Books on the Reformed View of the Law

Status
Not open for further replies.

dsanch1120

Puritan Board Freshman
What are some good resources on the Covenant Theology view of the law?
Some of the pastors at my church have been preaching on the law from a New Covenant Theology perspective, and while I disagree with what was taught the last few Sundays, it also made me recognize that I need to learn more about law as a whole.
I’ve read Calvin’s chapters in Institutes (which convinced me of the reformed view to begin with) as well as the sections in the reformed confessions. I’m specifically curious about the threefold division of the law, what Paul means when he describes the law as a “curse” or “ministry of death,” and what the author of Hebrews means when he describes a “change in the law.”
 
Voetius and Gomarus's disputations on the law and the gospel (in Latin).
John Flavel, A Blow at the Root of Antinomianism
Samuel Rutherford, Christ Dying and Drawing Sinners to Himself
Anthony Burgess, Vindiciae Legis
It's hard to go wrong with the classic writers and the puritans, as long as one avoids the neonomians (Baxter) and antinomians (Crispe, Eaton, Towne). The Marrow of Modern Divinity also has some statements that presbyterian and reformed writers of the day would have disagreed with.
Today, however, there is a lot to avoid on the matter of the law, not the least of which is the stuff coming out of Westminster California, like Horton, who has claimed that the covenant of grace is a "royal grant" imposing no conditions or requirements on its members, and at another time that gay civil unions are A-OK.
 
I echo John Colquhoun, A treatise of the law and the gospel. This is the most accessible gold standard.

The classic puritan work I again echo is Anthony Burgess, Vindiciae Legis.

The Puritan Francis Roberts is excellent on the Mosaic Covenant: https://www.ruinandredemption.com/_files/ugd/be37d2_cd119f962b9945eca47495add77e11a1.pdf

Here is the OPC report: https://www.ruinandredemption.com/_files/ugd/be37d2_2170886973b84ff79cbcf3ee9a9f3557.pdf

This is a summary of the mainline westminster confessional view of the law from various puritans: https://www.ruinandredemption.com/_files/ugd/be37d2_b779a7e4020f4abe8b1d881424b05e9b.pdf

If you're looking for a (comparatively) concise summary, I would recommend and start with this: https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/be37d2_b6202bc560e84d53b8374deab29d3d5f.pdf
 
Today, however, there is a lot to avoid on the matter of the law, not the least of which is the stuff coming out of Westminster California, like Horton, who has claimed that the covenant of grace is a "royal grant" imposing no conditions or requirements on its members, and at another time that gay civil unions are A-OK.
Are you implying antinomianism out of WSC? Does Horton, et al., not teach the third use of the law and placing good works/obedience in its proper context within the CoG?
 
Are you implying antinomianism out of WSC? Does Horton, et al., not teach the third use of the law and placing good works/obedience in its proper context within the CoG?
I think I'm being more direct than simply implying. I think Horton et al de-emphasize the law and its uses in important ways.
In particular, I think it's wrong to say, as Horton does that "the law is imperative and the gospel is declarative." This means that the gospel does not require any duties of us, which is wrong. It requires that we "repent and believe." And I think it's wrong that the covenant of grace is "a royal grant," with no conditions required of men who covenant with God. And I think their radical two kingdoms theology is essentially a denial of the second use of the law. How else do you arrive at the conclusion that gay civil unions are fine, except by banning God's law from the civil sphere?
 
I think I'm being more direct than simply implying. I think Horton et al de-emphasize the law and its uses in important ways.
In particular, I think it's wrong to say, as Horton does that "the law is imperative and the gospel is declarative." This means that the gospel does not require any duties of us, which is wrong. It requires that we "repent and believe." And I think it's wrong that the covenant of grace is "a royal grant," with no conditions required of men who covenant with God. And I think their radical two kingdoms theology is essentially a denial of the second use of the law. How else do you arrive at the conclusion that gay civil unions are fine, except by banning God's law from the civil sphere?
We’ll go with your preferred verbiage.

I’ll start another thread to not derail this one to explore the seeming leaps in logic.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top