Law and Gospel

Status
Not open for further replies.
Please correct me if I am wrong, but aren't the Pyromaniacs dispensationalists?

I'm marginally familiar with them and they fall into the "Young, Restless, Reformed" crowd.

Last I checked John Frame was not emergent, nor Bridges or Piper or Keller or Mahaney and they all use the same terminology. See the link by Frame.

This to me illustrates one of the sad facts about contemporary reformed thought: often folks will divide over terminology like this. We even have a bit of this on this board: R2K, Presuppositionalism, YRR, etc. (twenty years ago, Dooyeweerdianism, theonomy, and Clarkianism, but these are so small now that I don't really count them). This isn't to say that these are wrong or that it's bad to have positions, but I do get a bit tired of all these shibboleths where if you don't use our jargon, you're not really reformed.

Understand, I'm not blaming anyone or trying to point fingers (I most likely do it as much as anyone and just don't fully realize it). Anyway, that's a bit of a tangent. EDIT: ok, a huge tangent and not terribly germane to the larger discussion.

More on topic, I thought that as far as critiques go, this was possibly one of the most charitable and humble that I've ever read.
 
Mark, my point was that "lex semper accusat" does not mean "the law only accuses." When I looked over the thread, I didn't see anybody introduce "only" except when you did (on this thread). I was rushed, so may have missed it.

The argument is based on your reading that Dr. Clark is saying "the law only accuses." I just didn't see him say that here.

As has been pointed out, he has said something like that elsewhere, and elsewhere it has been discussed. My problem is importing arguments from other threads or realms that one cannot follow in a self-contained thread. People stop by and read one thread and will not get what is going on because they haven't been reading all the related threads at once.

And, as indicated by Dr. Clark's response, he didn't know what the argument was about either. So, to be clear, a challenge in any given thread needs to articulate exactly what is at dispute. Please don't assume that everyone on the board has been following every discussion and reference to other threads. Try to keep each thread sufficiently self-contained or hyperlink to points raised elsewhere.

Thanks, Vic. Understood.
 
I think it is beyond safe to say that all members of this discussion board are profoundly thankful for the great service Dr. Horton has done in making such wonderful Reformed truths known so widely through his various engagements - his constant speaking out in behalf of the visible, institutional church, his emphases upon the means of grace and corporate piety, his stand against "contemporizing" the church, his advocacy of confessionalism, etc. are things for which everyone here has great respect, and for which they embrace him as a brother and co-laborer in Christ. Those who differ with him on these in-house issues, though they disagree earnestly and strongly, do so in that spirit, and I hope all will see that and seriously consider their participation and the manner of their conduct in these conversations, and whether it becomes the gospel of Christ.

Thankyou, Paul. Please let it be noted, that I have not said anything against the person of Dr. Horton. The truth is that I have great respect for Dr. Horton and his labours. I do not regard him as Antinomian but I regard this one particular emphasis of his teaching as Antinomian. As stated elsewhere, I regret that I have to speak these things. If modern Protestantism did not have the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons, I doubt whether "bringing into captivity every thought" would cause so much consternation. Such an action would probably be regarded as an essential part of faithful ministry.
 
Rev Winzer
UNDER GRACE. That is the point which needs to be rediscovered today.

It's not just genuine Fundamentalist Christians, as has been noted by some on other threads, that can be under a greater or lesser degree of legal bondage through not appreciating what it means that we are no longer under the law as a CoW but as a rule and pattern of life but also genuine Reformed Christians.

Maybe where there is lack of assurance of faith, this is what is usually behind it.
 
I've read the European Reformed theologians from both the 16th and 17th centuries and I don't find them charging that the Lutherans teach antinomianism, as many contemporary Reformed folk seem to assume. The facts are that the Book of Concord teaches the tertius usus legis explicitly.

I don't doubt that, in the controversy with the antinomians, there was discomfort in some quarters over some ways that some Lutherans have spoken. I can point out individual Lutherans who have advocated antinomians but that isn't the Lutheran position. I can point out moralistic Reformed writers but they aren't teaching the Reformed position.

I'm not saying that there are no differences. There are. Lutherans don't like to say that we were justified in order that we might be sanctified. The Reformed writers say that all the time.

I just want us to stop over-stating the differences.

