Law/Gospel: A Staple in Reformation Theology

We’ve posted on this before, but it is something that needs to be said more than a few times: the law/gospel distinction is right there in the fabric of old-school Reformed theology.  Though some people don’t like it, won’t teach it, and think it is Lutheran, it is undeniable that a sharp law/gospel distinction is a classic Reformed teaching (Note: this is neither an OT/NT distinction nor a genre distinction, such as “law and prophets.”  This is an indicative/imperative distinction, a command/promise distinction.)  Here are a few examples.

Zacharius Ursinus (d.1583), one author of the Heidelberg Catechism, said the most basic division of the Catechism is “the Law, and the Gospel; in which we have comprehended the sum and substance of the sacred Scriptures” (p. 2 of his Commentary on the Catechism).  In fact, the Catechism is divided this way because Scripture is: “The law and gospel are the chief and general divisions of the holy scriptures, and comprise the entire doctrine comprehended therein” (ibid.).   Ursinus continues, discussing in four points how there is “a very great difference” between the law and gospel (pp 104-5).  Ursinus says it is the duty of the church and pastor to very clearly distinguish between the law and the gospel (p. 288 & 572).  This means, I might add, that a good Reformation theologian is not going to muddy the waters by saying the whole Bible is law and the whole Bible is gospel, or that the law is good news, or that the gospel is law.

Casper Olevian (d. 1587) – a co-author of the Catechism – sounded exactly the same.  In a catechism he wrote (A Firm Foundation), Q/A 10 is all about the law/gospel distinction.  “What is the difference between the law and the gospel?”  Olevian answers by stating the law is the commands of God that we must perfectly keep or be cursed forever; it demands but doesn’t give ability (p. 9).  In the gospel, however “God does not demand but rather offers and gives us the righteousness that the law requires” (p. 10).  In the gospel, God – by grace through faith and not by law/works – grants a person forgiveness and righteousness in Christ (see also Q/A 8-9).  Click here for something similar from a later Heidelberger.

Moving out of Heidelberg to another Reformed theologian, Francis Turretin (d. 1687) talks about the difference between law and gospel very clearly in his Institutes, II.12.iii.vi.  The law, he says, commands and demands but does not give; the gospel is about salvation by a free gift, not legal obedience (See also II.12.iii.xvii and II.12.vii.xv).  Click here for more from Turretin.

Puritan Matthew Poole (d. 1679) said the exact same things as the above.  The law, he wrote, “only showed man his duty…but gave no strength or help by which he should do them; only cursing man….”  The gospel, however, “is the revelation of the Divine will, as to grace and mercy, as to remission of sin, and eternal life” (Commentary on the Whole Bible, 2 Cor. 3.7-10).

Another Puritan, Thomas Watson (d. 1686), said the same: “the moral law requires obedience, but gives no strength… but the gospel gives strength; it bestows faith on the elect… (The Ten Commandments, 14).  The moral law “is a glass to show us our sins (ibid.). [Here is a fascinating law/gospel distinction by the Westminster Divines which had rightly to do with the covenant of works/grace discussion.]

The Canons of Dort (1618-19) also echo this use of the law (III/IV.5): “For man cannot obtain saving grace through the Decalogue, because, although it does expose the magnitude of his sin and increasingly convict him of his guilt, yet it does not offer a remedy or enable him to escape from his misery, and, indeed, weakened as it is by the flesh, leaves the offender under the curse.”  This is the Reformed confessional way to speak, following the HC “sin” section (LD 2-4).

On the German Reformed side of things, Otto Thelemann (19th century) echoes the above.  “The law teaches what we ought to be and what we should render to God; but it does not impart the strength to offer God what is due Him, nor does it indicate the way by which we might attain this ability.  On the other hand, the Gospel teaches in what way we may become such persons as the law demands.  … The law is a letter which killeth, and is a ministration of death.  The gospel is a ministration of life” (p. 60-61 in An Aid to the Heidelberg Catechism).

