What is the Reformed view of Law/Gospel?

[JohnOwen007]

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 In my humble opinion. 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]

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

 

[Casey]

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):

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]

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, ...

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:

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.

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."

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.

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]

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:

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.

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).

 

[MW]

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. http://www.puritanboard.com/f77/believe-law-gospel-18589/.

 

[R. Scott Clark]

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

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. http://www.puritanboard.com/f77/believe-law-gospel-18589/.

 

[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

 

[Stephen]

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]

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.

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]

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!!

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]

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]

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 judgment 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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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!!

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.

 

[MW]

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

He held the distinction of law and gospel, but he did not define the distinction as "do" and "done;" nor has any writer from the reformed tradition. This distinction makes a mockery of an important phrase which is clearly maintained by all reformed teachers, namely, "evangelical obedience." On the basis of your formulation of law and gospel such a phrase would be a contradiction in terms; and yet it constantly appears in reformed theological teaching when expressing the nature of Christian action and effort as that which flows from gratitude for what God has done for the believer in Christ, so that such obedience is regarded as flowing from the gospel in distinction from legal obedience or that which is offered in service to the law.

In a later post you speak of following the reformed Confessions. The Westminster Confession quite clearly states that there are things to be observed for salvation, 1:7. The Shorter Catechism answer 85 speaks of faith and repentance as things which God requires to escape His wrath and curse. The Confession and Catechisms describe faith and repentance as saving and evangelical graces in distinction from non-saving and legal requirements. The Confession affirms of "good works, done in obedience to God's commandments," that they are "fruits and evidences of a true and lively faith," and that they "adorn the profession of the gospel" (16:2). The Larger Catechism answer 32 explicitly states that faith is the condition which interests one in the covenant of grace, and that all other saving graces and all holy obedience is the "way which He hath appointed them to salvation," and that the Holy Spirit's enabling of the believer to do these things is a manifestation of the grace of God in the second covenant.

It is quite evident that your law-gospel formula of "do" and "done" is not merely extra-confessional but contra-confessional, and one which requires reformulation in order to conform to reformed confessional standards. I have no doubt that there is a genuine sense in which "do" and "done" correctly describe the law-gospel distinction, namely, when applied in the more narrow context of covenant "conditions." Herein it is undoubtedly true that the grace of God fulfils all conditions; regrettably, though, you broaden its use so as to relegate all conditions to "law" and divine fulfilments to "gospel" -- which is a virtual denial of the outward administration of the covenant, and therefore to be classified as unreformed as equally as the FV with its denial of the inward and unconditional promise of that covenant.

 

[R. Scott Clark]

What the Law and Gospel Have in Common

Joshua Lim posted some stuff from CJPM on his blog.

Law and gospel do not denote absolutely separate parts of Scripture. Moses and Jesus both preached law and gospel. This is why Reformed theologians consistently quoted Jesus’s response to the lawyer in Luke 10:28–”do this and live”–as the prototypical example of law. One could just as easily cite the prologue to the Decalogue (Exod 20:2) as the prototypical example of the gospel word: “I am Yahweh your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.” The question is not so much where these words occur in the canon, but the mood (imperative or indicative) with which they speak and the conditions attached to their promises.

As Wollebius noted, both the law and the gospel urge obedience using promises and curses. They differ in their “proper material” (propria material). That is, the stuff of gospel is not stuff of law. The law is about our “doing” (facienda), and the gospel is about our “believing” (credenda).
It is not that the law is strict and the gospel is lax. Rather both law and gospel require “perfect obedience.” The law demands it of us, and the gospel announces that Christ has accomplished it.

Both words are directed at sinners, but, again, with different consequences and conditions or instruments.

Both moods glorify God, and both seek to foster Christian virtue in believers. The law, however, is powerless to justify or sanctify; only the gospel achieves those ends. For the unregenerate, law and gospel are antithetical. To believers, however, for whom Christ has satisfied the righteous requirements of the law, the law is “subordinate” to the gospel. In other words, the gospel is the power of life and sanctity, and the law serves to structure Christian sanctity.

- R. Scott Clark, “Letter and Spirit,” in Covenant, Justification and Pastoral Ministry (ed. R. Scott Clark, Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing Company), 349-50.

