label, from both/all camps within reformed christianity. 

HC "Q. 114. But can those who are converted to God perfectly keep these commandments? A. No; but even the holiest men, while in this life, have only a small beginning of this obedience; yet so, that with a sincere resolution they begin to live not only according to some, but all the commandments of God."


----------



## mvdm

VictorBravo said:


> To be fair, Randy, # 6 Under Ethics in the same link states this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "God's law (whether expressed in the Old or New Testament) is the norm for the Christian's moral life."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've read elsewhere that Dr. Clark has held to the three uses: The Three Uses of the Law « Heidelblog
> 
> Note in the above link Dr. Clark says, "We don’t say that it only accuses, however! There’s a difference."
> 
> There is much value in this thread, but it shouldn't be sidetracked by arguments born from misunderstanding. I may have missed it, but when I read through this thread I don't see Dr. Clark asserting what mvdm is stating:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, the question was NOT whether there is a pedagogical or first use of the law. The question was whether the law "only condemns". That is your theological proposition. Just by the mere light shed by the section of Ursinus which you curiously omitted, it does no good for you to continue to pretend "only" doesn't mean "only". Better that you recover the Reformed confession and amend your theological proposition: The law and gospel are NOT always opposed. The law does NOT only condemn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I note that “lex semper accusat” is not really the same thing as "the law only condemns." I think one can say, on one hand, "the law always condemns" and also say that the law is the norm for Christians.
> 
> So, if there are to be accusations, let them at least be accurate.
Click to expand...


Vic, if you can tell me how "only" permits exceptions, I'd be happy to hear it. Also, I well understand that those who hold to this law/gospel DICHOTOMY {vs. "distinction"} will go on to say they affirm the third use of the law. But saying it doesn't mean they have a good theological ground for making such affirmation. F.V. folk make seemingly clear statements affirming justification by faith alone, but that does not mean it is so when we consider other portions of their theological statements. 

So affirmations of the third use of the law must be read in the context of the corpus of their project to re-fashion covenant theology {e.g. republication thesis and its progeny R2k}. I could flood this thread with such context, but I suspect we'd prefer to keep this more narrowly focused. In the meantime, Randy's suggested reading of Venema's review would help spell out this fundamental problem more thoroughly for you.


----------



## VictorBravo

Mark, my point was that "lex semper accusat" does not mean "the law only accuses." When I looked over the thread, I didn't see anybody introduce "only" except when you did (on this thread). I was rushed, so may have missed it.

The argument is based on your reading that Dr. Clark is saying "the law only accuses." I just didn't see him say that here.

As has been pointed out, he has said something like that elsewhere, and elsewhere it has been discussed. My problem is importing arguments from other threads or realms that one cannot follow in a self-contained thread. People stop by and read one thread and will not get what is going on because they haven't been reading all the related threads at once.

And, as indicated by Dr. Clark's response, he didn't know what the argument was about either. So, to be clear, a challenge in any given thread needs to articulate exactly what is at dispute. Please don't assume that everyone on the board has been following every discussion and reference to other threads. Try to keep each thread sufficiently self-contained or hyperlink to points raised elsewhere.


----------



## moral necessity

I thought this might be useful for the thread. This is from Venama's book, Accepted and Renewed in Christ. See pp.240-247 for how he interprets Calvin to say there is both a contradition and a harmony between Law and Gospel. 

Accepted and Renewed in Christ: The ... - Google Books

Perhaps, when refuting Neonomianism, removing the cancer may involve carving away some of the good cells they are attached to, not for the rejection of them, but rather the better restoration of them. Once they have the proper separation of Law and Gospel, then they will be better suited to recover the Law's proper use for the believer. That's how I tend to see it.

Blessings!


----------



## R. Scott Clark

_Semper_ is a Latin adverb for "always." The simplest Latin adverb for only = _modo_.

The slogan "_lex semper accusat_" = "the law always accuses." It doesn't mean that that is _all_ that the law does. 

All confessional Protestants have always taught that the Law does more than accuse. I was just reading Luther's lectures on Genesis (c. 1535-36) in which he taught, at length, the normative use of the moral law for the believer. The Lutheran Book of Concord teaches the third use of the law explicitly. Remember, the Harmony of Reformed Confessions (1580) included the Augsburg Confession. The antithesis that some seek to draw between the Lutheran confessions and the Reformed confessions, on the normative/third use of the law wasn't highlighted in the classical period.


----------



## Prufrock

R. Scott Clark said:


> All confessional Protestants have always taught that the Law does more than accuse. I was just reading Luther's lectures on Genesis (c. 1535-36) in which he taught, at length, the normative use of the moral law for the believer. The Lutheran Book of Concord teaches the third use of the law explicitly. Remember, the Harmony of Reformed Confessions (1580) included the Augsburg Confession. *The antithesis that some seek to draw between the Lutheran confessions and the Reformed confessions, on the normative/third use of the law wasn't highlighted in the classical period.*



Dr. Clark, I do want to offer a humble comment on the last statement of yours which I have highlighted. I hope (and sincerely pray) that you will read the comment in light of what I say in the remainder of this message and in light of the profound respect I have for you and your erudition.

I think it should be a plain, demonstrable fact that, at least among the British Reformed (I can't speak for the continental theologians), certain teachers felt the tension between their expressions of Law/Gospel and the Lutherans' expressions thereof. A reading of Burgess' Vindiciae should make that evident (lectures 26 and 27, for example). While feeling the tension, it appears they also wanted to minimize its appearance - and the specific, historical reason for that seems plain: the Antinomians were attempting to claim Luther for their side. Rutherford and Burgess go to great lengths to rescue Luther from the Antinomians and claim him for orthodoxy. In this context, it should be understandable that no one would want to highlight what they considered problematic statements from orthodox Lutheran teachers, or to highlight any point of similitude between their tenets and those of the Antinomians. Let me be emphatically clear: these British theologians considered their Lutheran brethren superlatively _Orthodox_ with respect to justification; on this article, I think it is inescapable that the differences between them resulted in an "in-house divergence," if I may use the term. They did not regard them as antinomians. This is not to say, however, that they did not regard the nature of the disctinction _itself_ to be Antinomian or similar to antinomian principles. They were not considered Antinomians, but this says nothing as to what they thought of the nature of certain tenets they espoused through inconsistency.

