Jerusalem Blade
Puritan Board Professor
A friend recently introduced me to the Lutheran Law – Gospel distinction, with which I am not comfortable. Perhaps this is because it is not made in the Reformed confessions in this manner. They do acknowledge a general definition of Gospel which includes Christ's and the apostles' urging men to repent, but say that the proper definition of Gospel is,
"For everything that comforts, that offers the favor and grace of God to transgressors of the Law, is, and is properly called, the Gospel, a good and joyful message that God will not punish sins, but forgive them for Christ's sake . . . but that the Law is a doctrine which reproves sins and condemns", even when in the mouth of Jesus (Source here: http://bookofconcord.org/sd-lawandgospel.php , paragraphs 21 and 27)
They assert these definitions apply in the NT, and that when the NT urges men to obedience, to believe, and to follow the sayings of Christ, this also is law. Only His (and the apostles') words of comfort and forgiveness can properly be called "gospel", as this section of the Formula of Concord asserts.
Any thoughts on this? Where do the Reformed confessions refute this, and, more to the point, where in Scripture can this be refuted? Is it merely a matter of terminology, or is there substantial error here?
Thanks for any help in understanding this!
"For everything that comforts, that offers the favor and grace of God to transgressors of the Law, is, and is properly called, the Gospel, a good and joyful message that God will not punish sins, but forgive them for Christ's sake . . . but that the Law is a doctrine which reproves sins and condemns", even when in the mouth of Jesus (Source here: http://bookofconcord.org/sd-lawandgospel.php , paragraphs 21 and 27)
They assert these definitions apply in the NT, and that when the NT urges men to obedience, to believe, and to follow the sayings of Christ, this also is law. Only His (and the apostles') words of comfort and forgiveness can properly be called "gospel", as this section of the Formula of Concord asserts.
Any thoughts on this? Where do the Reformed confessions refute this, and, more to the point, where in Scripture can this be refuted? Is it merely a matter of terminology, or is there substantial error here?
Thanks for any help in understanding this!