The Law/Gospel Distinction in Old Holland

One thing I’ve mentioned quite a bit here over the last five years is how the law/gospel distinction is part of the veins and sinews of historic Reformed theology.  More narrowly, the law/gospel distinction is also part of the Dutch Reformed theological tradition.  Here’s a great later example of this by Herman Bavinck, found on pages 410-411 of Our Reasonable Faith which was first published in Dutch in 1909 (called Magnalia Dei).

“Law and gospel are the two component parts of the Word of God.  The two are distinguished from each other but they are never separated.  They accompany each other throughout Scripture, from the beginning to the end…. [The terms law and gospel designate] two entirely different covenants.  The law really belongs to the so-called covenant of works which was concluded with the first man and which promised him eternal life in the way of perfect obedience.  But the gospel is the proclamation of the covenant of grace which was made known for the first time after the fall of man, and which gives him eternal life by grace, through faith in Christ.”

“The covenant of grace is, however, not the discarding or annihilating, but rather the fulfilling, of the covenant of works.  The difference between the two is mainly that in our stead Christ fulfills the requirements which God by reason of the covenant of works can bring to bear on us.  Hence it is that the covenant of grace, although in itself is pure grace, can from the very beginning put the law of the covenant of works in its service, unite itself with that law, and by the Spirit of Christ bring it into fulfillment in the believers.  The law keeps its place in the covenant of grace, not in order that we by keeping it should try to earn eternal life, for the law cannot do this because of the weakness of the flesh, but, in the first place, in order that through it we should come to know our sin, our guilt, our misery, and our helplessness, and struck down and stripped by the consciousness of guilt, should take refuge in the grace of God in Christ (Rom 7.7 and Gal 3.24), and, in the second place, in order that we, having died and been raised with Christ, should walk in newness of life and so fulfill the righteousness of the law (Rom 6.4 and 8.4).”

“There is no room in Christianity for antinomianism, for despising or violating the law.  Law and gospel should go together, as in the Scriptures, so also in preaching and teaching, in doctrine and in life.  They are both indispensable and real constituent parts of the one complete word of God.”

“All the same, identifying the two is as bad as separating them.  Nomism, which makes of the gospel a new law, is in error no less than antinomiansim.  Law and gospel differ from each other not in degree but in kind.  They differ as demand and gift differ, as commandment and promise, and as question and offer differ.  It is true that the law as well as the gospel comprises the will of God, and that it is holy, wise, good, and spiritual, but it has become impotent by reason of sin, does not justify but rather aggravates sin, and provokes wrath, doom, and death.  And over against this stands the gospel which has nothing but grace, reconciliation, forgiveness, righteousness, peace, and eternal life.  What the law demands of us is given us in the gospel for nothing.”

Herman Bavinck, Our Reasonable Faith.

rev. shane lems

Preaching and Distinguishing Law and Gospel

In one section of this most excellent pastoral resource, The Christian Ministry, Charles Bridges (d. 1869) explains how important it is for pastors to rightly distinguish between – and preach – the law and the gospel.  I have to say up front that this is one of the most helpful discussions I’ve read when it comes to the topic of preaching the law and gospel.  It’s like a longer version of Z. Ursinus’ similar section in his commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism.

Bridges, along with many other Reformed theologians, affirmed this statement: “Qui scit bene distinguere inter Legum et Evangelium, Deo gratias agat, et sciat se esse Theologum.” (“He that knows how to distinguish well be­tween the law and the gospel, let him thank/bless God, and know that he then deserves the name of a divine.”)

What is the difference between the law and the gospel?  Here are a few things Bridges notes.

“The law, partially at least (as in the case of the heathens) is discoverable by the light of nature, whereas the gospel is ‘the hidden mystery of God,’ which could only be known by the light of revelation.  We find, therefore, man in his natural state partially acquainted with the law, but wholly unacquainted with the gospel.”

“They also differ in the power of their sanction.  …Command is the characteristic of the law, promise and encouragement is the characteristic of the gospel.  In the one case, obedience is required on the penalty of death; in the other case it is encouraged by the promise of life.  A promise is indeed attached to the obedience of the law, but placed beyond our reach, upon terms far more difficult than those of Adam’s covenant [the Covenant of Works] – as he was given sufficient strength for perfect obedience, while we are entirely helpless for the lowest spiritual requirements.  The gospel on the other hand gives the promise freely, in order to obedience, as the principle and motive of it.”

“The law condemns, and cannot justify a sinner; the gospel justifies and cannot condemn the sinner that believes in Jesus.  In the law, God appears in terrible threatenings of eternal death; in the gospel, he manifests himself in gracious promises of life eternal.  The law is a sound of terror to convict sinners; the gospel is a joyful sound, ‘good tidings of great joy.’”