Now, bringing this to bear in the present discussion, I hope I can attempt a mediation of sorts? I do not mean a middle-ground between the teachings, as I of course realize there are two fundamentally different principles being espoused; rather, I mean to mediate between persons. I would not dare presume to speak for Mr. Winzer, but, unless I am mistaken, he has not stated that "Michael Horton is an Antinomian;" I think he has, indeed, stated that he believes certain tenets which are rooted in antinomian misunderstandings are being espoused, being maintained in tension with an orthodox gospel. Whether one agrees with the statement or not, I do hope all will see how those two differ. (Of course, if Mr. Winzer is asserting more than this, I will leave it to him to state that plainly.) The very nature of internet discussion boards has made this discussion (in my opinion and to my regret) get entirely out of hand, and I fear that in in the minds of many people more seems to have been said than has been said. Just as Rutherford or Burgess, I believe, would see the historically equiavalent issue as a fundamentally in-house debate, I think the same can be said for any similar statements which have been made here: again, if this is not the case, I am sure Mr. Winzer will correct me as I do not intend to speak for him. I think it is beyond safe to say that _all_ members of this discussion board are profoundly thankful for the great service Dr. Horton has done in making such wonderful Reformed truths known so widely through his various engagements - his constant speaking out in behalf of the visible, institutional church, his emphases upon the means of grace and corporate piety, his stand against "contemporizing" the church, his advocacy of confessionalism, etc. are things for which _everyone_ here has great respect, and for which they embrace him as a brother and co-laborer in Christ. Those who differ with him on these in-house issues, though they disagree earnestly and strongly, do so in that spirit, and I hope all will see that and seriously consider their participation and the manner of their conduct in these conversations, and whether it becomes the gospel of Christ.

I can honestly say, as a more general note, that these recent threads have grieved me, and have strongly turned me off from internet discussion boards as a fruitful medium of conversation. I would personally love to see a discussion of the law/gospel distinction continue, both with respect to its historical and theological nature: it is a profitable discussion in an area in which my own understanding has evolved in recent years. I entreat all, however, to examine their hearts and only take up this discussion with a prayerful spirit.

*Moderator Note*
Please note none of the above was said in a role as a board moderator; only as a fellow board member and brother in Christ; also, the bulk of this message is not aimed chiefly at this thread, but in consideration of the numerous recent threads on the topic.


----------



## Philip

Marrow Man said:


> Please correct me if I am wrong, but aren't the Pyromaniacs dispensationalists?



I'm marginally familiar with them and they fall into the "Young, Restless, Reformed" crowd.



Pergamum said:


> Last I checked John Frame was not emergent, nor Bridges or Piper or Keller or Mahaney and they all use the same terminology. See the link by Frame.



This to me illustrates one of the sad facts about contemporary reformed thought: often folks will divide over terminology like this. We even have a bit of this on this board: R2K, Presuppositionalism, YRR, etc. (twenty years ago, Dooyeweerdianism, theonomy, and Clarkianism, but these are so small now that I don't really count them). This isn't to say that these are wrong or that it's bad to have positions, but I do get a bit tired of all these shibboleths where if you don't use our jargon, you're not really reformed.

Understand, I'm not blaming anyone or trying to point fingers (I most likely do it as much as anyone and just don't fully realize it). Anyway, that's a bit of a tangent. EDIT: ok, a huge tangent and not terribly germane to the larger discussion.

More on topic, I thought that as far as critiques go, this was possibly one of the most charitable and humble that I've ever read.


----------



## mvdm

VictorBravo said:


> Mark, my point was that "lex semper accusat" does not mean "the law only accuses." When I looked over the thread, I didn't see anybody introduce "only" except when you did (on this thread). I was rushed, so may have missed it.
> 
> The argument is based on your reading that Dr. Clark is saying "the law only accuses." I just didn't see him say that here.
> 
> As has been pointed out, he has said something like that elsewhere, and elsewhere it has been discussed. My problem is importing arguments from other threads or realms that one cannot follow in a self-contained thread. People stop by and read one thread and will not get what is going on because they haven't been reading all the related threads at once.
> 
> And, as indicated by Dr. Clark's response, he didn't know what the argument was about either. So, to be clear, a challenge in any given thread needs to articulate exactly what is at dispute. Please don't assume that everyone on the board has been following every discussion and reference to other threads. Try to keep each thread sufficiently self-contained or hyperlink to points raised elsewhere.



Thanks, Vic. Understood.


----------



## MW

Prufrock said:


> I think it is beyond safe to say that _all_ members of this discussion board are profoundly thankful for the great service Dr. Horton has done in making such wonderful Reformed truths known so widely through his various engagements - his constant speaking out in behalf of the visible, institutional church, his emphases upon the means of grace and corporate piety, his stand against "contemporizing" the church, his advocacy of confessionalism, etc. are things for which _everyone_ here has great respect, and for which they embrace him as a brother and co-laborer in Christ. Those who differ with him on these in-house issues, though they disagree earnestly and strongly, do so in that spirit, and I hope all will see that and seriously consider their participation and the manner of their conduct in these conversations, and whether it becomes the gospel of Christ.


 
Thankyou, Paul. Please let it be noted, that I have not said anything against the person of Dr. Horton. The truth is that I have great respect for Dr. Horton and his labours. I do not regard him as Antinomian but I regard this one particular emphasis of his teaching as Antinomian. As stated elsewhere, I regret that I have to speak these things. If modern Protestantism did not have the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons, I doubt whether "bringing into captivity every thought" would cause so much consternation. Such an action would probably be regarded as an essential part of faithful ministry.


----------



## Peairtach

*Rev Winzer*


> UNDER GRACE. That is the point which needs to be rediscovered today.



It's not just genuine Fundamentalist Christians, as has been noted by some on other threads, that can be under a greater or lesser degree of legal bondage through not appreciating what it means that we are no longer under the law as a CoW but as a rule and pattern of life but also genuine Reformed Christians. 

Maybe where there is lack of assurance of faith, this is what is usually behind it.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

I've read the European Reformed theologians from both the 16th and 17th centuries and I don't find them charging that the Lutherans teach antinomianism, as many contemporary Reformed folk seem to assume. The facts are that the Book of Concord teaches the _tertius usus legis_ explicitly. 

I don't doubt that, in the controversy with the antinomians, there was discomfort in some quarters over some ways that some Lutherans have spoken. I can point out individual Lutherans who have advocated antinomians but that isn't the Lutheran position. I can point out moralistic Reformed writers but they aren't teaching the Reformed position. 

I'm not saying that there are no differences. There are. Lutherans don't like to say that we were justified in order that we might be sanctified. The Reformed writers say that all the time. 

I just want us to stop over-stating the differences.

