Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Objection. There is no precept, or commandment belonging to the gospel, but to the law. The preaching of repentance is a precept. Therefore the preaching of repentance does not belong to the gospel, but to the law.
Answer. We deny the major, if it is taken generally; for this precept is peculiar to the gospel, which commands us to believe, to embrace the benefits of Christ, and to commence new obedience, or that righteousness which the law requires. If it be objected that the law also commands us to believe in God, we reply that it does this only in general, by requiring us to give credit to all the divine promises, precepts and denunciations, and that with a threatening of punishment, unless we do it. But the gospel commands us expressly and particularly to embrace, by faith, the promise of grace; and also exhorts us by the Holy Spirit, and by the Word, to walk worthy of our heavenly calling. This however it does only in general, not specifying any duty in particular, saying thou shalt do this, or that, but it leaves this to the law; as, on the contrary, it does not say in general, believe all the promises of God, leaving this to the law; but it says in particular, Believe this promise; fly to Christ, and thy sins shall be forgiven thee.
In effect, it seems to me, that he has redefined "law," in connection with the gospel as a special case in order to make his argument. In other words, he had to equivocate on "law," to make it work out.but it says in particular, Believe this promise; fly to Christ, and thy sins shall be forgiven thee.
I do, however, take exception to your claim that to speak as I do is antinomian. The adjective antinomian needs to be used very carefully. After all, the FV (and the papists!) call me antinomian for not building sanctity into faith or into the ground of justification.The idea that imperatives are law was an Antinomian notion, not reformed.
4. The gospel (saith he) persuades rather than commands. But, say we, it both commands (as the law doth), and with a more strong obligation of the constraining love of Christ, beside the authority of the Lawgiver, and also persuadeth; so here be no differences at all; for Christ hath not redeemed us from the curse of the law, to free us from active obedience by his grace to the law, that we should be sons of Belial, from under all yoke, but that with a stronger tie, we should live in holiness and righteousness to him who died for us.
Objection. O then (saith Towne) I am sure if we be faster tied to the obedience of the law than before, we have no help by Christ, but rather he hath made our case more miserable – why do you unloose the cords, and abate so much of the rigour of the law.
Answer 1. Miserable be they, with Herod and Pilate, who call it a miserable case, that Christ’s silken cords of love, and ties of free gospel-bands, oiled and sweetened with the love of Christ, renders us no help, but makes our yoke and law-chains heavier. It is happiness, not misery, and sweetest liberty to serve God. But to Antinomians, Puritanical walking, and strict adhering to the law of God, as a rule of righteousness, sweetened and perfumed with gospel-grace, to perform any personal obedience (they lay all on imputative mortification abused, not rightly expounded) to God is bondage.
Answer 2. The rigour of the law is not in commanding holiness, the law then should be unjust, but in that it now obligeth us to obedience under a curse, when we are utterly unable to obey; but Christ abateth the rigour of the law, in that, (1.) He removeth the curse, which Towne seemeth to esteem a poore courtesy Christ hath done us. (2.) Giveth grace to obey. (3.) Pardoneth in Christ’s blood the sinful defects of obedience. (4.) Justifieth us not by law (that door to heaven is shut, never to be opened to sinners), but by faith (which is his own gift), laying hold on the righteousness of Christ freely, and of only pure grace imputed to us.
HOLINESS NECESSARY FROM THE COMMANDS OF GOD.
Necessity of holiness proved from the commands of God in the law and the gospel.
III. WE have evinced the necessity of holiness from the nature and the decrees of God; our next argument shall be taken from his word or commands, as the nature and order of these things do require. And in this case it is needless to produce instances of God’s commands that we should be holy; it is the concurrent voice of the law and gospel. Our apostle sums up the whole matter, 1 Thess. 4:1-3, “We exhort you, that as ye have received of us how ye ought to walk and to please God, so ye would abound more and more. For ye know what commandments we gave you by the Lord Jesus. For this is the will of God, even your sanctification,” or holiness; whereunto he adds one especial instance. This is that which the commandments of Christ require, yea, this is the sum of the whole commanding will of God.
It must be granted, therefore, that the end of gospel commands, requiring the obedience of holiness in us, is not that thereby or thereon we should be justified. God hath therein provided another righteousness for that end, which fully, perfectly, absolutely answers all that the law requires, and on some considerations is far more glorious than what the law either did or could require. And hereby hath he exalted more than ever the honour of his own holiness and righteousness, whereof the external instrument is the gospel; which is also, therefore, most holy. Now, this is no other but the righteousness of Christ imputed unto us; for “he is the end of the law for righteousness unto them that do believe,” Rom. 10:4. But God hath now appointed other ends unto our holiness, and so unto his command of it, under the gospel, all of them consistent with the nature of that obedience which he will accept of us, and such as we may attain through the power of grace; and so all of them offering new encouragements, as well as enforcements, unto our endeavours after it. But because these ends will be the subject of most of our ensuing arguments, I shall not here insist upon them. I shall only add two things in general:— [1.] That God hath no design for his own glory in us or by us, in this world or unto eternity — that there is no especial communion that we can have with him by Jesus Christ, nor any capacity for us to enjoy him — but holiness is necessary unto it, as a means unto its end. [2.] These present ends of it under the gospel are such as that God doth no less indispensably require it of us now than he did when our justification was proposed as the end of it. They are such, in brief, as God upon the account of them judgeth meet to command us to be holy in all manner of holiness; which what obligation and necessity it puts upon us so to be, we are now to inquire.
Prof. Clark,
If it were merely a matter of disagreeing with Ursinus over an equivocation, then I would not be concerned with your redefinition of the law and gospel contrast; but Ursinus explicitly rejects your premise that command equals law in contrast to gospel.
As for Perkins, he says the law promises, whereas you say the law only commands and the gospel only promises. The WCF also says the law promises (19:6): "The promises of it, in like manner, show them God's approbation of obedience, and what blessings they may expect upon the performance thereof."
There are different ways of expressing the third use of the law, and if one chooses another way to express the same thing that is fine. But when all doing is defined as law in contrast with gospel, such manner of speaking has been rejected as Antinomian by reformed divines, and rejected because it undermines the third use of the law. (Please read Samuel Rutherford's Spiritual Antichrist.) Why did they do so? Because Christians do not obey the law as law, but as grace, Titus 2:11-12. (Thomas Manton's sermons on this passage are highly recommended.) Hence the WCF states (19:6): "So as, a man's doing good, and refraining from evil, because the law encourageth to the one, and deterreth from the other, is no evidence of his being under the law; and not under grace."
Isn't the law part of the Covenant of Grace? This is causing me some confusion - how am I to take the imperatives in the NT, in the Epistles of Paul, for example? It's all well and good (and necessary) to say that Jesus kept that for me, but I'm still being told to do it. But I have this problem...
Dr. Clark,
I once heard someone say (or write) that the Law was also "graceful" because at least in this God's case, He was letting His subjects know what was expected and wanted from them. ...Is there any merit to this argument?
Is this article by Karlberg any good?
http://www.apuritansmind.com/covena...on-of-the-mosaic-covenant-by-mark-w-karlberg/