I'm grieved by some of these discussions too. I'm grieved that people on the PB are accusing Horton (and me, because I agree with Horton) of teaching an antinomian position. Rubbish. I'm grieved that I've had to spend way too much time defending WSC and perfectly orthodox doctrines. I'm grieved that people approach me at school and ask, "Is there ever ANYTHING positive on the Puritanboard. Every time I look at it I get discouraged because they're hacking away at some confessional guy." That's a pretty close summary of what was said.
 
I must say, for the record, I too am very sad by the level of attack on the PB. Many at my church and in my sphere of influence chide me regularly about why I would want to hang out here with all the bickering and high tension attacks. I am guilty myself of these and I am in no way trying to impugn anyone in particular. I resolve to, by faith, in the future, be much more charitable to you all. Please forgive me for my immaturities.
 
The only way to test an hypothesis is to try to disprove it. What's with the whine-fest? People should be glad for a forum to test their theories. So if Paul really thinks Turretin spoke against using translations from traditions other than the TR and it's variants, he can do it here, and we can all benefit. If Dr. Horton really believes that
"The law does what only the law can do: reveal God’s moral will. In doing so, it strips us of our righteousness and makes us aware of our helplessness apart from Christ and it also directs us in grateful obedience. No one who says this can be considered an antinomian.
then let him or his supporters defend him. There are people like me reading. Dozens and maybe more, who are interested. And if someone is attacking unfairly , attack back. It's not like it's not done by WSC people. Trueman called the best friend I ever had a racist, incompetent and/or a lunatic, and I didn't whine. I wish I had a place like here where the guy would come and defend that statement, but I didn't whine about WSC. Iron can sharpen iron without it melting.
 
Samuel Rutherford (Christ Dying and Drawing Sinners to Himself, preface):

If Antinomians offend, or such as are, out of ignorance, seduced, hate me for heightening Christ, not in a gospel-licence, as they do; but in a strict and accurate walking, in commanding of which, both law and gospel do friendly agree, and never did, and never could jar, or contest; I threaten them, in this I write, with the revenge of good will, to have them saved, in a weak aim, and a far off (at least) desire, to offer to their view such a gospel idea and representation of Christ, as the prophets and apostles have shown in the word of his kingdom, who opens the secrets of the Father to the sons of men.

May God give grace and courage to show this gospel revenge upon Antinomian severers of law and gospel!
 
This is an old post someone lead me to. I thought this post and the following posts were pretty insightful.
http://www.puritanboard.com/f48/antinomian-gospel-26246/index2.html#post330251

This discussion is not a new one. This one comes from 2007. There are differences of understanding what the Gospel is. Especially as it is distinguished between some Reformers and Reformed Theologians. I have been accused of not being Reformed because I am not a Paedo Baptist. I also think someone might distinguish this issue based upon what someone thinks the Gospel is. BTW, all of us in this discussion hold to some form of Covenant Theology. I don't understand why it is okay to be so critical of each other in the baptism debate and in this issue it is a terrible thing to be critical. I do wish this topic could be discussed a bit more civil without character assassination. I know there are charges of antinomian and denial of the third use of the law. I haven't heard anyone call anyone an antinomian. I have heard that some arguments could lead to it. I haven't heard anyone charge anyone with not believing in the third use of the law. I have read a concern from Dr. Cornelius P. Venema that the propagators of the book 'The Law Is Not of Faith' is on shaky ground foundationally concerning this doctrine.

I adjure everyone to buy and get a copy of the latest issue of Mid America's Theological Journal and read his review of this book.

MAJT Volume 21

The Mosaic Covenant: A “Republication” of the Covenant of Works? A Review Article: The Law Is Not of Faith: Essays on Works and Grace in the Mosaic Covenant by Cornelis P. Venema

Cornelius P. Venema is more Biblical, Reformed, and Confessional in my estimation. And this comes from a Credo.