I'm grieved by some of these discussions too. I'm grieved that people on the PB are accusing Horton (and me, because I agree with Horton) of teaching an antinomian position. Rubbish. I'm grieved that I've had to spend way too much time defending WSC and perfectly orthodox doctrines. I'm grieved that people approach me at school and ask, "Is there ever ANYTHING positive on the Puritanboard. Every time I look at it I get discouraged because they're hacking away at some confessional guy." That's a pretty close summary of what was said.


----------



## Michael Doyle

I must say, for the record, I too am very sad by the level of attack on the PB. Many at my church and in my sphere of influence chide me regularly about why I would want to hang out here with all the bickering and high tension attacks. I am guilty myself of these and I am in no way trying to impugn anyone in particular. I resolve to, by faith, in the future, be much more charitable to you all. Please forgive me for my immaturities.


----------



## TimV

The only way to test an hypothesis is to try to disprove it. What's with the whine-fest? People should be glad for a forum to test their theories. So if Paul really thinks Turretin spoke against using translations from traditions other than the TR and it's variants, he can do it here, and we can all benefit. If Dr. Horton really believes that


> "The law does what only the law can do: reveal God’s moral will. In doing so, it strips us of our righteousness and makes us aware of our helplessness apart from Christ and it also directs us in grateful obedience. No one who says this can be considered an antinomian.


then let him or his supporters defend him. There are people like me reading. Dozens and maybe more, who are interested. And if someone is attacking unfairly , attack back. It's not like it's not done by WSC people. Trueman called the best friend I ever had a racist, incompetent and/or a lunatic, and I didn't whine. I wish I had a place like here where the guy would come and defend that statement, but I didn't whine about WSC. Iron can sharpen iron without it melting.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Thank you very much for that Tim.


----------



## MW

Samuel Rutherford (Christ Dying and Drawing Sinners to Himself, preface):



> If Antinomians offend, or such as are, out of ignorance, seduced, hate me for heightening Christ, not in a gospel-licence, as they do; but in a strict and accurate walking, in commanding of which, both law and gospel do friendly agree, and never did, and never could jar, or contest; I threaten them, in this I write, with the revenge of good will, to have them saved, in a weak aim, and a far off (at least) desire, to offer to their view such a gospel idea and representation of Christ, as the prophets and apostles have shown in the word of his kingdom, who opens the secrets of the Father to the sons of men.



May God give grace and courage to show this gospel revenge upon Antinomian severers of law and gospel!


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

This is an old post someone lead me to. I thought this post and the following posts were pretty insightful. 
http://www.puritanboard.com/f48/antinomian-gospel-26246/index2.html#post330251

This discussion is not a new one. This one comes from 2007. There are differences of understanding what the Gospel is. Especially as it is distinguished between some Reformers and Reformed Theologians. I have been accused of not being Reformed because I am not a Paedo Baptist. I also think someone might distinguish this issue based upon what someone thinks the Gospel is. BTW, all of us in this discussion hold to some form of Covenant Theology. I don't understand why it is okay to be so critical of each other in the baptism debate and in this issue it is a terrible thing to be critical. I do wish this topic could be discussed a bit more civil without character assassination. I know there are charges of antinomian and denial of the third use of the law. I haven't heard anyone call anyone an antinomian. I have heard that some arguments could lead to it. I haven't heard anyone charge anyone with not believing in the third use of the law. I have read a concern from Dr. Cornelius P. Venema that the propagators of the book 'The Law Is Not of Faith' is on shaky ground foundationally concerning this doctrine.

I adjure everyone to buy and get a copy of the latest issue of Mid America's Theological Journal and read his review of this book. 

MAJT Volume 21

The Mosaic Covenant: A “Republication” of the Covenant of Works? A Review Article: The Law Is Not of Faith: Essays on Works and Grace in the Mosaic Covenant by Cornelis P. Venema

Cornelius P. Venema is more Biblical, Reformed, and Confessional in my estimation. And this comes from a Credo.

For our edification...


