How vital is the Law/Gospel distinction to orthodoxy?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally posted by R. Scott Clark


Now, no one has EVER accused these fellows of being Lutheran. We really need to put to rest the notion that the Reformed do not distinguish between law and gospel (as qualified above).

Wow Dr. Clark, I don't think I have seen it said any better. Where does this notion of reformed disagreeing with Lutherans on this come from? Is it our desire to be sectarian, the accusation from SOME sectarian Lutherans, or what?

What I find ironic is that Lutherans are often used as a defense when some of the FV guys defend baptismal regeneration.

Maybe it is all just polemics.
 
So it all becomes Alice-in-Wonderland and the Doug Wilsonites (and mentors) just grin and mock and have a good 'ol time... All the way to hell.

Due to all the mentioning that it is not our business to consign anybody to hell (I agree) I retract the above. Though I claim the mitigating factor that Doug Wilson, like many of his ilk, like to yank chains of Reformed Christians while all along calling themselves Reformed (etc., etc.)...
 
Originally posted by raderag
Originally posted by R. Scott Clark


Now, no one has EVER accused these fellows of being Lutheran. We really need to put to rest the notion that the Reformed do not distinguish between law and gospel (as qualified above).

Wow Dr. Clark, I don't think I have seen it said any better. Where does this notion of reformed disagreeing with Lutherans on this come from? Is it our desire to be sectarian, the accusation from SOME sectarian Lutherans, or what?

What I find ironic is that Lutherans are often used as a defense when some of the FV guys defend baptismal regeneration.

Maybe it is all just polemics.

I'm not sure from where this idea comes. I've heard it many times. I have a theory (surprise!) that I spin out in the forthcoming book. I suspect it simply became neglected during the 50 year war with liberalism.

Because we focused on "the liberals," we were forced to become "conservatives" rather than "confessional." That forced us to become more inclusive of other "conservatives" and "evangelicals."

For a number years, in confessional Reformed circles, justification didn't seem to be "an issue." I remember hearing, "we all know what we think about justification, let's get on with the Christian life." Just about that time, Norm Shepherd was re-casting the entire doctrine!

We do have genuine disagreements with the Lutherans, but I suspect also that out of our desire to be "distinctively Reformed" we began to neglect our commonality with confessional Lutheranism. With Kevin's indulgence I'll say that our MoSyn and WiscSyn brethren did not help. They did not engage us much in that period. They were reeling from their own encounter with Liberalism and evangelicalism. Because they have thought of us as just another species of "fanatics," they weren't surprised when we began to muddle things or forget key distinctions. They probably didn't notice much.

At the same time, there began to develop a new interest in "biblical theology" which sometimes has disparaged systematic theology and traditional distinctions.

Clearly Berkhof taught the distinction at Calvin as did Murray at WTS, but I don't know to what degree it was emphasized. I have the impression that, after Murray, the move to emphasize Biblical theology at WTS probably marginalized such distinctions in the 60's and 70's. Norm Shepherd taught the Holy Spirit (soteriology) course after Murray and, of course, Norm didn't believe the l/g distinction. So it was practically lost for a time.

Berkhof was pushed out at Calvin in the early '50's, I think, and I don't know how much Anthony Hoekema emphasized it in the 60's and 70's there.

So the places where one might have heard it taught and emphasized, probably did not do it. I certainly did not hear it much at WSC in the early 80's. Bob Godfrey used to mention it, but mainly in passing. I might have had a sort of intuitive understanding, but I did not hear explained as I've done here until Mike Horton in 1998.

In the late 80's and early 90's I had read it in the orthodox Reformed and had come to believe it via my own study of Galatians and the orthodox, but Horton really pulled all the pieces together for me.

I remember hearing about Mike about '89 or so, and I remember being told, "but he has Lutheran tendancies," by which I guess they referred to the law/gospel distinction.

I know that I have been too often guilty of preaching the gospel and then contradicting it at the end of the sermon by placing legal conditions on the congregation as the instrument of justification. It wasn't intentional, I was just muddled. I didn't understand the three uses of the law and wasn't clear about what I was doing do I mixed the first and the third routinely without realizing it.

Finally, I think the Reformed reaction to anything smacking of dispensationalism also pushed us away from such language. Clearly this is what animates Norm Shepherd to this day. I suspect it animates many of those who think of the distinction as solely Lutheran.

Cheers,

rsc
 
I think you're kind regarding Shepherd's motives.

Understanding of law and gospel and justification means a truly dangerous Christian (from the devil's perspective). Because it means the crucial internal re-orientation from self-will to God's will has been effected (and from vanity and worldly pride to faith and repentance). Lack of understanding of justification means the devil still has control within one.

When justification is attacked or defiled by people who are not pure doctrinal neophytes the motivation is a desire to keep people in the darkness and bondage of the Kingdom of Satan.
 
Originally posted by R. Scott Clark
Originally posted by raderag
Originally posted by R. Scott Clark


Now, no one has EVER accused these fellows of being Lutheran. We really need to put to rest the notion that the Reformed do not distinguish between law and gospel (as qualified above).

Wow Dr. Clark, I don't think I have seen it said any better. Where does this notion of reformed disagreeing with Lutherans on this come from? Is it our desire to be sectarian, the accusation from SOME sectarian Lutherans, or what?

What I find ironic is that Lutherans are often used as a defense when some of the FV guys defend baptismal regeneration.

Maybe it is all just polemics.

I'm not sure from where this idea comes. I've heard it many times. I have a theory (surprise!) that I spin out in the forthcoming book. I suspect it simply became neglected during the 50 year war with liberalism.

Because we focused on "the liberals," we were forced to become "conservatives" rather than "confessional." That forced us to become more inclusive of other "conservatives" and "evangelicals."

For a number years, in confessional Reformed circles, justification didn't seem to be "an issue." I remember hearing, "we all know what we think about justification, let's get on with the Christian life." Just about that time, Norm Shepherd was re-casting the entire doctrine!

We do have genuine disagreements with the Lutherans, but I suspect also that out of our desire to be "distinctively Reformed" we began to neglect our commonality with confessional Lutheranism. With Kevin's indulgence I'll say that our MoSyn and WiscSyn brethren did not help. They did not engage us much in that period. They were reeling from their own encounter with Liberalism and evangelicalism. Because they have thought of us as just another species of "fanatics," they weren't surprised when we began to muddle things or forget key distinctions. They probably didn't notice much.