For our edification...
But to make our way more clear and safe, one thing must yet be premised
unto these considerations; and this is, that God’s commands for holiness
may be considered two ways: —
1. As they belong unto and are parts of the covenant of works; [i.e. under Law]
2. As they belong and are inseparably annexed unto the covenant of
grace
[i.e. under Gospel].
In both respects they are materially and formally the same; that
is, the same things are required in them, and the same person requires
them, and so their obligation is joint and equal. Not only the
commands of the new covenant do oblige us unto holiness, but those
of the old also, as to the matter and substance of them. But there is a
great difference in the manner and ends of these commands as
considered so distinctly. For, —

1. The commands of God, as under the old covenant [i.e. Law], do so require
universal holiness of us, in all acts, duties, and degrees of them, that upon
the least failure, in substance, circumstance, or degree, they allow of
nothing else we do, but determine us transgressors of the whole law; for,
with respect unto them, “whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet
offend in one point, he is guilty of all,” James 2:10. Now, I acknowledge
that although there ariseth from hence an obligation unto holiness to them
who are under that covenant, and such a necessity of it as that without it
they must certainly perish, yet no argument of the nature with those
which I insist upon can hence be taken to press us unto it: for no
arguments are forcible unto this purpose but such as include
encouragements in them unto what they urge; but that this consideration of
the command knoweth nothing of, seeing a compliance with it is, in our
lapsed condition, absolutely impossible, and for the things that are so, we
can have no endeavors. And hence it is that no man influenced only by the
commands of the law, or first covenant, absolutely considered, whatever in
particular he might be forced or compelled unto, did ever sincerely aim or
endeavor after universal holiness.

Men may be subdued by the power of the law, and compelled to habituate
themselves unto a strict course of duty, and being advantaged therein by a
sedate natural constitution, desire of applause, self-righteousness, or
superstition, may make a great appearance of holiness; but if the principle
of what they do be only the commands of the law, they never tread one
true step in the paths of it.

2. The end why these commands require all the duties of holiness of us is,
that they may be our righteousness before God, or that we may be
justified thereby: for
“Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the
man which doeth those things shall live by them,” Romans 10:5;
that is, it requires of us all duties of obedience unto this end, that we may
have justification and eternal life by them. But neither on this account can
any such argument be taken as those we inquire into; for by the deeds of
the law no man can be justified:
“If thou, LORD, shouldest mark iniquities, O Lord, who shall stand?”
So prays David, “Enter not into judgment with thy servant; for in thy
sight shall no man living be justified,” Psalm 143:2; Romans 3:20;
Galatians 2:16. And if none can attain the end of the command, as in
this sense they cannot, what argument can we take from thence to prevail
with them unto obedience? Whosoever, therefore, presseth men unto
holiness merely on the commands of the law, and for the ends of it, doth
but put them upon tormenting disquietments and deceive their souls.
However, men are indispensably obliged hereby, and those must eternally
perish for want of what the law so requires who do not or will not by faith
comply with the only remedy and provision that God hath made in this
case. And for this reason we are necessitated to deny a possibility of
salvation unto all to whom the gospel is not preached, as well as unto
those by whom it is refused; for they are left unto this law, whose
precepts they cannot answer, and whose end they cannot attain.

It is otherwise on both these accounts with the commands of God for
holiness under the new covenant, or in the gospel
; for, —

1. Although God in them requireth universal holiness of us, yet he doth
not do it in that strict and rigorous way as by the law, so as that if we fail
in anything, either as to the matter or manner of its performance, in the
substance of it or as to the degrees of its perfection, that thereon both that
and all we do besides should be rejected. But he doth it with a
contemperation of grace and mercy, so as that if there be a universal
sincerity, in a respect unto all his commands, he both pardoneth many
sins, and accepts of what we do, though it come short of legal perfection;
both on the account of the mediation of Christ. Yet this hindereth not but
that the law or command of the gospel doth still require universal holiness
of us, and perfection therein, which we are to do our utmost endeavor to
comply withal, though we have a relief provided in sincerity on the one
hand and mercy on the other; for the commands of the gospel do still
declare what God approves and what he doth condemn, — which is no
less than all holiness on the one hand and all sin on the other, — as exactly
and extensively as under the law: for this the very nature of God requireth,
and the gospel is not the ministry of sin, so as to give an allowance or
indulgence unto the least, although in it pardon be provided for a multitude
of sins by Jesus Christ. The obligation on us unto holiness is equal unto
what it was under the law, though a relief be provided where unavoidably
we come short of it. There is, therefore, nothing more certain than that
there is no relaxation given us as unto any duty of holiness by the gospel,
nor any indulgence unto the least sin. But yet, upon the supposition of the
acceptance of sincerity, and a perfection of parts instead of degrees, with
the mercy provided for our failings and sins, there is an argument to be
taken from the command of it unto an indispensable necessity of holiness,
including in it the highest encouragement to endeavor after it; for, together
with the command, there is also grace administered, enabling us unto that
obedience which God will accept.
Nothing, therefore, can void or evacuate
the power of this command and argument from it but a stubborn contempt
of God, arising from the love of sin.