More could be added – many more.  One full Reformed book on this I need to read more of is John Colquhoun, A Treatise on the Law and Gospel.  In the Treatise, Colquhoun says what Ursinus said:

If then a man cannot distinguish aright between the law and the gospel, he cannot rightly understand so much as a single article of divine truth.  If he does not have spiritual and just apprehensions of the holy law, he cannot have spiritual and transforming discoveries of the glorious gospel; and, on the other hand, if his view of the gospel is erroneous, his notions of the law cannot be right.”

To sum it up, it needs to be clear that this use of the law – the pedagogical use – was stressed in both Reformed and Lutheran circles (i.e. the sharp law/gospel distinction had to do with justification sola fide).  Also, it is true that the Reformed also had a “normative” use of the law, as is evident in the third part of the Heidelberg, the guide for Christian gratitude (the law as guide had to do with sanctification).  One can even find Luther[ans] speaking of the normative use, though he/they didn’t stress it as much as the pedagogical.  [For a review on the Reformed scholastic three uses of the law, see an earlier post.]

One more thing: the law/gospel distinction in Reformed theology has everything to do with the covenant of works/grace distinction.  Furthermore, this use of the law highlighted above has much to do with “saint and sinner at the same time.”  If one abandons the law/gospel distinction,  typically the doctrine of the covenants gets muddled and the “saint/sinner same time” teaching is weakened as well and everything becomes a sort of equivocal porridge.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Luther on the Keys of the Kingdom

“Christ’s intention is to comfort us poor sinners in the most loving and effective manner.  His purpose is not to give the pope power over the angels in heaven nor over emperors on earth.  For our consolation all sins, none excepted, are subject to Peter and the keys.  All sins which he binds and looses shall be bound and loosed, despite the resistance of all devils, the whole world, and of all angels, and all despairing thoughts of our heart, even in the presence of death and evil omens.”

“ A simple, trusting heart can boldly rely on God’s action.  And in times of deep distress, with our consciences accusing us, we may say: Well then!  I have been absolved of my sins, however many and great they may be, by means of the key, on which I rely.  Let no one remind me of my sins any longer.  All are gone, forgiven, forgotten.  He who promises me Whatever you loose shall be loosed does not lie; this I know.  If my repentance is not sufficient, his Word is; if I am not worthy, his keys are: He is faithful and true.  My sins shall not make a liar of him.”

The Keys, wrote Luther, have everything to do with the law and the gospel.  “Any reasonable person must admit that in the text (Matt 16.19) the keys are not associated with the performance of any works.  They enjoin and command nothing, but threaten and promise.  Now, to threaten and to promise are not the same as to command….  The key which binds carries forward the work of the law…. The loosing key carries forward the work of the gospel.”

From Luther’s Works (American Edition), 40.373-5.  The treatise is simply called “The Keys.”

shane lems

sunnyside wa

A Brief Study of the Ten Commandments

“Far too many people look at the Law apart from Christ.  They go from the Ten Commandments straight to its application to life, never asking the question: What about Christ?  That inevitably leads to legalism, or the belief that we are able to fulfill the law.”  So writes John Fesko in the introduction to his new little booklet, The Rule of Love: Broken, Fulfilled, and Applied (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2009).  He concludes his brief intro by explaining the proper way to read, study, and apply the Ten Commandments: by considering the historical, covenantal, and redemptive context of the law.  That is the basic paradigm for the entire book – his discussion on each individual commandment.

The book is helpful because it is clear and concise.  Fesko explains the historical setting of each commandment, how Christ fulfilled it, and how it applies to us as Christians, those in Christ.  Each chapter is only around 10 pages long and concludes with a few study questions.  This is a smaller hardcover book for the average parishioner.  As I read it, I was thinking how it would be a great Bible study book (for a short study), a great book to give to friends just coming into the Christian faith, and a good little reference for sermons/studies on the Ten Commandments.   Again, it is not a scholarly resource with footnotes and extensive quotes; it is a basic and clear Reformational treatment of the Law – as a tutor to drive us to Christ and as a guide to Christian gratitude.

I’ll post a little more on this at a later date.  For more info, check it out at the publisher’s site (here).

