It would be helpful if distinctions were more clearly and consistently made. A "gospel imperative" is not the same thing as the gospel itself.

__________________
Adam J. Myer
Slated for the Jan. 10th Chaplains Basic Officer Leadership Course
Estacada Christian Church
Sandy, Oregon

Soli Deo Gloria

The thing to be careful about is when you characterize sanctification as all "done" it stultifies Christian obedience - which is actually combating the work of the Spirit. That is why Rev. Winzer's comments about "do and live" vs. "live and do" are a better assessment that "do" and "done."

__________________
Fred Greco
Senior Pastor, Christ Church PCA (Katy, TX)
Christ Church Blog

"The heart is the main thing in true religion...It is the hinge and turning-point in the condition of man's soul. If the heart is alive to God and quickened by the Spirit, the man is a living Christian. If the heart is dead and has not the Spirit, the man is dead before God." (J.C. Ryle)

A gospel imperative is part and parcel of the gospel. When a man asked Paul what the gospel was ("What shall I do to be saved?" - a gospel question if ever there was one) the response was "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ (imperative) and you and your house shall be saved."

I never claimed that it was. The call to believe is a part of the gospel, not the gospel itself.

__________________
Yours sincerely,


"Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."

Well, one of the reason that ambiguity is creeping into this thread is due the fact that we are mixing a discussion of hermeneutics with a discussion of systematic categories. Usually when one speaks of dividing scripture into law and gospel they speak of evaluating commands and promises given therein. When we begin to speak of the ordo salutis as we have been, then we have moved from evaluating the verbal pronouncements of God (whether in the OT or NT) and the apostles into the territory of conceptual constructs.

The law/gospel distinction, as I understand it, is a method of dividing up the pronouncements of Scripture, and was never meant to apply to a discussion of soteriological concepts.

This is probably where our disagreement is found then, as I am not "parting out" the Gospel, but speaking of the Gospel itself -its essence, which is Christ and his redemption. I agree that we are called to believe, but I would not identify that command to believe with the Gospel itself.

I'm not sure that it is fruitful to spend too much more of my time debating this point.

Adam, isn't "done" a soteriological concept?

Would you identify the command to believe with law?

__________________
Ruben
Moderator
F.P.C.I.
Indiana

Vanities and disguises have covered us, and thereby we are naked; licenciousness hath inflam'd us, and thereby we are frozen; voluptuousness hath fed us, and thereby we are sterved, the fancies and traditions of men have taught and instructed us, and thereby we are ignorant.
John Donne

Board Rules - Signature Requirements - Suggestions?

Calvinistas Conversando
Teología en Mexico
The Howling Wilderness

I do not disagree with the "third use", but when Christ pronounced on the cross "it is finished" that statement included the entirety of our salvation. It is worked out in our lives, yes, but it has also been certainly accomplished.

I appreciate this interaction. A Mod noted in another thread that there is a bit of "talking past each other" but I think the clarity on how we speak on the question of "The Gospel" goes to the perspicuity of what it is.

I don't think anybody here would disagree with the fact that the Work that merits salvation is completely Christ's own and it is Accomplished. The real question is whether or not when we're talking about "The Gospel" if we think that we're somehow adding "Law" to it when we call men to respond to it.

There's no question what Christ accomplished on the Cross when He died for sinners. Yet that once-for-all fact has to be acknowledged and responded to by men. Is it Law when we're announcing that event and calling men to repentance and belief upon it? Is it Law when we're reminding Christians that they render loving and reasonable service to God upon the basis of it?

I'm just trying to get my arms around what it is people are saying. The idea that Gospel = "Only Done" and that there is no imperative seems alluringly simple at first but we're seeing how it is hard to stuff "Repent!" and "Believe!" into that suitcase so they are trimmed off as "not Gospel".

Dordt states:
Did the Reformers at Dordt wish to state that the Preaching of the Gospel calls them to Law since people are being called to repentance and faith in Christ (two imperatives)?

__________________
Rich
PCA, Northern VA
Student, New Geneva Theological Seminary

WebsiteMaven - Web Hosting Reviews, Guides, and Advice to build and promote your web site.
SoliDeoGloria.com - A Community for Reformed Thought and Discussion

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Dear Archlute,

I suspect you may be failing to distinguish between the commands of the gospel and the application of the gospel. The gospel contains commands (to repent and believe etc.) based on the finished work of Christ. However, the actual application of Christ's finished work by the Spirit in people is not the gospel.