At the same time, there began to develop a new interest in "biblical theology" which sometimes has disparaged systematic theology and traditional distinctions.

Clearly Berkhof taught the distinction at Calvin as did Murray at WTS, but I don't know to what degree it was emphasized. I have the impression that, after Murray, the move to emphasize Biblical theology at WTS probably marginalized such distinctions in the 60's and 70's. Norm Shepherd taught the Holy Spirit (soteriology) course after Murray and, of course, Norm didn't believe the l/g distinction. So it was practically lost for a time.

Berkhof was pushed out at Calvin in the early '50's, I think, and I don't know how much Anthony Hoekema emphasized it in the 60's and 70's there.

So the places where one might have heard it taught and emphasized, probably did not do it. I certainly did not hear it much at WSC in the early 80's. Bob Godfrey used to mention it, but mainly in passing. I might have had a sort of intuitive understanding, but I did not hear explained as I've done here until Mike Horton in 1998.

In the late 80's and early 90's I had read it in the orthodox Reformed and had come to believe it via my own study of Galatians and the orthodox, but Horton really pulled all the pieces together for me.

I remember hearing about Mike about '89 or so, and I remember being told, "but he has Lutheran tendancies," by which I guess they referred to the law/gospel distinction.

I know that I have been too often guilty of preaching the gospel and then contradicting it at the end of the sermon by placing legal conditions on the congregation as the instrument of justification. It wasn't intentional, I was just muddled. I didn't understand the three uses of the law and wasn't clear about what I was doing do I mixed the first and the third routinely without realizing it.

Finally, I think the Reformed reaction to anything smacking of dispensationalism also pushed us away from such language. Clearly this is what animates Norm Shepherd to this day. I suspect it animates many of those who think of the distinction as solely Lutheran.

Cheers,

rsc
Dr. Clark,

I'm just a layman that has been trying to understand this controversy for some time. I've been a bit confused as to what the issues are surrounding it - particularly this Law/Gospel controversy. Forgive any imprecise observations.

1. From what I've seen both written and talked about by its Pastors, Lutherans (LCMS) have such a profound Law/Gospel distinction that I find some of them nearly incapable of understanding the 3rd use of the law. I don't know if their Seminaries are too easy or their examinations are but I've never really been too impressed with Lutheran ministers' knowledge (Globachio excluded) as a general population. It seems like they fall back to "It's found at the Cross" for any substantive discussion like it's the only thing they've been trained to say. I'm being hyperbolic but some might catch my drift.

Anyhow, from Reformed friends who have attended Lutheran Churches, there is practically no sense of the 3rd use of the law. Church discipline and real Covenant discipleship is largely nonexistent. It appears to many of us, from the outside looking in, that they're doing OK with distinguishing Law and Gospel for the first use but then they don't know how to utilize Law in the sense that it is not against the Promise. "It's at the cross man!" :) Lost, then, is a true Biblical sense among many of the transforming work of the Holy Spirit whereby true faith clings to Christ in love and then finds joy in the Law, not toward salvation, but because it is a delight. It almost seems like the overpowering Lutheran hermaneutic short-circuits and tells people "No, you cannot delight in the Law...."

Incidentally, my friends report that the average Lutheran also thinks that every theological aberration in Evangelicalism is "Reformed". He used to have to explain to people in Michigan, where he lived, that No, Charismatics and Pentecostals are not Reformed.

2. OK, so now we move into the Refomed community within which we see a stronger sense of the 3rd use of the Law. The Elders practice Biblical oversight and have a very strong sense of nurturing and sustaining Covenantal faithfulness. You even have some quarters of the Reformed community that give tokens to their members to ensure they are fit to receive the Lord's Supper. There are certainly many stripes and degrees but, generally, the third use of the law is more intact and practiced.

As I've seen the criticism among Teaching and Ruling Elders that have expressed it to me is that they find fault with those who begin to neglect the 3rd use of the Law while preserving the first. These are men who are very concerned with what some FV guys are saying but they also believe that some of their criticisms regarding neglecting piety are sometimes on the mark.

For my own part, I've never doubted for once the first use of the Law and how it is utterly unable to save. I have seen some expressions that I consider abberations of Redemptive Historical theology where preachers have stated that one should never give application to a text of Scripture but let the Holy Spirit do that. I find it naive and unBiblical and, at least from my own limited way of thinking, like some Lutherans might think where they start moving away from the 3rd use of the Law and biblical responsibility of the Elders to help one grow in the faith.

I'm having a really hard time expressing how the confusion is arising so please forgive me. I'm not criticizing or questioning anything you've written with regard to distinctions. It just doesn't fall out, in the minds of many I've talked to, that the debate is always centered around doing away with the Law/Gospel distinction regarding the first use. In fact, when this thread was originally posted, I thought "Well does he mean the way Lutherans do it...?" not from a historical, confessional ordo salutis thingy but from the practical way that I see that they never have any use for the Law.

A final example would be the debate over whether an Elder should step down if his children are unbelieving. I don't want to divert the intention of this thread but it seems like an emblamatic issue for orhodox Reformed on both sides. Some accuse those who would say he should step down with being an FVer. The concern, from the other side, is that those who believe it is a matter of naked election have a weak sense of Covenant and our responsibilities as parents vis a vis the third use. So, again, to the "more fervent 3rd users" they seem to view the others as either revivalistic or like Lutherans who don't do any Church discipline because of that strong Law/Gospel distinction.

I really wish I could express the complications that have arisen in my mind as this controversy has embroiled regarding the FV and who is really where in the debate. I've never been in a Church that was hard core Redemptive Historical or Theonomic or even FV so my perceptions are not shaped by any excesses that I could detect. Nevertheless, I have seen orthodox and thoughtful ministers of God's Word believe that the issues of debate seem to run deeper than merely the first use of the Law. I've also heard some say "Michael Horton is too Lutheran." I tell them that I don't see it and I love reading Modern Reformation.

I'm just trying to sort through all of it and appreciate these threads to help me figure out what the issues of debate appear to be from each of the standpoints.
 
FVers think doing the law saves you. Period. When they do away with the Covenant of Works and with law/gospel they do it so as to, like Roman Catholics, conflate justification with sanctification. It is works righteousness and it is pure death.

Lutherans you describe that have no use for the third use of the law sound like antinomians.