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Ursinus and Brakel on the Law of Nature

I’m having an unofficial contest with Scott Clark (though he may not be aware of it!).  I’ll see his Olevian and raise him two: Ursinus and Brakel:

“The natural law, the knowledge of general principles known to men, the difference between things honest and base, engraven upon our hearts, teach that there is a providence: for he who has engraven upon the heart of man a rule or law, for the regulation of the life, has a regard to the actions of men.  God now has engraven such a rule upon the heart of man, and desires us to live in conformity thereto.  Therefore he must also govern the lives, actions and events of his creatures.  ‘The Gentiles show the work of the law written in their hearts,’ etc. (Rom 2:15).  Plautus says, ‘There is verily a God, who sees and hears what we do;’ and Homer says, ‘God hath an upright eye,’ (Z. Ursinus, Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, p. 148).

Context Note: Ursinus discusses this as one of the proofs that there is a divine providence.

“Even if the intelligent creature did not have an express command, he is nevertheless, from the first moment of his existence, obligated to obey God as the only Lawgiver in all that He has impressed upon his nature and in all that He would either command or prohibit relative to a variety of matters.  This obligation is even impressed upon the conscience of man so that he is acquainted with and approves of both his obligation toward, and the will of, this Lawgiver, and obligates himself to obey him.  This disposition renders man fit to know God, the Lawgiver, by his works and to perceive and experience this binding relationship in a more lively manner.  Man, in the state of perfection, had all this perfectly impressed upon his nature, and after the fall this impression remained in all men, although imperfectly.  This is generally referred to as the Law of Nature, which we have discussed in chapter one.  After the covenant of works had been broken, the Lord established the covenant of grace.” (W. a’ Brakel, The Christian’s Reasonable Service, III.36-3).

Context Note: it is significant that Brakel ties natural law to the covenant of works; this is why later Reformed teachers explain how in one sense all people not “in Christ” are under the covenant of works – that is, “in Adam.”  For example, Bavinck (in Our Reasonable Faith) discusses natural law in the areas of imago dei and common grace and also says that natural law is the basis for the final judgment of unbelievers.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

The Mosaic Covenant: Works, Grace, What?

I finally got it: The Law is not of Faith (Phillipsburg: P&R, 2009).  If you’re in the Reformed/Presbyterian tradition (or someone who just wants a peek at our “covenant” tradition), you’ll want to grab this.  It is a level-headed historical, theological, and exegetical discussion of the Mosaic covenant.

In the introduction, the editors make the case (which subsequent chapters support) that most of the Reformed/Presbyterian orthodox theologians in the past have in some way viewed the Mosaic covenant as foundationally the covenant of grace, with the covenant of works simultaneously operative at some level.  They do not argue that there is one single orthodox view which they are trying to advocate, but basically there is a sort of umbrella of agreement under which the old divines/scholastics worked.

In the intro the editors also ask the reader to well consider the history and exegesis of this discussion, which will “serve to renew significant conversations that have not been taking place in recent years, toward the goal of seeing Reformed churches come mutually to a richer understanding of the Old Testament in God’s larger redemptive plan” (p. 20).

In order to keep this post short, I’ll comment on the excellent first chapter later, where J. Fesko shows Calvin and Witsius’ explanation of the Mosaic covenant – as a “spoiler,” there are essential similarities with a few different emphases.

shane lems

sunnyside, wa

The Uses of the Law

When the Reformed and Lutheran scholastics talked about God’s moral law (lex moralis), they taught that there are three basic uses of the law (usus legis).  They are:

1) The civil use (usus politicus sive civilis).  That is, the law serves the commonwealth or body politic as a force to restrain sin.  This falls under the general revelation (revelatio generalis) discussion in most of the scholastics as well as natural law (cf. Rom 1-2).

2) The pedagogical use (usus elenchticus sive paedagogicus).  That is, the law also shows people their sin and points them to mercy and grace outside of themselves.  In Muller’s summary, this is “the use of the law for the confrontation and refutation of sin and for the purpose of pointing the way to Christ” (p. 320).  This can be found in the Heidelberg Catechism Lord’s Days 2-4.

3) The normative use (usus didacticus sive normativus).  That is, this use of the law is for those who trust in Christ and have been saved through faith apart from works.  It “acts as a norm of conduct, freely accepted by those in whom  the grace of God works the good” (p. 321).  This can be found in the Heidelberg Catechism Lord’s Days 32-52.

