I much appreciate his meditation on Ps. 119. His explanation of knowledge consisting in generals and practice in particulars is very helpful for understanding Puritan practical divinity:
Law and Gospel by John M. Frame
- Thread starter AV1611
- Start date
- Status
I much appreciate his meditation on Ps. 119. His explanation of knowledge consisting in generals and practice in particulars is very helpful for understanding Puritan practical divinity:
Hello. It is good to have you back. You were missed, brother.
Yes, there is difference between the Lutheran and Reformed view of law/gospel, but how significant is it? I have worshipped in Lutheran Churches (MO Synod only) and always liked how their liturgy emphasised the law and gospel. Timothy Wengert has a great book entitled Law and Gospel where he shows how Melanchthon developed the law/gospel distinction. It appears that this distinction was a later developement within Lutheranism.
Great quote and point! Where can this be found? Is it in his collected writings?
dannyhyde
Puritan Board Sophomore
Back to the original question, this is no surprise coming from the professor who taught us in class: "All the Law is Gospel and all the Gospel is Law."
He's a philosopher by training who should have made a good career doing philosophy and apologetics, but all too often involves himself in discussions of which he has no knowledge.
Thank you for the clarification. Others have made that same statement, "All the law is gospel and all the gospel is law."
Casey
Puritan Board Junior
Rev. Hyde,
I only read the article once, but I didn't see Frame saying "All the Law is Gospel and all the Gospel is Law" (I know you said you heard that in class, not necessarily the article). To be honest, I found little to quibble with in this article, and generally agreed with the sentiments expressed. Could you explain what you believe is erroneous in this article?
Thanks.
R. Scott Clark
Puritan Board Senior
I have great respect for Timothy Wengert's work. Nevertheless, there is considerable evidence in Luther between 1513-19 that he was beginning to work out this distinction before Melanchthon had great influence on his hermeneutic. No doubt there was mutual interchange and influence, but drawing clear lines in such investigations, esp. when the development of L's theology in that period was so fluid, is difficult.
As to covenant theology and law and gospel, I wrote a book on Olevianus, part of the burden of which, was to argue that the Reformed adopted and adapted covenant theology to express essentially the same L/G distinction as found in L and M. Olevianus had no idea that he was advocating an utterly distinct view of L/G over against Luther or Melanchthon. Neither did Calvin. The sharp lines we draw between Lutheran and Reformed were forming in this period but they were still fluid and they frequently used the adjective "evangelical" to encompass L, M, C, and Bucer among many others.
In the confessional period things became clear and lines harder, but even so I doubt that the L/G hermeneutic in the Book of Concord or in Lutheran orthodoxy is fundamentally different from that which one finds in Reformed orthodoxy.
I don't dispute that there are differences, but if anyone says that the Reformed don't say that "do" is law and "done" is gospel, I say that one doesn't know the sources or the history of the doctrine.
I thought this dragon was slain during the FV controversy. Do we have to do it all over again? Do all the quotations from Beza, Ursinus, Perkins et al mean nothing?
Didn't we analyze Frame's essay years ago on the PB?
As to covenant theology and law and gospel, I wrote a book on Olevianus, part of the burden of which, was to argue that the Reformed adopted and adapted covenant theology to express essentially the same L/G distinction as found in L and M. Olevianus had no idea that he was advocating an utterly distinct view of L/G over against Luther or Melanchthon. Neither did Calvin. The sharp lines we draw between Lutheran and Reformed were forming in this period but they were still fluid and they frequently used the adjective "evangelical" to encompass L, M, C, and Bucer among many others.
In the confessional period things became clear and lines harder, but even so I doubt that the L/G hermeneutic in the Book of Concord or in Lutheran orthodoxy is fundamentally different from that which one finds in Reformed orthodoxy.
I don't dispute that there are differences, but if anyone says that the Reformed don't say that "do" is law and "done" is gospel, I say that one doesn't know the sources or the history of the doctrine.
I thought this dragon was slain during the FV controversy. Do we have to do it all over again? Do all the quotations from Beza, Ursinus, Perkins et al mean nothing?
Didn't we analyze Frame's essay years ago on the PB?
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
That is in his Works, in the meditations on Ps. 119, under the verse cited. I'm surprised the meditations are not generally quoted in dealing with the subject of practical divinity, seeing it is such a succinct example of it.
Hello. It is good to have you back. You were missed, brother.
Yes, there is difference between the Lutheran and Reformed view of law/gospel, but how significant is it? I have worshipped in Lutheran Churches (MO Synod only) and always liked how their liturgy emphasised the law and gospel. Timothy Wengert has a great book entitled Law and Gospel where he shows how Melanchthon developed the law/gospel distinction. It appears that this distinction was a later developement within Lutheranism.