2. The commands of the gospel do not require holiness and the duties of
righteousness of us to the same end as the commands of the law did, —
namely, that thereby we might be justified in the sight of God; for whereas
God now accepts from us a holiness short of that which the law required,
if he did it still for the same end, it would reflect dishonor upon his own
righteousness and the holiness of the gospel. For, —

(1.) If God can accept of a righteousness unto justification inferior unto or
short of what he required by the law, how great severity must it be
thought in him to bind his creatures unto such an exact obedience and
righteousness at first as he could and might have dispensed withal! If he
doth accept of sincere obedience now unto our justification, why did he
not do so before, but obliged mankind unto absolute perfection according
to the law, for coming short wherein they all perished? Or shall we say
that God hath changed his mind in this matter, and that he doth not stand
so much now on rigid and perfect obedience for our justification as he did
formerly? Where, then, is the glory of his immutability, of his essential
holiness, of the absolute rectitude of his nature and will? Besides, —

(2.) What shall become of the honor and holiness of the gospel on this
supposition? Must it not be looked on as a doctrine less holy than that of
the law? for whereas the law required absolute, perfect, sinless holiness
unto our justification, the gospel admits of that to the same end, on this
supposition, which is every way imperfect, and consistent with a
multitude of sins and failings? What can be spoken more to the derogation
of it? Nay, would not this indeed make “Christ the minister of sin,” which
our apostle rejects with so much detestation, Galatians 2:17? for to say
that he hath merited that our imperfect obedience, attended with many and
great sins (“for there is no man that liveth and sinneth not”), should be
accepted unto our justification, instead of the perfect and sinless obedience
required under the law, is plainly to make him the minister of sin, or one
that hath acquired some liberty for sin beyond whatever the law allowed.
And thus, upon the whole matter, both Christ and the gospel, in whom
and whereby God unquestionably designed to declare the holiness and
righteousness of his own nature much more gloriously than ever he had
done any other way, should be the great means to darken and obscure
them; for in and by them, on this supposition, God must be thought (and
is declared) to accept of a righteousness unto our justification unspeakably
inferior unto what he required before.

It must be granted, therefore, that the end of gospel commands, requiring
the obedience of holiness in us, is not that thereby or thereon we should be
justified. God hath therein provided another righteousness for that end,
which fully, perfectly, absolutely answers all that the law requires, and on
some considerations is far more glorious than what the law either did or
could require. And hereby hath he exalted more than ever the honor of his
own holiness and righteousness, whereof the external instrument is the
gospel; which is also, therefore, most holy. Now, this is no other but the
righteousness of Christ imputed unto us; for “he is the end of the law for
righteousness unto them that do believe,” Romans 10:4. But God hath
now appointed other ends unto our holiness, and so unto his command of
it, under the gospel, all of them consistent with the nature of that
obedience which he will accept of us, and such as we may attain through
the power of grace; and so all of them offering new encouragements, as
well as enforcements, unto our endeavors after it. But because these ends
will be the subject of most of our ensuing arguments, I shall not here insist
upon them. I shall only add two things in general: —
[1.] That God hath no design for his own glory in us or by us, in this
world or unto eternity, — that there is no especial communion that we can
have with him by Jesus Christ, nor any capacity for us to enjoy him, —
but holiness is necessary unto it, as a means unto its end.
[2.] These present ends of it under the gospel are such as that God doth no
less indispensably require it of us now than he did when our justification
was proposed as the end of it. They are such, in brief, as God upon the
account of them judgeth meet to command us to be holy in all manner of
holiness; Owen, Pneumatologia V.iii, Works 3:606-609.
 
Pat,

Someone first needs to have a full definition of the Gospel. How the Gospel is defined is going to be sticking point. How we define Soteriology is going to be sticking point if it is good news.
 