> But to make our way more clear and safe, one thing must yet be premised
> unto these considerations; and this is, that God’s commands for holiness
> may be considered two ways: —
> 1. As they belong unto and are parts of *the covenant of works*; [i.e. under Law]
> 2. As they belong and are inseparably annexed unto *the covenant of
> grace* [i.e. under Gospel].
> In both respects they are materially and formally the same; that
> is, the same things are required in them, and the same person requires
> them, and so their obligation is joint and equal. Not only the
> commands of the new covenant do oblige us unto holiness, but those
> of the old also, as to the matter and substance of them. But there is a
> great difference in the manner and ends of these commands as
> considered so distinctly. For, —
> 
> 1. The commands of God, as under the old covenant [i.e. Law], do so require
> universal holiness of us, in all acts, duties, and degrees of them, that upon
> the least failure, in substance, circumstance, or degree, they allow of
> nothing else we do, but determine us transgressors of the whole law; for,
> with respect unto them, “whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet
> offend in one point, he is guilty of all,” James 2:10. Now, I acknowledge
> that although there ariseth from hence an obligation unto holiness to them
> who are under that covenant, and such a necessity of it as that without it
> they must certainly perish, yet no argument of the nature with those
> which I insist upon can hence be taken to press us unto it: for no
> arguments are forcible unto this purpose but such as include
> encouragements in them unto what they urge; but that this consideration of
> the command knoweth nothing of, seeing a compliance with it is, in our
> lapsed condition, absolutely impossible, and for the things that are so, we
> can have no endeavors. And hence it is that no man influenced only by the
> commands of the law, or first covenant, absolutely considered, whatever in
> particular he might be forced or compelled unto, did ever sincerely aim or
> endeavor after universal holiness.
> 
> Men may be subdued by the power of the law, and compelled to habituate
> themselves unto a strict course of duty, and being advantaged therein by a
> sedate natural constitution, desire of applause, self-righteousness, or
> superstition, may make a great appearance of holiness; but if the principle
> of what they do be only the commands of the law, they never tread one
> true step in the paths of it.
> 
> 2. The end why these commands require all the duties of holiness of us is,
> that they may be our righteousness before God, or that we may be
> justified thereby: for
> “Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the
> man which doeth those things shall live by them,” Romans 10:5;
> that is, it requires of us all duties of obedience unto this end, that we may
> have justification and eternal life by them. But neither on this account can
> any such argument be taken as those we inquire into; for by the deeds of
> the law no man can be justified:
> “If thou, LORD, shouldest mark iniquities, O Lord, who shall stand?”
> So prays David, “Enter not into judgment with thy servant; for in thy
> sight shall no man living be justified,” Psalm 143:2; Romans 3:20;
> Galatians 2:16. And if none can attain the end of the command, as in
> this sense they cannot, what argument can we take from thence to prevail
> with them unto obedience? Whosoever, therefore, presseth men unto
> holiness merely on the commands of the law, and for the ends of it, doth
> but put them upon tormenting disquietments and deceive their souls.
> However, men are indispensably obliged hereby, and those must eternally
> perish for want of what the law so requires who do not or will not by faith
> comply with the only remedy and provision that God hath made in this
> case. And for this reason we are necessitated to deny a possibility of
> salvation unto all to whom the gospel is not preached, as well as unto
> those by whom it is refused; for they are left unto this law, whose
> precepts they cannot answer, and whose end they cannot attain.
> 
> It is otherwise on both these accounts with *the commands of God for
> holiness under the new covenant, or in the gospel*; for, —
> 
> 1. Although God in them requireth universal holiness of us, yet he doth
> not do it in that strict and rigorous way as by the law, so as that if we fail
> in anything, either as to the matter or manner of its performance, in the
> substance of it or as to the degrees of its perfection, that thereon both that
> and all we do besides should be rejected. But he doth it with a
> contemperation of grace and mercy, so as that if there be a universal
> sincerity, in a respect unto all his commands, he both pardoneth many
> sins, and accepts of what we do, though it come short of legal perfection;
> both on the account of the mediation of Christ. Yet this hindereth not but
> that the law or command of the gospel doth still require universal holiness
> of us, and perfection therein, which we are to do our utmost endeavor to
> comply withal, though we have a relief provided in sincerity on the one
> hand and mercy on the other; for the commands of the gospel do still
> declare what God approves and what he doth condemn, — which is no
> less than all holiness on the one hand and all sin on the other, — as exactly
> and extensively as under the law: for this the very nature of God requireth,
> and the gospel is not the ministry of sin, so as to give an allowance or
> indulgence unto the least, although in it pardon be provided for a multitude
> of sins by Jesus Christ. *The obligation on us unto holiness is equal unto
> what it was under the law, though a relief be provided where unavoidably
> we come short of it. There is, therefore, nothing more certain than that
> there is no relaxation given us as unto any duty of holiness by the gospel,
> nor any indulgence unto the least sin. But yet, upon the supposition of the
> acceptance of sincerity, and a perfection of parts instead of degrees, with
> the mercy provided for our failings and sins, there is an argument to be
> taken from the command of it unto an indispensable necessity of holiness,
> including in it the highest encouragement to endeavor after it; for, together
> with the command, there is also grace administered, enabling us unto that
> obedience which God will accept.* Nothing, therefore, can void or evacuate
> the power of this command and argument from it but a stubborn contempt
> of God, arising from the love of sin.
> 
> 2. The commands of the gospel do not require holiness and the duties of
> righteousness of us to the same end as the commands of the law did, —
> namely, that thereby we might be justified in the sight of God; for whereas
> God now accepts from us a holiness short of that which the law required,
> if he did it still for the same end, it would reflect dishonor upon his own
> righteousness and the holiness of the gospel. For, —
> 
> (1.) If God can accept of a righteousness unto justification inferior unto or
> short of what he required by the law, how great severity must it be
> thought in him to bind his creatures unto such an exact obedience and
> righteousness at first as he could and might have dispensed withal! If he
> doth accept of sincere obedience now unto our justification, why did he
> not do so before, but obliged mankind unto absolute perfection according
> to the law, for coming short wherein they all perished? Or shall we say
> that God hath changed his mind in this matter, and that he doth not stand
> so much now on rigid and perfect obedience for our justification as he did
> formerly? Where, then, is the glory of his immutability, of his essential
> holiness, of the absolute rectitude of his nature and will? Besides, —
> 
> (2.) What shall become of the honor and holiness of the gospel on this
> supposition? Must it not be looked on as a doctrine less holy than that of
> the law? for whereas the law required absolute, perfect, sinless holiness
> unto our justification, the gospel admits of that to the same end, on this
> supposition, which is every way imperfect, and consistent with a
> multitude of sins and failings? What can be spoken more to the derogation
> of it? Nay, would not this indeed make “Christ the minister of sin,” which
> our apostle rejects with so much detestation, Galatians 2:17? for to say
> that he hath merited that our imperfect obedience, attended with many and
> great sins (“for there is no man that liveth and sinneth not”), should be
> accepted unto our justification, instead of the perfect and sinless obedience
> required under the law, is plainly to make him the minister of sin, or one
> that hath acquired some liberty for sin beyond whatever the law allowed.
> And thus, upon the whole matter, both Christ and the gospel, in whom
> and whereby God unquestionably designed to declare the holiness and
> righteousness of his own nature much more gloriously than ever he had
> done any other way, should be the great means to darken and obscure
> them; for in and by them, on this supposition, God must be thought (and
> is declared) to accept of a righteousness unto our justification unspeakably
> inferior unto what he required before.
> 
> It must be granted, therefore, that the end of gospel commands, requiring
> the obedience of holiness in us, is not that thereby or thereon we should be
> justified. God hath therein provided another righteousness for that end,
> which fully, perfectly, absolutely answers all that the law requires, and on
> some considerations is far more glorious than what the law either did or
> could require. And hereby hath he exalted more than ever the honor of his
> own holiness and righteousness, whereof the external instrument is the
> gospel; which is also, therefore, most holy. Now, this is no other but the
> righteousness of Christ imputed unto us; for “he is the end of the law for
> righteousness unto them that do believe,” Romans 10:4. But God hath
> now appointed other ends unto our holiness, and so unto his command of
> it, under the gospel, all of them consistent with the nature of that
> obedience which he will accept of us, and such as we may attain through
> the power of grace; and so all of them offering new encouragements, as
> well as enforcements, unto our endeavors after it. But because these ends
> will be the subject of most of our ensuing arguments, I shall not here insist
> upon them. I shall only add two things in general: —
> [1.] That God hath no design for his own glory in us or by us, in this
> world or unto eternity, — that there is no especial communion that we can
> have with him by Jesus Christ, nor any capacity for us to enjoy him, —
> but holiness is necessary unto it, as a means unto its end.
> [2.] These present ends of it under the gospel are such as that God doth no
> less indispensably require it of us now than he did when our justification
> was proposed as the end of it. They are such, in brief, as God upon the
> account of them judgeth meet to command us to be holy in all manner of
> holiness; Owen, _Pneumatologia_ V.iii, _Works_ 3:606-609.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Pergamum said:


> The Gospel can't be lived. It's the Law that's lived.



