# Perkins on Law and Gospel . Does the law make promises?



## RTaron (Apr 24, 2009)

A pastor friend of mine posted on his blog five points Perkins uses to distinguish Law and Gospel. From his comentary on Mat. 5:17. 

I don't understand what Perkins says in his fifth point. 



> Last, the law promises life to the worker and doer of it, "Do this and thou shalt live"; but the gospel offers salvation to him that "worketh not but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly"; not considering faith as a work, but as an instrument apprehending Christ by whom we are made righteous.



How does the Law promise anything? Is this not jumping into another category outside of law into one of covenant? 

I have not read Perkins but I know there are big Perkins fans here. Could someone explain how this is a valid distinction? 

Thanks.


----------



## SolaGratia (Apr 24, 2009)

Does anyone know the progress of William Perkins works?


----------



## Whitefield (Apr 24, 2009)

RTaron said:


> A pastor friend of mine posted on his blog five points Perkins uses to distinguish Law and Gospel. From his comentary on Mat. 5:17.
> 
> I don't understand what Perkins says in his fifth point.
> 
> ...



Perkins is setting up the listener. Perfectly keeping the law would bestow life, but since we can't keep the law perfectly, then our only hope is that God provides another way.


----------



## RTaron (Apr 24, 2009)

> Perkins is setting up the listener.Perfectly keeping *the law would bestow life*, but since we can't keep the law perfectly, then our only hope is that God provides another way.



"if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law." Galatians 3:21 

So, is there a law that can give life? No. Do you see what I am getting at?


----------



## Arch2k (Apr 24, 2009)

RTaron said:


> > Perkins is setting up the listener.Perfectly keeping *the law would bestow life*, but since we can't keep the law perfectly, then our only hope is that God provides another way.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
If the law has no promises associated with its keeping, I would ask by what means justification occurs?



> WLC
> Q70: What is justification?
> A70: Justification is an act of God's free grace unto sinners,[1] in which he pardoneth all their sins, accepteth and accounteth their persons righteous in his sight;[2] not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them,[3] but only for *the perfect obedience* and full satisfaction of Christ, by God imputed to them,[4] and received by faith alone.[5]
> 1. Rom. 3:22, 24-25; 4;5
> ...


 
The obedience of Christ to the law is imputed to sinners, and the sinner is therefore justified.

Galatians 3:21 does not speak of the law in absolute terms, but in relation to sinners under the covenant of grace. Sinners cannot keep the law, and therefore it is hopeless for them to receive the promises associated with it. Therefore the promises come by faith. Galatians 3:22 affirms this:


> Gal 3:21 Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.
> Gal 3:22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.


 
However, stepping out of the covenant of grace, and looking at the covenant of works, the law is the ONLY means by which righteousness can come, only Christ is the only one that can, and has fulfilled it.



> WLC
> Q93: What is the moral law?
> A93: The moral law is the declaration of the will of God to mankind, directing and binding everyone to personal, perfect, and perpetual conformity and obedience thereunto, in the frame and disposition of the whole man, soul and body,[1] and in performance of all those duties of holiness and righteousness which he oweth to God and man:[2] *promising life upon the fulfilling*, and threatening death upon the breach of it.[3]
> 1. Deut. 5:1-3, 31, 33; Luke 10:26-27; Gal. 3:10; I Thess. 5:23
> ...


----------



## Repre5entYHWH (Apr 24, 2009)

covenant of works was quid pro que... (i think) do this, than you get that


----------



## Whitefield (Apr 24, 2009)

Repre5entYHWH said:


> covenant of works was quid pro que... (i think) do this, than you get that



The Mosaic law was not under the covenant of works, it was under the covenant of grace in the old administration. The covenant of works was with Adam alone.


----------



## RTaron (Apr 24, 2009)

Thanks Jeff, I appreciate your response. 



> If the law has no promises associated with its keeping, I would ask by what means justification occurs?



Promises are associated with the law by way of covenant, right? (strictly speaking.) 