Someone first needs to have a full definition of the Gospel. How the Gospel is defined is going to be sticking point. How we define Soteriology is going to be sticking point if it is good news.
I see. Did Berkhof (Systematic Theology, pg. 278) have the view what comprised the Gospel wrong?

b. The Bible teaches that there is but a single gospel by which men can be saved. And because the gospel is nothing but the revelation of the covenant of grace, it follows that there is also but one covenant. This gospel was already heard in the maternal promise, Gen. 3:15, was preached unto Abraham, Gal. 3:8, and may not be supplanted by any Judaistic gospel, Gal. 1:8,9.

AMR
 
The Scriptures agree with Berkhof. But I think this discussion is considering things that the Berkhof quote is only a summary of. We can make short summaries of things. And they may include a lot of packed information between the lines. I can say Jesus is Lord. I can acknowledge that. But what does that mean? What is the Person and Work of Christ? Some people have relinquished the Gospel to just the phrase Jesus is Lord. Are they incorrect? I believe that is a point and a truth of the revelation of the Gospel. But there is so much more to it. I use to discuss this issue with people who read N. T. Wright that claim that Jesus is Lord is the gospel. I have also heard some say that the Gospel is Christ is King. Yes, That is good news. Yes, He overcame the principalities and made an open show of them. That is a part of the Gospel.

I think this discussion is more focused on defining how the law of God relates to us in the Gospel. What is salvation? Is it only being saved from the wrath of God? Doesn't the Gospel also include the New Life we have as new creatures in Christ? Is it not a salvation we are still seeking for and implored to work out? Is it also not that we are reconciled and do have an ongoing relationship with God? Is it not that we are his friends and are now in union with him? Doesn't also have to do with the fact that we can now respond to him in truth and walk in the light?

(1Jn 1:6) If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth:

(1Jn 1:7) But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

The distinctions of justification, sanctification, and glorification also are a part of the Gospel in my understanding. I praise God for the life he has given and is working out in my life. Part of my salvation is that I am regenerate and can and do respond to him. Because of that I can also respond to others in my life in a manner which He is pleased with.

(Mat 5:23) Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee;

(Mat 5:24) Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.

To be able to repent and teach is good news also.

(2Ti 2:24) And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient,

(2Ti 2:25) In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;

(2Ti 2:26) And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.

(1Ti 4:15) Meditate upon these things; give thyself wholly to them; that thy profiting may appear to all.

(1Ti 4:16) Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.

Christ in us the Hope of Glory is good news. It just doesn't stop at his incarnation, life here, death, burial, and resurrection. It is also that I am a new creature and can now obey him in a worthy manner he accepts.

Jeremiah Burroughs does an excellent job revealing what worthiness is for the Christian in his book 'Gospel Conversation'. And no I am not saying we merit anything nor is Jeremiah Burroughs.

Have I thoroughly confused you yet Pat? LOL
 
Last edited:
I think that what Herman Bavinck has to say regarding this matter should be carefully considered:
The Law-Gospel Distinction and Preaching

It was in terms of this distinction that differences arose as to whether preaching for faith and conversion which presented a condition and demand really should be considered as belonging to the Gospel, or rather (according to Flacius, Gerhard, Quenstedt, Voetius, Witsius, Coccejus, De Moor, et al.) to the law. And indeed, in the strictest sense there are in the Gospel no demands and conditions, but only promises and gifts; faith and conversion are, just as justification, etc., benefits of the covenant of grace. Still, the Gospel never appears concretely this way; in practice it is always joined to the law and in Scripture it was then always woven together with the law. The Gospel always presupposes the law, and needs it also in its administration. For it is brought to rational and moral people who before God are responsible for themselves and therefore must be called to faith and conversion. The demanding, summoning shape in which the Gospel appears is borrowed from the law; every person is obliged to take God at His word not first by the Gospel, but by nature through the law, and thus also to accept the Gospel in which He speaks to the person. Therefore the Gospel from the very beginning lays claim to all people, binds them in their consciences, since that God who speaks in the Gospel is none other than He who in His law has made Himself known to them. Faith and conversion are therefore demanded of the person in the name of God's law, by virtue of the relationship in which the person as a rational creature stands with respect to God; and that demand is directed not only to the elect and regenerate, but to all men without distinction.