Piety in terms of the third use of the law is not a church discipline issue (or solely, let's say), its a matter of following the two great commandments of Christ (foundationally, but they sum up the moral laws). Following them not to be saved (justified) but to grow in sanctification. Justification will already be your foundation when you are regenerated by the Word and the Spirit and you have converted (faith and repentance).

The third use of the law is to be used (to do and as a guide) for the active element of sanctification. This is where Reformed Christians are asleep, and hence this is where the snakes attack Reformed doctrine.

[Edited on 2-14-2006 by TimeRedeemer]
 
Originally posted by TimeRedeemer
FVers think doing the law saves you. Period. When they do away with the Covenant of Works and with law/gospel they do it so as to, like Roman Catholics, conflate justification with sanctification. It is works righteousness and it is pure death.

Lutherans you describe that have no use for the third use of the law sound like antinomians.

Piety in terms of the third use of the law is not a church discipline issue (or solely, let's say), its a matter of following the two great commandments of Christ (foundationally, but they sum up the moral laws). Following them not to be saved (justified) but to grow in sanctification. Justification will already be your foundation when you are regenerated by the Word and the Spirit and you have converted (faith and repentance).

The third use of the law is to be used (to do and as a guide) for the active element of sanctification. This is where Reformed Christians are asleep, and hence this is where the snakes attack Reformed doctrine.
Right, but if it was that easy to sort out then everybody would be saying: "Oh Yeah!" :) I could have written much more on how I see some concerns in some areas move subtly in the wrong direction.

I've said before that one of the problems with the debate right now is that everyone is focused on those who are going too far in the third use to confuse it with the first. Those who, as you say, are asleep with respect to the third use of the Law as an element of sanctification are joining in saying "Yeah! What he said!" and are not convicted of their tendency toward antinomianism. This has the tendency to push their detractors further away because they're turned off by antinomianism and see practioners of it as their most vocal critics.

I agree with Dr. Clark's great observation that we tend to jump from one extreme to another in another thread. What we need is more study in classic Reformed theology and get good at it. Those who need to be brought back from the brink of FV and those who need to be brought back from the brink of antinomianism are both worthy of consideration in the debate as a whole because they are mutually fueling each other's excesses.
 
What I wrote is on the mark. I've been debating these folks for awhile. I also have a background that gives me some insight into issues surrounding the active element of sanctification. I can see where genuine Reformed Christians are legitimately weak in their understanding, and I can see where the various snakes exploit that weakness to - usually - attack and defile the Reformed (the biblical) doctrine of justification. They're default Roman Catholics working as fifth columnists in the camp of Reformed/Calvinists. Because that is where the truth is.

FVers aren't legalists in the traditional, historical sense of that. They are, doctrinally, more sinister (at worst) and mischievous (at best) than that.

Legalists are moralists and are wrong, but they don't necessarily want to pull people into the darkness and bondage of the Kingdom of Satan like the FVers. There is a conscious mischievousness in the FV camp that historically mere legalists have not had.

The reason the Puritans were the greatest Christians is because they knew true doctrine (they were Calvinists, they knew pure religion: five solas, doctrines of grace) while at the same time they understood the active element in sanctification. They were complete in their understanding of the Faith. Not all Puritans, obviously, yet when you speak of the Puritans in general you can speak of them at their highest point as a movement, or as an ideal which really existed.
 
There are a lot of things that need to be addressed. The one thing that Dr. Clark mentioned that seems to get overlooked somewhat is that the gospel is the good news. And that is not being preached as it should. It is not the gospel, for example, if some other thing is mixed in with it. It sounds like, it looks like it, but it is not it.

In addressing what is wrong in our Christian communities we must be careful not to go into factions about what we see as most important, or the things that we would like to have fixed first. It's all or nothing when it comes to the gospel. Its never been any other way. And there has never been a human-made theory undergirding the gospel. If that is how we understand Covenant Theology, as a human-made theory for interpreting the Scriptures, then we haven't read passages like Eph. 2 carefully enough. It comes out of Scripture in its entirety.

Calvinism does not stand on Calvin. It is not loyalty to Calvin and his theology. Westminsterian Presbyterianism does not stand on Westminster; nor Continental Reformed on Dordt. All these make it very, very clear that they stand on Scripture alone, and nothing else. Their intent was to bequeath that to us, not themselves.

I agree with Rich here, that we need a lot more study on the classic Reformed theology. But it has to be more than mere head knowledge. Because it is primarily "good news" for the sinner. And it has to be our good news, good news for us first, before we can hope that the Spirit will work through us to make it good news for others as well. So it begins right at the pulpit in our own churches. The pure gospel, and nothing else. Lets not split into factions, but allow the Spirit to address all these things, all our concerns, in His time.

But also, let us not throw stones at each other either just because we have weaknesses in our theologies. Let us be benevolent and forgiving; and allow each one to come to terms in his faith as he should. For each of us it will take either longer or shorter. None of us should be proud of ourselves, or think to lord it over another. We are dealing with those upon whom Christ has set His seal through baptism; let us deal with each other, then, in deep respect of that. For it is love that fulfills the law.
 
I'd just like to say that Dr. Clark articulates this topic extremely well. And I agree with every word (and theory).

For my money, nobody speaks as much or as clearly as Mike Horton does on this topic. I am as perplexed as he is that most reformed authors don't even have this issue on their map for discussion.

Count me in as one of the "lutherans".
 
Amen to everything Dr. Clark said, as usual. I find it humorous and sad at the same time to see so many FV/NPP proponents quoting people such as Calvin in support of their heterodox views, as if Calvin agrees with them. But, as Dr. Clark pointed out above, they simply quote out of context - every single time - likely because of ignorance. I believe the same thing happened in this thread with Louis Berkhof. Whoever originally decided that quote of his about the law/gospel distinction supported their confounding of those concepts completely ignored the theological context of the quote and proof-texted Berkhof against himself. This happens a lot on the internet, though, when there is no one to hold you accountable for what you say or ask for your credentials. That is why I am so thankful for the Pastors and Teachers on this board, and the great theologians of the past whom I can refer to and learn from as I study doctrine and other spiritual matters - I don't have to be, or act like I am, an expert in theology (or any other field I'm not well educated in, whether officially or unofficially).
 
Originally posted by R. Scott Clark
Originally posted by raderag
Originally posted by R. Scott Clark



Finally, I think the Reformed reaction to anything smacking of dispensationalism also pushed us away from such language. Clearly this is what animates Norm Shepherd to this day. I suspect it animates many of those who think of the distinction as solely Lutheran.

