# Reformed vs. Lutheran



## arapahoepark

Hey I have been browsing around the forum and I see this thread is not new, however, I still lack understanding regarding the law and grace in their systems (*That is how is the Lutheran System different from Reformed I know the Reformed standing*). Can someone explain this to me in detail?

Also how does Westminster in California follow a semi-Lutheran approach that I have heard of?

Thanks!


----------



## jogri17

No differences in the theology, but differences historically within their historical-confessional/dogmatic traditions. Reformed theologians tend to emphasize the 3rd use of the law and applying scripture into how to live the Christian live and are more comfortable in talking about moral obligations, while Lutherans tend to emphasize more the foundation of Justification and the objective reality and focus on that. Sermons tend to emphasis the atonement and justification and sanctification tends to be ignored and the 3rd use of the law tends to be talked about in terms of God enabling us to obey as opposed to calling believers to struggle in obedience. 

There has always been a great overlap, especially in the Continental european traditions (Reformed and Lutheran), while historically in the States, American Presbyterianism has developed independently, thus while Horton, Clark, and Billy Graham's Grandson (Can't spell his name! lol) sound different than what American Calvinists have been used to hearing, the rediscovery of Reformed Literature in the past 5 decades translated from the past and from other Reformed traditions, has shows that Calvinism is broader than traditional American Calvinism. 

my two sense


----------



## TylerRay

> Lutheran scholars... have debated at length over whether Luther taught in fact, though not in name, a third use of the law. Suffice it to say, Luther advocated that though the Christian is not "under the law," this ought not be understood as if he were "without the law." The law is not an obligation, but a delight. The believer is joyfully moved towards the law by the Spirits power. He conforms to the law freely, not because of the laws demands, but because of his love for God and His righteousness





> Calvin... [taught] that the primary use of the law for the believer is as a rule of life.



Both of these quotes are taken from Joel Beeke's Puritan Reformed Spirituality, p. 107.

Interestingly, Beeke notes that the first reformer to develop the "third use" of the law was Melanchthon, Luther's successor. But it wasn't fully fleshed out until Calvin.


----------



## arapahoepark

Ah. So Luther thought basically in reformed terms, however, it was eventually lost by the Lutheran church then? or at least some of them? (I am referring to the third use of the law)


----------



## TylerRay

My understanding is that Luther wasn't exactly there, so to speak, as far as the third use. He wasn't an antinomian, but he didn't have warm-fuzzies for the law as a rule of life either. But as is often the case with Christians, his "working theology" was more sound in certain ways than what he professed. He taught the law, even if he didn't think of it as law.

That's how I understand it, anywho.

As a result of Luther's fuzziness on the law's role in the life of the believer, Lutherans as a whole have been fuzzy ever since. Just like Luther's stance for the "real presence" of Christ in the Supper (though he didn't have it exactly worked out) led to his followers developing a deviant Christology to explain His presence.


----------



## yeutter

The Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord - Book of Concord gives the official Lutheran understanding of the third use of the Law


----------



## Rufus

arap said:


> Ah. So Luther thought basically in reformed terms, however, it was eventually lost by the Lutheran church then? or at least some of them? (I am referring to the third use of the law)



As Tyler pointed out he had developed any idea of it. Outside of the Third use of the Law, you will find Reformed folk trying to paint Luther as one of us, however, in all honesty this is not the case.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Trent,

1. Westminster Seminary California is NOT semi-Lutheran any more than the Reformed confessions (e.g., Three Forms, Westminster Standards) are. All the magisterial Protestants confessed the same doctrine of justification, sola scriptura etc. 

2. The application of the 2nd & 4th commandments at WSC is confessionally Reformed.

3. Luther didn't use the nomenclature of the tertius usus legis but he taught the substance of the doctrine against the antinomians and in the Large Catechism (1529).

4. The confessional Lutherans & Reformed differed on baptism, Christology (& consequently on the supper), reprobation, perseverance, & worship (RPW). Today, one might be surprised how Lutheran many Reformed have become, e.g., on worship. E.g. If you're singing non-canonical hymns to instruments in public worship. You're closer to Lutheran than Reformed.


----------



## jwithnell

> If you're singing non-canonical hymns to instruments in public worship. You're closer to Lutheran than Reformed.


That's a pretty broad statement.

With Luther's context in a Roman Catholic world (and known skepticism of James) I'm not surprised he would be slow to embrace all aspects of the law. The Westminster divines had another 100 years (and many intervening theologians) to use when formulating a reformed view of the law.


----------



## arapahoepark

Thanks for your replies! I was wondering about it all.

thanks Dr. Scott for your clarification on WSCal, I had seen something like that floating around the forum here so I had to ask...

However, one more question out of sheer ignorance since I don't attend a full-fledged confessional church, but how is worship there? No instruments? What kind of songs?


----------



## yeutter

*Non-canonical hymns*



arap said:


> Thanks for your replies! I was wondering about it all.
> 
> thanks Dr. Scott for your clarification on WSCal, I had seen something like that floating around the forum here so I had to ask...
> 
> However, one more question out of sheer ignorance since I don't attend a full-fledged confessional church, but how is worship there? No instruments? What kind of songs?



The historic confessionally reformed churches sang or chanted only the psalms and other scriptural passages, like the Ten Commandments and Luke 1:68-79, and the creeds and other confessional statements like the Te Deum Laudamus. The Church of Scotland sang only the Psalms. They sang or chanted these without instrumental accompaniment. The Lutheran Reformation sang hymns composed by believers as well as the Psalms and creeds.
Following the Wesleyan revival hymns came to be accepted by large parts of the Church of England and in some other reformed churches


----------



## DMcFadden

Luther scholars go back and forth on whether Luther held to a third use of the law (much like the debates over Calvin vs. the Calvinists). A recent work by Edward Engelbrecht, Friends of the Law: Luther's Use of the Law for the Christian Life answers the question of whether Luther believed in the third use of the law in the affirmative.



> Charges of forgery, heresy, legalism, and immorality turn on the question of whether Martin Luther taught a third use of the Law for the Christian life. For the past sixty years, well-meaning scholars believed they settled the question—with dire consequences.
> *
> Friends of the Law sets forth a completely new body of evidence that shows how little Luther’s teaching was understood. This new book looks at the doctrine of the Law and invites a new consensus that could change the way Christians view the Reformation and even their daily walk with God.
> *
> Contains
> data tables
> translations of passages not available in English
> appendices
> bibliography on Law and Gospel*


**


----------



## TylerRay

R. Scott Clark said:


> If you're singing non-canonical hymns to instruments in public worship. You're closer to Lutheran than Reformed.



Amen!



> The reading of the Scriptures with godly fear; the sound preaching, and conscionable hearing of the word, in obedience unto God, with understanding, faith, and reverence; *singing of psalms with grace in the heart*; as also the due administration and worthy receiving of the sacraments instituted by Christ; are all parts of the ordinary religious worship of God: besides religious oaths and vows, solemn fastings and thanksgivings upon special occasions which are, in their several times and seasons, to be used in a holy and religious manner.
> 
> -WCF 21.5





> IT is the duty of Christians to praise God publickly, by *singing of psalms* together in the congregation, and also privately in the family.
> 
> In *singing of psalms*, the voice is to be tunably and gravely ordered; but the chief care must be to sing with understanding, and with grace in the heart, making melody unto the Lord.
> 
> That the whole congregation may join herein, every one that can read is to have a *psalm book*; and all others, not disabled by age or otherwise, are to be exhorted to learn to read. But for the present, where many in the congregation cannot read, it is convenient that the minister, or some other fit person appointed by him and the other ruling officers, do read the *psalm*, line by line, before the singing thereof.
> 
> -Westminster Directory of Publick Worship, Of Singing of *Psalms*


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

R. Scott Clark said:


> 1. Westminster Seminary California is NOT semi-Lutheran any more than the Reformed confessions (e.g., Three Forms, Westminster Standards) are. All the magisterial Protestants confessed the same doctrine of justification, sola scriptura etc.



This might be true concerning justification but not about other things....



> “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.
> 
> Law and Gospel stand in that relationship not just before and at the point of conversion; but they continue standing in that relationship throughout the whole of the Christian life, all the way to the grave. The Lutherans have an eye almost exclusively for the accusing, condemning work of the law and therefore know of no greater salvation than liberation from the law. The law is necessary only on account of sin. According to Lutheran theology, in the state of perfection there is no law. God is free from the law; Christ was not subject to the law for Himself at all; the believer no longer stands under the law. Naturally, the Lutherans speak of a threefold use of the law, not only of a usus politicus (civilis), to restrain sin, and a usus paedagogicus, to arouse the knowledge of sin, but also of a usus didacticus, to function for the believer as a rule of living. But this last usus is nonetheless necessary simply and only because and insofar as believers are still sinners, and must still be tamed by the law, and must still be led to a continuing knowledge of sin. In itself the law ceases with the coming of faith and grace, and loses all its significance.
> 
> The Reformed, however, have thought about this in an entirely different way. The usus politicus and the usus paedagogicus of the law became necessary only accidentally because of sin; even with these uses aside, the most important usus remains, the usus didacticus or normativus. After all, the law is an expression of God’s being. As a human being Christ was subject to the law for Himself. Before the fall Adam had the law written upon his heart. With the believer it is again written upon the tablets of his heart by the Holy Spirit. And all those in heaven will walk according to the law of the Lord.
> 
> The Gospel is temporary, but the law is eternal and is restored precisely through the Gospel. Freedom from the law consists, then, not in the fact that the Christian has nothing more to do with the law, but lies in the fact that the law demands nothing more from the Christian as a condition of salvation. The law can no longer judge and condemn him. Instead he delights in the law of God according to the inner man and yearns for it day and night.
> 
> Therefore, that law must always be preached to the congregation in connection with the Gospel. Law and Gospel, the whole Word, the full counsel of God, is the content of preaching. Among Reformed people, therefore, the law occupies a much larger place than in the teaching of sin, since it is also part of the teaching of gratitude.” [Here Bavinck has a footnote providing bibliographical references relating to the views of Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, Zanchius, Witsius, De Moor, Vitringa, Schneckenburger, Frank, and Gottschick.]
> 
> (from paragraph 521 of Herman Bavinck’s Gereformeerde Dogmatiek, 3rd unaltered edition, vol. 4 (Kampen, J. H. Kok, 1918), emphases in bold added, and taken from this translation from the Dutch)



When you hear Professors speak from Westminster California on Law and Gospel they speak more like Lutherans. This is not just my opinion. 