Can this quote, which Perg quoted, be explained in a few words or sentences? Just seeking a starting point in the discussion.

AMR


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Pat,

Someone first needs to have a full definition of the Gospel. How the Gospel is defined is going to be sticking point. How we define Soteriology is going to be sticking point if it is good news.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Someone first needs to have a full definition of the Gospel. How the Gospel is defined is going to be sticking point. How we define Soteriology is going to be sticking point if it is good news.


I see. Did Berkhof (Systematic Theology, pg. 278) have the view what comprised the Gospel wrong?



> b. The Bible teaches that there is but a single gospel by which men can be saved. And because the gospel is nothing but the revelation of the covenant of grace, it follows that there is also but one covenant. This gospel was already heard in the maternal promise, Gen. 3:15, was preached unto Abraham, Gal. 3:8, and may not be supplanted by any Judaistic gospel, Gal. 1:8,9.


 
AMR


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

The Scriptures agree with Berkhof. But I think this discussion is considering things that the Berkhof quote is only a summary of. We can make short summaries of things. And they may include a lot of packed information between the lines. I can say Jesus is Lord. I can acknowledge that. But what does that mean? What is the Person and Work of Christ? Some people have relinquished the Gospel to just the phrase Jesus is Lord. Are they incorrect? I believe that is a point and a truth of the revelation of the Gospel. But there is so much more to it. I use to discuss this issue with people who read N. T. Wright that claim that Jesus is Lord is the gospel. I have also heard some say that the Gospel is Christ is King. Yes, That is good news. Yes, He overcame the principalities and made an open show of them. That is a part of the Gospel. 

I think this discussion is more focused on defining how the law of God relates to us in the Gospel. What is salvation? Is it only being saved from the wrath of God? Doesn't the Gospel also include the New Life we have as new creatures in Christ? Is it not a salvation we are still seeking for and implored to work out? Is it also not that we are reconciled and do have an ongoing relationship with God? Is it not that we are his friends and are now in union with him? Doesn't also have to do with the fact that we can now respond to him in truth and walk in the light? 



> (1Jn 1:6) If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth:
> 
> (1Jn 1:7) But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.



The distinctions of justification, sanctification, and glorification also are a part of the Gospel in my understanding. I praise God for the life he has given and is working out in my life. Part of my salvation is that I am regenerate and can and do respond to him. Because of that I can also respond to others in my life in a manner which He is pleased with. 



> (Mat 5:23) Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee;
> 
> (Mat 5:24) Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.



To be able to repent and teach is good news also. 



> (2Ti 2:24) And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient,
> 
> (2Ti 2:25) In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;
> 
> (2Ti 2:26) And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.





> (1Ti 4:15) Meditate upon these things; give thyself wholly to them; that thy profiting may appear to all.
> 
> (1Ti 4:16) Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.



Christ in us the Hope of Glory is good news. It just doesn't stop at his incarnation, life here, death, burial, and resurrection. It is also that I am a new creature and can now obey him in a worthy manner he accepts. 

Jeremiah Burroughs does an excellent job revealing what worthiness is for the Christian in his book 'Gospel Conversation'. And no I am not saying we merit anything nor is Jeremiah Burroughs. 

Have I thoroughly confused you yet Pat? LOL


----------



## Oecolampadius

I think that what Herman Bavinck has to say regarding this matter should be carefully considered:
The Law-Gospel Distinction and Preaching



> It was in terms of this distinction that differences arose as to whether preaching for faith and conversion which presented a condition and demand really should be considered as belonging to the Gospel, or rather (according to Flacius, Gerhard, Quenstedt, Voetius, Witsius, Coccejus, De Moor, et al.) to the law. And indeed, in the strictest sense there are in the Gospel no demands and conditions, but only promises and gifts; faith and conversion are, just as justification, etc., benefits of the covenant of grace. Still, the Gospel never appears concretely this way; in practice it is always joined to the law and in Scripture it was then always woven together with the law.  The Gospel always presupposes the law, and needs it also in its administration. For it is brought to rational and moral people who before God are responsible for themselves and therefore must be called to faith and conversion. The demanding, summoning shape in which the Gospel appears is borrowed from the law; every person is obliged to take God at His word not first by the Gospel, but by nature through the law, and thus also to accept the Gospel in which He speaks to the person. Therefore the Gospel from the very beginning lays claim to all people, binds them in their consciences, since that God who speaks in the Gospel is none other than He who in His law has made Himself known to them. Faith and conversion are therefore demanded of the person in the name of God's law, by virtue of the relationship in which the person as a rational creature stands with respect to God; and that demand is directed not only to the elect and regenerate, but to all men without distinction.
> 
> But faith and conversion are themselves still the content of the Gospel, not effects or fruits of the law. For the law does demand faith in God in general, but not that special faith directed to Christ, and the law can effect metameleia, poenitentia, but not metanoia, resipiscentia, which is rather a fruit of faith. And though by nature a person is obliged to faith and conversion through the law, precisely because they are the content of the Gospel one can speak of a law, a command, an obedience of faith (Rom.1:5; 3:27; 1 Jn.3:23), of a being obedient to and judged by the Gospel (Rom.2:16; 10:16), etc.
> 
> Viewed concretely, law and Gospel differ not so much in that the law always meets us in the form of command and the Gospel in the form of promise, for the law too has promises and the Gospel too has warnings and obligations. But they differ especially in content: the law demands that man work out his own righteousness, while the Gospel invites him to renounce all self-righteousness and to receive the righteousness of Christ, to which end it even bestows the gift of faith.


 [emphases mine]


----------



## hrdiaz

> I'm grieved by some of these discussions too. I'm grieved that people on the PB are accusing Horton (and me, because I agree with Horton) of teaching an antinomian position. Rubbish.


----------



## CharlieJ

Regarding the Owen and Bavinck quotes, I have a few comments and some follow-up questions:

1. Owen affirms that there are commands and duties in the gospel, but he is using "gospel" to mean "new covenant." Since Horton and others consistently use "gospel" to mean, not a temporal administration of the covenant of grace, but the promises and like matter contained throughout Scripture, there cannot be a contradiction. We would need both authors to be using the term in the same sense in order to compare them.

a. Would Horton affirm obligations/commands in the new covenant?

b. Which way of using "gospel" is acceptable, or are both?