Thanks. I'm glad to have a little more strength so I can interact here.
I think you are right about the formulation being a later development, and it is also true that the Antinomian controversies forced Luther himself to give greater weight to the regulative use of the law. Nevertheless, the distinction as it stands today leaves us with two views, and it is undoubtedly the case that the reformed view contains a use of the law in Christian sanctification which is more conscious and normative than the Lutheran view.
Prof. Clark, Have you had the opportunity to read Samuel Rutherford yet?
Last edited:
Casey
Puritan Board Junior
What is the connection, specifically, between the ideas in Frame's essay and the FV? Dr. Clark, do you see this essay as upholding an inherently FV position on L/G?
I don't remember this -- can anyone find the thread that this was discussed on?
Casey
Puritan Board Junior
So, do you see FV ideas in this article by Frame?
I'm looking forward to a response to my above post. Thanks, Dr. Clark.
R. Scott Clark
Puritan Board Senior
Casey,
do YOU think there are any FV ideas in Frame's article?
You clearly care about it more than I do!
Why don't you teach me? I have very little interest in re-reading this piece. Life is short and getting shorter. I'm all eyes.
rsc
do YOU think there are any FV ideas in Frame's article?
You clearly care about it more than I do!
Why don't you teach me? I have very little interest in re-reading this piece. Life is short and getting shorter. I'm all eyes.
rsc
So, do you see FV ideas in this article by Frame?
Casey
Puritan Board Junior
With all due respect, why are you posting on a thread that is intended to interact with this specific article, if you won't read it?
And on top of that, you suggest a connection with the FV and are unwilling to explain yourself?
I don't understand the reason for the apparent abrasiveness of your response. Was there something inappropriate about my question to you?
Casey
Puritan Board Junior
Perhaps your (our) question was already answered on another thread? (see red bolded part)
Marty, what you have stated does not convince we there is a difference between the Lutheran and Reformed understanding of the law/gospel.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
We know that. We know what RSC's position is. We are simply stating that one can disagree with RSC and still be Reformed.
ChristianTrader
Puritan Board Graduate
Nope, if I am reading this thread properly; the discussion is whether RSC's position is in fact reformed or antinomian?
Backwoods Presbyterian
Puritanboard Amanuensis
Well if that is the discussion it merits its own thread not hijacking one on John Frame
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
It is not hijacking. Frame explicitly disputes the "Luthero-Reformed" view. Clark defends it.
Backwoods Presbyterian
Puritanboard Amanuensis
I agree but the discussion has moved away from how Frame describes it and to how RSC does.
ChristianTrader
Puritan Board Graduate
Poimen
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Hey man you don't have to make me look like an idiot!
If a thread has been locked down I am hesitant to open it. Just start a new thread with the appropriate title then.
*I have edited the original post for graphic display of ignorance.*
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
Just wondering, has this discussion got confused because Dr. Frame drastically overstated the case in slamming the law/gospel distinction in the OP?
Perhaps. What this is coming down to is really a matter of who's view of the Reformed Confessions is idiosyncratic.
I will be the first to admit that Dr. Frame writes and says some things that I don't believe are Confessional but that doesn't make it a maxim that every critique he utters is, a priori, false. I actually believe there is a kernel of truth to what he states and you don't have to become a neo-nomian to agree with the critique as far as it goes.
It doesn't really help the case of truth when those in error see a large crowd of those who reject their views and a small percentage are actually orthodox but a vast majority are criticizing them because they clash with their own idiosyncratic views. It doesn't give the FV any excuse for their own error but I imagine it must be galling when you are condemned for being un-Confessional and a great number of those raising their hand represent Churches where the charge of being un-Confessional could strike them from another corner. There are many more warts than the FV on the hide of NAPARC congregations.
Poimen
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Moderator voice on
Okay I have created a new post to deal with the issue that some would like to continue to discuss. Please take it up there.
http://www.puritanboard.com/f31/what-reformed-view-law-gospel-33247/
If I missed a post that you think is relevant to the issue please let me know and I will be happy to ignore your pleas for help.
Moderator voice off
Okay I have created a new post to deal with the issue that some would like to continue to discuss. Please take it up there.
http://www.puritanboard.com/f31/what-reformed-view-law-gospel-33247/
If I missed a post that you think is relevant to the issue please let me know and I will be happy to ignore your pleas for help.