Cheers,

rsc

Scott, I'm still trying to recover from the whole Zane Hodges and Bob Wilkins debacle. :)
 
Legalism and antinomianism do indeed sit at two extremes of a spectrum.

FVism is not a part of that. FVism exists to attack the Reformed doctrine of justification. This is why FVism is in the category of sinister, similar to Roman Catholic doctrine. It keeps, and desires to keep, people in the darkness and bondage of the Kingdom of Satan. (Harsh statements? Not really, just true.)

Legalists and antinomians are innocent church ladies and flower children by comparison. They are wrong, but not in a necessarily sinister way.

Antinomians are wrong in that they desire sex, drugs, and rock and roll more than they desire the Kingdom of God. They don't like the idea of being in the world but not of the world. They don't like the idea of mortifying the 'old man' within them. They can be saved! don't get me wrong, but their interests don't give evidence of it. Any saved Christian can be tempted by a beautiful woman (to a degree, anyway), but to desire a lifestyle devoted to sexual activity and numbing of the senses and conscience is like the difference between having a drink of alcohol and being a drunkard. Drunkard's don't get into the Kingdom of God, but a person who has drank some beer or wine is not necessarily a drunkard.

Where Reformed Christians are currently weak in their understanding of the faith is in historically being so intent to keep any notion of effort out of justification that they carry that over into sanctification as well (and it doesn't help that RCs conflate sanctification with justification which is further reason for Reformed Christians to not want to think in terms of effort regarding sanctification).

This stunts the experience and even the life and drive and goal of a Christian. Once regenerated and you convert you are then justified. It's done. You have that as your foundation. It is fast and sure and won't go away. God did it. It is based on Christ's work, not yours. It's there in you. You are a new person and justified in the sight of God.

At that point sanctification has to be seen as both passive (what God does in you) and active (what you do by your own effort, which is effort you CAN make because you are a new man, you are regenerate). Before, any effort you made to develop was worthless. Even if it was 'good' it just made you a 'good' person going to hell. Once regenerate your efforts actually have effect regarding your reward in heaven. They actually mean something.

But your efforts regarding sanctification have NOTHING to do with your justification. 1 Cor. 3:10-15 is a subtle passage getting at this. Even if what you build in your sanctification - the structure - is rubbish and doesn't survive the smallest test of fire you STILL have the foundation of justification which CAN'T be burned. You are still saved.

When you see the active element of sanctification in this way you begin to come alive to all the teaching in the New Testament of what you are to do to awaken and to struggle and gain, by degree, inner control over all the features of the 'old man' in you. You learn about the Holy Spirit and how it wars with the 'flesh', or the old man. You begin to see how your warfare against yourself, the world, and the devil is part of the active element of sanctification. How prayer and fasting is. How the two great commandments of Christ are the foundation regarding practices you do. All this aspect of the Word of God comes alive in a real way. You actually begin doing it. And wanting to do it. And you then, in that process, start seeing more and more in it all.

Basically you learn how to recover, by degree, the very image of God in you that fell in the Garden. You learn aspects of your inner being that are involved with developing you literally into a prophet, a priest, and a king. (The New Testament is radical, accept what it says.)

Legalism and antinomian no longer are a rut and a temptation but you transcend both by living out true Christian liberty engaging in spiritual warfare running the race to the end. And you have a vision of that end that transcends anything this world has to offer. (This is a big theme with Calvin: you have to get over the hump where you no longer see anything of worth in this world and live a stranger and pilgrim in this world, and live for the higher world. No talk of "but God created this beautiful world for our enjoyment" and all that. That's all OK, Calvin tells us to take care of our bodies and to not despise God's creation, but he's talking about separation from the world as it exists as the kingdom of Satan. You have to get to that hardcore point and not be ashamed of living for the future and for the better to come. You'll be taunted (maybe you'll taunt yourself) that you are a coward or a loser actually which is why you separate from the world (or whatever), but don't allow that to tempt you. You don't have to become a hobo. That's not what separation means. Separation means acknowledging the enemy in the three-front war (yourself, the world, the devil) and declaring yourself in the camp of God. Not being afraid to mark yourself in the eyes of the enemy. But separation is separation. Calvin himself was on a course, in his eyes, of success and fame as either a lawyer or a scholar when God effectually called him and he, against his will and desires, turned a different direction. Became an enemy to all the forces of the world he before wanted to be celebrated by.
 
1. From what I've seen both written and talked about by its Pastors, Lutherans (LCMS) have such a profound Law/Gospel distinction that I find some of them nearly incapable of understanding the 3rd use of the law. I don't know if their Seminaries are too easy or their examinations are but I've never really been too impressed with Lutheran ministers' knowledge (Globachio excluded) as a general population. It seems like they fall back to "It's found at the Cross" for any substantive discussion like it's the only thing they've been trained to say. I'm being hyperbolic but some might catch my drift.

I agree that, on a lay level, there is probably not a very confessional understanding in either Reformed or Lutheran churches. Just as we're concerned that the Lutherans don't get the 3rd use, they look at us and see moralists. Frankly, they would be right about a lot of us.

I can't speak to the level of piety among the Lutheran churches, but I do know that among some (maybe many) Lutheran pastors/theologians, there is a misunderstanding of their own confessions. The expression "third use" is in the Book of Concord! They confess it just as we do.

Theologians such as Werner Elert and his followers, however, have succeeded in associating the third use with "Reformed fanatics." The LCMS and WiscSyn are quite reactionary in this regard.

Yes, they associate us with all the evangelical nutballs. It's tragic, but then they look at Bahnsen (don't send me hate mail; try to imagine how theonomy looks to the Lutherans) and Rushdoony and they say, "Well, those guys are Reformed" and then they look at the FV etc and say the same thing. What can we say? How many Lutherans built a bunker in Arkansas for y2K etc?

Re: preaching. Any one who says that the text should not be applied, isn't Reformed. Full stop. I know what you're saying re Biblical-Theological excesses, I've seen it first-hand, but those excesses are not Vos' fault and those excesses are not confessional. It's an over reaction to "three steps to a successful marriage" preaching.

Most Reformed folk have never heard of the law/gospel distinction. As I say, I don't think it has been taught widely for a long time. It's going to be a while before everyone is (if ever) is on the same page.

I think folk can disagree about the ethical implications of the faith or the proper application of the the moral law without disqualifying our theology.

We really need to try to distinguish ethics and theology. They are closely related, but they are not identical. The law/gospel distinction is a theological distiction.

