Reformed vs. Lutheran

[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]

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]

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]

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]

... (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!

... 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]

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.

 

[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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

 

[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.