We can discuss a lot of other things like Meredith Kline who is basically the Mentor of Westminster California and his views of the Mosaic and law and Gospel. 

I have raised these issues myself. What is the Gospel? I have blogs and posts below that discuss this.


http://www.puritanboard.com/f30/kline-karlburg-not-confessional-concerning-mosaic-69258/#post889328



PuritanCovenanter said:


> Following the book The Law Is Not of Faith (see pp. 10-11, 43), R.S. Clark believes that chapter 19 of the Westminster Confession of Faith “clearly suggests” that the covenant of works was republished at Mt. Sinai. The argument goes something like this: Westminster Confession of Faith 19.1 states, God gave to Adam a law, as a covenant of works. Paragraph 2 begins with “This law,” obviously referring to the law described in paragraph 1. Since the law in paragraph 1 was described as a covenant of works, the law of paragraph 2 must be as well.
> 
> This argument is nothing new as it is one that I addressed in a journal article back in 2004, which you can find here. Its appearance in the book TLNF, however, may well be the first time it has appeared in print. And quite frankly I am surprised to see the editors using it because it is such a poor argument and one that is easily answered. Chapter 19 does not say that the covenant of works was delivered or republished at Mt. Sinai. It says the law was delivered at Mt. Sinai. What law? “This law” of paragraph 2 does refer to the law in paragraph 1, i.e. the one given to Adam as a covenant of works. But what the editors of the book TLNF and Clark fail to see is that “This law” is further defined in paragraphs 3, 5, and 6. In these sections we learn that “this law” is the moral law (paragraph 3), which is the perfect rule of righteousness (paragraph 2) binding on all persons in all ages (paragraph 5) and is given to true believers not as a covenant of works (paragraph 6). Therefore, WCF 19 clearly does not clearly suggest or indicate that the covenant of works was republished at Mt. Sinai.
> 
> Now since the law that was delivered at Mt. Sinai was the moral law, it is the same law that was given to Adam in the garden. Indeed it is the same law that binds all men in every age as the Confession rightly says. Consequently, it is correct say that part of the content of the covenant of works was republished at Mt. Sinai and for that matter in the new covenant since the moral law is restated there as well. This is what Brent Ferry calls material republication (see TLNF, 91-92). It is important to note, however, that this is republication of the law and not the covenant of works. This is why it is misleading to refer to material republication as a sense of the republication of the covenant of works. There is a difference between law and covenant or at least the Puritans thought there is. In other words, to say that the law (or content of the covenant of works) was republished is different from saying that the covenant of works was republished at Mt. Sinai.
> 
> Notice in 19.1 of the Confession that the law given to Adam is qualified by the phrase “as a covenant of works.” This qualifier is missing in paragraph 2 and it is replaced with “a perfect rule of righteousness.” In the garden the law was a perfect rule of righteousness and the condition of the covenant of works. But at Mt. Sinai the law no longer serves as the condition of a covenant of works though it does continue to be a perfect rule of righteousness. It is this Puritan and Confessional distinction that Clark and the editors of TLNF fail to incorporate in their reading of chapter 19. As a result they completely misread the Confession.
> 
> If we would follow the Confession’s teaching on the law as explained in chapter 19 it is imperative that we distinguish between the law as given to Adam from the law as given to Israel. James Durham explains:
> 
> Then you would distinguish between this law, as given to Adam, and as given to Israel. For as given to him, it was a covenant of works; but, as given to them, it was a covenant of grace; and so from us now it calls for gospel duties, as faith in Christ (1 Tim. 1:5), repentance, hope in God, etc. And although it call for legal duties, yet in a gospel-manner; therefore we are in the first commandment commanded to have God for our God, which cannot be obeyed by sinners but in Christ Jesus; the covenant of works being broken, and the tie of friendship thereby between God and man made void. So that now men, as to that covenant, are without God in the world, and without Christ and the promises (Eph. 2:21-13). And so our having God for our God (which is pointed at in the preface to the commandments) and Christ for our Savior, and closing with his righteousness, and the promises of the covenant (which are all yea and amen in him) must go together.[1]
> 
> 
> I might also add that I find it quite ironic that Klineans appeal to Fisher and Boston for support of the republication of the covenant of works. The position advocated by Fisher and Boston is one that is repudiated by Kline. Furthermore, their (mis)reading of chapter 19 would support the position of Fisher and Boston but there is no way it could support Kline’s republication view. Perhaps this is why they tend to argue for republication in general (“in some sense”) and not for specific views of republication. But of course it is fallacious to argue that since republication in some sense is found in the Reformed tradition that therefore a particular view of republication is Reformed. I have previously argued that the particular view espoused by Kline and Karlberg, like its closest predecessor, namely the view held by Samuel Bolton, is incompatible with the Westminster Standards (see here).



http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/puritancovenanter/gospel-sanctification-674/

http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/puritancovenanter/confusing-law-gospel-675/


----------



## TylerRay

Mr. Snyder, 

Great quote, though I never knew Bavink wrote in such a large hand.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

TylerRay said:


> Mr. Snyder,
> 
> Great quote, though I never knew Bavink wrote in such a large hand.



I didn't know he wrote in English. LOL

BTW, I don't think this is just an issue about the third use of the law. WSCal affirms the third use of the law. It is about what the Gospel is and what soteriology is. It is about Covenant Theology and how it has a unity. I remained a Reformed Baptist for many years holding on to what some at WSCal believed till I saw the unity in the Covenants.

This is a part of my Journey... I know the links don't work but the message is still there.

http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/puritancovenanter/mosaic-covenant-same-substance-new-724/


----------



## TylerRay

PuritanCovenanter said:


> TylerRay said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Snyder,
> 
> Great quote, though I never knew Bavink wrote in such a large hand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't know he wrote in English. LOL
Click to expand...


Touche!


----------



## jwright82

Any time you want to know what a “Lutheran” belief is read _The Book of Concord_ on it. Read what Melanchthon wrote in article 20 (XX) of _The Augsburg Confession_ and than his defense of it in the _Apology of the Augsburg Confession_, especially at the end of the Apology article. The context of the Apology must be taken into consideration in that it was a response to a _Confutation{/I] by RCC theologians. So naturally it at first defends the Gospel over and against Roman errors. Oh Melanchthon wrote these early in his career when he was in most agreement with Luther.

Next in The Book of Concord is The Smalcald Articles written by Luther. If you read Part 3, section 2 you will see his words on the law. He does almost exclusively emphasize the function of the law to show us our sins. But again the historical occasion of the Articles was towards a RCC council to discuss these matters, so it is no surprise that Luther emphasized this function against the RCC. But when you look in the next section at Luther’s "Larger" and "Smaller" Catechism, directed towards Lutheran Christians, he gives entire sections on the Christian’s duty to obey the law. He gives expositions on what the Christian should know to obey the Ten Commandments. 

The Formula of Concord rounds out the discussion and has already been posted by Thomas. To give some background this was a response to divisions and “controversies” amongst theologians who “dissented” about their understanding of The Augsburg Confession. It is the final say in Lutheran Orthodoxy on those matters in which it touches upon. My whole point is this “confessionally” you cannot argue that Lutherans are antinomian or downplaying the Third Use of the Law. It just cannot be done. I respect Dr. Clark and the entire faculty of Wes. Cal., even where I respectfully disagree with them. But on this issue they are right._


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

As I noted above.... It isn't about the third use of the law....(well, it might be in some ways with modern guys) I believe this issue about the law and gospel is still a hotbed issue. It is about the Gospel and soteriology as a whole. Modern Reformed Thought is not Historical as I understand it. It has changed to a more dichotomous view over defining the distinctions between justification, sanctification, and glorification. The emphasis of Reformed Thought over Modern Reformed Thought has been vigorously debated on the board.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

This is a comment I made somewhere else. It is about recent discussions that have been going on. It bleeds into another area of controversy that most recently is a hotbed of issue also. R2K. It stems from the same controversy I believe. Now this thread is not about R2K. But I do believe they are inter related. 



