Law and Gospel by John M. Frame

[AV1611]

Has anyone interracted with this?

Conclusion
The sharp distinction between law and gospel is becoming popular in Reformed, as well as Lutheran circles. It is the view of Westminster Seminary California, Modern Reformation magazine, and the White Horse Inn radio broadcast. The leaders of these organizations are very insistent that theirs is the only biblical view of the matter. One has recently claimed that people who hold a different view repudiate the Reformation and even deny the gospel itself. On that view, we must use the term gospel only in what the Formula calls the “proper” sense, not in the biblical sense. I believe that we should stand with the Scriptures against this tradition.​

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Has anyone interracted with this?

Conclusion
The sharp distinction between law and gospel is becoming popular in Reformed, as well as Lutheran circles. It is the view of Westminster Seminary California, Modern Reformation magazine, and the White Horse Inn radio broadcast. The leaders of these organizations are very insistent that theirs is the only biblical view of the matter. One has recently claimed that people who hold a different view repudiate the Reformation and even deny the gospel itself. On that view, we must use the term gospel only in what the Formula calls the “proper” sense, not in the biblical sense. I believe that we should stand with the Scriptures against this tradition.​

I think that reveals Dr. Frame's FV-sympathies (even though he is not a Federal Visionist himself). In an endnote to Salvation Belongs to the Lord, he said that the views of Norman Shepherd were within the Reformed tradition, even though they were wrong.

 

[Philip A]

The sharp distinction between law and gospel is becoming popular in Reformed, as well as Lutheran circles.​

That's hilarious He talks as if it were something that started in the 70's or something.

Maybe he should bemoan the fact that reading the primary sources is becoming popular.

 

[RamistThomist]

I actually liked the article, but this is old hat stuff. It probably means I am not Reformed, but I can live with that. While Frame perhaps overstated his case (e.g., on the Reformers), I liked the rest of it.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I think that reveals Dr. Frame's FV-sympathies (even though he is not a Federal Visionist himself). In an endnote to Salvation Belongs to the Lord, he said that the views of Norman Shepherd were within the Reformed tradition, even though they were wrong.

I disagree. I disagree that this quote, or the allusion of a comment of his re. NS, indicates of themselves sympathy with the FV. That may or may not be demonstrable from other places. And I certainly believe that any seeking of division within a tradition at its very root (as I think NS, et al have done) puts them outside the Reformed tradition. So, I think Frame is just wrong, but it would be unwarranted to draw the inferences above from a footnote.

RichardMuller, in RPRRD has offered the fair conclusion (I think) that Amyraldianism belongs to no other tradition than ours. I think 4-point-Calv. is a big mistake; I think such a division on the intent of the atonement is a center-line division, even if it isn't a foundational division. The implications of the view are far-reaching. But I can say that it is a malformed species of Reformation thought without being sympathetic to it.

In Frame's case, it would appear he is extending (as always) his rather stout olive branch of charity to a man he knows, and probably loves, and thinks is in error.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

I think that reveals Dr. Frame's FV-sympathies (even though he is not a Federal Visionist himself). In an endnote to Salvation Belongs to the Lord, he said that the views of Norman Shepherd were within the Reformed tradition, even though they were wrong.

I disagree. I disagree that this quote, or the allusion of a comment of his re. NS, indicates of themselves sympathy with the FV. That may or may not be demonstrable from other places. And I certainly believe that any seeking of division within a tradition at its very root (as I think NS, et al have done) puts them outside the Reformed tradition. So, I think Frame is just wrong, but it would be unwarranted to draw the inferences above from a footnote.

RichardMuller, in RPRRD has offered the fair conclusion (I think) that Amyraldianism belongs to no other tradition than ours. I think 4-point-Calv. is a big mistake; I think such a division on the intent of the atonement is a center-line division, even if it isn't a foundational division. The implications of the view are far-reaching. But I can say that it is a malformed species of Reformation thought without being sympathetic to it.

In Frame's case, it would appear he is extending (as always) his rather stout olive branch of charity to a man he knows, and probably loves, and thinks is in error.

When I say sympathies I mean more with the men than their entire system (though would it not be fair to say that he has some sympathy with certain aspects of their teaching?).

 

[Theogenes]

Marty,
Have you read John Colquhoun's book, "A Treatise on the Law and the Gospel"? It is excellent. It was published by Soli Deo GLoria.
Jim

 

[Stephen]

Yes, John Frame is totally off base on this. I have suspected for years that he is not reformed. The law and gospel distinction is certainly not new and was taught long before Westminster West and Modern Reformation Magazine.

