The Westminster Divines and the Law/Gospel Distinction

[NaphtaliPress]

Here,
The Westminster Divines and the Law/Gospel Distinction « The Reformed Reader

 

[Christusregnat]

Here,
The Westminster Divines and the Law/Gospel Distinction « The Reformed Reader

Not sure what he's getting at? Is he trying to establish some kind of antinomianism, or is he just stating the obvious: man can't be justified by his obedience to the law?

This sounds like it may be advocating a "two kingdoms" ideology.

This is not all that the Westminster Divines taught. They also taught all mankind's duty to obey the law, the magistrate's duty to uphold the marrow of the judicials, and to extirpate idolatry, blasphemy, etc.

Presenting this one side is helpful, but if left out of the entire context, it can be misleading, and anti-confessional.

In my reading, the Confession does not seem to generally work off of a law/gospel dichotomy, except in justification. In our overall salvation, the law is the pathway of sanctification, and shows us the duties God requires of us.

Cheers,

 

[Semper Fidelis]

The post is irresponsible. It quotes far too little of what Reformers wrote to come to the conclusion that they're "...just like Lutherans." Simply providing a few quotes about the nature of the Law to convict a man of sin and that the Gospel holds forth Christ and Him crucified does not make it "Lutheran theology". On that point, Lutherans and the Reformed agree. Divergence occurs (generally speaking) on the nature of the third use of the Law. Even on this point it should be noted that the Lutheran Church does have a third use so this post even deceives on that point.

 

[py3ak]

I see Mark Jones has some good comments setting the record straight.

 

[Archlute]

1) I know the fellow who posted the comments. He was a friend and fellow WSC classmate, and is an ordained minister in the URC. He is not, unlike a fair number of individuals who post here, ignorant of the details of historical theology, or of Reformation history in general. He is aware of the debates, and would have made a post such as he did with full knowledge of the historical context. He was, and I am sure continues to be, a good student of both the Scriptures and the seminary disciplines in general.

2) I don't see how Mark Jones set the record straight. He didn't deal with the substance of what Shane quoted, nor did he deal with the follow on quotes by Ursinus and Olevianus. He did attempt to pit Luther against Bullinger, but I have no idea if he's accurately citing either them since (unlike the responses from Chris Coleman) he didn't actually list the sources from which he supposedly took them. For what it's worth, I taught a Sunday school class from a sermon by Luther regarding circumcision and Gen. 17 that would be no different from what Bullinger supposedly wrote on those five points. Accurately citing sources is no light thing, since I have found so many times people slightly twist an author to get him to say what they want him to say, and not what it was that he actually said.

3) Some of you guys choke on "two kingdom ideology" as if it were the perverted theological offspring of Arius and Pelagius (which, btw, the post being commented upon had absolutely nothing to do). If you knew church history, and the articulation of its theology as well as you claim, you would realize that "two-kingdoms" theology is neither novel, nor some sort of odd tangent taken by a few in the church's past. It is good theology, and it has been held as such by the theologians throughout the history of the church. The only people who really choke hard on it, and insist that it is novel/bad theology are modern day theonomists. Really.

As a final note, if anybody has had their covenant theology screwed up in recent years it is us Reformed folk. Look at Norman Shepherd, look at the FV spin offs, or even look at chapter 12 of John Frame's latest book The Doctrine of the Christian Life where he continues to mix up issues of Law and Gospel, and you should get the weight of what I am saying. On the issue of Frame's theology, he admits in a footnote that there are a number of traditional Reformed theologians who would draw a much sharper distinction between law/gospel than would he, but he then summarily dismisses them without citing either their names, or why he thinks that their theology is not worth his engagement in that volume. It's yet another example of "remaking the Reformed" in our own image, and failing to deal honestly with the number of good theologians who have made great contributions to the stream of Reformed theology, yet who may not lend support to our own pet views of how Reformed theology should actually be articulated.

To be sure, Shane and I have disagreed on certain emphases of how law and gospel should be articulated within the discipline of homiletics, but what he is citing in his post really shouldn't be raising any eyebrows. In fact, it might be a good idea if some here spent a little more time comparing authors such a Ursinus/Olevianus and writings from the Westminster divines. A good place to start would be Joel Beeke's Reformed Confessions Harmonized, in which he takes the 3FU, the WCF and catechisms, and Bullinger's Second Helvetic Consensus and groups their pertinent sections into the various standard loci of our systematic theologies. It would greatly assist in eliminating comments such as Mark's and some of what gets posted here on the PB.

And a Lord's Day blessing to you all.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Adam,

I purposefully kept my remarks brief for a number of reasons. One of them was because Lutheran theology and Reformed theology are not as divergent on certain points. The other was that I didn't want to read too much into the post as there was little to grab on to.

Let me just put it this way, I can find a quote by a Marine and then a quote by a Soldier, note that they wear they both wear combat boots and conclude the Marine is just like a Soldier. If I wrote a short blog post saying only that then I am inviting criticism.