> Rev. Stellman he has lost his moorings and is confused. I believe his confusion comes in light that he has forgotten the distinctions that are inter related to the gospel.
> 
> There are distinctions in the gospel concerning justification. James speaks of these. St. Paul makes note of these. He has also not shown the distinctions between justification, sanctification, and glorification as they are all parts of the gospel. Some don't like to say this. They propose that the Gospel is something totally objective and only pertains to a message and something outside of us.
> 
> Some in the Reformed faith have made dichotomies of these doctrines. Law and Gospel are opposed to each other in their thinking when they are not. Especially in the Covenant of Grace. Jason Stellman held to this Lutheran view and I believe it ended up confusing him. I have a lot on my blog discussing this issue.





PuritanCovenanter said:


> The Reformed, however, have thought about this in an entirely different way. The usus politicus and the usus paedagogicus of the law became necessary only accidentally because of sin; even with these uses aside, the most important usus remains, the usus didacticus or normativus. After all, the law is an expression of God’s being. As a human being Christ was subject to the law for Himself. Before the fall Adam had the law written upon his heart. With the believer it is again written upon the tablets of his heart by the Holy Spirit. And all those in heaven will walk according to the law of the Lord.
> 
> _The Gospel is temporary, but the law is eternal and is restored precisely through the Gospel. Freedom from the law consists, then, not in the fact that the Christian has nothing more to do with the law, but lies in the fact that the law demands nothing more from the Christian as a condition of salvation. The law can no longer judge and condemn him. Instead he delights in the law of God according to the inner man and yearns for it day and night._



The Gospel in total is about reconciliation. Tell me the Gospel leaves the law separate and in a place that is dichotomous to it. 




> (Psa 19:7) The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.
> 
> (Psa 19:8) The statutes of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes.


----------



## yeutter

The Heidelberg Catechism was written to show the continuity of the Reformed with Confessional Lutheranism. As I read Michael Horton it is obvious to me that he stands in the Heidelberg tradition not the Westminster tradition or the confessional Lutheran tradition.


----------



## mvdm

Here is a link to a good summary from Louis Berkhof. Key issue being that those who see the law and gospel as total opposites as the Klinean devotees do, are simply not in the Reformed mainstream:

The Law and the Gospel


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

yeutter said:


> The Heidelberg Catechism was written to show the continuity of the Reformed with Confessional Lutheranism. As I read Michael Horton it is obvious to me that he stands in the Heidelberg tradition not the Westminster tradition or the confessional Lutheran tradition.


He is Hegelian then.... Finding a middle ground. His language is not confusing to me. Maybe you read it as an Anglican one. This is not to degrade your understanding... Believe me.



> _The Heidelberg Catechism was written to show the continuity of the Reformed with Confessional Lutheranism. _



BTW, I am not so sure this is totally correct. Maybe it is. I am wondering if it wasn't written to move on the Confessing Church in defining it's stance. The Reformed faith was growing.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Randy,

1. I did not learn my understanding of the law/gospel distinction from Meredith Kline. I learned it from Calvin, Olevianus, and Theodore Beza to name just three. Some resources:

Audio: A lecture on Olevianus' defense of the distinction between law and gospel. 

A Resource List on Covenant Theology

Reformed Sources on the law/gospel distinction

There is a chapter in this book that explains the classical Reformed distinction.

2. The historic Reformed distinction is more nuanced than some posts above suggest. There are ways in which law and gospel are juxtaposed and ways in which they agree entirely. This distinction should not be dismissed lightly since its recovery was foundational to the Reformation. Notice please that Calvin used it repeatedly (often but not always distinguishing between law and grace when making the hermeneutical distinction and between law and gospel when making a historical distinction) and never criticized Luther for making the distinction.

As I've pointed out many times here and elsewhere Beza, no Lutheran, made the hermeneutical distinction between law and gospel fundamental to understanding Scripture. It's Rome, the Federal Visionists, and other moralists who deny it. 

Take a look at and listen to these resources.

rsc


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Dr. Clark, In all due respect..



R. Scott Clark said:


> Randy,
> 
> 1. I did not learn my understanding of the law/gospel distinction from Meredith Kline. I learned it from Calvin, Olevianus, and Theodore Beza to name just three.


 Are you denying Kline had any influence though. 

The problem with the above is that the Reformed perspective is not presented in full light in my estimation as I knew it before someone dropped out of sight. As noted in above posts. Yes, Maybe Beza made the distinction but it is being made dichotomous now days. And you know this Dr. Clark. I believe we have confronted you here about this also. Do you want to rehash it? I think it should be rehashed. At least the word distinction is being used now. But the view of Gospel and law as being opposed... Have we done some refining? I need to find out.

I remember a lot from the past concerning your discussions with Rev. Winzer and my discussions on what the Gospel is as per your friends who are Klinean.

I believe the following addresses some of this..... It directly makes you the target and your theology. The whole thread does...

http://www.puritanboard.com/f30/kline-karlburg-not-confessional-concerning-mosaic-69258/#post889328


----------



## TylerRay

R. Scott Clark said:


> As I've pointed out many times here and elsewhere Beza, no Lutheran, made the hermeneutical distinction between law and gospel fundamental to understanding Scripture. It's Rome, the Federal Visionists, and other moralists who deny it.



Dr. Clark,

While I have not read your work on the law/Gospel distinction, I know that when I was drunk with the wine of the Federal Vision, I was confused and paralyzed by not understanding the hermeneutical distinction between the two. My elders (who were not my elders at the time) graciously walked me through the distinction, and brought me to the Confessional view. I'm forever indebted to them for this, and the law/Gospel distinction is now one of the most important parts of understanding what a passage means for me personally. I firmly believe that the law is a gracious gift to the believer, and that we should endeavor to keep it with all our heart, mind, and strength. But it is rigidly distinct from the Gospel. 

The Gospel frees us from the curse of the law, and frees us to obey the law uninhibited by the debt of sin.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

TylerRay said:


> The Gospel frees us from the curse of the law, and frees us to obey the law uninhibited by the debt of sin.



In all due respect Tyler, Dr. Clark would not say anything different. I wouldn't either. This is a bit more nuanced maybe concerning the Mosaic and our confession. It also has to do with other things a bit more complex. And it shouldn't be but we have been so inundated by modern media. That is something Dr. Clark is leaving out here in my estimation.


----------



## TylerRay

PuritanCovenanter said:


> TylerRay said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Gospel frees us from the curse of the law, and frees us to obey the law uninhibited by the debt of sin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In all due respect Tyler, Dr. Clark would not say anything different. I wouldn't either. This is a bit more nuanced maybe concerning the Mosaic and our confession. It also has to do with other things a bit more complex. And it shouldn't be but we have been so inundated by modern media. That is something Dr. Clark is leaving out here in my estimation.
Click to expand...


Okay. I think I see. I suppose you're talking about the "recapitulation of the covenant of works" view. While I have not studied that position out at length, I can't find any support for it in Moses, Paul, or elsewhere. Not to mention it seems contrary to the gracious nature of the Mosaic covenant.

Is that what y'all are getting at?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Yes, Tyler.... This is a law gospel (or grace) dichotomy issue. I believe Republication is the term and not Recapitulation.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

In all due respect to the above.... I honestly believe that things are being left out by Dr. Clark. We can even go to D. G. Hart and Dr. Horton. I have numerous quotes. I am not a Theonomists nor someone who advocates the position. I am not a Federal Visionist. These guys know that. Dr. Clark knows what is being discussed and what is being said. He has been called out by others on this platform for this. In my estimation these Profs from WSCal are still learning. They need to be better refined and define things better since they are training our future Pastors. Just my humble opinion. This discussion is ongoing and very intense. Yes, they are Lutheran and not Reformed in my estimation. There are works in the process to show this. This is a work. It is like the situation we just went through the past 20 years in learning what the New Paul Perspective and Federal Vision was. I can't believe that that situation took place. It was more distinguishable in my estimation. This one is working itself out. 


The first sight I list below is good for quoting many historical references.


https://sites.google.com/site/themosaiccovenant/

http://www.opc.org/os.html?article_id=199

https://d3ecc98b-a-62cb3a1a-s-sites...iWUb2J24nR-Kd7FTSDTLa5Zjq7kNg=&attredirects=0

http://www.kerux.com/pdf/Kerux.24.03.pdf


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

This is a good Read also.....

It starts off like this.... but is about the same issue.




> Within the last decade a noticeable shift has occurred in certain strains
> of Reformation scholarship that has challenged the traditional understanding
> of Calvin’s theology in signiﬁcant areas. One challenge that has recurred in
> several forms is the attempt to establish something of a realigning of Calvin’s
> doctrines of justiﬁcation and sanctiﬁcation, asserting that the tradition has
> portrayed them too disparately. The alternative proposed by recent scholarship
> is the claim that rather than employing a distinct priority of justiﬁcation
> to sanctiﬁcation akin to that of the Reformed Scholastics, Calvin subsumed
> all his soteriology (and for some indeed his entire theology) under the rubric
> of union with Christ.
> 1



I really believe that a traditional (Confessional) and biblical form has been challenged. 