Justification through Christ occurs by way of covenant. The Covenant of Grace is made with Christ, the promised seed.


----------



## Rogerant (Apr 24, 2009)

Yes: _The law promises life to the worker and doer of it, "Do this and thou shalt live";_

And who has fulfilled the requirements of this law?

Who may ascend into the hill of the Lord? Or who may stand in His holy place? He who has clean hands and a pure heart, Who has not lifted up his soul to an idol, Nor sworn deceitfully. He shall receive blessing from the Lord, And righteousness from the God of his salvation. This is Jacob, the generation of those who seek Him, Who seek Your face. Selah 

Lift up your heads, O you gates! And be lifted up, you everlasting doors! And the King of glory shall come in. Who is this King of glory? The Lord strong and mighty, The Lord mighty in battle. Lift up your heads, O you gates! Lift up, you everlasting doors! And the King of glory shall come in. Who is this King of glory? The Lord of hosts, He is the King of glory.

The second Adam, the King of Glory!

And this fulfillment of the law is imputed to those who have placed their trust in Him!


----------



## RTaron (Apr 24, 2009)

Thank you Rogerant, it is glorious to consider our King of Glory! 



> "Do this and thou shalt live."



This is a promise. Why should I understand that this is part of the moral law?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Apr 25, 2009)

Because one simply cannot take every single *imperative* in the Scripture and call it Law _therefore._ Nor can one take every single *promise* and call it Gospel _therefore._ I don't want to mischaracterize Lutheranism here, but if we try to parse every sentence in Scripture like that, then we're not going to be faithful to a more nuanced, Reformed reckoning with the classic distinction articulated by Luther, bequeathed to the whole Protestant Reformation.

"Believe the gospel" is an imperative.

We're speaking about the character of the words. "Do this and live," not only contains a contingent promise, but the whole nature of the phrase is Law. It is opposed to the rule of faith.

We have Lev.18:5, referenced by Paul, Rom10:5 to this effect. Furthermore, note this reference I have seldom seen referred to (if ever): Neh.9:29 (in context):28 But after they had rest they did evil again before you, and you abandoned them to the hand of their enemies, so that they had dominion over them. Yet when they turned and cried to you, you heard from heaven, and many times you delivered them according to your mercies. 29 And you warned them in order to turn them back to your law. Yet they acted presumptuously and did not obey your commandments, but *sinned against your rules, "which if a person does them, he shall live by them," *and they turned a stubborn shoulder and stiffened their neck and would not obey. 30 Many years you bore with them and warned them by your Spirit through your prophets. Yet they would not give ear. Therefore you gave them into the hand of the peoples of the lands.​Here is the prophet reading the Law-text in the same way as later the apostle does.

If a man could do the will of God perfectly, then he should have the conditional promise of God. But he cannot fulfill those demands, nor could anyone but a Christ; hence it stands as a restatement of the never-anulled Covenant of Works, which condemns his lawbreaking.

An ordinary man needs a promise made without conditions; or rather have the conditions of the former covenant kept for him, and a new promise made, the only condition of which is faith. The faith of the man is itself a gift, so fulfilling even that "passive" condition is in no way a work.


----------



## RTaron (Apr 25, 2009)

Thanks Bruce for your help. you said: 



> We're speaking about the character of the words. "Do this and live," not only contains a contingent promise, but the whole nature of the phrase is Law. It is opposed to the rule of faith.



The way I see it, "do this and live" is all about faith. Under Moses, Israel was heir to the promises but was under a school master, and the school master was teaching him what was required of him and that a savior was needed, but also that he was to walk by faith, was he not? Albeit, the school master taught by carnal ordinances which would fade away, but nevertheless, he was to walk by faith. They were taught this right away when the first generation could not enter into the promised land because of unbelief. 

I concede that discussions about the law can get confused sometimes because you can mean two or three different things when you say "the law". However that is one of the good reasons for having confessions. 