Our ethics (i.e., our exposition of the 10 commandments) are pretty clearly expressed in our confessional documents, but there is room for differences. I would rather be precise about those things and discuss the ethical issues.

I must admit my ignorance here. I know that there is a school of thought that says that men with unbelieving children are ipso facto disqualified to be elders. I've searched the Westminster Standards and the Form of Presbyterian Church Gov't and I don't see any such clear requirement. Perhaps I missed it. If I haven't missed it, however, might not this be a case of putting the ethical cart before the theological horse? Couldn't good men disagree over this whereas they really can't disagree over such a fundamental issue as law/gospel and justification.

You suggested that appealing to election is a sort of cop-out, but I'm not so sure. If a man catechized his children faithfully and they rebel, it might be wise for him not to be elder, but that's another sort of question.

The folks who call Mike Lutheran are just confused or ignorant or malevolent or all three. In my experience it seems to me that most Reformed folk would not know a Lutheran confessional document or Lutheran systematic theology if it bit them in a tender spot. Most Reformed folk are talking through their hats when it comes to "the Lutherans." Just as they do to us, we often make bogey men of them. I'm not saying that you're guilty of this, but trying to explain why folk speak as they do.

rsc
 
There's been a spat lately of Lutherans attacking Calvinists on the internet and their main line of attack is: "Where is Jesus? where is Jesus? where is Jesus, O Calvinist, where is the cross?"
 
good thread.......there are certain pepole on this board that one can hardly appreciate because of their desire to constantly stay in some sort of "attack mode".......it makes it quite difficult. I'm certain I am not the only one who senses this and I don't want to hinder the fluidity of the thread but I had to briefly respond....:(
 
Thanks Dr. Clark.

I appreciate you clearing up that Lutheran confessions recognize the 3rd use. I confess to never having read it and am one of those guilty of making generalizations (albeit anecdotal evidence from many different points of contact). It is helpful to know what they confess. I understand that lay people often speak un-confessionally. I just wish fresh grads of Concordia seminary didn't turn green when one talked about the 3rd use of the Law.

Regarding ethics, I wasn't sure if I was speaking in a precise way to keep referring to everything in a 3rd use sense. Thanks for pointing that out. I guess I figured insofar as we understand the the Law guides our sanctification it would inform our ethics but I figured I was probably being squishy in my terminology.

Mike is a great teacher. Very gracious in his writing and in person. I am very blessed to call him a friend.

[Edited on 2-14-2006 by SemperFideles]
 
For the record, I skimmed through Grudem's Systematic Theology to see if he covers 'law/gospel' in a direct way. He doesn't have a chapter, and doesn't seem to have a section devoted to it, which surprises me. He of course touches on the subject of necessity in the chapter on God's covenants with man, and probably some in the chapter on sin (though I skimmed those and didn't see a direct focus on the rather big subject). He of course discourses on grace vs. works in the chapter on justification, yet still he doesn't focus in a direct way on the general topic of law/gospel. This suprised me. Grudem is not my main ST (I tend to always gravitate towards Berkhof), but I've been impressed with Grudem and have found him to cover most anything that comes up, so I'm surprised he doesn't take on this topic directly... I note this just to give some evidence that perhaps the subject IS somewhat neglected by Reformed theologians of recent times.

(If it turns out Grudem addresses the topic of law/gospel directly somewhere in his ST and I just missed it then delete the above of course...)

[Edited on 2-14-2006 by TimeRedeemer]
 
Originally posted by TimeRedeemer
For the record, I skimmed through Grudem's Systematic Theology to see if he covers 'law/gospel' in a direct way. He doesn't have a chapter, and doesn't seem to have a section devoted to it, which surprises me....I note this just to give some evidence that perhaps the subject IS somewhat neglected by Reformed theologians of recent times. [Edited on 2-14-2006 by TimeRedeemer]

Actually Grudem's treatment is typical in modern systematics. Few of them address the distinction directly. This is why it seems to odd to so many now.

As to the Lutherans on the law/gospel distinction and the third use here are some relevant passages from the Epitome of the Book of Concord. I suspect one sticking point for some Reformed folk might be V.6 below (and elsewhere) where they deny that the preaching of repentance = the preaching of the gospel. Many of our Reformed theologians, however, make the same distinction. Indeed, among the classic Reformed the language below is not (to my knowledge) controversial.

V. OF THE LAW AND THE GOSPEL.

----------

STATUS CONTROVERSIAE.

The Principal Question In This Controversy.

1] Whether the preaching of the Holy Gospel is properly not only a preaching of grace, which announces the forgiveness of sins, but also a preaching of repentance and reproof, rebuking unbelief, which, they say, is rebuked not in the Law, but alone through the Gospel.

AFFIRMATIVA.

Pure Doctrine of God's Word.

2] 1. We believe, teach, and confess that the distinction between the Law and the Gospel is to be maintained in the Church with great diligence as an especially brilliant light, by which, according to the admonition of St. Paul, the Word of God is rightly divided.

3] 2. We believe, teach, and confess that the Law is properly a divine doctrine, which teaches what is right and pleasing to God, and reproves everything that is sin and contrary to God's will.

4] 3. For this reason, then, everything that reproves sin is, and belongs to, the preaching of the Law.

5] 4. But the Gospel is properly such a doctrine as teaches what man who has not observed the Law, and therefore is condemned by it, is to believe, namely, that Christ has expiated and made satisfaction for all sins, and has obtained and acquired for him, without any merit of his [no merit of the sinner intervening], forgiveness of sins, righteousness that avails before God, and eternal life.

6] 5. But since the term Gospel is not used in one and the same sense in the Holy Scriptures, on account of which this dissension originally arose, we believe, teach, and confess that if by the term Gospel is understood the entire doctrine of Christ which He proposed in His ministry, as also did His apostles (in which sense it is employed, Mark 1, 15; Acts 20, 21), it is correctly said and written that the Gospel is a preaching of repentance and of the forgiveness of sins.

7] 6. But if the Law and the Gospel, likewise also Moses himself [as] a teacher of the Law and Christ as a preacher of the Gospel are contrasted with one another, we believe, teach, and confess that the Gospel is not a preaching of repentance or reproof, but properly nothing else than a preaching of consolation, and a joyful message which does not reprove or terrify, but comforts consciences against the terrors of the Law, points alone to the merit of Christ, and raises them up again by the lovely preaching of the grace and favor of God, obtained through Christ's merit.