I truly recommend reading this...
http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/50/50-2/JETS_50-2_311-328_Wenger.pdf


----------



## mvdm

Here is a primer from John Frame which addresses the Lutheranesque dichotmous Law/Gospel hermeneutic and its tie to the so-called "two kingdoms" theology propogated today:

Law and Gospel


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Randy,
When I was a WSC as a student ('84-87) we didn't talk much about the law/gospel distinction. It is a distinct issue from republication. One may hold the law/gospel distinction and not hold to republication. Yes, I'm influenced by MGK but not on this issue. I learned it from reading the Latin texts of Olevianus and Ursinus and others.

As to the Wenger article, I agree with it entirely! He wrote that material originally as part of an MA thesis he wrote for me at WSC! Tom agrees with the quotes given below.

Randy, what I'm arguing historically is not controversial. There are arguments about how it should be applied but as to the basic distinction that, hermeneutically, theologically, the law is one thing and the gospel another, that is just basic Protestant theology. If we lose this distinction we really will become Romanists again.

Yes, Frame denies it and he also supports the FV. I rest my case. Below just a few of the quotations to which I referred above. Here is a free, popular version of the essay I mentioned from CJPM above.

Randy, if you're not willing to read sources, arguments, and explanations, I don't see how we can have a reasonable discussion. *

John Calvin.* But when through the law the patriarchs felt themselves both oppressed by their enslaved condition, and wearied by anxiety of conscience, they fled for refuge to the gospel. (Institutes, 2.11.9).

*Zacharias Ursinus (1534-83)*. Q.36 What distinguishes law and gospel?* A:* The law contains a covenant of nature begun by God with men in creation, that is, it is a natural sign to men, and it requires of us perfect obedience toward God. It promises eternal life to those keeping it, and threatens eternal punishment to those not keeping it. In fact, the gospel contains a covenant of grace, that is, one known not at all under nature. This covenant declares to us fulfillment of its righteousness in Christ, which the law requires, and our restoration through Christ's Spirit. To those who believe in him, it freely promises eternal life for Christ's sake (_Larger Catechism_, Q. 36).

*Zacharias Ursinus. *In What Does The Law Differ From The Gospel? The exposition of this question is necessary for a variety of considerations, and especially that we may have a proper understanding of the law and the gospel, to which a knowledge of that in which they differ greatly contributes. According to the definition of the law, which says, that it promises rewards to those who render perfect obedience; and that it promises them freely, inasmuch as no obedience can be meritorious in the sight of God, it would seem that it does not differ from the gospel, which also promises eternal life freely. Yet notwithstanding this seeming agreement, there is a great difference between the law and the gospel. They differ, 1. As to the mode of revelation peculiar to each. The law is known naturally: the gospel was divinely revealed after the fall of man. 2. In matter or doctrine. The law declares the justice of God separately considered: the gospel declares it in connection with his mercy. The law teaches what we ought to be in order that we may be saved: the gospel teaches in addition to this, how we may become such as this law requires, viz: by faith in Christ. 3. In their conditions or promises. The law promises eternal life and all good things upon the condition of our own and perfect righteousness, and of obedience in us: the gospel promises the same blessings upon the condition that we exercise faith in Christ, by which we embrace the obedience which another, even Christ, has performed in our behalf; or the gospel teaches that we are justified freely by faith in Christ. With this faith is also connected, as by an indissoluble bond, the condition of new obedience. 4. In their effects. The law works wrath, and is the ministration of death: the gospel is the ministration of life and of the Spirit (Rom. 4:15, 2 Cor. 3:7) (_Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism_, Q. 92).
*
Caspar Olevian (1536-87). *For this reason the distinction between law and Gospel is retained. The law does not promise freely, but under the condition that you keep it completely. And if someone should transgress it once, the law or legal covenant does not have the promise of the remission of sins. On the other hand, the Gospel promises freely the remission of sins and life, not if we keep the law, but for the sake of the Son of God, through faith (_Ad Romanos Notae_, 148; Geneva, 1579).
*
Theodore Beza* *(1534-1605)*. We divide this Word into two principal parts or kinds: the one is called the 'Law,' the other the 'Gospel.' For all the rest can be gathered under the one or other of these two headings...Ignorance of this distinction between Law and Gospel is one of the principal sources of the abuses which corrupted and still corrupt Christianity (_The Christian Faith_, 1558)
*
William Perkins 1558-1602)*. The basic principle in application is to know whether the passage is a statement of the law or of the gospel. For when the Word is preached, the law and the gospel operate differently. The law exposes the disease of sin, and as a side-effect, stimulates and stirs it up. But it provides no remedy for it. However the gospel not only teaches us what is to be done, it also has the power of the Holy Spirit joined to it....A statement of the law indicates the need for a perfect inherent righteousness, of eternal life given through the works of the law, of the sins which are contrary to the law and of the curse that is due them.... By contrast, a statement of the gospel speaks of Christ and his benefits, and of faith being fruitful in good works (_The Art of Prophesying_, 1592, repr. Banner of Truth Trust,1996, 54-55).

*Edward Fisher (c.1601-1655).* Now, the law is a doctrine partly known by nature, teaching us that there is a God, and what God is, and what he requires us to do, binding all reasonable creatures to perfect obedience, both internal and external, promising the favour of God, and everlasting life to all those who yield perfect obedience thereunto, and denouncing the curse of God and everlasting damnation to all those who are not perfectly correspondent thereunto. But the gospel is a doctrine revealed from heaven by the Son of God, presently after the fall of mankind into sin and death, and afterwards manifested more clearly and fully to the patriarchs and prophets, to the evangelists and apostles, and by them spread abroad to others; wherein freedom from sin, from the curse of the law, the wrath of God, death, and hell, is freely promised for Christ's sake unto all who truly believe on his name (_The Marrow of Modern Divinity_; 1645, repr. 1978, 337-38. NB: The author of the _Marrow_ was designated only as E.F. Therefore some scholars doubt whether Edward Fisher was actually the author).


*William Twisse (1578-1646). *How many ways does the Word of God teach us to come to the Kingdom of heaven?Two. Which are they? The Law and the Gospel. What says the Law? Do this and live. What says the Gospel? Believe in Jesus Christ and you shall be saved. Can we come to the Kingdom of God by the way of God's Law? No.Why so? Because we cannot do it. Why can we not do it? Because we are all born in sin. What is it to be none in sin? To be naturally prone to evil and ...that that which is good. How did it come to pass that we are all borne in sin? By reason of our first father Adam. Which way then do you hope to come tot he Kingdom of Heaven? By the Gospel? What is the Gospel? The glad tidings of salvation by Jesus Christ. To whom is the glad tidings brought: to the righteousness? No. Why so? For two reasons. What is the first? Because there is none that is righteous and sin not. What is the other reason? Because if we were righteous, i.e., without sin we should have no need of Christ Jesus. To whom then is this glad tiding brought? To sinners. What, to all sinners? To whom then? To such as believe and repent. This is the first lesson, to know the right way to the Kingdom of Heaven.: and this consists in knowing the difference between the Law and the Gospel. What does the Law require? That we should be without sin. What does the Gospel require? That we should confess our sins, amend our lives, and then through faith in Christ we shall be saved. The Law requires what? Perfect obedience. The Gospel what? Faith and true repentance. (_A Brief Catechetical Exposition of Christian Doctrine_, 1633).


*J.C. Ryle (1816-1900)*. To be unable to see any difference between law and gospel, truth an error, Protestantism and Popery, the doctrine of Christ and the doctrine of man, is a sure proof that we are yet dead in heart, and need conversion. (_Expository Thoughts on John_, 2:198-199).


*J. Gresham Machen (1881-1937).* A new and more powerful proclamation of law is perhaps the most pressing need of the hour; men would have little difficulty with the gospel if they had only learned the lesson of the law. As it is, they are turning aside from the Christian pathway; they are turning to the village of Morality, and to the house of Mr. Legality, who is reported to be very skillful in relieving men of their burdens... 'Making Christ Master' in the life, putting into practice 'the principles of Christ' by one's own efforts-these are merely new ways of earning salvation by one's obedience to God's commands (_What Is Faith?_, 1925).
*
Louis Berkhof (1873-1957).* The Churches of the Reformation from the very beginning distinguished between the law and the gospel as the two parts of the Word of God as a means of grace. This distinction was not understood to be identical with that between the Old and the New Testament, but was regarded as a distinction that applies to both Testaments. There is law and gospel in the Old Testament, and there is law and gospel in the New. The law comprises everything in Scripture which is a revelation of God's will in the form of command or prohibition, while the gospel embraces everything, whether it be in the Old Testament or in the New, that pertains to the work of reconciliation and that proclaims the seeking and redeeming love o God in Christ Jesus (_Systematic Theology_, [Grand Rapids, 4th edn. 1941], 612).


*John Murray (1898-1975)* ...the purity and integrity of the gospel stands or falls with the absoluteness of the antithesis between the function and potency of law, one the one hand, and the function and potency of grace, on the other (_Principles of Conduct: Aspects of Biblical Ethics_ [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957], 186)


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Dr. Clark,
We have more to talk about Dr. Clark. Maybe we should do it outside of here. The quotes you post are partial. Not full. Believe me. I understand running to Christ when my Conscience is against Him. To say the law is opposed to Him is another thing as it is to say the Gospel is opposed to him. Neither are. 


I have brought significant things here. They are being dismissed in my estimation. I think many others would agree.