Which brings me to a point. Larger Cat. 93 that Jeff brought up yesterday does address my question using the law as I want to consider it (as the moral law), and as I think Perkins was considering it. So the Catechism asks, Q. 93. What is the moral law?
A. The moral law is the declaration of the will of God to mankind, directing and
bonding every one to personal, perfect, and perpetual conformity and obedience
thereunto, in the frame and disposition of the whole man, soul and body, *and in
performance of all those duties of holiness and righteousness which he oweth to
God and man: promising life upon the fulfilling,* and threatening death upon the
breach of it.

There you have it. End of argument, but I don't understand why or how that is part of the moral law. Is the confession teaching that the reward of life is inherent in all the commandments as they show the holy character of God. 
Okay, Okay, maybe I get it now. I've been making it too hard and complicated. What the answer to the question 93 is saying is that The will of God for mankind (as seen in Adam), also contains this general information, perfect obedience gets life or just more of what he already has, and disobedience gets death.

I have always understood the covenant of works separate from the moral law, yes they overlap but according to this answer they are joined. it still bothers me though. I'll cogitate on it some more later. 

Sorry to bother you guys, sometimes posting is helpful to think an issue through. 
I'm still open for more comments if anyone wants to correct or admonish of just chime in.


----------



## RTaron (Apr 25, 2009)

So, after sleeping on it... I am still bothered. I guess I don't need a Perkins expert, I need a WCF expert.

Why is this clause included in the definition of moral law?
LC. 93..


> and in performance of all those duties of holiness and righteousness which he oweth to
> God and man: promising life upon the fulfilling,



It seems to make better systematic theology sense to put it in the chapter on Gods covenant with man, and leave it there. 

The reason I say this is because the C.O.W. was with Adam as our federal head and we in him. He failed and we failed with him. We don't get to try again. It is over, we are all guilty dead men. 

Bruce, part of what you said in your post makes my point. You said:


> If a man could do the will of God perfectly, then he should have the conditional promise of God.



Why even bring this up? It only makes sense if your man was Adam before the fall, and I don't think that is what you meant because you said "a man". 

I have heard this statement or proposal in sermons before. It seems to me that it invites two errors. 
1. The fallacy that a man born by natural generation is not guilty with Adam for plunging the entire human race into sin and misery. Or, 
2. That man’s perfect obedience can atone for his original guilt and sin.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Apr 26, 2009)

But proposing the "hypothetical" in no way negates the reality of the imputation of Adam's sin to all mankind descending from him by ordinary generation. God loses nothing by proposing (as it were) an secondary standard of righteousness, and inviting fallen men to attempt it, when the purpose of it is to reduce such men to misery.

The law served, and serves, to expose the sinfulness of man, and to convict him of guilt. As saved persons, we ought to love the law of God. But if we think that "now that I'm saved, I will now please God by my law-keeping," we will not only be disappointed, but we will also find ourselves on a legal treadmill.

We actually find ourselves in Rom.7, with Paul, having new desires to do the will of God, but facing the reality that we don't find the strength in us to accomplish according to our new wills.

The unsaved, if convinced that the Bible will give them a good "rule" to follow, will not do what they hope. And they will inevitably water down the rule to salve their conscience. They cannot keep God's commands. And the more serious they are about their legalism, the more they will appear as did the Pharisees.

The law IS a reminder of the original Covenant of Works. A reminder that personal failure is just as real as Adam's original failure. But most men don't recall that failure, or concede their guilt (until the Judgment Seat), but they all know they do not live up to righteous standards in their personal lives. So, morality serves an immediate convicting purpose during this lifetime.

It is simply the nature of law to elucidate conditions, make promises and threats for motivation or reminder (whichever you prefer), as Q93 states.

Finally, Jesus kept the law perfectly for us. He didn't have the original sin to answer for. But he kept the law, thus meriting life for himself, as if he had needed such (when he had already "life in himself"). Which life he gave up, dying for sinners who were supposed to die, and also granting them the merits of his obedience.


----------



## VilnaGaon (Apr 26, 2009)

SolaGratia said:


> Does anyone know the progress of William Perkins works?



