What is the Reformed view of Law/Gospel?

JohnOwen007 · #1 (**permalink**) 05-20-2008, 10:26 AM

Well I'm currently completing a PhD on basically this topic of the gospel and the law / gospel distinction in reformed thought (with a focus on John Owen). So you can read all about it soon ...

Frame's conclusions don't have much to do with the FV IMHO. Rather he is rightly noting that there is a difference to how the Lutherans and Reformed construe the law / gospel distinction.

To be sure certain reformed theologians (e.g. Richard Greenham) had a Lutheran law / gospel distinction. But on the whole there was a basic difference, particularly with the rise of federal theology.

Lutheranism:

Law = commands (imperative)
Gospel = promise (indicative)

Reformed

Law = covenant of works ("do then and live" - commands and then promise)
Gospel = covenant of grace ("live and then do this" - promise and then commands)

One crux is whether the gospel contains commands. For example, does the gospel call us to repentance? For Lutherans no, for the Reformed yes. But it is a repentance that arises from being justified (not to be justified).

The gospel commands repentance out of reconciliation with Christ. But my actual repentance is not the gospel.

However, Frame perhaps is incorrect in this: even if the Reformed tradition defines the law / gospel distinction differently to Lutheranism, let us be sure of one thing: there is a sharp distinction between the law and the gospel in both traditions. (I perhaps wonder if this is what the WSC guys are attempting to communicate, but at times they sound a little Lutheran--particularly when they use the language of "imperative vs indicative").

God bless brother.

mvpol · #2 (**permalink**) 05-20-2008, 11:22 AM

In response to the claim that "The sharp distinction between law and gospel is becoming popular in Reformed [circles]..." Dr. Clark has posted a plethera of quotes from actual reformers (i.e. Calvin and Ursinus) that pretty much proves the opposite.

On Law and Gospel in Cov't Theology

Mark

CaseyBessette · #3 (**permalink**) 05-20-2008, 12:27 PM

The word "law" is used in different ways in the Scriptures. The WCF even admits that grace (aka, the covenant of grace) was administered through the law ("law" in the broad sense):

Quote:

WCF 7.5. This covenant was differently administered in the time of the law, and in the time of the gospel: under the law, it was administered by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all foresignifying Christ to come; which were, for that time, sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah, by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation; and is called the old testament.

JohnOwen007 · #4 (**permalink**) 05-23-2008, 05:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Prof. Clark, Have you had the opportunity to read Samuel Rutherford yet?

... and Ulrich Zwingli, Heinrich Bullinger, John Calvin, Zachary Ursinus, William Perkins, William Pemble, John Davenant, John Owen, ...

Quote:

John Calvin (Inst. 3.3.1, Battles): "With good reason, the sum of the gospel is held to consist in repentance and forgiveness of sins."

Why are we even debating this? The Scriptures (which rule our tradition) are crystal clear:

Quote:

Luke 24:46 He told them, "This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, 47 and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

Quote:

Acts 11:18 When they heard this, they had no further objections and praised God, saying, "So then, God has granted even the Gentiles repentance unto life."

Quote:

Acts 20:20 You know that I have not hesitated to preach anything that would be helpful to you but have taught you publicly and from house to house. 21 I have declared to both Jews and Greeks that they must turn to God in repentance and have faith in our Lord Jesus. 22 "And now, compelled by the Spirit, I am going to Jerusalem, not knowing what will happen to me there. 23 I only know that in every city the Holy Spirit warns me that prison and hardships are facing me. 24 However, I consider my life worth nothing to me, if only I may finish the race and complete the task the Lord Jesus has given me--the task of testifying to the gospel of God's grace.

Quote:

1Tim 1:9 "We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers--and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11 that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.

To accuse this of being FV is not helpful.

Every blessing.

R. Scott Clark · #5 (**permalink**) 05-23-2008, 12:32 PM

Marty,

How many times have I noted here and in articles that the word "gospel" is used in the NT to refer broadly to the entire Christian message but that doesn't eliminate the narrow or strict sense of the word.

This is a false choice. The word law is used in a broad and narrow sense also. It can mean "a divine command" and it can refer simply to revelation.

If we don't keep this stuff straight you fellows will be fighting off the next wave of whatever the FV calls itself in a few years.

Part of what gave rise to the FV was the "Reformed v the Lutherans" (on justification and L/G) rhetoric common among Reformed folk.