Later Bridges writes,

“The whole discussion will remind us of the importance of accurately distinguishing in our ministry between the law and the gospel, ‘that we, through the misunderstanding of the Scriptures, do not take the law for the gospel, nor the gospel for the law, but skillfully discern and distinguish the voice of one from the voice of the other.”

For those of you who are pastors, I strongly recommend reading this entire section of The Christian Ministry (actually, I recommend the whole book!).  My above quotes are just edited tips of the iceberg – Bridges’ explanation of the law/gospel distinction in the pastoral ministry is profound, helpful, and encouraging.  He sheds some great light on the Reformation distinction between the law and the gospel, and the necessity of properly distinguishing the two.  Indeed, if a preacher cannot distinguish between the law and the gospel, let him stay out of the pulpit!

Charles Bridges, The Christian Ministry (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1983), chapter 3, section 2. 

shane lems

Lutheran Pietism vs Lutheran Orthodoxy

This is a repost from January, 2008.

A LCMS pastor and dear friend of mine recently gave me Bo Giertz’s Hammer of God to read as a sort of “fun” read.  It was not only fun, it was outstanding.  This book is fiction but it is based on historical and theological happenings in 19th century Sweden.  This book could be Walther’s lectures on the Law and Gospel set in narrative/story form.  Here’s a blurb from a dialogue between an old codgy Lutheran orthodox pastor and a young warm Lutheran pietist minister named Fridfeldt.

“So you are a believer, I’m glad to hear that.  What do you believe in?”  Fridfeldt stared dumbfounded at his superior.  Was he jesting with him?  “But sir, I am simply saying that I am a believer.”

“Yes, I hear that my boy, but what is it that you believe in?”  Fridfeldt was almost speechless.  “But don’t you know, sir, what it means to believe?”

“That is a word which can stand for things that differ greatly, my boy.  I ask only what it is that you believe in.”

“In Jesus, of course,” answered Fridfeldt, raising his voice. “I mean–I mean that I have given Him my heart.”  The older man’s voice became suddenly as solemn as the grave.  “Do you consider that something to give him?”  By this time, Fridfeldt was almost in tears.  “But sir, if you do not give your heart to Jesus, you cannot be saved.”

“You are right, my boy.  And it is just as true that, if you think you are saved because you give Jesus your heart, you will not be saved.  You see, my boy…it is one thing to choose Jesus as one’s Lord and Savior, to give Him one’s heart and commit oneself to Him, and that He now accepts one into His little flock; it is a very different thing to believe on Him as a Redeemer of sinners, of whom one is the chief.  One does not choose a Redeemer for oneself, you understand, nor give one’s heart to Him.  The heart is a rusty old can on a junk heap.  A fine birthday gift, indeed!  But a wonderful Lord passes by, and has mercy on the wretched tin can, sticks His walking cane through it and rescues it from the junk pile and takes it home with Him.  That is how it is….  And now you must understand that these two ways of believing are like two different religions, they have nothing whatever to do with each other.”

Bo Giertz, The Hammer of God trans. Clifford Ansgar Nelson (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1960), 147-8.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

An Application of the Covenant of Grace

One reason I like Sacred Bond is because it gives the practical aspects of covenant theology.  For example, after discussing the covenant of grace, there are several different ways this doctrine is important for the Christian life.  Here is one “application” of the covenant of grace that is profoundly comforting for the Christian.

“[The covenant of grace] tells us that we are not under a covenant of works and therefore do not relate to God on the basis of our own law-keeping.  In the covenant of grace, God promises to accept us as righteous by virtue of the righteousness of his Son, the second Adam.  In other words, God’s covenant of grace draws attention to the doctrine of justification by faith alone.  Whereas the covenant of works (law) says, ‘Do this and you will live,’ the covenant of grace (gospel) says, ‘Christ did it for you.’  This allows us to go through life on the solid foundation that God receives us because of Christ.  There is no greater contributing factor to our joy and comfort as Christians than the reality that God accepts us in spite of the fact that we still struggle with sin and disobedience.  Knowing that God loves us on account of Christ protects us from the roller coaster of our own conscience and emotions.  With its emphasis on the person and work of Christ, the covenant of grace tells us that we are not under a covenant of works” (p. 69).

Michael Brown and Zachary Keele, Sacred Bond: Covenant Theology Explored (Grand Rapids: Reformed Fellowship, 2012).

shane lems

The Law/Gospel Distinction: A Staple in Reformed Theology

This is a reblog from October, 2009.

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).

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.  Here’s one final one from John Colquhoun, in A Treatise on the Law and Gospel.  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] who spoke 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.]

The law/gospel distinction in Reformed theology also 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