2. Bavinck's quote admits that there is some difference of opinion on this issue in the Reformed tradition. He lists several theologians who take the position contrary to his.

a. Why does Bavinck say that "in the strictest sense, there are in the Gospel no demands and conditions, but only promises and gifts" when he concludes at the end, "law and Gospel differ not so much in that the law always meets us in the form of command and the Gospel in the form of promise .... But they differ especially in content"? These two statements don't seem to be stricter/looser; they appear contradictory.

b. Is the "concrete form" of the gospel its "demanding, summoning shape"? If so, can one move from the form of an address to its content?

c. The conclusion that "one can speak of ... being obedient to and judged by the Gospel" appears premised on the command to believe in Christ only. For Bavinck, is believing in Christ the sole occasion of being obedient to the gospel, or is all subsequent Christian obedience gospel obedience? If the command to believe is the only gospel obedience, then Bavinck is much closer to Horton's view than that of Horton's detractors; in the other case, vice versa.


----------



## Michael Doyle

It sounds to me from reading Bavinck that Horton is very near his position. Am I mistaken in this?


----------



## WAWICRUZ

I do read that Bavinck seems to be intimating that the Gospel imperative is the command to believe and put faith in Christ, which then is the gratitude-producing impetus to obedience to the Law.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

CharlieJ said:


> Bavinck's quote admits that there is some difference of opinion on this issue in the Reformed tradition. He lists several theologians who take the position contrary to his.



Great analysis in your whole post Charlie but wanted to highlight the above point. Mike noted this intramural "disagreement" to me and that the Reformed tradition is not monolithic on this subject. I think it would be helpful if both sides would note these historic differences and evaluate where the real points of disagreement are.

I'm of the opinion that the differences fall mainly in terminology. What one school insists is part of the Gospel is retained by another set of terms in another school of thought. I see nobody outright denying the definitive nature of sanctification as the believer is united to Christ nor that the Law serves a new purpose for the believer (what Calvin calls the primary purpose of the Law).


----------



## MW

Semper Fidelis said:


> What one school insists is part of the Gospel is retained by another set of terms in another school of thought.


 
The Gospel changes EVERYTHING. "Behold, I make all things new," Rev. 21:5. Placing Christian obedience under a different category changes the nature of that obedience.

In grammar, a new paradigm requires a full complement of cases to be complete. Simply giving the nominative and accusative of the noun does not make it a new paradigm. In this so-called new terminology there are important affirmations from the old paradigm which are omitted or obscured. For example, if "law" is to be equated with the covenant of works how is it possible for a Christian to obey the law and not bring himself under the covenant of works, how does he serve in newness of spirit, how does he serve a new husband, Christ? Does God accept imperfect obedience? Is the believer's good work justified along with his person? Does God make promises in relation to new obedience? Are there rewards to new obedience? Is there a law which governs the behaviour of the new, regenerated man? Does the Holy Spirit use this law in the process of a believer's sanctification and readiness for heaven? These questions are either left unanswered or are answered to the prejudice of the good old way of stating the matter.

Now, to date we have come across three defences of this "new way." The first is that the Lutherans and Reformed agree. Before any evidence is established to that effect we have a second defence, namely, that the Reformed disagree with the Reformed. Again, no evidence is brought forward. And now we have a third defence -- this is simply a new way of stating an old truth. Which is it? Any one of those defences cancels the other two out. The ball can only be under one of the cups. Only sleight of hand will leave the unsuspecting onlooker thinking that the ball is under all three.

The fact of the matter is that the Reformed have a tried and true confession. That confession, not apparent agreement with Lutheranism, is the historic marker of reformed theology. That confession, not some apparent intramural disagreement among individual reformed theologians, is the subordinate standard. That confession, not some new fangled way of stating things, sets the terms of the discussion in a confessionally reformed community.

Tertullian had a saying which was supported by the old theologians, "We must not judge of faith by persons, but of persons by faith." Or, as it is expressed in the very words of inspiration, "My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons," James 2:1. To quote Thomas Manton, "there is a vicious respect of persons, when the judgment is blinded by some external glory and appearance, so that we cannot discern truth or right; and a cause is overbalanced by such foreign circumstances as have no affinity with it."

What believer in his right mind would be happy to see the glory of Christ diminished out of respect shown to a teacher who professes to be glorifying Christ!


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

armourbearer said:


> That confession, not some apparent intramural disagreement among individual reformed theologians, is the subordinate standard. That confession, not some new fangled way of stating things, sets the terms of the discussion in a confessionally reformed community.


I agree, Rev. Winzer.

The statement has been made: _The Gospel can't be lived. It's the Law that's lived_.

I suggested that, with a tip of the hat to Berkhof, that "_here is but a single gospel by which men can be saved. And because the gospel is nothing but the revelation of the covenant of grace, it follows that there is also but one covenant._".

Would you agree with this statement defining the gospel, and, if so, be willing to import meaning that into the statement from the OP: _The Gospel can't be lived. It's the Law that's lived_ in a manner that can tease out what exactly this statement is seeking to assert? Please help a brother out, as I remain confused as to the purported meaning of this statement in simple and clear terms.

AMR


----------



## MW

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Would you agree with this statement defining the gospel, and, if so, be willing to import meaning that into the statement from the OP: _The Gospel can't be lived. It's the Law that's lived_ in a manner that can tease out what exactly this statement is seeking to assert? Please help a brother out, as I remain confused as to the purported meaning of this statement in simple and clear terms.


 
In confessional terms, the covenant of grace is the full and free provision for the entire salvation of God's elect people from their sins through the Mediator. In terms of Larger Catechism 32, this includes all that is legal and real in their salvation; it includes all the conditions as well as all the promises to fulfil those conditions for their eternal safety and well-being; it includes all that pertains to faith and obedience. The elect live and obey the covenant of grace, not the covenant of works. They do not obey the law as law but as it comes to them through the hand of the Mediator with the gracious influence of the Holy Spirit. This means the gospel or covenant of grace can never be regarded as a mere doctrine. It is a doctrine, but the power of God transforms it into a life that is lived. I am crucified with Christ, nevertheless I live, yet not I, but Christ liveth in me. It is not my life I am living; it is Christ's life; it is nothing less than the life that is promised in the gospel -- LIVE, and do this!


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Thank you for giving your summary, Rev. Winzer.

How can one bring to bear what you have summarized to the latter portion of the quote in the OP, "it's the Law that is lived", leveraging your statement:



armourbearer said:


> "The elect do not obey the law as law, but as it (_the law?_} comes to them through the..."