 

[Casey]

For those who hold to/agree with the WSC view of the law/gospel distinction, do you essentially agree with the Lutheran view, or are there places you differ? For example, (1) do you agree with or take issue with the Lutheran symbols on this distinction? And (2) do you basically hold to what C.F.W. Walther says in his lectures/book The Proper Distinction Between Law and Gospel?

 

[Casey]

This is why Reformed theologians consistently quoted Jesus’s response to the lawyer in Luke 10:28–”do this and live”–as the prototypical example of law.

But, according to the WCF, "do this and live" is not law per se, it's the covenant of works. The law itself has no promise of life attached to it; there is a "reward" only in the context of covenant:

WCF 7.1. The distance between God and the creature is so great, that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience unto him as their Creator, yet they could never have any fruition of him as their blessedness and reward, but by some voluntary condescension on God's part, which he hath been pleased to express by way of covenant.

WCF 19.1. God gave to Adam a law, as a covenant of works, by which he bound him and all his posterity to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience, promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatened death upon the breach of it, and endued him with power and ability to keep it.​

Sure, we can speak of law generally as an imperative/"do", but as soon as life is attached as a promise for obedience, then it's no longer law in the strict sense, at least, if we're going to be confessional.

 

[Poimen]

Calvin, Institutes, 2.9.4

For Paul often means by the term “law” the rule of righteous living by which God requires of us what is his own, giving us no hope of life unless we completely obey him, and adding on the other hand a curse if we deviate even in the slightest degree. This Paul does when he contends that we are pleasing to God through grace and are accounted righteous through his pardon, because nowhere is found that observance of the law for which the reward has been promised. Paul therefore justly makes contraries of the righteousness of the law and of that of the gospel [Romans 3:21 ff.; Galatians 3:10 ff.; etc.].

Ursinus, Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism

The law promises life to those who are righteous in themselves, or on the condition of righteousness, and perfect obedience. [Lev 18:5; Matt 19:17] The gospel, on the other hand, promises life to those who are justified by faith in Christ, or on the condition of the righteousness of Christ, applied unto us by faith. The law and the gospel are, however, not opposed to each other in these respects: for although the law requires us to keep the commandments if we would enter into life, yet it does not exclude us from life if another perform these things for us. It does indeed propose a way of satisfaction, which is through ourselves, but it does not forbid the other, as has been shown.

 

[py3ak]

Here is John Brown of Haddington.

Q. How may the scriptures be more generally distinguished?
A. Into the Law and the Gospel.

Q. What is the Law of God?
A. It is that declaration of his will to reasonable creatures, whereby he shows them their duty and binds them to it.

Q. What parts of scripture belong to the law?
A. All these that require any duty to be performed by men, Exodus 20:3-17; 1 John 3:23; Isaiah 55:6,7.

[Then follow some questions distinguishing the law into ceremonial, judicial, and moral categories. -RZ]

Q. How is the Gospel usually distinguished?
A. Into the gospel largely taken, and the gospel strictly taken, Acts 16:31, Isaiah 55:4.

Q. What is the gospel strictly taken?
A. It is the glad tidings of salvation to lost sinners through Christ.

Q. What parts of Scripture belong to this?
A. All these that offer Christ, or promise any good thing through him to sinful men, Revelation 22:17.

Q. Wherein do the law and the gospel strictly taken agree?
A. God is the Author; his glory is the end; and Christ is the confirmer of both, Psalm 147:19,20.

Q. Wherein do they differ?
A. The law requires good in and from us; but the Gospel declares Christ hath done, and will do all for and in us, and freely brings all good things to us, Romans 10:4,5.

Q. Do not the law and the gospel concur with, and promote the honour of one another?
A. Yes, Luke 2:14.

Q. How doth the law concur with the gospel?
A. It drives men to embrace the grace of the gospel, and teaches them how to improve it; and it condemns them to more dreadful wrath if they slight it, Romans 3:20.

Q. How doth the gospel honour the law?
A. It brings in Christ as perfectly fulfilling it as a covenant; and it strengthens and encourages us to obey it as a rule.