ANYONE???


----------



## py3ak (Apr 26, 2009)

It looks like it is still stuck on funding.

Early Puritans Cooperative

Although it also seems possible that the cooperative website has simply not been updated.

The last live update that I'm aware of set the date for the appearance of the first volume at the end of 2009.


----------



## MW (Apr 26, 2009)

As with any key word, "law" can have a wide range of meaning, so that it becomes necessary to categorise in what sense the word is being used in a specific context. Two major contexts in which the word is employed in reformed theology are (1.) moral obligation, and (2.) covenant administration. In the first context, it is possible to speak of obligation without reference to the promise. In this sense the law does not make promises. Man owes obedience simply by virtue that he is God's creature. In the second context, the law is seen in terms of the promise which God has superadded to His moral demands in order to establish a covenant administration. Theological writers often speak of the law as an "administration" in contrast to the gospel, by which they mean that the law holds out a principle of works whereby the blessing promised is to be obtained, and this is to be distinguished from the principle of grace declared in the gospel. The law, then, is to be distinguished from promise when it is used to speak of moral obligation, but the additional element of promise is factored into the term when covenant administration is in view.


----------



## SolaGratia (Apr 26, 2009)

py3ak said:


> It looks like it is still stuck on funding.
> 
> Early Puritans Cooperative
> 
> ...



If they need funds or anything we should help.

I have version 3.0 and I Highly recommend EPP!


----------



## RTaron (Apr 27, 2009)

Contra_Mundum said:


> But proposing the "hypothetical" in no way negates the reality of the imputation of Adam's sin to all mankind descending from him by ordinary generation. God loses nothing by proposing (as it were) an secondary standard of righteousness, and inviting fallen men to attempt it, *when the purpose of it is to reduce such men to misery.*



Hi Bruce, Are you saying that the end justifies the means? 

It is okay to egnore the concequences and present guilt of the sinner just as long as he gets guilty in the end? 

How could you avoid teaching that perfect obedience atones for your personal guilt in sinning with Adam? 




> The unsaved, if convinced that the Bible will give them a good "rule" to follow, will not do what they hope. And they will inevitably water down the rule to salve their conscience. They cannot keep God's commands. And the more serious they are about their legalism, the more they will appear as did the Pharisees.



I don't follow how this influences the principle of adding a promise of life for perfect obediance? 



> The law IS a reminder of the original Covenant of Works. A reminder that personal failure is just as real as Adam's original failure. But most men don't recall that failure, or concede their guilt (until the Judgment Seat), but they all know they do not live up to righteous standards in their personal lives. So, morality serves an immediate convicting purpose during this lifetime.



I see what you are saying here Bruce. It is much more immediate to see your own present falling short of the moral standard of God and to feel your guilt for those personal transgressions that were not after the similitude of Adams transgression. But, it just seems to me that you are making allowances, by sighting mens forgetfulness as an excuse to propose, (if you don't mind me saying so) a false proposition. 





> *It is simply the nature of law to elucidate conditions*, make promises and threats for motivation or reminder (whichever you prefer), as Q93 states.



This is the point in a nut shell. I want to understand whether this is true. I see that this must be true in some sense, because, in the fifth commandment, we are given a promise of long life to such as keep this commandment. But I cannot understand this in a Covenant of Works manner. But, rather by purposeful obedience in dependence upon God's mercy in Christ, we keep this commandment. 

The same goes for the command "do this and live". Do this, ( all my holy will) in humility with purposeful yet imperfect obedience, by faith casting ourselves upon Christ who will subdue us to himself and concur all His and our enemies. 




> Finally, Jesus kept the law perfectly for us. He didn't have the original sin to answer for. But he kept the law, thus meriting life for himself, as if he had needed such (when he had already "life in himself"). Which life he gave up, dying for sinners who were supposed to die, and also granting them the merits of his obedience.