----------



## SRoper

mvdm said:


> Here is a primer from John Frame which addresses the Lutheranesque dichotmous Law/Gospel hermeneutic and its tie to the so-called "two kingdoms" theology propogated today:
> 
> Law and Gospel



From the article:



> The view that I oppose, which sharply separates the two messages, comes mainly out of Lutheran theology, though similar statements can be found in Calvin and in other Reformed writers.



I'm pretty sure Calvin is considered "Reformed mainstream." I also note that Frame calls this view "the traditional distinction."


----------



## mvdm

Clark wrote:

_"Yes, Frame denies it and he also supports the FV. I rest my case."_

Can a reliable person point us to where Frame denies the law gospel DISTINCTION? 

I doubt Frame would have a problem with any of the historical quotes Clark provided, since they don't address the real objection, i.e the Lutheranesque DICHOTOMY being propogated in the name of a DISTINCTION. {yes, caps are provided to draw attention to the real difference Clark keeps hidden}.


----------



## jwright82

PuritanCovenanter said:


> As I noted above.... It isn't about the third use of the law....(well, it might be in some ways with modern guys) I believe this issue about the law and gospel is still a hotbed issue. It is about the Gospel and soteriology as a whole. Modern Reformed Thought is not Historical as I understand it. It has changed to a more dichotomous view over defining the distinctions between justification, sanctification, and glorification. The emphasis of Reformed Thought over Modern Reformed Thought has been vigorously debated on the board.



I was responding to the OP. Sorry, I guess I should have made that clear.


----------



## mvdm

Here is a helpful excerpt from the Berkhof piece linked above which describes an example of a Luthernanesque dichtomous law/gospel hermenuetic-- which is different from holding them "distinct", yet in sweet harmony with one another as does the WCF:

_Ever since the days of Marcion there have always been some who saw only contrast between the law and the gospel and proceeded on the assumption that the one excluded the other. They based their opinion in part on the rebuke which Paul administered to Peter (Gal. 2:11-14), and partly on the fact that Paul occasionally draws a sharp distinction between the law and the gospel and evidently regards them as contrasts, II Cor. 3:6-11; Gal. 3:2,3.10-14; cf. also John 1:17. They lost sight of the fact that Paul also says that the law served as a tutor to lead men to Christ, Gal. 3:24, and that the Epistle to the Hebrews represents the law, not as standing in antithetical relation to the gospel, but rather as the gospel in its preliminary and imperfect state. _


----------



## mvdm

An important thing for the Reformed is that when the law is viewed "apart from Christ", it is spoken of as opposite of, or dichtomous to, the gospel. But the law "in the hands of Christ" is seen in sweet harmony with the gospel. As John Ball explains:

_The distinction of the Law and Gospel as they are opposed one to another
is clean and evident: but as the Law was given to the Jews it is not
opposite, but subordinate to the Gospel. The Law in itself considered
exacted perfection of works as the cause of life: but when that was
impossible to man by reason of the infirmity of his flesh, it pleased the
Lord to make known to his people by the ministry of Moses, that the Law
was given, not to detain men in confidence of their own works, but to lead
them unto Christ. Whatsoever the Law teaches, whatsoever it promises,
whatsoever it commands, always it has Christ for the scope thereof.
The Law was never given or made positive without the Gospel, neither is
the Gospel now without the Law._~ A Treatise of the Covenant of Grace, p.113-114.


----------



## SRoper

mvdm said:


> Clark wrote:
> 
> _"Yes, Frame denies it and he also supports the FV. I rest my case."_
> 
> Can a reliable person point us to where Frame denies the law gospel DISTINCTION?
> 
> I doubt Frame would have a problem with any of the historical quotes Clark provided, since they don't address the real objection, i.e the Lutheranesque DICHOTOMY being propogated [sic] in the name of a DISTINCTION. {yes, caps are provided to draw attention to the real difference Clark keeps hidden}.



I'm not sure if you consider me a "reliable person" or why a reliable person would be required to supply a citation that anyone could independently verify, but Frame is certainly very confusing on this point. See for example his review of _Christless Christianity_ (emphasis added):



> But as a matter of fact, that separation of law and gospel does not have biblical support. One should ask here, is there anything in Scripture that does not reveal God’s saving purposes? Jesus said that all of Scripture testified of him (Luke 24:25-27, John 5:39). And is there anything in the authoritative scriptures that does not impose a requirement upon us, at least the requirement to believe?* But if the whole Bible can be considered law, and can also be considered gospel, how can law and gospel be separate?*
> 
> Further, the gospel as proclaimed by Jesus and the apostles contains a command, the command to repent and believe (Mark 1:14-15, Acts 2:38-40). The law, on the other hand, is often based on divine deliverance, as in the case of the Decalogue (Ex. 20:2). The law itself is a gift of God’s grace, according to Ps. 119:29.The gospel is the proclamation of the coming kingdom (Isa. 52:7, Matt. 4:17, 23) in which God’s will shall be done on earth as in heaven (Matt. 6:10). It is the announcement that God’s law will prevail. *So the law is good news, gospel. And the gospel is law.*
> 
> To say that law and gospel come together in Scripture, however, is not to diminish the distinction between works and grace as means of salvation. Many have thought that they must separate law and gospel in order to separate works from grace. But the two issues are not parallel. Scripture plainly teaches, “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.” (Eph 2:8-9) This passage speaks of the basis of salvation, not of two different verbal messages.



See also _The Doctrine of the Christian Life_ where on page 182 and following Frame writes (emphasis added):



> One message, "law," supposedly conveys law without grace, while the other, "gospel" conveys grace without law. In my judgment, *it is not possible to make this distinction*, even though Scripture does make a sharp distinction between works and grace.



His language appears to suggest that not only is there no separation of law and gospel, but there is also no distinction. He even says there is no distinction in the messages. It is analogous to saying Christ's human nature is his divine nature and his divine nature is his human nature.


----------



## mvdm

Scott R,

Well, reliable folks typically don't have a history of wrenching historical quotes out of context to suit an agenda. Now I'm not saying this of you, but would caution that from that very article from Frame is a key quote you did not supply:

_"Certainly “law” and “gospel” are not synonymous. I would define the distinction between them pretty much as Horton does. But Horton vacillates in his definitions. Sometimes, as we’ve seen, he regards any expression of God’s moral expectations as law, but other times, he seems to think that “law” must have an additional element: pronouncement of condemnation. "_

This seems a clear affirmation of a law/gospel distinction since they are not "synonymous". His objection is to the shifted meaning of those terms, such that for some the law/gospel end up as always in opposition to each other.


----------



## jetbrane

arap said:


> ... (*That is how is the Lutheran System different from Reformed I know the Reformed standing*). Can someone explain this to me in detail?
> 
> Also how does Westminster in California follow a semi-Lutheran approach that I have heard of?
> 
> Thanks!





arap said:


> ... That is how is the Lutheran System different from Reformed I know the Reformed standing[/B]). Can someone explain this to me in detail?
> 
> Also how does Westminster in California follow a semi-Lutheran approach that I have heard of?
> 
> Thanks!



“Perhaps most striking is the difference in emphasis on justification between Luther and Lutheranism on the hand and Reformed theology on the other. For the former, justification is central to the whole of theology. It is the doctrine by which the church stands or falls. It functions as a kind of critical methodological tool by which any aspect of theology, or theology as a whole is to be judged….However, there is hardly an instance in Reformed theology placing justification in the center. Not that Reformed theology opposed justification by faith alone, or salvation by pure grace. On the contrary, they saw salvation in its entirety as a display of the sovereign and free mercy of God. The explanation lay in the fact that, for Reformed theology, everything took place to advance the glory of God. Thus the chief purpose of theology and of the whole of life was not the rescue of humanity but the glory of God. The focus was theocentric rather than soteriological. Even in the Heidelberg Catechism (1563), where soteriological concerns are more prominent (one of its authors, Zacharias Ursinus [1533-1587] was formerly a Lutheran) the famous first question ‘What is your only comfort in life and death?’ is answered w/ reference to the action of the Trinity, beginning, ‘I am not my own but belong… to my faithful savior Jesus Christ.

Following from this was an attempt by Reformed theology to grasp the unity of creation and redemption. The whole of life was seen in the embrace of God’s revelatory purpose. With the covenant at its heart, the whole of life was to display God’s glory. Naturally, that included at its heart the restoration of sinners to fellowship w/ God. It also entailed, however the reconstitution of both civil and ecclesiastical affairs. Lutheranism, in contrast, showed less developed interest in the application of the gospel to political life and focused more narrowly on soteriology. Possibly this stemmed from Luther enjoying the patronage of his Elector, which freed him from having to safeguard the Reformation in a political sense in quite the same way as his Reformed counterparts. The net result was that while for Lutheranism justification by faith was the heart of theology, for the Reformed theologians it was subordinate to an overarching sense of the centrality of God and his covenant. Yet, for both, the underlying concern for the gratuitous nature of salvation, its objective reality extra nos, was the same."