I'm not saying that we cannot make any distinctions between the confessional Lutheran approach to L/G and the Reformed approach to it but those distinctions have to made very carefully.

As to John Frame, he's never identified himself completely with the FV but he's also described as "stupid" (in a foreword that he later sort of retracted) who says that Norm Shepherd's doctrine of justification is not the gospel.

As to Rutherford, yes, I've read some of Rutherford. Did I miss a particular citation I'm to have read?

As to Ursinus:

Quote:

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 (1534-83) on the organization of the Heidelberg Catechism.

Quote:

The chief and most important parts of the first principles of the doctrine of the church, as appears from the passage just quoted from the Epistle to the Hebrews, are repentance and faith in Christ, which we may regard as synonymous with the law and gospel. Hence, the catechism in its primary and most general sense, may be divided as the doctrine of the church, into the law and gospel. It does not differ from the doctrine of the church as it respects the subject and matter of which it treats, but only in the form and manner in which these things are presented, just as strong meat designed for adults, to which the doctrine of the church may be compared, does not differ in essence from the milk and meat prepared for children, to which the catechism is compared by Paul in the passage already referred to. These two parts are termed, by the great mass of men, the Decalogue and the Apostles' creed; because the Decalogue comprehends the substance of the law, and the Apostles' creed that of the gospel. Another distinction made by this same class of persons is that of the doctrine of faith and works, or the doctrine of those things which are to be believed and those which are to be done.

There are others who divide the catechism into these three parts; considering, in the first place, the doctrine respecting God, then the doctrine respecting his will, and lastly that respecting his works, which they distinguish as the works of creation, preservation, and redemption. But all these different parts are treated of either in the law or the gospel, or in both, so that this division may easily be reduced to the former.

There are others, again, who make the catechism consist of five different parts; the Decalogue, the Apostles' Creed, Baptism, the Lord's Supper, and Prayer; of which, the Decalogue was delivered immediately by God himself, whilst the other parts were delivered mediately, either through the manifestation of the Son of God in the flesh, as is true of the Lord's Prayer, Baptism, and the Eucharist, or through the ministry of the apostles, as is true of the Apostles' Creed. But all these different parts may also be reduced to the two general heads noticed in the first division. The Decalogue contains the substance of the law, the Apostles' Creed that of the gospel; the sacraments are parts of the gospel, and may, therefore, be embraced in it as far as they are seals of the grace which it promises, but as far as they are testimonies of our obedience to God, they have the nature of sacrifices and pertain to the law, whilst prayer, in like manner, may be referred to the law, being a part of the worship of God.

The catechism of which we shall speak in these lectures consists of three parts. The first treats of the misery of man, the second of his deliverance from this misery, and the third of gratitude, which division does not, in reality, differ from the above, because all the parts which are there specified are embraced in these three general heads. The Decalogue belongs to the first part, in as far as it is the mirror through which we are brought to see ourselves, and thus led to a knowledge of our sins and misery, and to the third part in as far as it is the rule of true thankfulness and of a Christian life. The Apostles' Creed is embraced in the second part inasmuch as it unfolds the way of deliverance from sins. The sacraments, belonging to the doctrine of faith and being the seals that are attached thereto, belong in like manner to this second part of the catechism, which treats of deliverance from the misery of man. And prayer, being the chief part of spiritual worship and of thankfulness, may, with great propriety, be referred to the third general part.

...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).

armourbearer · #6 (**permalink**) 05-23-2008, 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by R. Scott Clark

As to Rutherford, yes, I've read some of Rutherford. Did I miss a particular citation I'm to have read?

Last year we had a discussion along these same lines, and I quoted from Rutherford's "Spiritual Antichrist" to the effect that the distinction you are making was regarded as Antinomian. "Believe!" Law or Gospel?.

R. Scott Clark · #7 (**permalink**) 05-24-2008, 01:42 AM

Okay, I re-read your post. I'll take a look at Rutherford. I'm buried now with student papers and booked with writing assignments through August (and a new course) and now a discussion with Bruce McCormack.

Are we talking past each other?

You're telling me that Rutherford said that there's no hermeneutical distinction between "law" ("do!") and "gospel" ("done for you")?

As I've said, there's no doubt that "repent" is part of the Christian message broadly considered, the evidence that the Reformed distinguished between the indicative and imperative is overwhelming.

If making that distinction makes me antinomian, well, then I'm an antinomian but it's a silly definition of antinomian.

rsc

Quote:

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Quote:

Originally Posted by R. Scott Clark

As to Rutherford, yes, I've read some of Rutherford. Did I miss a particular citation I'm to have read?

