Your words: "If the Gospel is defined as the finished work of Christ then you are wrong." Do you now wish to include in that definition the work of the Holy Spirit in bringing sinners to faith? If so, then your previous minimalist definition cannot be used to prove my position wrong.
What is the Reformed view of Law/Gospel?
- Thread starter JohnOwen007
- Start date
- Status
Your words: "If the Gospel is defined as the finished work of Christ then you are wrong." Do you now wish to include in that definition the work of the Holy Spirit in bringing sinners to faith? If so, then your previous minimalist definition cannot be used to prove my position wrong.
Archlute
Puritan Board Senior
Strictly speaking, the good news of the Gospel is the finished work of Christ. However, that work is the foundation which leads on to all of those great things that you have mentioned. I don't see them as law or the object of the Gospel (although they are part of it's objective!), but rather the benefits of that Gospel.
WCF 14.2 - saving faith is not the Gospel, but is the instrument that lays hold of the Gospel.
As for WCF 19.7 - "complying with/not being contrary to" the Gospel is not the same thing as being the essence of the Gospel.
Archlute
Puritan Board Senior
"Faith" is not the Gospel, but the instrument that lays hold of it, as I mentioned to Casey. The Gospel is a message about the person and work of Christ, not the "mechanism" of applied soteriology.
The finished work of Christ includes sanctification (which is both definitive and progressive) and glorification. The gospel is not just that I am forgiven, but that I am adopted, made holy and remade into the image of Christ.
Archlute
Puritan Board Senior
I would agree with that. However, that still falls under the realm of "done" (or at least something so certain as glorification as to be considered "done", although the second advent is still future).
If faith lays hold of the gospel, then the requirement to believe must be a gospel imperative, not a law imperative.
Further, Christ is not only made our righteousness, but also our wisdom, sanctification, and redemption, as the apostle teaches.
Finally, without applied soteriology you are left with cosmic reconciliation. Hence the gospel must include personal imperatives which reveal how individuals come to be made partakers of the redemption purchased by Christ.
Sanctification is not just "done." It is in fact the classic example of this issue: sanctification is definitive (accomplished by the work of Christ applied by the Spirit) and progressive (worked out in the Christian by the Spirit).
Just because something is being worked out in the Christian and is not already accomplished and requires obedience does not make it "not gospel" or non-gracious. It is the mistake of the FV to see human work/faithfulness in this; the Reformed view is that the obedience of the Christian is the sphere in which the Holy Spirit works. Owen is excellent on this (Vols. 3 & 4).
Archlute
Puritan Board Senior
Although sanctification is an ongoing work in the life of the Christian, it has been certainly procured by the work of Christ, and is being certainly applied by the work of the Holy Spirit. I would consider that application as "done" (even while ongoing) rather than "do" (which is a command of the law to be met by our own strength). This is what I was attempting to get across by my initial use of that term. Even Christian obedience is a fruit of the Spirit of Grace and not of the bare application of the law.
I think we are getting at the same thing here.
I will have to read those volumes of Owen; it has been a good couple of years.
Adam, I emphasized the part above in your post because I think it may give a hint of a potential ambiguity. According to what I've read so far, I thought that when the Scripture was divided into "law" and "gospel" that included everything in the Scripture. There is nothing that doesn't fall into one or the other of those two categories. Your post above suggests that possibly "law" and "gospel" might have to be supplemented by other terms. Am I misunderstanding you?
No offense was taken with regard to John Brown, although it seems unlikely that his contemporaries would have agreed with your assessment!
Archlute
Puritan Board Senior
It would be helpful if distinctions were more clearly and consistently made. A "gospel imperative" is not the same thing as the gospel itself.
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."
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.
Archlute
Puritan Board Senior
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.
Last edited:
Archlute
Puritan Board Senior
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.
Archlute
Puritan Board Senior
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:
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)?
JohnOwen007
Puritan Board Sophomore
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.
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
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.
Casey
Puritan Board Junior
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).
JoelYrick
Puritan Board Freshman
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)
(Please ignore this if it's too off track)
Casey
Puritan Board Junior
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?
Some Marrow to accompany your Law and Gospel, Sir?
Archlute
Puritan Board Senior
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.
ChristianTrader
Puritan Board Graduate
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.
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.
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
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.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