In other words, the works I do as a believer are not the gospel. But the commands I follow (that arise from Christ's finished work) are.

It's an important distinction because:

[1] Without it we end up with justification by works or something neonomistic.

[2] But on the other hand, if we simply make the Lutheran do / done distinction, and say there are no commands in the gospel, then we make the equal and opposite error of antinomianism.

I've suffered from both errors in my own life at different times!

God bless you dear brother.

__________________
Marty
Ordained Presbyter; Currently Lecturer in Theology
Anglican Church of Australia
(Now finally back! in) Perth, Australia.
"There is nothing so necessary to draw us to repentance as good thoughts of God." (Thomas Manton)

That basically explains why I retracted my comments about John Frame in the other thread; he is right to assert that the particular law/gospel distinction WSC and others are making is not Biblical. This became abundantly clear to me when I read Michael Horton's essay "Which Covenant Theology" in CPJM on the Sabbath.

__________________
Daniel Ritchie
Saintfield, Northern Ireland - Queen's University, Belfast:History/Politics
Member of Dromara Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland (Covenanter)

Thank you for your posts -- I appreciate the discussion, brother.

The thread asks which view is the Reformed view. Do you believe the law/gospel distinction that you are trying to uphold is clearly and consistently made in the Westminster Standards? Do you believe the they teach the law/gospel distinction (as you understand it)? As imperative/indicative? As "do"/"done"? I take it for granted that the Reformed view on the law/gospel distinction could be demonstrated from the Standards.

Let me quote a Lutheran on this issue:
Obviously the Lutheran view is that orthodoxy depends on this distinction, that Scripture fundamentally contains two different messages ("doctrines"), and that maintaining this distinction is the highest goal of Christian theologians. (I'd be interested to know how much you agree with these points.)

Interestingly, the Westminster Standards do make a distinction regarding the Old and New Testaments, not that it is law/gospel, but that contained in Scripture are things to be believed and things to be done:
I think at this point the Lutheran would be quick to say, "one is gospel and one is law!" But the Standards don't jump to clarify this. I don't recall the Standards ever equating "things to be believed" as gospel and "things to be done" as law (WCF 3.8 speaks of those who "obey the gospel"), as though the Christian life was inherently dualistic on account of a do/done paradigm.

The gospel includes the call to repentance (we could also compare the call to faith), but according to the indicative/imperative distinction this cannot be so, because "Repent!" is an imperative. Compare the Lutheran view (which is clear and consistent at maintaining the law/gospel distinction) with that of the Reformed view (which has neglected the distinction):
Lutherans believe the law/gospel distinction is fundamental to the faith (and they uphold it rather consistently!). Some have suggested on this (or the other) thread that if the distinction is neglected, then that's going in the direction of the FV. Okay, if it's such a fundamental distinction (and to be understood in the way WSC understands it), then where do the Westminster Standards teach it? That would be quite the omission if it's so fundamental to the Christian faith.

I'm not denying there is such a thing as a law/gospel distinction, I just don't believe it is to be defined as imperative/indicative. I think the more important distinction for the Reformed is that of the two covenants (CoWs, "do this and live"; CoG, "live and do this"), and included in both of these covenants is the law (the difference is the individual's relationship to the law). These covenants are weaved throughout the Standards in a clear and consistent way, while it seems to me the Standards fail at upholding your view of the law/gospel distinction. Jesus didn't seem to clearly and consistently uphold the law/gospel distinction either, as he told the woman caught in adultery, "Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more" (John 8:11).

__________________
Casey, Chicagoland, OPC

I don't want to jump in on the conversation, but I think that this is beginning to come full circle. I wonder if it might be helpful to handle a few Biblical cases to see whether this is difference here is coming out in the handling of various texts. Is everyone agreed that the Reformed view of the passage on the rich, young ruler that Jesus preached the law, gospel, or both? Also, perhaps as in Casey's post the woman caught in adultery could be handled, etc.

(Please ignore this if it's too off track)

__________________
Joel Weyrick
Member, Sharon RPC (RPCNA)
Middletown, Iowa

Joel, I was just trying to turn the discussion to the Confession to see which view can claim that of being confessionally Reformed. Of course, I think asking about how Scripture handles this is important, too -- indeed, foundationally important -- but that's different from asking which is the Reformed view. Hypothetically, the Reformed view could be wrong and not in line with Scripture. I think the Standards have faithfully summarized the Scriptures, though.