Moderator voice off
R. Scott Clark
Puritan Board Senior
What exactly is useful about this essay? What do we learn from JMF here that we can't or haven't learned from those who are not pluralist when it comes to the doctrine of justification?
Am I intolerant of the FV? You bet I am. I just spend 8 years doing little else but dealing with the academic and ecclesiastical consequences of the FV.
The FV is a profoundly dangerous movement because it corrupts the gospel and corrupts Reformed theology. I think John is dangerous because I think he's a sort of theological gateway drug to moralism. Like the moderates (e.g. Charles Eerdman) at Princeton leading up to 1929 John is a facilitator. He may be personally orthodox but he's quite critical of confessionalists like me who insist that everyone in our churches be orthodox.
In the long run its the facilitators that do the real damage. Without the Charles Eerdmans and the others like him, maybe the confessionalists wouldn't have been routed the way they were. The moderates made it possible for error to win because they were tolerant of error.
In its most extreme forms the FV is fairly easy to spot as serious error. In more moderate forms its harder to spot. It took me a while to figure out what John Barach was doing with baptism and union with Christ.
People reading JMF on justification might come to think that well, perhaps the FV isn't so bad after all. No, it's really bad. It's as bad as the PCA, the OPC, and the URCs, and the RCUS, the RPCGA, and the OCRCs say it is -- but what do they know, most of them (except the PCA) are just small churches (says JMF) and their views don't count.
Yes, we can learn from everyone but I guess I take the view that, in a place like the PB, readers, especially those who are new to the Reformed faith, ought not to be encouraged to read writers such as JMF or those with whom he keeps literary company.
It seems to me that it is a fundamental, sacred duty of a Reformed minister to be absolutely clear and unequivocal about what the gospel is. The gospel is good news, that Christ has accomplished something for us and that is received through faith (trusting, resting, receiving) alone.
The gospel is not that we all baptized persons are united to Christ in baptism and therefore historically, conditionally elect, justified, adopted and that those benefits must be retained by grace, through faith and works. This is not a message that should be tolerated or encouraged in the least.
John Frame has tolerated and encouraged the FV. Yes he dissents personally from this view or that (e.g. Shepherd's denial of the imputation of the active obedience of Christ) but he doesn't think that we ought to be critical of those who advocate them.
I appreciate John's apologetics and his staunch defense of the inerrancy of Scripture. His writing on justification hasn't been nearly as helpful, however. Indeed, it's been less than helpful.
Am I intolerant of the FV? You bet I am. I just spend 8 years doing little else but dealing with the academic and ecclesiastical consequences of the FV.
The FV is a profoundly dangerous movement because it corrupts the gospel and corrupts Reformed theology. I think John is dangerous because I think he's a sort of theological gateway drug to moralism. Like the moderates (e.g. Charles Eerdman) at Princeton leading up to 1929 John is a facilitator. He may be personally orthodox but he's quite critical of confessionalists like me who insist that everyone in our churches be orthodox.
In the long run its the facilitators that do the real damage. Without the Charles Eerdmans and the others like him, maybe the confessionalists wouldn't have been routed the way they were. The moderates made it possible for error to win because they were tolerant of error.
In its most extreme forms the FV is fairly easy to spot as serious error. In more moderate forms its harder to spot. It took me a while to figure out what John Barach was doing with baptism and union with Christ.
People reading JMF on justification might come to think that well, perhaps the FV isn't so bad after all. No, it's really bad. It's as bad as the PCA, the OPC, and the URCs, and the RCUS, the RPCGA, and the OCRCs say it is -- but what do they know, most of them (except the PCA) are just small churches (says JMF) and their views don't count.
Yes, we can learn from everyone but I guess I take the view that, in a place like the PB, readers, especially those who are new to the Reformed faith, ought not to be encouraged to read writers such as JMF or those with whom he keeps literary company.
It seems to me that it is a fundamental, sacred duty of a Reformed minister to be absolutely clear and unequivocal about what the gospel is. The gospel is good news, that Christ has accomplished something for us and that is received through faith (trusting, resting, receiving) alone.
The gospel is not that we all baptized persons are united to Christ in baptism and therefore historically, conditionally elect, justified, adopted and that those benefits must be retained by grace, through faith and works. This is not a message that should be tolerated or encouraged in the least.
John Frame has tolerated and encouraged the FV. Yes he dissents personally from this view or that (e.g. Shepherd's denial of the imputation of the active obedience of Christ) but he doesn't think that we ought to be critical of those who advocate them.
I appreciate John's apologetics and his staunch defense of the inerrancy of Scripture. His writing on justification hasn't been nearly as helpful, however. Indeed, it's been less than helpful.
- Status