 

[ADKing]

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.

Please let us know how we may obtain this when it is available! I am not sure I am famliar with how to obtain dissertations from Australia

 

[Gage Browning]

Clarification

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)..

Can you explain or clarify further where the gospel contains commands? Are you saying that repentance is gospel or results from believing gospel?

 

[Stephen]

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)..

Can you explain or clarify further where the gospel contains commands? Are you saying that repentance is gospel or results from believing gospel?

The gospel does not command; it is the law that commands. The gospel drives us to Christ where we find grace to repent and obey Him.

 

[Gage Browning]

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)..

Can you explain or clarify further where the gospel contains commands? Are you saying that repentance is gospel or results from believing gospel?

The gospel does not command; it is the law that commands. The gospel drives us to Christ where we find grace to repent and obey Him.

I agree Stephen. Luther may have been right that the distinction is hard to make between Law and Gospel.

By the way- I was in Nova Scotia two weeks ago. I didn't know the PCA was in NS.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

but the ARP is there as well

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

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.

Please let us know how we may obtain this when it is available! I am not sure I am famliar with how to obtain dissertations from Australia

Me neither. This sounds like an impressive bit of work. Hope you can get a publisher, and if not please self-publish it.

 

[Stephen]

Can you explain or clarify further where the gospel contains commands? Are you saying that repentance is gospel or results from believing gospel?

The gospel does not command; it is the law that commands. The gospel drives us to Christ where we find grace to repent and obey Him.

I agree Stephen. Luther may have been right that the distinction is hard to make between Law and Gospel.

By the way- I was in Nova Scotia two weeks ago. I didn't know the PCA was in NS.

Wow, I wish you would have found us. Where were you in Nova Scotia? I live on the southeast end and pastor two congregations. We have six congregations in Nova Scotia and the ARP has three. If you are ever here again, please contact me. The PCA and ARP are small struggling congregations in the midst of strong liberalism and Romanism. Eastern Canada is a spiritual wasteland that is being judged by the LORD.

 

[JohnOwen007]

Dear Stephen,

Thanks for your thoughts.

The gospel does not command; it is the law that commands. The gospel drives us to Christ where we find grace to repent and obey Him.

That's what I thought when I began researching. This is basically the Lutheran take on the law / gospel distinction. But now I think differently and that's because the reformed tradition took me back to Scripture (esp. John Owen).

Hence, in Acts 13:49 we find a call to repent in the gospel itself:

"Men, why are you doing this? We are also men, of like nature with you, and preaching the gospel to you, that you should turn [i.e. repent] from these worthless things to the living God who made the heaven and the earth and the sea ..."

And in Rev. 14:6-7 we find commands in the gospel to worship, fear God, and give him glory:

"Then I saw another angel flying in midair, and he had the eternal gospel to proclaim to those who live on the earth—to every nation, tribe, language and people. And he said with a loud voice, "Fear God and give him glory, for the hour of his judgment has come; and worship him who made heaven and earth, the sea and fountains of water".

If we say that the gospel = covenant of grace, then the covenant of grace contains commands. The issue is the context in which these commands arise. Under the gospel commands arise because one is reconciled, not to be reconciled.

In a nutshell, the gospel is about Christ as Lord (hence the demand to repent) and saviour (hence the demand to have faith).

And dear PBers once it's done I'll attempt to make it as available as possible. Australia may be far away geographically but the web makes it possible for us to be quite closely connected.

I'm off to Cambridge in a month for a 6 month Sabbatical to try and nail the thesis. Please pray for me.

Blessings.

 

[AV1611]

The gospel does not command; it is the law that commands. The gospel drives us to Christ where we find grace to repent and obey Him.

Have you read Horton's God of Promise as it explains how the gospel commands.

As an aside, Zacharias Ursinus writes the following in his Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism;

“The gospel and the law agree in this, that they are both from God, and that there is something revealed in each concerning the nature, will, and works of God. There is, however, a very great difference between them:

1. In the revelations which they contain. Or, as it respects the manner in which the revelation peculiar to each is made known. The law was engraven upon the heart of man in his creation, and is therefore known to all naturally, although no other revelation were given. [Rom 2:15] The gospel is not known naturally, but is divinely revealed to the Church alone through Christ, the Mediator. For no creature could have seen or hoped for that mitigation of the law concerning satisfaction for our sins through another, if the Son of God had not revealed it. [Matt 11:27; 16:17].

