Five Views on Law and Gospel

[GenRev1611]

Some time in the near future, I plan on getting a book by the same title as the name of this thread. I'm just curious as what the basic jist of the differing views are? In the past few years, I was exposed to the Lutheran perspective on this distinction, and my life has radically changed, I used to think very harsh thoughts about how God saw me and this doctrine turned my world upside down. This is in fact what brought me to Reformed circles. As you can see from my avatar. Can anyone send me links or expound to me the differing views and why any of you would hold to the view you hold to.

Thank You.

 

[Pilgrim]

I saw this book recently and have thought about getting it.

 

[RamistThomist]

Doug Moo does the Lutheran view, but from what I heard it isn't exactly classical Lutheran on Law/Gospel.

VanGemeren does the "traditional" Reformed view. It's okay, I guess.

Bahnsen does the theonomic Reformed view. His essay is well-written and cogent, but his best performance is his critique of VanGemeren.

Walter Kaiser does a modified theonomic view (my words). Kaiser has probably the best position, in my opinion. He takes the view that the Law is helpful in the life of the believer in giving guidance, not merely in showing sin (that's included, too). In fact, so good was Kaiser's essay that he is one of the few people who forced Bahnsen to modify his position.

I forgot who did the dispensational view.

I read about 3/4 of the book.

 

[Pilgrim]

Doug Moo does the Lutheran view, but from what I heard it isn't exactly classical Lutheran on Law/Gospel.

VanGemeren does the "traditional" Reformed view. It's okay, I guess.

Bahnsen does the theonomic Reformed view. His essay is well-written and cogent, but his best performance is his critique of VanGemeren.

Walter Kaiser does a modified theonomic view (my words). Kaiser has probably the best position, in my opinion. He takes the view that the Law is helpful in the life of the believer in giving guidance, not merely in showing sin (that's included, too). In fact, so good was Kaiser's essay that he is one of the few people who forced Bahnsen to modify his position.

I forgot who did the dispensational view.

I read about 3/4 of the book.

Douglas Moo and Wayne Strickland are the other contributors. One review on Amazon criticizes the book because it doesn't have a true Lutheran view represented.

This book came out in 1996 so I'm thinking it may be one of the last things Bahnsen wrote.

 

[GenRev1611]

I hope to get that book soon as I can. I'd love to see the differing views. There are views that seem antinomian that suggest that the Law is not binding at all to Christians. They insist that the Law was binding to Jews in that I'm sure that certain elements of the Law were binding to Israel, but I can't quite understand why the Ten Commandments would be only binding to Jews when the Lord seemed to have bound the Law to Gentiles as well. I can't think of the passages now.