Note: “In this model, Christ appears as the finis legis, or end of the law, both in the sense that the usus paedagogicus leads to Christ as to a goal and in the sense that the usus normativus has become a possibility for man only because Christ has fulfilled the law in himself” (Ibid.).  In other words, in both the pedagogical use and the normative use Christ is central as the one who has saved his people from the law’s demands and the one who has merited the gift of Spirit-wrought obedience.

You can read a bit more in Muller’s Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Luther and ‘By the Law Comes Knowledge of Sin’

Martin Luther’s classic, De servo arbitrio (On The Enslaved Will; a.k.a. The Bondage of the Will) is – as many of you know – a response written to the great humanist scholar, Desiderius Erasmus’ (d. 1536) Diatribe seu collation de libero arbitrio (Discussion or Dialoge Concerning Free Will).

This is one of those “must read” books.  I know people say as much about every book that comes along, but in the words of Packer and Johnston (in the introduction), “To accept the principles which Martin Luther vindicates in The Bondage of the Will would certainly involve a mental and spiritual revolution for many Christians at the present time.  It would involve a radically different approach to preaching and the practice of evangelism, and to most other departments of theology and pastoral work as well.  God centered thinking is out of fashion today, and its recovery will involve something of a Copernican revolution in our outlook on many matters.” (p. 60).  The Bondage of the Will is that “Copernican revolution;” this is no overstatement.

Here is a splendid quote by Luther on the commandments of God: “…  The words of the law are spoken, not to assert the power of the will, but to eliminate the blindness of reason, so that it may see that its own light is nothing, and the power of the will is nothing. ‘By the law is knowledge of sin’, says Paul (Rom. 3.20).  He does not say: abolition, or avoidance, of sin.”

The entire design and power of the law is just to give knowledge, and that of nothing but sin; not to display or confer any power.  This knowledge is not power, nor does it bring power; but it teaches and displays that there is here no power, and great weakness.  What can ‘knowledge of sin’ be, but knowledge of our weakness and badness?  He does not say: ‘by the law comes knowledge of power or goodness’!  All that the law does, on Paul’s testimony, is to make sin known” (p. 158).

Note: you can read Luther’s Bondage of the Will here on Google.  Though I couldn’t find Erasmus’ Diatribe there, he does have other stuff on Google.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

We Can[not] Do It!

 If you haven’t grabbed this book yet, you should do it sooner than later.  Here are a few blurbs from two different sections (Michael Horton, Christless Christianity [Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2008]). 

“We Americans are not well-known in the world as people who know how to blush.  On the contrary, we are a very self-confident people.  The last thing we want is to be told that we cannot do anything to save ourselves from the most serious problem that we have ever or will ever encounter – that we are entirely at God’s mercy.  Apart from a miracle, religious success in this atmosphere will always go to those who can effectively appeal to this can-do spirit and push as far to the background as possible anything that might throw our swaggering self off-balance.  When looking for ultimate answers, we turn within ourselves, trusting our own experience rather than looking outside ourselves to God’s external word” (p. 65).

Later on, Horton writes, “If the message the church proclaims makes sense without conversion, if it does not offend even lifelong believers from time to time so that they too need to die more to themselves and live more to Christ, then it is not the gospel.  When Christ is talked about, a lot of things can happen, none of which necessarily have any lasting impact. When Christ is proclaimed in his saving office, the church becomes a theater of death and resurrection” (p. 141).

shane lems

sunnyside wa

The Law, Our Comfortable Sins, and the Liturgy

Earlier, I posted a bit on Jerry Bridges’ book, Respectable Sins: Confronting the Sins We Tolerate (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 2007). Since then, I’ve finished reading it, and still confidently recommend it. As a reminder, he uses Scripture to point out and expose some sins that we’re used to, that we grow comfortable with, or as the title says, sins that we tolerate. Such daily attitudes of ours like anger, discontentment, worry, selfishness, envy, and so on, Bridges explains, are sins we must deal with. (Warning: you’d probably rather have a root canal than read certain sections of this book! Learning about sins you love hurts.) As Bridges usually does, he constantly reminds the reader of the gospel and forgiveness, along with the Spirit’s power and need for prayer in Christian growth.