Q. If the law and gospel so well agree, how is it that men, by cleaving to the law as a covenant, slight the grace of the gospel?
A. Because they abuse the law, in seeking justification by the works of it, Romans 9:31,32.

Q. Are not both law and gospel sometimes contained in one and the same sentence of scripture?
A. yes, as Genesis 3:15.

Q. What is the gospel largely taken?
A. The whole word of God, 1 Corinthians 9:14.

Q. How can the whole word of God be called gospel or good tidings, since it brings many sad tidings to sinners, in requiring duties which they cannot perform, and threatening wrath which they cannot bear?
A. Because all these tend to promote and maintain the honour of the free grace of the gospel, Hebrews 10:29 and 2:3; 2 Thessalonians 1:7-9.

[Then follow questions distinguishing the scriptures into histories, prophecies, threatenings, promises, commands, and doctrines.]

Dr. Clark, is this amenable to your point of view? I see the distinction between the gospel considered largely or narrowly; I see the law defined as whatever requires; I see the gospel defined as offers or promises through Christ. Is this what you are driving at?

Marty and Mr. Winzer, do you think that on this point John Brown is a good representative of confessional orthodoxy?

 

[MW]

Marty and Mr. Winzer, do you think that on this point John Brown is a good representative of confessional orthodoxy?

A very good representative. Note what the gospel does -- besides setting forth Christ as perfectly fulfilling the law, it also strengthens and encourages us to obey the law as a rule. That is something the gospel enables the believer to do. Hence gospel is not all "done."

 

[Archlute]

Marty and Mr. Winzer, do you think that on this point John Brown is a good representative of confessional orthodoxy?

A very good representative. Note what the gospel does -- besides setting forth Christ as perfectly fulfilling the law, it also strengthens and encourages us to obey the law as a rule. That is something the gospel enables the believer to do. Hence gospel is not all "done."

If the Gospel is defined as the finished work of Christ then you are wrong. It is complete. That is why it is good news. I don't see why we continue to have this discussion, or why some ministers seem to love mixing the law back in with the Gospel in some sort of "reformed" self-flagellation. It seems to be the basic problem of trying to shove a discussion of sanctification back where it doesn't belong. Personally, if you want to call that anti-nomianism, then there are those such as myself who will have no problem at all with tossing the terminology of neo-nomian right back the other way.


For what it's worth, I wouldn't consider John Brown of Haddington to be an outstanding representative of anything (no offense meant, Ruben). There are better theologians and better exegetes than he on just about every subject imaginable. Just look at how he misuses Rom. 3:20 as a prooftext in his catechism answer. That verse says nothing about improving grace by law, nor about inducing a dread fear in those who reject it; it has everything to say about a clear law/Gospel distinction. Just a quick sampling of his use of Luke 2:14 or 1 Cor. 9:14 is enough to establish that he has some questionable and unhelpful exegetical procedures in place. Saying that Brown is an outstanding example of theological and exegetical reflection is like trying compare Matthew Henry's work with Ridderbos on John's Gospel, or with Motyer on Isaiah (my apologies if that hurts anybody's feelings).

 

[MW]

If the Gospel is defined as the finished work of Christ then you are wrong. It is complete. That is why it is good news. I don't see why we continue to have this discussion, or why some ministers seem to love mixing the law back in with the Gospel in some sort of "reformed" self-flagellation.

The "gospel" described here is all impetration and has no point of application. This evidences that it is not the gospel of the apostles and reformers, because both insisted that redemption has been accomplished and must be applied. In the gospel is revealed the righteousness of God from faith to faith, Rom. 1:17; and now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested ... even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe, Rom. 3:21, 22. Without the condition of faith to interest sinners in the Saviour's work there is no real conversion but a mere cosmic reconciliation. If calling faith a gospel condition is reformed self-flagellation, then I will gladly choose it rather than fall for an unreformed self-deception.

 

[JohnOwen007]

Dear Ruben,

Thanks for your question, it's a good one:

Marty and Mr. Winzer, do you think that on this point John Brown is a good representative of confessional orthodoxy?

With Matthew I agree that this is an excellent example of the reformed tradition.