But faith and conversion are themselves still the content of the Gospel, not effects or fruits of the law. For the law does demand faith in God in general, but not that special faith directed to Christ, and the law can effect metameleia, poenitentia, but not metanoia, resipiscentia, which is rather a fruit of faith. And though by nature a person is obliged to faith and conversion through the law, precisely because they are the content of the Gospel one can speak of a law, a command, an obedience of faith (Rom.1:5; 3:27; 1 Jn.3:23), of a being obedient to and judged by the Gospel (Rom.2:16; 10:16), etc.

Viewed concretely, law and Gospel differ not so much in that the law always meets us in the form of command and the Gospel in the form of promise, for the law too has promises and the Gospel too has warnings and obligations. But they differ especially in content: the law demands that man work out his own righteousness, while the Gospel invites him to renounce all self-righteousness and to receive the righteousness of Christ, to which end it even bestows the gift of faith.
[emphases mine]
 
I'm grieved by some of these discussions too. I'm grieved that people on the PB are accusing Horton (and me, because I agree with Horton) of teaching an antinomian position. Rubbish.

:agree:
 
Regarding the Owen and Bavinck quotes, I have a few comments and some follow-up questions:

1. Owen affirms that there are commands and duties in the gospel, but he is using "gospel" to mean "new covenant." Since Horton and others consistently use "gospel" to mean, not a temporal administration of the covenant of grace, but the promises and like matter contained throughout Scripture, there cannot be a contradiction. We would need both authors to be using the term in the same sense in order to compare them.

a. Would Horton affirm obligations/commands in the new covenant?

b. Which way of using "gospel" is acceptable, or are both?

2. Bavinck's quote admits that there is some difference of opinion on this issue in the Reformed tradition. He lists several theologians who take the position contrary to his.

a. Why does Bavinck say that "in the strictest sense, there are in the Gospel no demands and conditions, but only promises and gifts" when he concludes at the end, "law and Gospel differ not so much in that the law always meets us in the form of command and the Gospel in the form of promise .... But they differ especially in content"? These two statements don't seem to be stricter/looser; they appear contradictory.

b. Is the "concrete form" of the gospel its "demanding, summoning shape"? If so, can one move from the form of an address to its content?

c. The conclusion that "one can speak of ... being obedient to and judged by the Gospel" appears premised on the command to believe in Christ only. For Bavinck, is believing in Christ the sole occasion of being obedient to the gospel, or is all subsequent Christian obedience gospel obedience? If the command to believe is the only gospel obedience, then Bavinck is much closer to Horton's view than that of Horton's detractors; in the other case, vice versa.
 
I do read that Bavinck seems to be intimating that the Gospel imperative is the command to believe and put faith in Christ, which then is the gratitude-producing impetus to obedience to the Law.
 
Bavinck's quote admits that there is some difference of opinion on this issue in the Reformed tradition. He lists several theologians who take the position contrary to his.

Great analysis in your whole post Charlie but wanted to highlight the above point. Mike noted this intramural "disagreement" to me and that the Reformed tradition is not monolithic on this subject. I think it would be helpful if both sides would note these historic differences and evaluate where the real points of disagreement are.

I'm of the opinion that the differences fall mainly in terminology. What one school insists is part of the Gospel is retained by another set of terms in another school of thought. I see nobody outright denying the definitive nature of sanctification as the believer is united to Christ nor that the Law serves a new purpose for the believer (what Calvin calls the primary purpose of the Law).
 
What one school insists is part of the Gospel is retained by another set of terms in another school of thought.

The Gospel changes EVERYTHING. "Behold, I make all things new," Rev. 21:5. Placing Christian obedience under a different category changes the nature of that obedience.

In grammar, a new paradigm requires a full complement of cases to be complete. Simply giving the nominative and accusative of the noun does not make it a new paradigm. In this so-called new terminology there are important affirmations from the old paradigm which are omitted or obscured. For example, if "law" is to be equated with the covenant of works how is it possible for a Christian to obey the law and not bring himself under the covenant of works, how does he serve in newness of spirit, how does he serve a new husband, Christ? Does God accept imperfect obedience? Is the believer's good work justified along with his person? Does God make promises in relation to new obedience? Are there rewards to new obedience? Is there a law which governs the behaviour of the new, regenerated man? Does the Holy Spirit use this law in the process of a believer's sanctification and readiness for heaven? These questions are either left unanswered or are answered to the prejudice of the good old way of stating the matter.