Robert Letham
The Work of Christ — pg. 189-190

Another way to put the differences between Lutheranism and Reformed worldviews is that for Lutheranism salvation is for man and terminates on man, individually considered while for Reformed thought salvation is for God and serves the terminating end of a renewed cosmos dripping and saturated with God’s glory which all men acknowledge. For Lutheranism the teleology is man atoned for, whereas for Reformed thought the teleology includes but doesn’t end with man atoned for. For Reformed thought the teleology is the atonement as well as all the totality of corresponding and inevitable consequences that the atonement brings upon men who have been atoned for. Atonement for individual men is not the end product of Christ’s work. Atonement is the beginning and creating point of enlisting men into the cause of cosmic renewal for the glory of God. Men are not atoned for and saved for the sake of being atoned for and saved. Men are atoned for and saved to be put on a mission to take captive every thought and take dominion over every crevice of the cosmos to make all thoughts and all crevices obedient to King Christ. In Reformed thought, classical Lutheran thought is provincial and anthropocentric and is far to anthropologically circumscribed.

Straight thinking Reformed folk don’t doubt that real live honest to goodness Lutherans or R2k promoters are part of God’s elect Church. We just think that their theology leaves them developmentally disabled — much like a child who has been cured of a rare disease but while healed remains not yet whole.

Letham, says that the focus of Lutherans is soteriological while the focus of Reformed is theocentric. I think Letham is being diplomatic and kind there. In point of fact both theologies are focused on soteriology. The difference is that that Lutheranism focuses on a soteriology that has a anthropological terminal point whereas Reformed thought focuses on a soteriology that has a theological terminal point.

Clearly, in light of what Letham writes, the Reformed church is being invaded by Lutheran theology body snatchers. Clearly, there has been some cross breeding and pollination that is giving some flavors of the Reformed church a hybrid feel about it.

Let the Reformed church be the Reformed church!


----------



## he beholds

Trying to follow this thread but I'm a little confused. Is this correct:
Law is not grace because it requires works to be fulfilled. YES, the Lord was gracious to give us the Law, so we'd know what those works are and so we'd recognize our failure of said works, but the law itself does not freely give us anything.


----------



## arapahoepark

he beholds said:


> Trying to follow this thread but I'm a little confused. Is this correct:
> Law is not grace because it requires works to be fulfilled. YES, the Lord was gracious to give us the Law, so we'd know what those works are and so we'd recognize our failure of said works, but the law itself does not freely give us anything.


I am also still trying to understand what is being said as well....


----------



## mvdm

This prior PB thread should be helpful, paying particular attention to the explanations provided by Rev. Winzer: 

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


----------



## SRoper

Which is why I said Frame is very confusing. Now my background is more in mathematics, and I only have a rudimentary education in philosophy. I understand that there is ambiguity in the English "A is B." Does it mean "A is in the set of B" or "A is identical to B"? However, there shouldn't be any ambiguity when one says "A is B and B is A." That is asserting an identity. That is denying distinctions. This is what Frame says. "So the law is good news, gospel. And the gospel is law." So how do we reconcile Frame's assertion that we cannot make distinctions (Frame's word) between the messages of law and gospel with the quote you supplied? 

I think you will find in _Doctrine of the Christian Life_ that he explains there exists a distinction between "law and gospel" when what is really meant is "works and grace." Frame doesn't have a problem with this as long as we understand that law and gospel, when used this way, are theological conventions, but not really the way scripture speaks. So when he says law and gospel are not synonymous, I think this is what he is referring to. However, when scripture talks about law and gospel, we can't make distinctions, according to Frame. The difficulty in this passage is that Frame is doing the same thing he accuses Horton of doing--vacillating with his definitions.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## J. Dean

I've brought this up before, but Lutherans accuse evangelicals (including Calvinists) of making self-examination too crucial. They state that (and I think they have a point here if we're not careful) evangelicals still turn salvation into works-righteousness because of the constant "self-examination," which in turn breeds the thinking that one needs to do "X" amount of things more or one should doubt his/her salvation. In essence, they state that one is looking toward one's own righteousness instead of objectively looking to the cross in faith for salvation.

Again, I have to admit that they have a good point about this, and if we're not careful, we can fall into this trap. Even though I would say such an accusation needs to be more specifically directed toward the Arminian camp, self-examination needs to be done in light of the gospel and that the object of our faith is Christ, not our feelings or efforts.


----------



## mvdm

SRoper said:


> Which is why I said Frame is very confusing. Now my background is more in mathematics, and I only have a rudimentary education in philosophy. I understand that there is ambiguity in the English "A is B." Does it mean "A is in the set of B" or "A is identical to B"? However, there shouldn't be any ambiguity when one says "A is B and B is A." That is asserting an identity. That is denying distinctions. This is what Frame says. "So the law is good news, gospel. And the gospel is law." So how do we reconcile Frame's assertion that we cannot make distinctions (Frame's word) between the messages of law and gospel with the quote you supplied?
> 
> I think you will find in _Doctrine of the Christian Life_ that he explains there exists a distinction between "law and gospel" when what is really meant is "works and grace." Frame doesn't have a problem with this as long as we understand that law and gospel, when used this way, are theological conventions, but not really the way scripture speaks. So when he says law and gospel are not synonymous, I think this is what he is referring to. However, when scripture talks about law and gospel, we can't make distinctions, according to Frame. The difficulty in this passage is that Frame is doing the same thing he accuses Horton of doing--vacillating with his definitions.



Scott R,

I really don't intend to engage if this thread is turning into debate over Frame. If you find the prior P.B. link more helpful than Frame because you find him vacillating as he says Horton does, that's fine by me. I simply responded to point out Frame does not deny a distinction as alleged, even if for you he does so in a way you find unhelpful. The O.P asked about the differences of views on law/gospel and where, if at all, WSC fits in the picture and Frame's article was a contribution on that question.

I personally like Bavinck's observation on the question of the difference between Reformed and Lutheran on law/gospel, but don't have the quote at the ready. If I locate it, I will post it. 

Blessings,


----------



## SRoper

That's fine, Mark. While I have issues with the imperative=law, indicative=gospel formulation, I believe Frame's solution is worse. We'll just leave it there--as you said this thread isn't about Frame.

I noticed in the previous PB thread you linked is a citation from Dr. Clark where he speaks of a "gospel imperative" to “believe in Christ and in his finished work.” Do you find this to be a Lutheran formulation of law/gospel?


----------



## mvdm

Rather than just quoting an excerpt, here is a link to the Bavinck piece that is helpful to the O.P.

The Law and the Gospel

Key matter again, is that while there is a *distinction* between law and gospel yet they are inextricably related as reflective of the nature of God and should not as a hermenuetical principle always be viewed as "dichtomous". Yes, in terms of our justification they stand in sharp contrast to each since the sinner cannot be justified by his effort to keep the law. But it doesn't end there. This is where the differences between Reformed and Lutheran creep in that the Lutheran view of law remains focused on soteriology, but the Reformed do not restrict the law as always or exclusively in that condemnatory or first use. 

As for evaluating Clark's formulations, I think it best to demur so this thread doesn't get hijacked on a trail of unraveling his theology.


----------



## SRoper

I'm not sure why you think the thread would be hijacked with such a discussion. The OP asked about WSC and its relation to the Lutheran understanding of Law/Gospel. I would think an evaluation of one WSC professor's formulations is relevant. Do you find the language of "gospel imperative" to be consistent with a Lutheran understanding of the distinction?


----------



## jwright82

PuritanCovenanter said:


> This is a good Read also.....
> 
> It starts off like this.... but is about the same issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Within the last decade a noticeable shift has occurred in certain strains
> of Reformation scholarship that has challenged the traditional understanding
> of Calvin’s theology in signiﬁcant areas. One challenge that has recurred in
> several forms is the attempt to establish something of a realigning of Calvin’s
> doctrines of justiﬁcation and sanctiﬁcation, asserting that the tradition has
> portrayed them too disparately. The alternative proposed by recent scholarship
> is the claim that rather than employing a distinct priority of justiﬁcation
> to sanctiﬁcation akin to that of the Reformed Scholastics, Calvin subsumed
> all his soteriology (and for some indeed his entire theology) under the rubric
> of union with Christ.
> 1
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I really believe that a traditional (Confessional) and biblical form has been challenged.
> 
> 
> I truly recommend reading this...
> http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/50/50-2/JETS_50-2_311-328_Wenger.pdf
Click to expand...


Are you saying that you agree with this quote? Doesn't Calvin begin Book 3 of his _Institutes_ with union with Christ? I'm confused with where you stand. Thanks.


----------



## mvdm

SRoper said:


> I'm not sure why you think the thread would be hijacked with such a discussion. The OP asked about WSC and its relation to the Lutheran understanding of Law/Gospel. I would think an evaluation of one WSC professor's formulations is relevant. Do you find the language of "gospel imperative" to be consistent with a Lutheran understanding of the distinction?



Scott R., not sure why you need my take on Clark's words. You are welcome to weigh in all you like on that particular excerpt from Clark and compare them to the other sources I and others have posted on the issue and draw your own conclusions. Any reader here can do so. 

Understand that in order for me to comment on anything from the pen of Clark, it would require traveling in different directions to put his formulation *in context*, i.e, there are a wider range of issues that have interrelated tentacles that reach farther than just looking at "law/gospel". The same words don't necessarily mean the same thing to different people. I am not inclined to turn this particular thread into that broader picture, and I would just ask that you respect that. My guess is the moderators will be grateful as well.


----------



## SRoper

Fair enough, although I am bit confused as you already tried to bring in some sort of connection to Two Kingdoms into this thread. As for my assessment, I find Clark's formulation to be far more consistent with the Reformed understanding of Law/Gospel. I don't see Lutherans using the language of "gospel imperative," but I admit I am not particularly well versed in Lutheranism. It seems that the accusation that WSC is Lutheran when it comes to Law/Gospel is not well founded.