 

[Archlute]

Adam,

I purposefully kept my remarks brief for a number of reasons. One of them was because Lutheran theology and Reformed theology are not as divergent on certain points. The other was that I didn't want to read too much into the post as there was little to grab on to.

Let me just put it this way, I can find a quote by a Marine and then a quote by a Soldier, note that they wear they both wear combat boots and conclude the Marine is just like a Soldier. If I wrote a short blog post saying only that then I am inviting criticism.

Hey Rich!

I could see that you had understanding of that point, so my comments were not directed specifically at what you wrote, but much of what I read here on the PB doesn't seem to be tracking with good historical and theological sense when it comes to this issue. I think that Shane probably posted that a bit tongue-in-cheek, maybe even with the intent of being provocative, but I still don't think that people who have not a good grasp of the matter should be "freaking out" over it.

Btw, regarding your concluding illustration, I have a great joke to recount for you sometime about a young boy, a Marine, and an Airborne Ranger - of course, the Marine doesn't come out on top in this one, so I'll wait for you to remind me about it when you're in a good mood

 

[Christusregnat]

3) Some of you guys choke on "two kingdom ideology" as if it were the perverted theological offspring of Arius and Pelagius (which, btw, the post being commented upon had absolutely nothing to do). If you knew church history, and the articulation of its theology as well as you claim, you would realize that "two-kingdoms" theology is neither novel, nor some sort of odd tangent taken by a few in the church's past. It is good theology, and it has been held as such by the theologians throughout the history of the church. The only people who really choke hard on it, and insist that it is novel/bad theology are modern day theonomists. Really.

And a Lord's Day blessing to you all.

My guess is that this may have been directed at me, at least in part???

Anywho, I should have been more specific in what I meant by a "two-kingdom ideology". As for being historically grounded, you may be right about me. Perhaps I'm missing the mark. Probably on a great deal. However, what I intended by my comment was the sort of two kingdom theory that makes the civil applications of the bible irrelevant, at best.

As far as two historical examples who did not follow this pattern, Augustine and Calvin come to mind. Augustine may have formulated a very clear doctrine of two kingdoms in De Civitate, but it is nothing like some of the two kingdom theologies promulgated today, or by the Westminster Assembly. Augustine advocated civil penalties for false teachers, clearly basing his teaching on portions of scripture many would consider irrelevant. The two kingdoms were the kingdom of the devil and the kingdom of God. The civil ruler who ruled under God was not part of the kingdom of the devil, but of the City of God.

Then there's Calvin. His two kingdom doctrine carefully set out the separate jurisdictions of church and state in Institutes, book iv, chapter XX. Here's an instance of his two-kingdom view:

But as we lately taught that that kind of government is distinct from the spiritual and internal kingdom of Christ, so we ought to know that they are not adverse to each other. The former [internal kingdom of God], in some measure, begins the heavenly kingdom in us, even now upon earth, and in this mortal and evanescent life commences immortal and incorruptible blessedness, while to the latter it is assigned, so long as we live among men, to foster and maintain the external worship of God, to defend sound doctrine and the condition of the Church, to adapt our conduct to human society, to form our manners to civil justice, to conciliate us to each other, to cherish common peace and tranquillity.

Quotations could be multiplied to this effect from Calvin and our own Confession. The point being, Shane's 2K theory is not what I would call Augustinian or Calvinistic. I recently sat under his preaching in the Tri-Cities, where he preached on the 2nd Petition of the Lord's Prayer. Many things were very encouraging about his message, but I seem to recall him making a very sharp dichotomy between the civil and ecclesiastical realms, and the spiritual vs. physical dichotomy between the two. That was the context in which I read Shane's comments.

Moreover, the Divines called upon both "kingdoms" to see to order being kept in the church, and the Law of God obeyed. Each having a different enforcement role, but the same law.

I have much to learn, and I appreciate your comments. However, any two-kingdom theory which makes the civil teaching of scripture less relevant than Augustine or Calvin did is, in my (perhaps erroneous) opinion, not in accord with the Westminster Standards. Generally, I have found that the two-kingdom theory many espouse today does just that: it seeks to create a sharp distinction between civil and ecclesiastical matters, and makes the OT's teaching on civil order less or in-applicable.

Cheers,

 

[py3ak]

2) I don't see how Mark Jones set the record straight. He didn't deal with the substance of what Shane quoted, nor did he deal with the follow on quotes by Ursinus and Olevianus. He did attempt to pit Luther against Bullinger, but I have no idea if he's accurately citing either them since (unlike the responses from Chris Coleman) he didn't actually list the sources from which he supposedly took them. For what it's worth, I taught a Sunday school class from a sermon by Luther regarding circumcision and Gen. 17 that would be no different from what Bullinger supposedly wrote on those five points. Accurately citing sources is no light thing, since I have found so many times people slightly twist an author to get him to say what they want him to say, and not what it was that he actually said.

Mark Jones pointed out that calling the Reformed Lutheran is not adequate, because while there is concord on some points relating to the Law/Gospel distinction, there is not concord on all points.