Now, to date we have come across three defences of this "new way." The first is that the Lutherans and Reformed agree. Before any evidence is established to that effect we have a second defence, namely, that the Reformed disagree with the Reformed. Again, no evidence is brought forward. And now we have a third defence -- this is simply a new way of stating an old truth. Which is it? Any one of those defences cancels the other two out. The ball can only be under one of the cups. Only sleight of hand will leave the unsuspecting onlooker thinking that the ball is under all three.

The fact of the matter is that the Reformed have a tried and true confession. That confession, not apparent agreement with Lutheranism, is the historic marker of reformed theology. That confession, not some apparent intramural disagreement among individual reformed theologians, is the subordinate standard. That confession, not some new fangled way of stating things, sets the terms of the discussion in a confessionally reformed community.

Tertullian had a saying which was supported by the old theologians, "We must not judge of faith by persons, but of persons by faith." Or, as it is expressed in the very words of inspiration, "My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons," James 2:1. To quote Thomas Manton, "there is a vicious respect of persons, when the judgment is blinded by some external glory and appearance, so that we cannot discern truth or right; and a cause is overbalanced by such foreign circumstances as have no affinity with it."

What believer in his right mind would be happy to see the glory of Christ diminished out of respect shown to a teacher who professes to be glorifying Christ!
 
That confession, not some apparent intramural disagreement among individual reformed theologians, is the subordinate standard. That confession, not some new fangled way of stating things, sets the terms of the discussion in a confessionally reformed community.
I agree, Rev. Winzer.

The statement has been made: The Gospel can't be lived. It's the Law that's lived.

I suggested that, with a tip of the hat to Berkhof, that "here is but a single gospel by which men can be saved. And because the gospel is nothing but the revelation of the covenant of grace, it follows that there is also but one covenant.".

Would you agree with this statement defining the gospel, and, if so, be willing to import meaning that into the statement from the OP: The Gospel can't be lived. It's the Law that's lived in a manner that can tease out what exactly this statement is seeking to assert? Please help a brother out, as I remain confused as to the purported meaning of this statement in simple and clear terms.

AMR
 
Would you agree with this statement defining the gospel, and, if so, be willing to import meaning that into the statement from the OP: The Gospel can't be lived. It's the Law that's lived in a manner that can tease out what exactly this statement is seeking to assert? Please help a brother out, as I remain confused as to the purported meaning of this statement in simple and clear terms.

In confessional terms, the covenant of grace is the full and free provision for the entire salvation of God's elect people from their sins through the Mediator. In terms of Larger Catechism 32, this includes all that is legal and real in their salvation; it includes all the conditions as well as all the promises to fulfil those conditions for their eternal safety and well-being; it includes all that pertains to faith and obedience. The elect live and obey the covenant of grace, not the covenant of works. They do not obey the law as law but as it comes to them through the hand of the Mediator with the gracious influence of the Holy Spirit. This means the gospel or covenant of grace can never be regarded as a mere doctrine. It is a doctrine, but the power of God transforms it into a life that is lived. I am crucified with Christ, nevertheless I live, yet not I, but Christ liveth in me. It is not my life I am living; it is Christ's life; it is nothing less than the life that is promised in the gospel -- LIVE, and do this!
 
Last edited:
Thank you for giving your summary, Rev. Winzer.

How can one bring to bear what you have summarized to the latter portion of the quote in the OP, "it's the Law that is lived", leveraging your statement:

"The elect do not obey the law as law, but as it (the law?} comes to them through the..."

I am trying to unpack the quoted portion above and need help. What exactly is being obeyed here? Not the law as law, but...??

AMR
 
I am trying to unpack the quoted portion above and need help. What exactly is being obeyed here? Not the law as law, but...??

It is not the law as law, that is, as defined by Larger Catechism 93, "promising life upon the fulfilling, and threatening death upon the breach of it;" but the law as grace, in terms of Larger Catechism 32, giving life and destroying death. The elect are promised the grace to fulfil all the conditions of the covenant.
 