2. In the kind of doctrine, or subject peculiar to each. The law teaches us what we ought to be, and what God requires of us, but it does not give us the ability to perform it, nor does it point out the way by which we may avoid what is forbidden. But the gospel teaches us in what manner we may be made such as the law requires: for it offers unto us the promise of grace, by having the righteousness of Christ imputed to us through faith, and that in such a way as if it were properly ours, teaching us that we are just before God, through the imputation of Christ’s righteousness. The law says, “Pay what thou owest.” “Do this and live.” (Matt 18:28; Luke 10:28). The gospel says, “Only believe.” (Mark 5:36).

3. In the promises. 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.

4. They differ in their effects. The law, without the gospel, is the letter which killeth, and is the ministration of death. [Rom 3:20; 4:15; 2 Cor 3:6] The outward preaching, and simple knowledge of what ought to be done, is known through the letter: for it declares our duty, and that righteousness which God requires; and, whilst it neither gives us the ability to perform it, nor points out the way through which it may be obtained, it finds fault with, and condemns our righteousness. But the gospel is the ministration of life, and of the Spirit, that is, it has the operations of the Spirit united with it, and quickens those that are dead in sin, because it is through the gospel that the Holy Spirit works faith and life in the elect [Rom 1:6].”​

 

[Gage Browning]

Dear Stephen,

Thanks for your thoughts.

The gospel does not command; it is the law that commands. The gospel drives us to Christ where we find grace to repent and obey Him.

That's what I thought when I began researching. This is basically the Lutheran take on the law / gospel distinction. But now I think differently and that's because the reformed tradition took me back to Scripture (esp. John Owen).

Blessings.

This may be anathema to say to many, but Owen does not always speak for all the Reformed...(I'm ducking now...I know...I know...).
With that said - I don't necessarily buy your premise that the Law and Gospel distinction is basically Lutheran. It seems to me that it was distinctively Calvinistic as well.

Calvin- For since the teaching of the law is far above human capacity, a man may indeed view from afar the proffered promises, yet he cannot derive any benefit from them... so that we discern in the law only the most immediate death. (Institutes, 2.7.3).
Calvin -Do you see how he makes this the distinction between law and gospel: that the former attributes righteousness to works, the latter bestows free righteousness apart from the help of works? This is an important passage, and one that can extricate us from many difficulties if we understand that that righteousness which is given us through the gospel has been freed of all conditions of the law. (Calvin commenting on Romans 10:9) (Institutes, 3.11.17)
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).

 

[MW]

Just a note of clarification. I thanked Marty for his post because he is correct to note a difference between Lutheran and Reformed formulations of the Law/Gospel distinction, and that Prof. Frame has touched on this. (Perkins' Galatians Commentary provides the basic Puritan exposition.) But I seriously doubt if Greenham can be claimed as holding to the Lutheran view.

 

[JohnOwen007]

Dear Gage,

Love the avatar mate. I remember buying "Wide Awake in America" when it first came out (too long ago).

This may be anathema to say to many, but Owen does not always speak for all the Reformed...(I'm ducking now...I know...I know...).

Well Gage it's not anathema to me. No one person speaks for the reformed tradition as a whole. I certainly don't agree with everything Owen says. The reformed tradition (as Richard Muller has shown us) has lots of room to move on various issues.

With that said - I don't necessarily buy your premise that the Law and Gospel distinction is basically Lutheran. It seems to me that it was distinctively Calvinistic as well.

Note carefully what I posted above; I didn't say there's no law / gospel distinction in the reformed tradition. There certainly is, and I said it was sharp. However, it is different to the Lutheran construal of the law / gospel distinction.

God bless brother.

 

[JohnOwen007]

But I seriously doubt if Greenham can be claimed as holding to the Lutheran view.

Dear Matthew, thanks as always for your input. Greenham's views are particularly manifest in his Catechism. In particular you may wish to look at John Primus' work Richard Greenham the Portrait of an Elizabethan Pastor in which he has a chapter updating some earlier research he did on Greenham's position concerning the law / gospel distinction. (I don't agree with everything Primus says in the book, but on this point he makes a good case).

Cheers brother.

 

[DMcFadden]

Marty,

Godspeed, brother. You have blessed me on the PB. May the Lord guide your hand on the dissertation.

 

[MW]

But I seriously doubt if Greenham can be claimed as holding to the Lutheran view.

Dear Matthew, thanks as always for your input. Greenham's views are particularly manifest in his Catechism. In particular you may wish to look at John Primus' work Richard Greenham the Portrait of an Elizabethan Pastor in which he has a chapter updating some earlier research he did on Greenham's position concerning the law / gospel distinction. (I don't agree with everything Primus says in the book, but on this point he makes a good case).

Cheers brother.