Here is a link to a blog which seems to argue that the Marrowmen take up the position espoused by Dr. Clark, viz., that the command to believe and repent is not a part of the gospel strictly taken, but a part of the law.

Some Marrow to accompany your Law and Gospel, Sir?

The author makes good note of the fact that the Gospel may be understood in two senses, either as the "good news" alone (which is what some of us here have been attempting to defend) or as the broader understanding of comprehensive doctrine given by Christ and the apostles. I believe Sinclair Ferguson has some lectures/essays on the Marrow Controversy, and makes a defense in support of the Marrow Men. If anyone knows where that stuff is located, it may be helpful to post it here for discussion.

SermonAudio.com - Search Results

__________________
Hermonta Godwin
Christ The King PCA
Raleigh, NC

The Marrow of Modern Divinity, 'The Difference Between The Law and the Gospel,' in Thomas Boston, Works, 7:461-462.

Clearly the issue is not as straightforward as quoting a portion of text from a respected author and supposing that settles the matter. When the author himself makes a statement which contradicts one's interpretation of him it is obviously the case that the subject is more complex than the interpreter is allowing for.

Well, if the Marrowmen taught such (which I doubt) that would be contrary to the Westminster Standards, which teaches that repentance unto life is an evangelical grace.

Shorter Catechism Q. 87. What is repentance unto life?
A. Repentance unto life is a saving grace, whereby a sinner, out of a true sense of his sin, and apprehension of the mercy of God in Christ, doth, with grief and hatred of his sin, turn from it unto God, with full purpose of, and endeavor after, new obedience.

I think it was Hermonta (Christian Trader) who said in the other thread that the WSC Law/Gospel distinction was antinomian. The more I read these posts, the more I am inclined to agree.

Yes, so far it does seem quite clear that "do this and live" vs. "live and do this" has far more historical support as a summary of Law/Gospel than imperative vs. indicative.

At the very least, can it really be argued that this distinction is a Reformed Law/Gospel distinction?

Marty and Matthew have presented a pretty compelling positive case that the Puritan Law/Gospel distinction was a distinction between the CoW (Do this and live) and the CoG (Live and do this).

Conversely, it seems that those who are arguing in this thread for a Law/Gospel distinction of Imperative/Indicative have only presented quotes of several Reformers who insist upon a Law/Gospel distinction. The mere existence of a Law/Gospel distinction, though, hardly establishes the case if the author quoted was not arguing for the Imperative/Indicative distinction.

In other words, my perception of this interchange has been that the response to challenging that the Law/Gospel distincition is Imperative/Indicative is the suggestion that the Law/Gospel distinction is being denied and nobody is interacting with the suggestion that the Law/Gospel distinction has a different Reformed pedigree. At the very least, it seems honesty in the substance of the discussion would be to interact on that point rather than accusing others of denying the distinction altogether.

Have any of you who have actually read Muller, checked to see how he handles the "pedigree" of the Law/Gospel discussion in post-reformation dogmatics? I would think that he might be illuminating on the subject???

__________________
Dennis E. McFadden, Ex Mainline Baptist (in Remission)
Atherton Baptist Homes, CEO
First Baptist Church of Alhambra, Member, Transformation Ministries (CA)

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Yes, Dennis, it certainly would be but, alas, I can't find anything Muller has written on it. Looks like we'll have to go back and listen to some Steely Dan while we wait.

I have been trying to locate a discussion where I think Ernest Kevan's Grace of Law came up in connection with a disagreement over the reformed view of law/gospel, but can't find it. I was wondering if it is a good representation (I remember the 'do this and live'/'live and do this' distinction). I found it extremely helpful at one time but afterwards was told that it confused the categories and not to rely on it. He made a point of the giving of the law being gracious -- I understood the graciousness to be most of all because it ultimately leads us to Christ -- but does this smudge the law/gospel distinction between the two covenants?

Also:
I have never made this distinction so clearly in my thinking as it is in this post; it's revolutionary. Thank you.

__________________
Heidi
Indianapolis, Indiana

Patience must dwell with Love, for Love and Sorrow
Have pitched their tent together here:
Love all alone will build a house tomorrow,
And sorrow not be near. -Christina Rossetti

It is a useful book for understanding the Puritan teaching on two uses of the law, namely, as a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ and as a rule of Christian obedience; but it does fail to show the fundamental distinction between law and grace in Puritan thought and neglects the first use of the law as regulating natural man and society. Samuel Rutherford suffers some unjustified criticism for his staunch attack of Antinomians and strong defence of divine authority over liberty of conscience.