It is not the law as law, that is, as defined by Larger Catechism 93, "promising life upon the fulfilling, and threatening death upon the breach of it;" but the law as grace, in terms of Larger Catechism 32, giving life and destroying death. The elect are promised the grace to fulfil all the conditions of the covenant.
Rev. Winzer,

Do you mean here that the elect actually fulfill "all the conditions of the covenant" of grace or works? Does the "and to enable them {the elect} unto all holy obedience" from WLC 32 imply the latter or the former?

AMR
 
Do you mean here that the elect actually fulfill "all the conditions of the covenant" of grace or works? Does the "and to enable them {the elect} unto all holy obedience" from WLC 32 imply the latter or the former?

Answer 32 is dealing with the "second covenant," that is, the covenant of grace. All holy obedience does not mean personal, perfect, and perpetual obedience, as under the covenant of works, but sincere and universal obedience, as is articulated in Westminster Confession 16.6. This is what God accepts and rewards through and in Christ.
 
Rev. Winzer,

Thank you for the clarifications.

If "the elect are promised the grace to fulfill all the conditions of the covenant (of grace)", yet these fulfillments are "accompanied with many weaknesses and imperfections" (per WCF 16.6), would you say then that the grace given the elect, a said grace requiring diligence (WCF 16.3), is works related?

AMR
 
The Gospel changes EVERYTHING. "Behold, I make all things new," Rev. 21:5. Placing Christian obedience under a different category changes the nature of that obedience.
Is it your contention that those who distinguish Law and Gospel differently than yourself believe that all things are not new or that the nature of obedience remains unchanged?

Do you believe that Bavinck made the following up out of whole cloth?
t was in terms of this distinction that differences arose as to whether preaching for faith and conversion which presented a condition and demand really should be considered as belonging to the Gospel, or rather (according to Flacius, Gerhard, Quenstedt, Voetius, Witsius, Coccejus, De Moor, et al.) to the law.

or even when he wrote:

And indeed, in the strictest sense there are in the Gospel no demands and conditions, but only promises and gifts; faith and conversion are, just as justification, etc., benefits of the covenant of grace.
 
Is it your contention that those who distinguish Law and Gospel differently than yourself believe that all things are not new or that the nature of obedience remains unchanged?

I cannot see how anything other than the gospel can change anything in this fallen world. If you know of anything, Rich, please let me know what it is.

Do you believe that Bavinck made the following up out of whole cloth?
t was in terms of this distinction that differences arose as to whether preaching for faith and conversion which presented a condition and demand really should be considered as belonging to the Gospel, or rather (according to Flacius, Gerhard, Quenstedt, Voetius, Witsius, Coccejus, De Moor, et al.) to the law.

Rich, Bavinck spoke accurately. He might also have added the Marrowmen and the evangelicals of our Presbyterian heritage. Regrettably, you are focussing on an irrelevant point. There is no dispute about the strict or material difference between law and gospel. Of course the law commands and the gospel promises in their simple nature. How else could reformed theologians speak about evangelical obedience if obedience was not of a specific nature? How could one speak about the changed nature of commandments in the covenant of grace if commandments are not commandments in themselves? The issue pertains to the broader definition or the formal nature of law and gospel. On that point the Reformed agree (yes, even among themselves), that the law is made subservient to the use and is adapted to the economy of the gospel. To quote Herman Witsius, one of the Reformed theologians listed above (Economy of the Covenants, 2:288): "All prescription of duty belongs to the law, as, after others, the venerable Voetius has very well inculcated, Disput. Tom. 4. p. 24. seq. And we are, by all means, to maintain this, if, with the whole body of the reformed, we would constantly defend the perfection of the law, which comprehends all virtues, and all the duties of holiness. But the law, adapted to the covenant of grace, and according to it, inscribed on the heart of the elect, enjoins to receive all those things which are proposed in the Gospel, with an unfeigned faith, and frame our lives suitably to that grace and glory which are promised." There are two claims that have been emboldened in that quote. The first claim is what you are focussing upon, and with which there is no disagreement. It is the second claim which is the point under discussion.

And indeed, in the strictest sense there are in the Gospel no demands and conditions, but only promises and gifts; faith and conversion are, just as justification, etc., benefits of the covenant of grace.

Please note, "in the strict sense." There is no point of difference here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top