[1] The distinction between the "strict" and "largely" gospel is in agreement with the tradition. We find it in writers such as Junius, Polanus, Pemble etc., even through to John Gill.

[2] Brown's presentation of the "strict" gospel is consonant with the tradition:

Q. Wherein do they differ?
A. The law requires good in and from us; but the Gospel declares Christ hath done, and will do all for and in us, and freely brings all good things to us, Romans 10:4,5.

Here we see it's not simply a matter of "done" but what God will do both for and in believers. This then includes the call to repentance and new life. It is on this point that Matthew and I differ with Dr. Clark.

[3] The law / gospel distinction was considerably clarified in the Antinomian controversy in England from the 1620s (or so) till the late 1640s. Here we find Antinomian authors, particularly John Eaton and Robert Towne, appealing to Luther's distinction between "do" and "done". For example, Towne says:

God by his Gospel requireth nothing of man to Salvation; but abundantly testifieth, and promiseth to doe all himselfe, that so his promise may be every way firme and free. (The Assertion of Grace (1645), pp. 16-17.

The Puritans responded by explaining that the law / gospel distinction was:
law: do and live (not simply "do")
gospel: live and do (not simply "done")

However, this point was clarified by the reformed divines prior to the Antinomian controversy. For example, in a work of direct response to the Formula of Concord, Jerome Zanchi explained that the gospel demands three things: faith, repentance, and a sanctified life (De Religione Christiana Fides ch. 13).

[4] A personal note: I struggle with the tradition when it speaks of the gospel "largely" understood for all doctrine. I can't find a use of the word in the NT to fit this. The verse John Brown appeals to, 1 Corinthians 9:14, doesn't (it seems to me) mean this, nor do the other verses frequently used such as Rom. 2:16 and Mark 1:1-2.

Every blessing Ruben.

 

[Casey]

If the Gospel is defined as the finished work of Christ then you are wrong. It is complete. That is why it is good news. I don't see why we continue to have this discussion, or why some ministers seem to love mixing the law back in with the Gospel in some sort of "reformed" self-flagellation. It seems to be the basic problem of trying to shove a discussion of sanctification back where it doesn't belong. Personally, if you want to call that anti-nomianism, then there are those such as myself who will have no problem at all with tossing the terminology of neo-nomian right back the other way.

Does the good news include our sanctification, perseverance, and glorification? Or is the Gospel only about justification? How is it mixing in law to say that we aren't fully sanctified yet, or that the application of Christ's work is still being worked out? How can you equate that with "self-flagellation"? I thought the Reformed understanding of the gospel includes the twin graces of justification and sanctification? Sanctification is just as much an application of Christ's work as justification, right? And so how can you say that this is in any sense neo-nomian?

WCF 14.2. . . . But the principal acts of saving faith are accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace.

WCF 19.7. Neither are the forementioned uses of the law contrary to the grace of the gospel, but do sweetly comply with it; the Spirit of Christ subduing and enabling the will of man to do that freely, and cheerfully, which the will of God, revealed in the law, requireth to be done.​

 

[JohnOwen007]

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

You are right Bahnsen could agree with the post! However, the post doesn't mention the great point of contention: the third use of the law for new covenant believers: what is abrogated and what is not? I won't address this question because it will open a pandora's box and a !

Blessings CT.

 

[Archlute]

If the Gospel is defined as the finished work of Christ then you are wrong. It is complete. That is why it is good news. I don't see why we continue to have this discussion, or why some ministers seem to love mixing the law back in with the Gospel in some sort of "reformed" self-flagellation.

The "gospel" described here is all impetration and has no point of application. This evidences that it is not the gospel of the apostles and reformers, because both insisted that redemption has been accomplished and must be applied. In the gospel is revealed the righteousness of God from faith to faith, Rom. 1:17; and now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested ... even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe, Rom. 3:21, 22. Without the condition of faith to interest sinners in the Saviour's work there is no real conversion but a mere cosmic reconciliation. If calling faith a gospel condition is reformed self-flagellation, then I will gladly choose it rather than fall for an unreformed self-deception.

I'm not sure what you are getting at. I did not deny that faith was the instrument by which the Holy Spirit applies the benefits of the Gospel.