As I read John 17 where Jesus communes with the Father, I see something much higher and more ancient than just picking up where Adam left off. What I mean is, Yes, He kept the law perfectly, but I'm not sure how far you can push his responsibility of fulfilling the covenant of works. The Covenant of Grace is a separate distinct covenant made with Christ. I think you would agree.


----------



## VilnaGaon (Apr 27, 2009)

The last live update that I'm aware of set the date for the appearance of the first volume at the end of 2009.[/quote]

If they need funds or anything we should help.


I'm game, but I think we should know more who these guys are.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Apr 27, 2009)

RTaron said:


> Contra_Mundum said:
> 
> 
> > But proposing the "hypothetical" in no way negates the reality of the imputation of Adam's sin to all mankind descending from him by ordinary generation. God loses nothing by proposing (as it were) an secondary standard of righteousness, and inviting fallen men to attempt it, *when the purpose of it is to reduce such men to misery.*
> ...


What do you mean?
God's ends and his chosen means are impeccable by definition, so I really don't understand what you are asking me here.



RTaron said:


> It is okay to egnore the concequences and present guilt of the sinner just as long as he gets guilty in the end?


How does this follow from what I wrote?
Here's a guy who's guilty. But let's say he has amnesia. There's only one way to get him out of the amnesia: he needs to feel guilt. But he can't feel guilt, because he has the amnesia. So, the king says: "here's a list of dos and donts. As long as you keep these rules, you will be free and happy."

But the king knows that 1) the man being who he is (even if the man doesn't know himself), he won't keep the rules; and 2) the ulterior motive behind this list is to induce guilt, which will then make it possible for the man to remember his former guilt.



RTaron said:


> How could you avoid teaching that perfect obedience atones for your personal guilt in sinning with Adam?


Does the above scenario address this query?
I don't see how the introduction of a later standard of righteousness in any way impacts the verdict and penalty of an earlier standard.



RTaron said:


> Contra_Mundum said:
> 
> 
> > The unsaved, if convinced that the Bible will give them a good "rule" to follow, will not do what they hope. And they will inevitably water down the rule to salve their conscience. They cannot keep God's commands. And the more serious they are about their legalism, the more they will appear as did the Pharisees.
> ...


I don't think one can separate from his promise the fact that God knows in advance that the most valiant attempt at law-keeping will be futile. If one of the main purposes of the law is to frustrate men, and drive them out of themselves to an alien righteousness, then stoking their engine of self-righteousness (by promising to keep them alive under this particular arrangement, provided they obey) seems like an eminently good idea.



RTaron said:


> Contra_Mundum said:
> 
> 
> > The law IS a reminder of the original Covenant of Works. A reminder that personal failure is just as real as Adam's original failure. But most men don't recall that failure, or concede their guilt (until the Judgment Seat), but they all know they do not live up to righteous standards in their personal lives. So, morality serves an immediate convicting purpose during this lifetime.
> ...


What, _exactly,_ is *false* about the proposal?
--if, peradventure, God offers to KEEP a man alive, not enforcing the penalty for an earlier violation, nor calling it to mind?
--saying, in effect, "I won't call THAT to mind, for as long as you keep THIS covenant."

Spell out for me what you think is unworthy of God in the above?





RTaron said:


> Contra_Mundum said:
> 
> 
> > *It is simply the nature of law to elucidate conditions*, make promises and threats for motivation or reminder (whichever you prefer), as Q93 states.
> ...


WE don't have to deal with the law as a CoW. Thank God we don't! Israel was in a similar situation, except for the fact that God blinded so many of them, he put a veil over their faces (2Cor3:14-16), the glory of the OC was a deliberate distraction to the many non-elect in the church of those days.

If only they realized the reason for the sacrifices! Namely, to point them to the Messiah. Instead, when they weren't abandoning the covenant wholesale, they were attending to it but legalistically. Look! they could even find in the law God promising to keep them alive if they would only obey it.




RTaron said:


> Contra_Mundum said:
> 
> 
> > Finally, Jesus kept the law perfectly for us. He didn't have the original sin to answer for. But he kept the law, thus meriting life for himself, as if he had needed such (when he had already "life in himself"). Which life he gave up, dying for sinners who were supposed to die, and also granting them the merits of his obedience.
> ...