----------



## mvdm

SRoper said:


> Fair enough, although I am bit confused as you already tried to bring in some sort of connection to Two Kingdoms into this thread. As for my assessment, I find Clark's formulation to be far more consistent with the Reformed understanding of Law/Gospel. I don't see Lutherans using the language of "gospel imperative," but I admit I am not particularly well versed in Lutheranism. It seems that the accusation that WSC is Lutheran when it comes to Law/Gospel is not well founded.




Not sure why that is confusing. Surely you know Lutherans are known for their two kingdoms theology. The "R2kt" version being promoted today is just one of those permutations of a law/gospel *dichotomy* being mapped neatly onto the kingdoms. There are many other articles on the P.B. {and elsewhere } dealing with that particular issue. As for the "WSC is Lutheran" charge, I agree it is probably too simplistic, and may not be entirely fair to the Lutherans.


----------



## SRoper

My confusion comes from the fact that you said that you did not want to drag other issues into this thread, but you did this exact thing earlier. Two kingdoms was not the topic of the thread.

I am finished on this thread unless a new avenue of discussion opens up. Feel free to reply.


----------



## mvdm

SRoper said:


> My confusion comes from the fact that you said that you did not want to drag other issues into this thread, but you did this exact thing earlier. Two kingdoms was not the topic of the thread.
> 
> I am finished on this thread unless a new avenue of discussion opens up. Feel free to reply.



No, I didn't want to evaluate *Clark's* statement which, given the source, would require a long untangling of theological issues beyond the thread. On the other hand, the so-called "two kingdoms" theology is a closely related and prominent outworking of the law/gospel dichtomy {not just "distinction"} that has roots in Lutheran theology, which is why that was mentioned.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

jwright82 said:


> Are you saying that you agree with this quote? Doesn't Calvin begin Book 3 of his Institutes with union with Christ? I'm confused with where you stand. Thanks.





R. Scott Clark said:


> As to the Wenger article, I agree with it entirely! He wrote that material originally as part of an MA thesis *he wrote for me* at *WSC*!



Did you read the article? I admit... I don't read every link here. *This is Dr. Clark's view. It is not mine*. I agree with things in the article but disagree with Dr. R. Scott Clark and Wenger. A lot!!!!!

*Modern Reformed Thought is not Reformational nor is it what Reformed people think. *That is why they make a new attributions and call it 'The New Perspective on Calvin'. It is a modern media techniche. I took Communications in College. Say it loud enough.... Long Enough....
*Modern Reformed Thought is not necessarily Reformed. * 

I disagree with Wenger here. Clark's disciple..... But it is what the Modern Reformed Thought does in my estimation.


> iii. exegetical criticism
> I said earlier that in addition to problematic historiography, the NPC
> utilizes erratic readings of Calvin to establish its case. As all too frequently
> happens in debates of this sort, each side can seemingly “out-prooftext” the
> other, often leading to futile stalemates. So my goal is not merely to provide
> contrary quotations, but rather to show that the way in which the NPC selects
> its evidence from Calvin is just as ﬂawed as its historiography and that it
> proceeds to a large degree from it. Rather than a proper exegesis of Calvin,
> the NPC frequently culls quotations from various and sundry locations in his
> work and then arranges them without proper concern for their original proximity.
> In addition, its proponents often give less than objective interpretations to his
> words which do not do justice to his actual position.



Read Marcus Johnson.
http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/51/51-3/JETS 51-3 543-558 Johnson.pdf

I really liked Marcus Johnson's response to Wenger who is a Moody Professor I believe. LOL. Wow, a Dispensationsalionalist School Prof. gets it over a Modern Reformed Prof. It is quite puzzling. 


> NEW OR NUANCED PERSPECTIVE ON CALVIN?
> A REPLY TO THOMAS WENGER
> marcus johnson*
> 
> ...The primary evidence Wenger presents for these claims is Calvin’s refutation
> of Osiander in Book 3 of the Institutes. Having already warned his
> readers of the problem of “erratic readings” and “proof-texting,” I am a bit
> surprised that Wenger chose the dispute with Osiander to prove his point.
> As the texts that Wenger selected show quite clearly, Calvin’s problem with
> Osiander was that his understanding of justiﬁcation destroyed the foundation
> for the believer’s assurance of salvation. By asserting that Christ is our
> righteousness according to his divine nature—in a “mixing of essences—
> Osiander construes justiﬁcation as both forgiveness and renewal unto holiness.
> 36
> Osiander’s understanding of union with Christ resulted in a commingling of
> justiﬁcation and sanctiﬁcation which Calvin ﬂatly rejected.
> 37
> Calvin’s concern with Osiander is not that he has inseparably bound together
> justiﬁcation and sanctiﬁcation;
> 38
> Calvin’s concern is that Osiander has included sanctiﬁcation within justiﬁcation
> and thus destroyed the foundation
> on which a believer’s assurance rests. The assurance of one’s reconciliation
> with God, the peace that quiets the soul, is grounded in justiﬁcation, not in
> one’s inherent holiness (sanctiﬁcation).
> 39
> Thus, Calvin’s point is not thatsanctiﬁcation must be grounded in justiﬁcation,
> but that the assurance of salvation must be grounded in justiﬁcation.
> As Calvin stated repeatedly, justiﬁcation and sanctiﬁcation are beneﬁts
> that are to be distinguished but never separated (distinctio sed non separatio).
> In this respect, the importance of 1 Cor 1:30 for Calvin could hardly be over-
> stressed as a paradigm for understanding the relationship between the two
> beneﬁts.
> 40
> From this also, we infer, that we cannot be justiﬁed freely through faith alone
> without at the same time living holily. For these fruits of grace are connected
> together, as it were, by an indissoluble tie, so that he who attempts to sever
> them does in a manner tear Christ in pieces. Let therefore the man who seeks
> to be justiﬁed through Christ, by God’s unmerited goodness, consider that this
> cannot be attained without his taking him at the same time for sanctiﬁcation
> or, in other words, being renewed to innocence and purity of life.
> 41
> The “indissoluble bond” by which justiﬁcation and sanctiﬁcation are connected
> is Christ himself. To sever these beneﬁts is to “tear Christ in pieces.”
> Sanctiﬁcation, as much as justiﬁcation, proceeds from the person of Christ
> who is grasped in faith. Justiﬁcation no more “grounds” sanctiﬁcation than
> sanctiﬁcation grounds justiﬁcation: both are grounded in, and proceed from,
> the believer’s union with Christ:
> Why, then, are we justiﬁed by faith? Because by faith we grasp Christ’s righteousness,
> by which alone we are reconciled to God. Yet you could not grasp
> this without at the same time grasping sanctiﬁcation also. For he ‘is given
> unto us for righteousness, wisdom, sanctiﬁcation, and redemption’ (I Cor.1:30).
> Therefore Christ justiﬁes no one whom he does not sanctify. These beneﬁts are
> joined together by an everlasting and indissoluble bond, so that those whom he
> illumines by his wisdom, he redeems; those whom he redeems, he justiﬁes; those
> whom he justiﬁes, he sanctiﬁes. . . . Although we may distinguish them, Christ
> contains both of them inseparably in himself. Do you wish, then, to attain
> righteousness in Christ? You must ﬁrst possess Christ; but you cannot possess him
> without being made partaker in his sanctiﬁcation, because he cannot be divided
> into pieces (I Cor.1:13). Since, therefore, it is solely by expending himself that
> the Lord gives us these beneﬁts to enjoy. He bestows both of them at the same
> time, the one never without the other.
> 42


Wenger was a Student or what of Clark? Evidently he got it wrong maybe.

http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/51/51-3/JETS 51-3 543-558 Johnson.pdf

We have big differences Houston ( in reference to the Space Program having Problems).... Union in Christ is a major one. It has confused a lot of people because of nuances and language. I don't believe *Modern Reformed Thought* has it nailed down.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

New Perspective on Calvin vs. Modern Reformed Thought. Let the reality begin. NPC is a misclassification in my estimation as defined by Wenger. Modern Reformed Thought is my terminology of what is going on by Wenger and others. It isn't Reformed nor Reformed historically. I will bow out and let you guys decide for now. I believe my classification is correct. I am not an autonomous being either like they don't claim to be. I do not believe their title of New Perspective on Calvin is Correct the way Wenger defines it. But it is sticking because of an article and a wrong misconception and poor publication of such thought... NPC vs. MRT....


----------



## Beau Michel

The German Reformed Church and the Heidelberg Catechism are the closest among the Reformed tradition to Luther"s thought(as opposed to Lutheran).Luther read Calvin's Institutes with great pleasure.It is the followers of Luther and Calvin that have become hostile to each other.Calvinistic and Lutheran "Orthodoxy" both departed from the theology of Calvin and Luther.The Synod of Dort and Westminster both departed from Calvin on several points,as did the Lutheran Confessions from Luther.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Beau Michel said:


> The German Reformed Church and the Heidelberg Catechism are the closest among the Reformed tradition to Luther"s thought(as opposed to Lutheran).Luther read Calvin's Institutes with great pleasure.It is the followers of Luther and Calvin that have become hostile to each other.Calvinistic and Lutheran "Orthodoxy" both departed from the theology of Calvin and Luther.The Synod of Dort and Westminster both departed from Calvin on several points,as did the Lutheran Confessions from Luther.



