Turns out the some early and strong adherents to the Westminster Standards were actually Lutherans! Listen to this from The Practical Use of Saving Knowledge, Contained in Scripture, and holden forth briefly in the foresaid Confession of Faith and Catechisms (an appendix of the Free Presybterian Publication print of the Westminster Standards, reprinted in 2000):
“The chief general use of Christian doctrine is, to convince a man of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment…partly by the law or covenant of works, that he may be humbled and become penitent; and partly by the gospel or covenant of grace, that he may become an unfeigned believer in Jesus Christ.”
“The sum of the covenant of works, or the law, is this: ‘If thou do all that is commanded, and not fail in any point, thou shalt be saved: but if thou fail, thou shalt die.’”
“The sum of the gospel, or covenant of grace…is this: ‘If thou flee from deserved wrath to the true Redeemer Jesus Christ…thou shalt not perish, but have eternal life.’”
Note: Ursinus, in his Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, used very similar language, stating that the “two parts of the doctrine of the church” (that is, the church’s doctrine) consist of “the law, and the gospel, in which we have comprehended the sum and substance of the sacred Scriptures” (p. 2).
While I’m at it, Olevian was exactly the same: see Q/A 10 of his Firm Foundation, where he asks and answers the question, “What is the difference between the law and the gospel?” (p. 9).
shane lems
sunnyside, wa
Nice – those Lutheran guys like Ursinus (that dirty Melanthonian!) and Beza were always saying things like all those Lutherans at the Westminster assembly!
Ahhh . . . the law/gospel distinction . . . no hope without it!
WCF 7.5
“5. This covenant was differently administered in the time of the law, and in the time of the gospel…”
[...] September 13, 2008 in Covenant, Justification, Pastoral Ministry, Recovering the Reformed Confession | Tags: justification westminster assembly, law and gospel, Pan-Protestant Theology | Shane explains. [...]
Shane,
If you look at Luther’s application of the law-gospel hermeneutic to the Abrahamic covenant and compare it with Bullinger’s, there is almost nothing in common. I don’t think “law-gospel” is debated, but the application of that principle is in fact not always agreed upon. The Reformed had a much more robust covenant theology and, as such, their “law-gospel” differed from the Lutherans.
Sincerely,
Mark Jones
Luther and Calvin both clearly distinguished the “1st use of the Law” (or the pedagogical/theological use of the law. See Muller’s excellent definition in his “Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms,” 320-21.) Mike Horton also wrote a great article on Calvin’s Law/Gospel hermeneutic (Pro Ecclesia 6.1 1997, 27-42) There is clear continuity between Calvin and Luther on this distinction.
Beza, following Calvin, also made this distinction in his “Confessio.”
William Perkins also made this distinction, as applied to preaching, in his “Art of Prophesying.” See especially pp. 54-55.
It seems, then, that the Law/Gospel distinction is clearly a “Reformed,” on and off the continent, distinction as well as a Lutheran distinction.
Thanks for the great post Shane!
Chris,
I’m speaking about the *application* of the law-gospel hermeneutic. For example:
Luther on Genesis 17
1. It was a covenant for the Jews only.
2. It was a temporal covenant that symbolized only material things.
3. It was ended by Christ’s coming and the end of the Jewish nation.
4. It was a covenant of law in opposition to the covenant of the coming of Christ.
5. There were two different covenants in Genesis 17. One was for both Isaac and Ishmael in that both received circumcision, but the other was an unnamed covenant given only to Isaac promising the Savior.
Bullinger on Genesis 17:
1. It is a covenant for the church of all the ages.
2. It is the one eternal covenant of God made with men to save them.
3. It was continued by Christ’s coming. He fulfilled the symbolism of circumcision by shedding his blood for man’s justification, and by purifying the believer’s heart so that he could keep the covenant’s conditions.
4. It is a covenant of grace consistent with the covenant of Christ.
5. There is only one covenant in Genesis 17. Circumcision is a true sacrament of the covenant of grace, equal in meaning with the Supper and baptism.
Thus, while there are clearly areas of agreement between the Lutherans and the Reformed, esp. in the area of how to apply law-gospel in the realm of justification, they did not always agree in applying this hermeneutic when it came to other themes (covenant, sanctification, etc.).
So, yes, the Reformed have used “law-gospel”. But the key for us is to understand how they used this concept to integrate their theology.
Mark
Mark,
Indeed. There are differences between the Lutheran and Reformed on the application of the law/Gospel principle (as there were also among the Reformed, e.g. Coccejus, Amyraut, etc.).
On the other hand, the Reformed and Lutherans are united on this most crucial concept: there are only two ways to stand before God, either on the basis of the law (our obedience) or the Gospel (Christ’s obedience/satisfaction).
I see many in the Reformed community who are greatly concerned that we not be Lutheran when the basic agreement should unite us, especially against the notes that are sounded nearly everywhere against the most basic distinction of law and Gospel (that I mentioned above).
Mark,
I hear what you are saying. But, it seems that the quote from the Westminster Divines is in reference to Justification and how it relates to the CoW (Law) and the CoG (Gospel). So, it seems that Shane is correct to show the continuity between the Divines and Luther.
In applying the Law/Gospel distinction to Justification, it seems that Lutherans and the Reformed agree. This seems to Shane’s basic point. Indeed, the Reformed were more robust, as you say, in applying the distinction to Covenant Theology, but that doesn’t mean that they stray from Luther’s basic distinction (as it relates to Justification).
Sorry, I might be over-reacting to your comments. But, since the Law/Gospel is SO crucial, I am always quick (maybe too quick) to defend her. As Beza says about the distinction:
“We must pay great attention to these things. For, with good reason, we can say that ignorance of this distinction between Law and Gospel is one of the principal sources of the abuses which corrupted and still corrupt Christianity.”
Guys,
I’m not denying the law-gospel at it applies to sola fide (to deny that is heresy). I don’t see anything in my comments to suggest otherwise.
I was pointing out that we need to elaborate on how this hermeneutic is applied because it *can* be applied different in different contexts.
Mark
[...] Westminster Divines and the Law/Gospel Distinction Here, The Westminster Divines and the Law/Gospel Distinction « The Reformed Reader __________________ Chris Coldwell, Lakewood Presbyterian Church (PCA), Member • Naphtali Press: [...]
Thanks for the comments, men. My opening sentence was a (weak?!) attempt at humor/sarcasm (which probably could be caught if you’ve “tuned in” to this blog over time – as AC noted in the first comment).
Also, I wasn’t talking about specifics, though I’ve done it in the past on this blog. I was simply saying that the clear and robust law/gospel distinction is in the fabric of Reformed theology, whether the first name is “Westminster” or “Three Forms.”
Also, I wanted people to click and read the primary source – hence “Reformed Reader!”
Thanks again! Keep up the comments!
shane
Can someone enlighten me on why certain Reformed people insist that the Reformed understanding is: Law/Promise/Gospel instead of simply Law/Gospel? The latter they insist is Lutheran, the former the “real” Reformed position. Was there someone historically who made this distinction?
Thanks for any replies.
David: I’ve not heard that exact language (Law/promise/gospel). Ursinus and Olevian usually use ‘promise’ and ‘gospel’ in the same breath. (I.e Ursinus: “the gospel…promises and proclaims the remission of sin, salvation, and eternal life…” p.101 of his commentary). Likewise, for example, the Lutheran C. F. W. Walther in his book on the law/gospel distinction, writes “the gospel…promises us the grace of God and salvation…” (p. 10).
Perhaps someone else can give a better answer…
shane