Last year we had a discussion along these same lines, and I quoted from Rutherford's "Spiritual Antichrist" to the effect that the distinction you are making was regarded as Antinomian. "Believe!" Law or Gospel?.

ChristianTrader · #8 (**permalink**) 05-24-2008, 12:57 PM

Dr. Clark,
It seems to be your view that either we accept your view of law and gospel or we might as well go ahead and embrace FV and/or go back to Rome?

Am I reading you correctly?

CT

Stephen · #9 (**permalink**) 05-24-2008, 06:18 PM

Scott Clark has a great chapter on the law/gospel in his book Covenant, Justification, and Pastoral Ministry. On page 340 he rejects the idea that the distinction is Lutheran and not Reformed. If you take the time to read his book it is apparent that the FV does reject the Reformed understanding of the law/gospel hermeneutic. I found this chapter to be very helpful.

R. Scott Clark · #10 (**permalink**) 05-24-2008, 08:38 PM

No, I'm expecting us to agree with the Reformed confessions and to read them in the light of the context in which they were written. I've compiled (with the help of several others over the years) dozens of quotations from Reformed theologians from various periods illustrating the Reformed distinction between law and gospel and it gets ignored. I've written at length on this issue, in print, and people seem to demand that I reproduce it all here from my keyboard on command.

The material is in print. Read it.

Agree with Clark? No. Agree with the Reformed churches. That's what I'm trying to do.

Frame's essay. I've read it. Frame thinks the l/g distinction is some boutique view that can be segregated to a certain segment of the Reformed community. That's historically and confessionally impossible.

I want to know why on earth anyone thinks his essay is remotely interesting or helpful.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChristianTrader

Dr. Clark,
It seems to be your view that either we accept your view of law and gospel or we might as well go ahead and embrace FV and/or go back to Rome?

Am I reading you correctly?

CT

JohnOwen007 · #11 (**permalink**) 05-25-2008, 12:04 PM

Dear Dr Clark,

Thanks for taking the time to reply amidst marking papers. I'm doing exactly the same thing at the moment--it's driving me crazy seeing that pile of essays not getting smaller as quickly as I'd like ...

Just so you know from where I'm coming:

[1] I'm not sympathetic in any way to the FV. Thankfully, it doesn't exist where I live here in Australia.

[2] Norm Shepherd's understanding of justification (in my mind) is very muddled, and guaranteed to be a pastoral disaster. I have seen his teaching mess with sincere people's heads.

[3] I once held to a very Lutheran understanding of the law / gospel distinction, and was horrified with some things that John Owen said. It was then I decided to do a dissertation on the topic to demolish Owen ... and the in the process I was won over to Owen.

[4] Moreover, I'm not saying there isn't a sharp law / gospel distinction in the reformed tradition (like Frame). However, I am saying it's fundamentally different to the Lutheran tradition. The basic difference (as affirmed by Ursinus) is that the call to new life (repentance) is in the gospel.

To put this whole discussion in a nutshell: in the reformed tradition, the gospel actually presents the law but only in it's third use--without the condemnation attached for not keeping it fully. That to me is magnificent news!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by R. Scott Clark

How many times have I noted here and in articles that the word "gospel" is used in the NT to refer broadly to the entire Christian message but that doesn't eliminate the narrow or strict sense of the word.

I personally struggle to find any narrow versus broad understanding of the gospel both in the NT and in the reformed tradition; it is in the Formula of Concord. If I understand the point of our disagreement, you wish not to place a call to repentance in (your posited) "narrow" understanding of the gospel but are happy to place it in the "broad" understanding of the gospel.

As I see it, both in the NT and in the mature reformed tradition, all usages of the gospel refer to same thing (namely the covenant of grace, as is explicit in your Ursinus' quotations). However, (and as Owen notes) we can present that same gospel in a summary or expanded form. For example, we can preach the gospel without mentioning repentance (say 1 Cor. 15:3-4). But, when we unpack this summary message the call to repentance (and faith) arises from the heart of this gospel, not least the double grace of justification and sanctification offered in it.

You are concerned that including the call to repentance (and new life) takes us back to the pre-reformation church. I struggle to agree with this. (How could it when this is what Zwingli, Calvin, Bullinger, ... Owen and others believed?). This is because:

[1] The gospel presents the law in it's third use.