8] 7. As to the revelation of sin, because the veil of Moses hangs before the eyes of all men as long as they hear the bare preaching of the Law, and nothing concerning Christ, and therefore do not learn from the Law to perceive their sins aright, but either become presumptuous hypocrites [who swell with the opinion of their own righteousness] as the Pharisees, or despair like Judas, Christ takes the Law into His hands, and explains it spiritually, Matt. 5, 21ff ; Rom. 7, 14. And thus the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all sinners [Rom. 1, 18], how great it is; by this means they are directed [sent back] to the Law, and then first learn from it to know aright their sins--a knowledge which Moses never could have forced out of them.

9] Accordingly, although the preaching of the suffering and death of Christ, the Son of God, is an earnest and terrible proclamation and declaration of God's wrath, whereby men are first led into the Law aright, after the veil of Moses has been removed from them, so that they first know aright how great things God in His Law requires of us, none of which we can observe, and therefore are to seek all our righteousness in Christ:

10] 8. Yet as long as all this (namely, Christ's suffering and death) proclaims God's wrath and terrifies man, it is still not properly the preaching of the Gospel, but the preaching of Moses and the Law, and therefore a foreign work of Christ, by which He arrives at His proper office, that is, to preach grace, console, and quicken, which is properly the preaching of the Gospel.

NEGATIVA.

Contrary Doctrine which is Rejected.

11] Accordingly we reject and regard as incorrect and injurious the dogma that the Gospel is properly a preaching of repentance or reproof, and not alone a preaching of grace; for thereby the Gospel is again converted into a doctrine of the Law, the merit of Christ and Holy Scripture are obscured, Christians robbed of true consolation, and the door is opened again to [the errors and superstitions of] the Papacy.

--------------------

VI. OF THE THIRD USE OF THE LAW.

----------

STATUS CONTROVERSIAE.

The Principal Question In This Controversy.

1] Since the Law was given to men for three reasons: first, that thereby outward discipline might be maintained against wild, disobedient men [and that wild and intractable men might be restrained, as though by certain bars]; secondly, that men thereby may be led to the knowledge of their sins; thirdly, that after they are regenerate and [much of] the flesh notwithstanding cleaves to them, they might on this account have a fixed rule according to which they are to regulate and direct their whole life, a dissension has occurred between some few theologians concerning the third use of the Law, namely, whether it is to be urged or not upon regenerate Christians. The one side has said, Yea; the other, Nay.

AFFIRMATIVA.

The True Christian Doctrine concerning This Controversy.

2] 1. We believe, teach, and confess that, although men truly believing [in Christ] and truly converted to God have been freed and exempted from the curse and coercion of the Law, they nevertheless are not on this account without Law, but have been redeemed by the Son of God in order that they should exercise themselves in it day and night [that they should meditate upon God's Law day and night, and constantly exercise themselves in its observance, Ps. 1, 2], Ps. 119. For even our first parents before the Fall did not live without Law, who had the Law of God written also into their hearts, because they were created in the image of God, Gen. 1, 26f.; 2, 16ff; 3, 3.

3] 2. We believe, teach, and confess that the preaching of the Law is to be urged with diligence, not only upon the unbelieving and impenitent, but also upon true believers, who are truly converted, regenerate, and justified by faith.

4] 3. For although they are regenerate and renewed in the spirit of their mind, yet in the present life this regeneration and renewal is not complete, but only begun, and believers are, by the spirit of their mind, in a constant struggle against the flesh, that is, against the corrupt nature and disposition which cleaves to us unto death. On account of this old Adam, which still inheres in the understanding, the will, and all the powers of man, it is needful that the Law of the Lord always shine before them, in order that they may not from human devotion institute wanton and self-elected cults [that they may frame nothing in a matter of religion from the desire of private devotion, and may not choose divine services not instituted by God's Word]; likewise, that the old Adam also may not employ his own will, but may be subdued against his will, not only by the admonition and threatening of the Law, but also by punishments and blows, so that he may follow and surrender himself captive to the Spirit, 1 Cor. 9, 27; Rom. 6, 12, Gal. 6, 14; Ps. 119, 1ff ; Heb. 13, 21 (Heb. 12, 1).

5] 4. Now, as regards the distinction between the works of the Law and the fruits of the Spirit, we believe, teach, and confess that the works which are done according to the Law are and are called works of the Law as long as they are only extorted from man by urging the punishment and threatening of God's wrath.

6] 5. Fruits of the Spirit, however, are the works which the Spirit of God who dwells in believers works through the regenerate, and which are done by believers so far as they are regenerate [spontaneously and freely], as though they knew of no command, threat, or reward; for in this manner the children of God live in the Law and walk according to the Law of God, which [mode of living] St. Paul in his epistles calls the Law of Christ and the Law of the mind, Rom. 7, 25; 8, 7; Rom. 8, 2; Gal. 6, 2.

7] 6. Thus the Law is and remains both to the penitent and impenitent, both to regenerate and unregenerate men, one [and the same] Law, namely, the immutable will of God; and the difference, so far as concerns obedience, is alone in man, inasmuch as one who is not yet regenerate does for the Law out of constraint and unwillingly what it requires of him (as also the regenerate do according to the flesh); but the believer, so far as he is regenerate, does without constraint and with a willing spirit that which no threatenings [however severe] of the Law could ever extort from him.

NEGATIVA.

False Contrary Doctrine.

8] Accordingly, we reject as a dogma and error injurious to, and conflicting with, Christian discipline and true godliness the teaching that the Law in the above-mentioned way and degree is not to be urged upon Christians and true believers, but only upon unbelievers, non-Christians, and the impenitent.

This seems like a pretty strong affirmation of the Third Use.

NB: They order the three uses differently. The Civil use is the first, the pedagogical/elenctic use is the second. In substance, however, it's the same stuff.

rsc
 
First want to thank everyone for this thread - especially JohnV's post as well as all of Dr. Clark's. Couple of questions to help me out.

Originally posted by R. Scott Clark
Yes, they associate us with all the evangelical nutballs. It's tragic, but then they look at Bahnsen (don't send me hate mail; try to imagine how theonomy looks to the Lutherans) and Rushdoony and they say, "Well, those guys are Reformed" and then they look at the FV etc and say the same thing. What can we say? How many Lutherans built a bunker in Arkansas for y2K etc?
No hate mail coming your way - Bahnsen and Rushdoony are despised so badly in a lot of Presbyterian/reformed circles I can't begin to imagine how they sound to our Lutheran brothers. In fact, I've never discussed it with one. Sounds like a fun interview though.:D

Seriously though, are there standard works in Lutheran theology regarding the 2nd use of the law (norm for civil life)? Looking for historical development, confessional, systematic - whatever.