Brother Marty, Thankyou for the reference; but Primus is really Secundus, and the real Primus is the Works of Greenham, which I have read with much profit over the years. Blessings!

 

[Semper Fidelis]

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.

Great post.

It's interesting that I just finished reading Christ of the Covenants by O. Palmer Robertson where he interacts with some Klinean views of the Law.

This is bound to open up but I fear that some of the Klinean presentation of the Covenants tends to agree with the dispensational view that it was a mistake for Israel to accept the Law and leave a Covenant based totally on grace with Abraham. I am more sympathetic to Robertson's view that the Mosaic Covenant was an expansion of the the Covenenant of Grace and not a step backward as some are wont to view it whether they intentionally state it that way or not.

As I was preparing to teach Acts 3 this week it struck me yet again that the Gospel is proclaimed by the words "Repent!" repeatedly by the Apostles but, according to some, they would argue that this is "Law" and not "Gospel" because it is an imperative. Of course, that's not what the Canons of Dordt state but it has become commonplace to fear that any time we talk about a response of man, even if we acknowledge that man is impelled by a regenerated nature born from above, that we're somehow adding our works to the Gospel. I just don't think this sharp Law (imperative)/Gospel (indicative) formula is warranted.

 

[KMK]

Just a note of clarification. I thanked Marty for his post because he is correct to note a difference between Lutheran and Reformed formulations of the Law/Gospel distinction, and that Prof. Frame has touched on this. (Perkins' Galatians Commentary provides the basic Puritan exposition.) But I seriously doubt if Greenham can be claimed as holding to the Lutheran view.

Anyone know if this is available online? Andrew?

 

[KMK]

In "Christ Crucified" James Durham makes a good case for 'gospel commands' in Isaiah 53:1: "Who hath believed our report?"

 

[JohnOwen007]

[...] but Primus is really Secundus, [...]

Marvelous play on words Matthew!

and the real Primus is the Works of Greenham, which I have read with much profit over the years.

Yes, and again I say yes! Greenham is a figure too neglected. I absolutely love him, and I'm glad to find someone else who's even read him!

 

[JohnOwen007]

As I was preparing to teach Acts 3 this week it struck me yet again that the Gospel is proclaimed by the words "Repent!" repeatedly by the Apostles but, according to some, they would argue that this is "Law" and not "Gospel" because it is an imperative. Of course, that's not what the Canons of Dordt state but it has become commonplace to fear that any time we talk about a response of man, even if we acknowledge that man is impelled by a regenerated nature born from above, that we're somehow adding our works to the Gospel. I just don't think this sharp Law (imperative)/Gospel (indicative) formula is warranted.

Yes indeed and thanks for the input Rich. It's fascinating that Calvin regularly says that the "sum of the gospel is repentance and forgiveness of sins". This, of course, reflects his understanding that what we are offered in the gospel is a new position (justification) before God, as well as a new condition (sanctification) in ourselves. Hence, commands to live the new life (in Christ) naturally must be a part of the gospel. Law-commands are done to be justified, gospel-commands are done because we are justified. It's wonderful when you think about it.

Every blessing.

 

[Staphlobob]

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.

Thanks for the post. I was a Lutheran pastor for about 18 years, but became Reformed several years ago and came to the same conclusions regarding the law/gospel distinction. I forget where the question is, but I was asking for any kind of linkage between law/gospel and covenant theology. However, I do think the imperative/indicative distinction to also be quite valid.

I also think it very significant to note that "repentance arises from being justified (not to be justified)." This sheer grace is what people so often react - negatively - towards when they first encounter it.

Thanks again.

 

[Gage Browning]

Dear Gage,

Love the avatar mate. I remember buying "Wide Awake in America" when it first came out (too long ago).

This may be anathema to say to many, but Owen does not always speak for all the Reformed...(I'm ducking now...I know...I know...).

Well Gage it's not anathema to me. No one person speaks for the reformed tradition as a whole. I certainly don't agree with everything Owen says. The reformed tradition (as Richard Muller has shown us) has lots of room to move on various issues.

With that said - I don't necessarily buy your premise that the Law and Gospel distinction is basically Lutheran. It seems to me that it was distinctively Calvinistic as well.

Note carefully what I posted above; I didn't say there's no law / gospel distinction in the reformed tradition. There certainly is, and I said it was sharp. However, it is different to the Lutheran construal of the law / gospel distinction.

God bless brother.

Marty,
Thanks for the clarification...(missed it- my fault). Also the U2 Avatar...changed it a little to Wide Awake in the Church... I made it my own I guess. God bless your work and research brother.