I am trying to unpack the quoted portion above and need help. What exactly is being obeyed here? Not the _law_ as law, but...??

AMR


----------



## MW

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> I am trying to unpack the quoted portion above and need help. What exactly is being obeyed here? Not the _law_ as law, but...??


 
It is not the law as law, that is, as defined by Larger Catechism 93, "promising life upon the fulfilling, and threatening death upon the breach of it;" but the law as grace, in terms of Larger Catechism 32, giving life and destroying death. The elect are promised the grace to fulfil all the conditions of the covenant.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

armourbearer said:


> It is not the law as law, that is, as defined by Larger Catechism 93, "promising life upon the fulfilling, and threatening death upon the breach of it;" but the law as grace, in terms of Larger Catechism 32, giving life and destroying death. The elect are promised the grace to fulfil all the conditions of the covenant.


Rev. Winzer,

Do you mean here that the elect actually fulfill "all the conditions of the covenant" of grace or works? Does the "_and to enable them {the elect} unto all holy obedience_" from WLC 32 imply the latter or the former?

AMR


----------



## MW

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Do you mean here that the elect actually fulfill "all the conditions of the covenant" of grace or works? Does the "_and to enable them {the elect} unto all holy obedience_" from WLC 32 imply the latter or the former?


 
Answer 32 is dealing with the "second covenant," that is, the covenant of grace. All holy obedience does not mean personal, perfect, and perpetual obedience, as under the covenant of works, but sincere and universal obedience, as is articulated in Westminster Confession 16.6. This is what God accepts and rewards through and in Christ.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Rev. Winzer,

Thank you for the clarifications.

If "the elect are promised the grace to fulfill all the conditions of the covenant (of grace)", yet these fulfillments are "accompanied with many weaknesses and imperfections" (per WCF 16.6), would you say then that the grace given the elect, a said grace requiring diligence (WCF 16.3), is works related?

AMR


----------



## Semper Fidelis

armourbearer said:


> The Gospel changes EVERYTHING. "Behold, I make all things new," Rev. 21:5. Placing Christian obedience under a different category changes the nature of that obedience.


Is it your contention that those who distinguish Law and Gospel differently than yourself believe that all things are not new or that the nature of obedience remains unchanged?

Do you believe that Bavinck made the following up out of whole cloth?


Oecolampadius said:


> t was in terms of this distinction that differences arose as to whether preaching for faith and conversion which presented a condition and demand really should be considered as belonging to the Gospel, or rather (according to Flacius, Gerhard, Quenstedt, Voetius, Witsius, Coccejus, De Moor, et al.) to the law.



or even when he wrote:



Oecolampadius said:


> And indeed, in the strictest sense there are in the Gospel no demands and conditions, but only promises and gifts; faith and conversion are, just as justification, etc., benefits of the covenant of grace.


----------



## MW

Semper Fidelis said:


> Is it your contention that those who distinguish Law and Gospel differently than yourself believe that all things are not new or that the nature of obedience remains unchanged?



I cannot see how anything other than the gospel can change anything in this fallen world. If you know of anything, Rich, please let me know what it is.



Semper Fidelis said:


> Do you believe that Bavinck made the following up out of whole cloth?
> 
> 
> Oecolampadius said:
> 
> 
> 
> t was in terms of this distinction that differences arose as to whether preaching for faith and conversion which presented a condition and demand really should be considered as belonging to the Gospel, or rather (according to Flacius, Gerhard, Quenstedt, Voetius, Witsius, Coccejus, De Moor, et al.) to the law.
Click to expand...


Rich, Bavinck spoke accurately. He might also have added the Marrowmen and the evangelicals of our Presbyterian heritage. Regrettably, you are focussing on an irrelevant point. There is no dispute about the strict or material difference between law and gospel. Of course the law commands and the gospel promises in their simple nature. How else could reformed theologians speak about evangelical obedience if obedience was not of a specific nature? How could one speak about the changed nature of commandments in the covenant of grace if commandments are not commandments in themselves? The issue pertains to the broader definition or the formal nature of law and gospel. On that point the Reformed agree (yes, even among themselves), that the law is made subservient to the use and is adapted to the economy of the gospel. To quote Herman Witsius, one of the Reformed theologians listed above (Economy of the Covenants, 2:288): "*All prescription of duty belongs to the law*, as, after others, the venerable Voetius has very well inculcated, Disput. Tom. 4. p. 24. seq. And we are, by all means, to maintain this, if, with the whole body of the reformed, we would constantly defend the perfection of the law, which comprehends all virtues, and all the duties of holiness. *But the law*, *adapted to the covenant of grace*, and according to it, inscribed on the heart of the elect, enjoins to receive all those things which are proposed in the Gospel, with an unfeigned faith, and frame our lives suitably to that grace and glory which are promised." There are two claims that have been emboldened in that quote. The first claim is what you are focussing upon, and with which there is no disagreement. It is the second claim which is the point under discussion.



Semper Fidelis said:


> Oecolampadius said:
> 
> 
> 
> And indeed, in the strictest sense there are in the Gospel no demands and conditions, but only promises and gifts; faith and conversion are, just as justification, etc., benefits of the covenant of grace.
Click to expand...

 
Please note, "in the strict sense." There is no point of difference here.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

armourbearer said:


> I cannot see how anything other than the gospel can change anything in this fallen world. If you know of anything, Rich, please let me know what it is.



I did not state that. I asked you if you believed that those who distinguish certain principles differently than yourself deny that the Gospel changes everything. You seem to indicate that they deny these things wholly.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

I genuinely appreciate Rev. Winzer taking the time to help me (and others?) flesh this topic out. The time zone differences do make the conversation slow-going. 

This statement is something I have seen spoken in almost the same manner by proponents of The Exchanged Life movement, a distant cousin of Keswickianism:



armourbearer said:


> I am crucified with Christ, nevertheless I live, yet not I, but Christ liveth in me. It is not my life I am living; it is Christ's life; it is nothing less than the life that is promised in the gospel -- LIVE, and do this!



Now I assume that Rev. Winzer is no friend of that movement, a movement whose proponents blur the distinctions between justification and sanctification. This item recentlt crossed my desk:

Paul Miller on Becoming the Gospel - Desiring God

Wherein Miller writes related to the slogan of his Sonship course:



> ..._we believe and become the gospel_. Not that we literally become the gospel, but we tend to miss the grand Pauline theme of entering into Jesus. The gospel isn’t something simply abstract that you believe, it is something that you enter



Miller goes on to explicate Colossians 1:24 to teach...



> It isn’t that complicated. Jesus’ death for my wife Jill is finished. It is a once-for-all death. Now for Jill to understand and experience the gospel in her life, I need to live a dying life in relationship to her. Jesus can’t die again for her, but I can—in hundreds of big and small ways that range from a tender compassion that understands her world to a thoughtful honesty that risks her disapproval. The result is that my life is characterized by dying and resurrection (Philippians 2:1-11). The result? An obedient life that reflects the image of Jesus



I am hoping Rev. Winzer can distinguish between these views and the one he is helping me to come to grips with in this thread.

AMR


----------



## MW

Semper Fidelis said:


> You seem to indicate that they deny these things wholly.


 
Where do I "seem" to indicate this? I have explicitly stated otherwise. Please consult post 33: "I do not regard him as Antinomian but I regard this one particular emphasis of his teaching as Antinomian."


----------



## MW

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> I am hoping Rev. Winzer can distinguish between these views and the one he is helping me to come to grips with in this thread.


 
Truth be told, I have very little regard for the higher life spirituality and irrational mystcism of what calls itself the "Desiring God" movement. I certainly distance my view from the view that sanctified gospel living is in any sense a means of grace. It is not. Word, sacraments, and prayer, are the especial outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicates redemption to the elect. That said, there is an element of truth in the portion you have quoted, and I am fairly sure we will all agree with it. The truth is to be found in the fact that we are not called to believe propositions but a Person. Salvation is not by mere assent in categorical statements but by the added element of rest upon and reception of the Glorious Person and all sufficent work of "our Lord Jesus Christ." It is here that the apostle distinguishes his gospel from the so-called super apostles, insisting that there is a gospel work of the Spirit whereby Christ Himself is revealed in the soul, 2 Cor. 3:18; 4:6. In this sense and under this restriction reformed theology insists upon a mystical union without which the gospel is as much a dead letter as the law is without the Spirit.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

armourbearer said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to indicate that they deny these things wholly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where do I "seem" to indicate this? I have explicitly stated otherwise. Please consult post 33: "I do not regard him as Antinomian but I regard this one particular emphasis of his teaching as Antinomian."
Click to expand...

 
In the post I first referenced, your post conveyed to me (at least) that you believed others denied the full substance of your post. Thank you for clarifying.


----------



## timmopussycat

Prufrock said:


> Please note none of the above was said in a role as a board moderator; only as a fellow board member and brother in Christ; also, the bulk of this message is not aimed chiefly at this thread, but in consideration of the numerous recent threads on the topic.


 
Thank you for making this distinction. I think it might help some discussions if some of your your more active colleagues followed your lead here as sometimes it has not been clear which hat a mod was wearing. 

---------- Post added at 09:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:34 PM ----------



armourbearer said:


> If modern Protestantism did not have the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons, I doubt whether "bringing into captivity every thought" would cause so much consternation. Such an action would probably be regarded as an essential part of faithful ministry.


 
Dear Rev. Winzer

Is there an unnecessary "not" in your first sentence?


----------



## discipulo

I’ve been following with great interest the related debates on this matter on Law 

and Gospel

(I actually prefer the Law - Grace expression for reasons not important now)

as it’s making me think a lot with great personal profit.

Although I have not much so far to contribute that could add to the debate, I 

would like to suggest a couple of things that eventually may be useful.

As I studied the Reformatie articles of Klaas Schilder (not agreeing with him on 

several matters, like his famous aversion to, in his words, 

“the so called covenant of works”)

I believe that Schilder made a terminological precision that can be imported 

with profit to this sort of debate.

Schilder made the vital difference between 

*Theological differences within Confessional Boundaries *

(namely in his interaction with Hoeksema on the conditionality of the covenant

of Grace, Hoeksema saw Schilder as going on the neonomianism direction and he 

was not the last one as we know – CJPM from the WTS camp surely maintains 

that charge and I think personally it is a correction done in a good respectful 

spirit).

I believe this Theological vs a Confessional demarcation is more than a word 

game.

It may well keep us from going too far or too short on a theological correction,

by maintaining confidence in a Theologian’s orthodoxy (in this case Horton

or the WTS on their reading of the Law Gospel hermeneutics).

Stating theological differences while asserting our trust that a specific Camp 

remains within Confessional Truth, in spite of straining a certain doctrinal stand 

to an eventual and undesirable edge or even error,

(again I’m far from sure this is the case with Horton’s teaching on Law vs Gospel)

may allow those with a godly zeal for the Biblical Reformed Truth

*to wound in order to heal*.

Surely some errors need that therapeutically surgically controlled cut of the 

bistouri.

While certainly no one here on the PB wishes to create a wounded distance with 

confessional reformed brothers.

It's not about casting stones, since till Glorification we are certainly not error 

free, but about mutual edification in the Whole Counsel of God.


----------



## Oecolampadius

*We should learn from the Lutherans.*

The following quote is from the article "Looking into the Heart of Missouri: Justification, Sanctification and Third Use of the Law" as published in the journal for Concordia Theological Seminary. The author, Carl Beckwith, is a Lutheran minister and a professor of church history at Beeson Divinity School.



> David Yeago, like Chemnitz, sees the larger theological implications of a denial of the third use. He has nicely demonstrated how *Lutheran scholarship, influenced by Werner Elert and his rejection of a didactic use of the law, used the law-gospel distinction to organize and structure all theological reflection: a theological construct, as Yeago shows, that leads to antinomianism and a rejection of dogma itself.* *It leads to antinomianism because if the law-gospel distinction is understood as the ultimate horizon for theological reflection, then any commandment or ethical exhortation for the ordering of a person's life is, by definition, the imposition of the law from which the gospel has freed that person. This theological construct naturally leads to gospel reductionism; as Murray puts it, "every theological issue is reduced to the Gospel or not-the Gospel."* Since the narrative context of this law-gospel construct is the experiential situation of the troubled conscience, weighed down by the moral demands of the law, the penitent must be set free from the unmanageable burden of the law by the gospel. Any recourse to the moral order set forth by the law, that is, any appeal to a didactic use of the law, threatens the penitent's freedom in the gospel and risks, once again, burdening the conscience.[emphases mine]"



Please take note that, in the article, Beckwith points out how David Yeago compromises the doctrine of justification with his conclusions on _theosis_. However, in the quoted portion above, Beckwith is laying out Yeago's defense of the Third Use of the Law. I see no evidence of disagreement between the author and Yeago on the point made in the quoted portion.


----------