I've got tons of books and dissertations regarding the political ethics of Calvin, Bucer, Viret, Vermigli, Bullinger, Rutherford, Gillespie et.al. but do not have a hardly any Lutheran works outside of the standard dogmatics and Luther's Works on CD.

Re: preaching. Any one who says that the text should not be applied, isn't Reformed. Full stop. I know what you're saying re Biblical-Theological excesses, I've seen it first-hand, but those excesses are not Vos' fault and those excesses are not confessional. It's an over reaction to "three steps to a successful marriage" preaching.

Definitely don't want to lay anything at the feet of Vos, but am I correct in remembering that Jay Adams poked at him a bit in the Pattern of Sound Doctrine book regarding the R/H hermeneutic and preaching? If I remember right, Adams said that the collected sermons in Grace to Glory were nice but they were not sermons as they neglected application. Was Adams being fair or a bit unbalanced?
 
Originally posted by crhoades
First want to thank everyone for this thread - especially JohnV's post as well as all of Dr. Clark's. Couple of questions to help me out.

...Seriously though, are there standard works in Lutheran theology regarding the 2nd use of the law (norm for civil life)? Looking for historical development, confessional, systematic - whatever.

I don't know off hand. There were several 16th century works by Lutherans arguing the case for overthrow of unjust or tyrannical magistrates. That argument became associated with the Reformed, but we learned it from the Lutherans.

Given the Lutheran approach to two kingdoms (which is perhaps little different from the Reformed) I don't know that they've written a great deal on this, but I can't say. The way to find the material would be to search "Lutheran" and "two kingdoms" in library databases.

Definitely don't want to lay anything at the feet of Vos, but am I correct in remembering that Jay Adams poked at him a bit in the Pattern of Sound Doctrine book regarding the R/H hermeneutic and preaching? If I remember right, Adams said that the collected sermons in Grace to Glory were nice but they were not sermons as they neglected application. Was Adams being fair or a bit unbalanced?

It was with Jay in mind that I made that comment. He doesn't care much for much contemporary BT preaching. He didn't much like Ed Clowney's homiletic method. He certainly doesn't like Jim Dennison's. He blames Vos for the hyper-BT approach to homiletics. The sermons in Grace and Glory were chapel talks for sem students not sermons to laity on the Sabbath. The air in the Princeton chapel was fairly rare, I guess. I have benefited from Preaching with Purpose (known, when I was in school as Preaching with Porpoises) but I think his proposed method assumes that every text has a sort of moral point or some behavior purpose. That isn't necessarily so. I agree that there's an application of every text, but sometimes the application is to "trust Christ" or the like.

When Paul speaks (contra some hyper-BT folk; I was once asked by a student, years ago, if I had "tested positive for BT"!) about husbands and wives, he's speaking about husbands and wives. He isn't just speaking about Christ and his church.

The application must flow out of the text. R B Kuiper used to say that there are three points to every sermon: the text, the text, the text. The text must drive the sermon. The preacher must die to his own interests (be they eschatological or moral or doctrinal) and live to the text, as it were. The sermon is about the text. What is the point of the text? That is the point of the sermon.

rsc
 
Will do. Thanks. Would the Lutheran's two kingdom view be considered a negation of the 2nd use of the law as reformed understand it, complimentary to, or a subset of? Don't worry about writing a huge explanation - will research fully on my own...

Jay Adams...
Helpful - thanks. Has Dennison written about his homiletic methodology anywhere?


[Edited on 2-14-2006 by crhoades]
 
Some resources regarding Luther's two kingdom view...

From:

The context of natural law: John Calvin's doctrine of the two Kingdoms
Date: 6/22/2004; Publication: Journal of Church and State; Author: Vandrunen, David

Martin Luther famously propounded a doctrine of the two kingdoms that defined his understanding of civil life and the Christian's relationship to it. (37) Luther was not entirely original ill pursuing this line of thought. (38)

(37.) Luther sets forth his views on these issues, for example, in "Temporal Authority: To What Extent it Should be Obeyed," in Luther's Works, vol. 45, ed. Walther I. Brandt (Philadelphia, Pa.: Muhlenberg, 1962), 81-139. For poignant examples of how his two kingdoms theology applies to Christians, see his Sermons on the Sermon on the Mount, in Luther's Works, vol. 21, ed. Jaroslav Pelikan (Saint Louis, Mo.: Concordia, 1956), 3-294. An excellent exposition of Luther's two kingdoms view is found in William H. Lazareth, Christians in Society: Luther, the Bible, and Social Ethics (Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress, 2001). The theme is also fruitfully explored recently in John Witte, Jr., Law and Protestantism: The Legal Teachings of the Lutheran Reformation (Cambridge, Mass.: Cambridge University Press, 2002).
(38.) For example, the fifth century Pope Gelasius established a view of twofold authority that resembled Luther's; see the writings of Gelasius included in Brian Tierney, The Crisis of Church and State 1050-1300 (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1964), 13-15. In the Middle Ages, a similar perspective is reflected in Ockham's dualist approach, in which the jurisdictions of pope mad emperor were seldom to overlap or interfere with each other; see McGrade, The Political Thought, esp. chapters 3 and 5. Scholars have also identified other late medieval figures who inclined in a similar direction, such as Peter d'Ailley, Gratian, Aquinas, Huguccio, and John of Paris; see Oakley, The Political Thought, ch. 2; and Tierney, The Idea, 170.
 
Originally posted by crhoades
Will do. Thanks. Would the Lutheran's two kingdom view be considered a negation of the 2nd use of the law as reformed understand it, complimentary to, or a subset of? Don't worry about writing a huge explanation - will research fully on my own...

Jay Adams...
Helpful - thanks. Has Dennison written about his homiletic methodology anywhere?


[Edited on 2-14-2006 by crhoades]

Jim publishes a journal called KERUX that is online. He has written about it at some length.

I don't know that the Lutheran civil use is fundamentally different from the Reformed civil use (avoiding the confusion over the different numbering).

Everyone's civil use is a little different post Christendom. No one (except the covenanters and the theonomists and some theocrats) expects the magistrate to enforce the first table.

In my view, such enforcement is actually a violation of the Reformed two kingdoms theory.