I do agree that the CoG is the "Christ-covenant". The CoW is Adam's. The problem for us: it's ours as well, as sons of Adam originally. His guilt is ours. We need out from under it, and we need someone to pay the debt we owe in regards to it for our own, as well as Original, guilt.

Why does Christ obey? The _responsibility_ he takes is a *voluntary* one.

Was he just being an example? He is an example, but this is insufficient to explain his life. There's no gospel in "example".

Did he have to obey in his own right? He was already perfectly righteous, he wasn't seeking life eternal, it was his already.

Did he have to "qualify" himself as Messiah? A variant on the above, and just as inadequate. As if he wasn't Messiah enough instantly on his coming into the world.

Why an incarnation as a baby? Why 30+ years of life in this sin-sick world for Jesus of Nazareth? He could have showed up on a certain Passover Week, embodied, announced himself Messiah to the multitudes, and been rejected just as thoroughly and completely as he was in the Scriptural account.

Why? He was living a life FOR you and me. Obeying FOR you and me, doing so in such a way as we could watch him doing all that for all of us believers, from Adam down. He was answering our demerit under the CoW.


----------



## RTaron (Apr 28, 2009)

Okay, I think I get it now. Maybe not tomorrow morning, but I think I see some light now.  ha!. 
After reading all the posts over again and reading Galatians chapter three over and over, I can see how you *have* to include a system of works when you talk about the declaration of the will of God to mankind,. Except as Mathew said, when you are exclusively referring to moral obligation. 

Gal. 3:10-12 was especially helpful. 



> 10 *For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
> 11 *But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.
> 12 *And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.



I take the phrase "of the works of the law" to be that method of covenant administration that Mathew was talking about. And to say that "the law is not of faith", is to say that it is only a principle of works or a mechanism of administration. 

Bruce, it is too late for me to carry on that other point about the hypothetical proposal. But I will say that the last part of your post was a blessing. Thanks for that meditation of our Lord's voluntary work. WoW!


----------



## RTaron (Apr 30, 2009)

> What, exactly, is false about the proposal?
> --if, peradventure, God offers to KEEP a man alive, not enforcing the penalty for an earlier violation, nor calling it to mind?
> --saying, in effect, "I won't call THAT to mind, for as long as you keep THIS covenant."
> 
> Spell out for me what you think is unworthy of God in the above?



Bruce, I'm still thinking about this one. It just doesn't sit right with me.


----------



## Peairtach (May 3, 2009)

This ties in very much with a book I'm reading: "The Law is not of Faith" (Various authors; Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing).

Great Reformed theologians have wrestled with the question of how much - if at all - the Mosaic Covenant involves a "republication" of the Covenant of Works alongside the Covenant of Grace. Much of the focus is on Leviticus 18:5 and its citations in the New Testament.

This is a difficult book on what appears to be a difficult subject. I'll get back to you when I've read it.

You're in good company if you're doing a bit of head-scratching on this.


----------



## RTaron (May 4, 2009)

Richard Tallach said:


> This ties in very much with a book I'm reading: "The Law is not of Faith" (Various authors; Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing).
> 
> Great Reformed theologians have wrestled with the question of how much - if at all - the Mosaic Covenant involves a "republication" of the Covenant of Works alongside the Covenant of Grace. Much of the focus is on Leviticus 18:5 and its citations in the New Testament.
> 
> ...




Thanks Richard, I have heard of that book coming out. I'll look forward to the discussion. 

I understand that the moral law was republished, but I reject that a covenant of works was established under Moses. The saints of old "kept" the law just like we "keep" the law. By faith. 



> Psalm 105:43 *And he brought forth his people with joy, and his chosen with gladness:
> 44 *And gave them the lands of the heathen: and they inherited the labour of the people;
> 45 *That they might observe his statutes, *and keep his laws*. Praise ye the LORD.


----------