I do remember a strong impression that law is something of a of sub-category or arm of gospel grace (not just 'voluntary condescension'). As a believer it was a tremendous help to loving the law. But .... the whole subject has turned into an area of confusion, specifically as to how the covenant of works is functioning in the old testament (or old covenant, if I'm remembering correctly) administration of the covenant of grace. I was wondering if there is there a better book you would recommend that would help clear up further questions? Thank you very much.

I can't recall a better secondary resource, but so far as primary sources go, Anthony Burgess' Vindicae Legis and Samuel Rutherford's Spiritual Antichrist make for excellent reading, and the latter also provides a genetic description of Antinomianism which is very helpful for understanding its historical development and idealogical affinities.

Just a quick observation that one of the things I've noted in my limited readings and study of Puritan works is an emphasis on training the conscience of a believer that you don't encounter today.

The Imperative/Indicative distinction tends to foster a fear that any meditation of the Law will turn you into a neonomian.

Reading Durham on the 10 commandments is an excellent example of how a Puritan will disect the Law to get behind the positive and negative injunctions of the Command that help the believer understand more fully the character of God and neighbor.

As Luther put it briefly, we've been freed to obey. Paul fleshes out our reasonable service in Romans 12-16 and points out that the aim of a redeemed man is love of God and love of neighbour on the basis of his spiritual inheritance fully received at the point of trust in Christ.

One of the things that always strikes me is how our theology can cause us to live spiritually schizophrenic lives. For instance, I had friends who were just crazy for Lee Irons' preaching when he was still a minister in the OPC. In their mind, a person was preaching Law if any imperative of the Epistles was ever mentioned - Romans 12-16 were quite off limits. Yet, these same people didn't hesitate to tell their children what to do. They didn't hesitate to discipline and reprove. Why, I wondered, was it not sufficient to tell a 10 year old about what Christ has done in order to train him in the fear and admonition of the Lord if it was sufficient for an adult? Of course these parents were sane enough to realize that simply telling their children about the finished work of Christ was not going to train their consciences.

I don't know why we think so highly of ourselves as adults as well. For some, it seems that sanctification merely comes by a meditation of Christ's finished work with no reference to any instruction the Law might have to offer. Whatever one might mention of the benefits of meditating on God's Law are greeted with the charge of legalism or neonomianism.

I, again, repeat my concern that some of the views of the Law as some sort of "bad deal" that the Israelites got when they could have just stuck with Abraham's promise are reminiscent of dispensational thinking on the topic. I think a redeemed individual should be able to see the Law as a reflection of God's Holy Character and love it without falling prey to the deceit that His love of the Law is what saves Him. I love the Law because of the evangelical faith in Christ that I have - born from above.

I agree Rich.
I have the same opinion about the teaching which says that the covenant of works was republished in the Covenant at Sinai. As if the Israelites actually got into Canaan on the basis of works. How absurd! The COW requires perfection apart from Christ, how could they atone for their original sin in Adam. Foolishness! And confusion! That is what Grandpa says.

__________________
Rick Taron
Bellingham URC.
Everson, WA.

Yes, Burgess is excellent and Rutherford's actual discussion of the law / gospel distinction is very good. However, Rutherford's depiction of the Antinomians leaves much to be desired. He doesn't distinguish carefully enough between the different streams of thought in the Antinomian camp, some absolutely crazy others a little more orthodox. Hence, he makes certain authors say things they do not.

It's interesting but the definitive study on English Antinomianism has yet to be written--it's a story waiting to be told (anyone looking for a thesis topic?). The more recent books on the topic by David Como and Theodore Bozeman are a good start but there's so much no told by them.

This is Kevan's criticism, and unsubstantiated. Reductio ad absurdum was an accepted logical device of the day. It doesn't equate to putting words in the mouths of opponents.

Couple Questions
1) Has the notion that Law/Gospel distinction of Imperative/Indicative is THE classic Reformed position been put to bed? It seems that it is hard to call it Reformed at all.
2)Is this quote by Marty a consensus on the topic:
CT

Is Faith a Work? « Heidelblog

This is much better than an earlier article, and refreshing to read. Here he states the matter with reformed precision: