What is the Reformed view of Law/Gospel?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes, so far it does seem quite clear that "do this and live" vs. "live and do this" has far more historical support as a summary of Law/Gospel than imperative vs. indicative.

At the very least, can it really be argued that this distinction is a Reformed Law/Gospel distinction?

Marty and Matthew have presented a pretty compelling positive case that the Puritan Law/Gospel distinction was a distinction between the CoW (Do this and live) and the CoG (Live and do this).

Conversely, it seems that those who are arguing in this thread for a Law/Gospel distinction of Imperative/Indicative have only presented quotes of several Reformers who insist upon a Law/Gospel distinction. The mere existence of a Law/Gospel distinction, though, hardly establishes the case if the author quoted was not arguing for the Imperative/Indicative distinction.

In other words, my perception of this interchange has been that the response to challenging that the Law/Gospel distincition is Imperative/Indicative is the suggestion that the Law/Gospel distinction is being denied and nobody is interacting with the suggestion that the Law/Gospel distinction has a different Reformed pedigree. At the very least, it seems honesty in the substance of the discussion would be to interact on that point rather than accusing others of denying the distinction altogether.
 
Have any of you who have actually read Muller, checked to see how he handles the "pedigree" of the Law/Gospel discussion in post-reformation dogmatics? I would think that he might be illuminating on the subject???
 
Have any of you who have actually read Muller, checked to see how he handles the "pedigree" of the Law/Gospel discussion in post-reformation dogmatics? I would think that he might be illuminating on the subject???

Yes, Dennis, it certainly would be but, alas, I can't find anything Muller has written on it. Looks like we'll have to go back and listen to some Steely Dan while we wait. :cool:
 
I have been trying to locate a discussion where I think Ernest Kevan's Grace of Law came up in connection with a disagreement over the reformed view of law/gospel, but can't find it. I was wondering if it is a good representation (I remember the 'do this and live'/'live and do this' distinction). I found it extremely helpful at one time but afterwards was told that it confused the categories and not to rely on it. He made a point of the giving of the law being gracious -- I understood the graciousness to be most of all because it ultimately leads us to Christ -- but does this smudge the law/gospel distinction between the two covenants?

Also:
I suspect you may be failing to distinguish between the commands of the gospel and the application of the gospel. The gospel contains commands (to repent and believe etc.) based on the finished work of Christ. However, the actual application of Christ's finished work by the Spirit in people is not the gospel.

In other words, the works I do as a believer are not the gospel. But the commands I follow (that arise from Christ's finished work) are.

It's an important distinction because:

[1] Without it we end up with justification by works or something neonomistic.

[2] But on the other hand, if we simply make the Lutheran do / done distinction, and say there are no commands in the gospel, then we make the equal and opposite error of antinomianism.

I have never made this distinction so clearly in my thinking as it is in this post; it's revolutionary. Thank you.
 
I have been trying to locate a discussion where I think Ernest Kevan's Grace of Law came up in connection with a disagreement over the reformed view of law/gospel, but can't find it. I was wondering if it is a good representation (I remember the 'do this and live'/'live and do this' distinction). I found it extremely helpful at one time but afterwards was told that it confused the categories and not to rely on it. He made a point of the giving of the law being gracious -- I understood the graciousness to be most of all because it ultimately leads us to Christ -- but does this smudge the law/gospel distinction between the two covenants?

It is a useful book for understanding the Puritan teaching on two uses of the law, namely, as a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ and as a rule of Christian obedience; but it does fail to show the fundamental distinction between law and grace in Puritan thought and neglects the first use of the law as regulating natural man and society. Samuel Rutherford suffers some unjustified criticism for his staunch attack of Antinomians and strong defence of divine authority over liberty of conscience.
 
...but it does fail to show the fundamental distinction between law and grace in Puritan thought

I do remember a strong impression that law is something of a of sub-category or arm of gospel grace (not just 'voluntary condescension'). As a believer it was a tremendous help to loving the law. But .... the whole subject has turned into an area of confusion, specifically as to how the covenant of works is functioning in the old testament (or old covenant, if I'm remembering correctly) administration of the covenant of grace. I was wondering if there is there a better book you would recommend that would help clear up further questions? Thank you very much.
 
I was wondering if there is there a better book you would recommend that would help clear up further questions? Thank you very much.

I can't recall a better secondary resource, but so far as primary sources go, Anthony Burgess' Vindicae Legis and Samuel Rutherford's Spiritual Antichrist make for excellent reading, and the latter also provides a genetic description of Antinomianism which is very helpful for understanding its historical development and idealogical affinities.
 
Just a quick observation that one of the things I've noted in my limited readings and study of Puritan works is an emphasis on training the conscience of a believer that you don't encounter today.

The Imperative/Indicative distinction tends to foster a fear that any meditation of the Law will turn you into a neonomian.

Reading Durham on the 10 commandments is an excellent example of how a Puritan will disect the Law to get behind the positive and negative injunctions of the Command that help the believer understand more fully the character of God and neighbor.

As Luther put it briefly, we've been freed to obey. Paul fleshes out our reasonable service in Romans 12-16 and points out that the aim of a redeemed man is love of God and love of neighbour on the basis of his spiritual inheritance fully received at the point of trust in Christ.

One of the things that always strikes me is how our theology can cause us to live spiritually schizophrenic lives. For instance, I had friends who were just crazy for Lee Irons' preaching when he was still a minister in the OPC. In their mind, a person was preaching Law if any imperative of the Epistles was ever mentioned - Romans 12-16 were quite off limits. Yet, these same people didn't hesitate to tell their children what to do. They didn't hesitate to discipline and reprove. Why, I wondered, was it not sufficient to tell a 10 year old about what Christ has done in order to train him in the fear and admonition of the Lord if it was sufficient for an adult? Of course these parents were sane enough to realize that simply telling their children about the finished work of Christ was not going to train their consciences.

I don't know why we think so highly of ourselves as adults as well. For some, it seems that sanctification merely comes by a meditation of Christ's finished work with no reference to any instruction the Law might have to offer. Whatever one might mention of the benefits of meditating on God's Law are greeted with the charge of legalism or neonomianism.

I, again, repeat my concern that some of the views of the Law as some sort of "bad deal" that the Israelites got when they could have just stuck with Abraham's promise are reminiscent of dispensational thinking on the topic. I think a redeemed individual should be able to see the Law as a reflection of God's Holy Character and love it without falling prey to the deceit that His love of the Law is what saves Him. I love the Law because of the evangelical faith in Christ that I have - born from above.
 
The Imperative/Indicative distinction tends to foster a fear that any meditation of the Law will turn you into a neonomian.


I agree Rich.
I have the same opinion about the teaching which says that the covenant of works was republished in the Covenant at Sinai. As if the Israelites actually got into Canaan on the basis of works. How absurd! The COW requires perfection apart from Christ, how could they atone for their original sin in Adam. Foolishness! And confusion! That is what Grandpa says. :)
 
I can't recall a better secondary resource, but so far as primary sources go, Anthony Burgess' Vindicae Legis and Samuel Rutherford's Spiritual Antichrist make for excellent reading, and the latter also provides a genetic description of Antinomianism which is very helpful for understanding its historical development and idealogical affinities.

Yes, Burgess is excellent and Rutherford's actual discussion of the law / gospel distinction is very good. However, Rutherford's depiction of the Antinomians leaves much to be desired. He doesn't distinguish carefully enough between the different streams of thought in the Antinomian camp, some absolutely crazy others a little more orthodox. Hence, he makes certain authors say things they do not.

It's interesting but the definitive study on English Antinomianism has yet to be written--it's a story waiting to be told (anyone looking for a thesis topic?). The more recent books on the topic by David Como and Theodore Bozeman are a good start but there's so much no told by them.
 
However, Rutherford's depiction of the Antinomians leaves much to be desired. He doesn't distinguish carefully enough between the different streams of thought in the Antinomian camp, some absolutely crazy others a little more orthodox. Hence, he makes certain authors say things they do not.

This is Kevan's criticism, and unsubstantiated. Reductio ad absurdum was an accepted logical device of the day. It doesn't equate to putting words in the mouths of opponents.
 
Couple Questions
1) Has the notion that Law/Gospel distinction of Imperative/Indicative is THE classic Reformed position been put to bed? It seems that it is hard to call it Reformed at all.
2)Is this quote by Marty a consensus on the topic:
[2] But on the other hand, if we simply make the Lutheran do / done distinction, and say there are no commands in the gospel, then we make the equal and opposite error of antinomianism.
CT
 
Is Faith a Work? « Heidelblog
R. Scott Clark on Heidelblog said:
...The imperative “believe in Christ and in his finished work” is a gospel imperative. Ursinus acknowledged that the law requires a general sort of belief, “by requiring us to give credit to all the divine promises, precepts and denunciations, and that with a threatening of punishment, unless we do it” but the gospel imperative urges us to trust, receive, and rest in Christ and his finished work and out of that faith to “commence new obedience.” The gospel imperative “commands us expressly and particularly to embrace, by faith, the promise of grace.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top