Thanks for the bibliography from Dave Van Drunen. He's doing excellent work on this. I didn't know it was online.

rsc
 
Originally posted by R. Scott Clark
The application must flow out of the text. R B Kuiper used to say that there are three points to every sermon: the text, the text, the text. The text must drive the sermon. The preacher must die to his own interests (be they eschatological or moral or doctrinal) and live to the text, as it were. The sermon is about the text. What is the point of the text? That is the point of the sermon.

rsc

Amen, amen and Amen!!!
 
Originally posted by fredtgreco
Originally posted by R. Scott Clark
The application must flow out of the text. R B Kuiper used to say that there are three points to every sermon: the text, the text, the text. The text must drive the sermon. The preacher must die to his own interests (be they eschatological or moral or doctrinal) and live to the text, as it were. The sermon is about the text. What is the point of the text? That is the point of the sermon.

rsc

Amen, amen and Amen!!!
:ditto::ditto::ditto:

I have great affinity for WTS and the Pastors it produces. I got to Southern CA in late 1999. My new Pastor was a recent grad of WTS in Escondido and had a very balanced and mature view of theology. From 2000-2003 it seemed the SoCal OPC was pretty embroiled in BT/Theonomy divisions. Because of that, and the nature of men to like to be "banner followers" I immediately noticed camps within my Church.

The BT folks who were enamored with a certain hyper-BT preacher would regularly complain that the sermon had too much law in it. They could never articulate how it was that he was too legalistic. He would reliably exegete a passage as to the requirements of a passage (Husbands love your wives) but would always conclude with a very Pastoral and "Gospel" affirmation that Christ is our righteousness even when we fail in the Law of Love. I would ask: "How was that legalistic?" and they would say "Just give me Christ. Just give me Christ...." It took me a while to figure out where they were getting the idea from that you should never expound Scripture with any application. Needless to say such ideas infect outside of Church walls when the poorly trained get a hold of them. Unfortunately, they thought they were informed enough to tell the Pastor they his preaching wasn't enough like the hyper BT guy.

Of course, making the Pastor's life even more pleasant were those that insisted he wasn't theonomic enough. He wasn't speaking out enough about the plight of Christians in Indonesia or how we needed to transform our culture.

A pastor once pointed this out with respect to the issue:
(2 Timothy 3:16-17) All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.
Nothing bugs me more when people either ignore application when it's warranted because their hermaneutic prohibits it or when they preach application when its unwarranted because they were taught "...you always have to give application...."

I even had a Preacher that gave application to narratives that just described where Paul was journeying in the book of Acts. I can't remember what he said but it was laughable how he turned a narrative of Paul being on a road somewhere into some strained "...do likewise...." He told me his Reformed Seminary trained him to always give application and, boy, did he ever always give application.

[Edited on 2-15-2006 by SemperFideles]
 
Originally posted by fredtgreco
Originally posted by R. Scott Clark
The application must flow out of the text. R B Kuiper used to say that there are three points to every sermon: the text, the text, the text. The text must drive the sermon. The preacher must die to his own interests (be they eschatological or moral or doctrinal) and live to the text, as it were. The sermon is about the text. What is the point of the text? That is the point of the sermon.

rsc

Amen, amen and Amen!!!

In don't know how many of us can squeeze into the Ditto corner, but I want to be right there with ya'all, holding the big :ditto:.

Can you tell that Fred still has some Baptist tendencies in him? Three amens. Rich is more Pentecostal, holding signs during the service, also three.

But I'm all for it this time, and want to add my own. I want to put this into bold print, and print it out onto a poster. Its the first rule and the last rule of the preacher, and everything that doesn't fit in between just doesn't fit.
 
Originally posted by JohnV
Originally posted by fredtgreco
Originally posted by R. Scott Clark
The application must flow out of the text. R B Kuiper used to say that there are three points to every sermon: the text, the text, the text. The text must drive the sermon. The preacher must die to his own interests (be they eschatological or moral or doctrinal) and live to the text, as it were. The sermon is about the text. What is the point of the text? That is the point of the sermon.

rsc

Amen, amen and Amen!!!

In don't know how many of us can squeeze into the Ditto corner, but I want to be right there with ya'all, holding the big :ditto:.

Can you tell that Fred still has some Baptist tendencies in him? Three amens. Rich is more Pentecostal, holding signs during the service, also three.

But I'm all for it this time, and want to add my own. I want to put this into bold print, and print it out onto a poster. Its the first rule and the last rule of the preacher, and everything that doesn't fit in between just doesn't fit.
:lol: I even bring my own tamborine to Church with me!
 
In Romans 6, we see a transition Paul makes between two of the three uses of the Law which Berkhof outlines as a representative of the Reformed tradition, and as Dr. Clark has mentioned as well in this thread.

13 Do not present your members to sin as instruments for unrighteousness, but present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments for righteousness. 14 For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.

15 What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! 16 Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness? 17 But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, 18 and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness. 19 I am speaking in human terms, because of your natural limitations. For just as you once presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness leading to sanctification.

Paul explains throughout Romans how we are not JUSTIFIED by the works of the law, and can never be, because of sin. He then explains how Christ fulfilled the law FOR US, becoming OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS. However, he then goes into explaining another use of the law (i.e. not for justification AT ALL IN ANY WAY... FAITH + NOTHING!!!) - sanctification.

If you throw out the Covenant of Works and even the Covenant of Redemption, you confound the covenantal theme throughout Scripture into nonsense.

God decreed to redeem for Himself a people through the merit and work of Jesus Christ in the Covenant of Redemption. Adam and all mankind are born into the CoW, obligated to perfect obedience in order to be in glory and communion with God. Man, post-adam are born into the CoW as covenant breakers (Rom 1-3), and have no hope of fulfilling the demands of the Law. Christ, as the second Adam, fulfills the demands of the CoW for the elect, and we receive grace through this by means of the Covenant of Grace. However, only those who are in communion with God - those who have the demands of the CoW fulfilled for them in Christ - are partakers of all the spiritual blessings in Christ in the CoG. FV goons would have us believe that simply being in covenant with God is enough to partake of all the benefits of Christ - minus perseverance - and that you can lose all of those benefits (including justification!) if you are not "covenantally faithful." Thankfully, the picture Paul gives us in Scripture, taking ALL of Scripture into account, is a much better one.

[Edited on 2-15-2006 by WrittenFromUtopia]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top