This is very interesting as a Charge somewhat. I agree with your assessment but you have supplied no reference and just inference. Either way. Theology and Biblical systematics where working themselves out in their times. I agree that modern day Calvinists (MRT) don't know Calvin and modern day Lutheran's (Melancthians) don't know Luther. Where do they depart from the Scriptures or Redemptive History? Can you show where these two traditions have missed the point historically (and each other) and biblically? Were have they lost their moorings.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

SRoper said:


> My confusion comes from the fact that you said that you did not want to drag other issues into this thread, but you did this exact thing earlier. Two kingdoms was not the topic of the thread.
> 
> I am finished on this thread unless a new avenue of discussion opens up. Feel free to reply.



I dragged this issue of R2K in Scott. I also believe that this is part of the problem. It is only symptomatic of another issue and misinterpretation... "Dichotomy of Law and Grace." The problem with the views of Two Kingdom's is... which view we are going to hold to? So it is the same on law and grace. There are different views of Republication {law and grace} as there are of Two Kingdom's. No I am not speaking of Domion stuff when it comes to the two Kingdoms views. Just to ease your mind if you know the differences. I am not a Theonomist. As an example read the link below on Republication. The old views are not the same as the new in my estimation. Yes, the law was rewritten but not not as a Covenant of Works. 

http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/puritancovenanter/wcf-republication-769/


----------



## arapahoepark

Wow! By starting this thread I really opened a can of worms....(I still don't quite understand the debate)


----------



## moral necessity

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Calvin’s problem with
> Osiander was that his understanding of justiﬁcation destroyed the foundation
> for the believer’s assurance of salvation. Calvin’s concern with Osiander is not that he has inseparably bound together
> justiﬁcation and sanctiﬁcation;...
> ...
> 38
> Calvin’s concern is that Osiander has included sanctiﬁcation within justiﬁcation
> and thus destroyed the foundation
> on which a believer’s assurance rests. The assurance of one’s reconciliation
> with God, the peace that quiets the soul, is grounded in justiﬁcation, not in
> one’s inherent holiness (sanctiﬁcation)...
> ...
> 39
> Thus, Calvin’s point is not thatsanctiﬁcation must be grounded in justiﬁcation,
> but that the assurance of salvation must be grounded in justiﬁcation.
> As Calvin stated repeatedly, justiﬁcation and sanctiﬁcation are beneﬁts
> that are to be distinguished but never separated (distinctio sed non separatio).



Good quotes from Marcus Johnson, Randy!

I can fellowship with less of a dichotomy, as long as it's maintained with Calvin, as said above, that "assurance is grounded in justification."
It's when they remove its ground over to sanctification that I cringe at.

Blessings!


----------



## jwright82

PuritanCovenanter said:


> jwright82 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that you agree with this quote? Doesn't Calvin begin Book 3 of his Institutes with union with Christ? I'm confused with where you stand. Thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> R. Scott Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> As to the Wenger article, I agree with it entirely! He wrote that material originally as part of an MA thesis *he wrote for me* at *WSC*!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you read the article? I admit... I don't read every link here. *This is Dr. Clark's view. It is not mine*. I agree with things in the article but disagree with Dr. R. Scott Clark and Wenger. A lot!!!!!
> 
> *Modern Reformed Thought is not Reformational nor is it what Reformed people think. *That is why they make a new attributions and call it 'The New Perspective on Calvin'. It is a modern media techniche. I took Communications in College. Say it loud enough.... Long Enough....
> *Modern Reformed Thought is not necessarily Reformed. *
> 
> I disagree with Wenger here. Clark's disciple..... But it is what the Modern Reformed Thought does in my estimation.
> 
> 
> 
> iii. exegetical criticism
> I said earlier that in addition to problematic historiography, the NPC
> utilizes erratic readings of Calvin to establish its case. As all too frequently
> happens in debates of this sort, each side can seemingly “out-prooftext” the
> other, often leading to futile stalemates. So my goal is not merely to provide
> contrary quotations, but rather to show that the way in which the NPC selects
> its evidence from Calvin is just as ﬂawed as its historiography and that it
> proceeds to a large degree from it. Rather than a proper exegesis of Calvin,
> the NPC frequently culls quotations from various and sundry locations in his
> work and then arranges them without proper concern for their original proximity.
> In addition, its proponents often give less than objective interpretations to his
> words which do not do justice to his actual position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read Marcus Johnson.
> http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/51/51-3/JETS 51-3 543-558 Johnson.pdf
> 
> I really liked Marcus Johnson's response to Wenger who is a Moody Professor I believe. LOL. Wow, a Dispensationsalionalist School Prof. gets it over a Modern Reformed Prof. It is quite puzzling.
> 
> 
> 
> NEW OR NUANCED PERSPECTIVE ON CALVIN?
> A REPLY TO THOMAS WENGER
> marcus johnson*
> 
> ...The primary evidence Wenger presents for these claims is Calvin’s refutation
> of Osiander in Book 3 of the Institutes. Having already warned his
> readers of the problem of “erratic readings” and “proof-texting,” I am a bit
> surprised that Wenger chose the dispute with Osiander to prove his point.
> As the texts that Wenger selected show quite clearly, Calvin’s problem with
> Osiander was that his understanding of justiﬁcation destroyed the foundation
> for the believer’s assurance of salvation. By asserting that Christ is our
> righteousness according to his divine nature—in a “mixing of essences—
> Osiander construes justiﬁcation as both forgiveness and renewal unto holiness.
> 36
> Osiander’s understanding of union with Christ resulted in a commingling of
> justiﬁcation and sanctiﬁcation which Calvin ﬂatly rejected.
> 37
> Calvin’s concern with Osiander is not that he has inseparably bound together
> justiﬁcation and sanctiﬁcation;
> 38
> Calvin’s concern is that Osiander has included sanctiﬁcation within justiﬁcation
> and thus destroyed the foundation
> on which a believer’s assurance rests. The assurance of one’s reconciliation
> with God, the peace that quiets the soul, is grounded in justiﬁcation, not in
> one’s inherent holiness (sanctiﬁcation).
> 39
> Thus, Calvin’s point is not thatsanctiﬁcation must be grounded in justiﬁcation,
> but that the assurance of salvation must be grounded in justiﬁcation.
> As Calvin stated repeatedly, justiﬁcation and sanctiﬁcation are beneﬁts
> that are to be distinguished but never separated (distinctio sed non separatio).
> In this respect, the importance of 1 Cor 1:30 for Calvin could hardly be over-
> stressed as a paradigm for understanding the relationship between the two
> beneﬁts.
> 40
> From this also, we infer, that we cannot be justiﬁed freely through faith alone
> without at the same time living holily. For these fruits of grace are connected
> together, as it were, by an indissoluble tie, so that he who attempts to sever
> them does in a manner tear Christ in pieces. Let therefore the man who seeks
> to be justiﬁed through Christ, by God’s unmerited goodness, consider that this
> cannot be attained without his taking him at the same time for sanctiﬁcation
> or, in other words, being renewed to innocence and purity of life.
> 41
> The “indissoluble bond” by which justiﬁcation and sanctiﬁcation are connected
> is Christ himself. To sever these beneﬁts is to “tear Christ in pieces.”
> Sanctiﬁcation, as much as justiﬁcation, proceeds from the person of Christ
> who is grasped in faith. Justiﬁcation no more “grounds” sanctiﬁcation than
> sanctiﬁcation grounds justiﬁcation: both are grounded in, and proceed from,
> the believer’s union with Christ:
> Why, then, are we justiﬁed by faith? Because by faith we grasp Christ’s righteousness,
> by which alone we are reconciled to God. Yet you could not grasp
> this without at the same time grasping sanctiﬁcation also. For he ‘is given
> unto us for righteousness, wisdom, sanctiﬁcation, and redemption’ (I Cor.1:30).
> Therefore Christ justiﬁes no one whom he does not sanctify. These beneﬁts are
> joined together by an everlasting and indissoluble bond, so that those whom he
> illumines by his wisdom, he redeems; those whom he redeems, he justiﬁes; those
> whom he justiﬁes, he sanctiﬁes. . . . Although we may distinguish them, Christ
> contains both of them inseparably in himself. Do you wish, then, to attain
> righteousness in Christ? You must ﬁrst possess Christ; but you cannot possess him
> without being made partaker in his sanctiﬁcation, because he cannot be divided
> into pieces (I Cor.1:13). Since, therefore, it is solely by expending himself that
> the Lord gives us these beneﬁts to enjoy. He bestows both of them at the same
> time, the one never without the other.
> 42
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wenger was a Student or what of Clark? Evidently he got it wrong maybe.
> 
> http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/51/51-3/JETS 51-3 543-558 Johnson.pdf
> 
> We have big differences Houston ( in reference to the Space Program having Problems).... Union in Christ is a major one. It has confused a lot of people because of nuances and language. I don't believe *Modern Reformed Thought* has it nailed down.
Click to expand...


Well I read it and I thought it was wrong, as far as I understood it. I am no expert but the people he had in mind to criticize made more sense to me. But this thread isn't about union with Christ so I'll leave it at that.


----------