I’ve found it helpful to incorporate these things into the liturgy of the church I pastor. Usually, following the biblical pattern, we hear God’s law, confess/repent of our sins in prayer and song, and then I remind the people of grace, forgiveness, and mercy in Jesus Christ (the gospel). Sometimes I use one or all of the ten commandments for the law, other times I use Jesus’ summary of the law in Matthew 22. However, since reading Bridges’ book, I’ve been using the law in a very particular way, to expose these sins that we tolerate.

Example: We can quite easily deflect general commands: do not murder (6th Commandment), but it is impossible (if we’re honest with ourselves!) to deflect specific commands: put away all anger (Col. 3.8). As Bridges states it, “In facing up to our anger, we need to realize that no one else causes us to be angry. Someone else’s words or actions may become the occasion of our anger, but the cause lies deep within us – usually our pride, or selfishness, or desire to control. The cause always lies within our hearts” (p. 123-4). Our anger displays our sinful pride (we are angry at people who attack our character); our anger displays our selfishness (we get angry when things don’t go our way); our anger displays our sinful attitude towards God (our anger makes us forget that God is sovereign over intimate details of our lives).

To put it bluntly, when we’re angry with our kids, or angry with the other accountant in the office, or angry because we had a bad day, we are sinning. We need to acknowledge this sin and confess it to God, running to Christ for forgiveness and mercy.

I’ll end with Bridges’ conclusion of his chapter on anger. “I believe that many Christians live in denial about their anger. They consciously experience the flare-up of negative thoughts and emotions toward someone who has displeased them, but they do not identify this as anger, especially as sinful anger. They focus on the other person’s wrongdoing and justify their own reaction. They do not see their sin. Consequently, their anger is ‘acceptable’ to them. They sense no need to deal with it” (p. 128). Indeed, we need the law’s reminder, do not be angry, to open our eyes to see sin and our need for deliverance.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

How to Study the Ten Commandments

Francis Turretin asked the question, “What rules are to be observed in explaining…the precepts of the decalogue?” He gave seven principles:

1) The law is spiritual – it includes not only external acts, but also “internal motions of the mind.” The commandments speak to the soul as well as the body. Obedience has to do with the heart (cf. Matt. 5.22, 28).

2) “In affirmative precepts, negative, and in negative, affirmative are contained.” That is, when a command says “do this,” we should also avoid the opposite and vice-versa.

3) “In all the precepts, synecdoche is to be acknowledged.” The general and specific aspects of each command are interchangeable. Turretin’s example is Matt. 5.28: “thou shalt not commit adultery” includes affection and lust after another woman.

4) This is related to #3 – effect/cause and species/genus are included. For example, “when children are commanded to honor their parents, parents are in turn commanded to cherish their children paternally and to bring them up in the nurture of the Lord.” The species/genus teaching is also why in the 5th commandment we also include obeying those in authority over us.

5) The precepts of the first table of the law are prior to those of the second. That is, “the love of our neighbor ought to be subjected to the love of God.” We are bound to hate father and mother [if need be] for Christ’s sake (Lk. 14.26). Turretin gets more specific: “The ceremonial of the first table yields to the moral of the second because God desires mercy not sacrifice.”

6) There are both affirmative and negative commandments, which means there are sins of omission and sins of commission. As a side note, the liturgical prayer says it this way: “We have left undone those things which we should have done; we have done those things which we should not have done.”

7) “The beginning and end of all the precepts is love.” The object of our love is twofold: God and our neighbor – God in the first part of the law, our neighbor in the second. Jesus described them as the first and great commandment and the second which is like it (cf. Matt 22 & 1 Jn. 4.20).

I have abbreviated and summarized Turretin’s principles; go ahead and read the entire section to see that these principles are thoroughly biblical. When preaching, teaching, or meditating upon the law, these are helpful to consider. I also noticed that this section of Turretin is good when discussing or thinking about Christian ethics – the “grey areas” in Christian obedience should be approached with these 7 things in mind.

This section is Volume 2, pages 34-36 of Turretin’s Institutes. Speaking of the Institutes, Lance George Marshall is working on an online reading outline of the Institutes. I haven’t read it and cannot yet vouch for it, but it looks outstanding so far. Go here to check it out.

shane lems

sunnyside wa