[2] The believer's actual repentance and faith is not the gospel, even though they are commanded in the gospel. We must distinguish between the commands of the gospel and our actual doing of them. The latter is not the gospel, it's our works. (That's why I don't think feeding the poor is the gospel, however it is the sort of thing the gospel produces). What we do is not the gospel (otherwise we'd be justified by works) but if our lives don't change, it's a sign we have not embraced the gospel (with its double offer of justification and sanctification).

I'm anxious to clarify this because of the history of the Lutheran tradition itself (and my own experience). Lutheranism was (and is) particularly susceptible to dead orthodoxy precisely because of it's excessive focus on "done" with little if any mention of the new life. To be sure, justification is more significant than the new life (so Calvin and Romans 5:9-10), but in Lutheranism the latter tends to be forgotten altogether.

In short, the gospel is: Christ is saviour (hence the demand of faith) and Lord (hence the demand for new life).

God bless you Dr Clark.

MOSES · #12 (**permalink**) 05-25-2008, 12:39 PM

Hope nobody minds

coming from an amatuer

Does not the gospel establish the Law?

For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law...Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law. Romans 3:28,31
Is the distinction between Law and Gospel as sharp as some presume or teach?

How about the conclusion to a paper. Should the conclusion be distinct (or contrary) to the body of the paper, or should it strengthen and "fulfill" it?

Semper Fidelis · #13 (**permalink**) 05-25-2008, 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnOwen007

In short, the gospel is: Christ is saviour (hence the demand of faith) and Lord (hence the demand for new life).

Is it not the case that when Peter presents the Gospel both in Acts 2 and 3 that "repent and turn" is at the fore of his presentation in the looming shadow of the announcement of the Gospel. There is a real storm cloud of judgement looming in the News that the Son of God was put to death on the Cross at the hands of lawless men who prefer a murderer.

But God, who is rich in mercy, prepared that instrument of the Curse before the foundation of the world to be the place of blessing. Believe upon Him!

The Cross itself is almost like the Law in one sense that it can be a place of great wrath for those that reject the announcement of Christ's suffering or the place of blessing for those that rest in His finished work.

Why do we have to choose to make the Gospel announcement one or the other?

turmeric · #14 (**permalink**) 05-25-2008, 07:33 PM

At risk of sounding like a heretic, that's how I've always understood Ps. 119, which may be why it puzzles me so much! What does he mean by "law" then?

Semper Fidelis · #15 (**permalink**) 05-25-2008, 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by turmeric

At risk of sounding like a heretic, that's how I've always understood Ps. 119, which may be why it puzzles me so much! What does he mean by "law" then?

Meg,

I think Psalm 119 is speaking of the third use of the Law. I don't know how portions of it (verse 97) would make sense if we insist on a Law=Do! in all cases. It seems to me there is a profound difference between when the Scriptures say "Do or Cursed will you be..." and "Therefore, in view of God's mercy...." Both are imperatives but are both really the same thing?

DMcFadden · #16 (**permalink**) 05-25-2008, 07:57 PM

Rich,

Thanks! I almost cross posted to remind Meg of the "third use of the law" which Calvin called the "principal use of the law."

ChristianTrader · #17 (**permalink**) 05-25-2008, 08:09 PM

My name is Greg Bahnsen, and I approve this message.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnOwen007

Dear Dr Clark,

Thanks for taking the time to reply amidst marking papers. I'm doing exactly the same thing at the moment--it's driving me crazy seeing that pile of essays not getting smaller as quickly as I'd like ...

Just so you know from where I'm coming:

[1] I'm not sympathetic in any way to the FV. Thankfully, it doesn't exist where I live here in Australia.

[2] Norm Shepherd's understanding of justification (in my mind) is very muddled, and guaranteed to be a pastoral disaster. I have seen his teaching mess with sincere people's heads.

[3] I once held to a very Lutheran understanding of the law / gospel distinction, and was horrified with some things that John Owen said. It was then I decided to do a dissertation on the topic to demolish Owen ... and the in the process I was won over to Owen.

[4] Moreover, I'm not saying there isn't a sharp law / gospel distinction in the reformed tradition (like Frame). However, I am saying it's fundamentally different to the Lutheran tradition. The basic difference (as affirmed by Ursinus) is that the call to new life (repentance) is in the gospel.

To put this whole discussion in a nutshell: in the reformed tradition, the gospel actually presents the law but only in it's third use--without the condemnation attached for not keeping it fully. That to me is magnificent news!!

Quote: