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

The Necessity of Scripture

 

“Not only is it necessary that God reveal himself by means of Word, it is also necessary that the Word be written.  Thus, the Reformed, together with the Lutheran orthodox, affirm the ‘necessity of Scripture’ or of the ‘written Word’ (verbum scriptum) over against the contrary claims of Roman Catholic writers like Robert Bellarmine, who argue the usefulness of written Scriptures to the church but not their necessity and who assume that the church and its ‘unwritten traditions’ could stand in the absence of Scripture.”

“In a material sense, in terms of the doctrines contained in the text, Scripture is necessary unconditionally and absolutely (simpliciter et absolute) – so that without this doctrine, the church itself could not exist.  It is clear also that Scripture, considered formally as a written document, is not necessary with respect to God (respectu Dei).  God can and did communicate with his people in a living voice (viva voce) apart from a written word: such was the form of his revelation before Moses.”

“The point to be debated is the Protestant contention that the written Word is necessary ex hypothesi or as a consequence of the will of God.  Granting that this is the will of God, the written Word is necessary not merely to the well-being (esse) of the church, so that the church would cease to exist without it: ‘Thus God is in no way bound to Scripture (alligatus Scripturae), rather he binds us to Scripture (nos alligavit Scripturae).’ [Francis Turretin]

Good stuff.  The church is born of the Word, built on the Word, and strengthened by the Word.  Not only it is our guide (lamp), it is also our nourishment (honey) and treasure (better than gold).

Above quotes taken from Richard Muller’s excellent Post Reformation Reformed Dogmatics volume II on Scripture (page 179).

shane lems

Natural Law and the Two Kingdoms (Part III)

In case you just tuned in, this is part III of a brief review of David VanDrunen’s book, Natural Law and the Two Kingdoms. The other two posts immediately precede this one.

In chapters 4-7 VanDrunen treks through the English and European post-reformation eras, into the early American scene (New England and Virgina), back to  Europe (specifically Holland) and Abraham Kuyper.   He discusses how natural law and the two kingdoms show up in these times, places, and people of Reformed history.

Chapter four specifically deals with the “Bloody Mary” situation of the 1550s as well as he Huguenot persecution of 1572 (the so-called St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre).  VanDrunen argues specifically that in these examples there was continuity between earlier and later Reformed teaching of natural law.  He also argues (well, in my opinion) that there was an “expansive rather than minimalistic view of natural law” among these two groups of Reformed Christians.  Some names that VanDrunen writes about include George Buchanan, Samuel Rutherford, John Knox, Christopher Goodman, John Ponet, just to name the major figures.  This chapter was a total learning experience for me, since I’ve not read more than a few books covering this area of church history.  VanDrunen is right: they utilized natural law principles broadly and creatively as they faced persecution.

Chapter five is where VanDrunen digs into the great era of Reformed scholasticism (“The Age of Orthodoxy” is the title of the chapter).  He not only argues that there is significant continuity between earlier Reformers and the scholastics (concerning natural law and the two kingdoms), he also says that these theologians “through their natural law and two kingdoms doctrines, affirmed and developed the idea that social and political life is grounded in God’s work of creation and providence rather than in his work of redemption” (p. 151).  The major figures VanDrunen summarizes are Johannes Althusius, Samuel Rutherford, and Francis Turretin, along with others and the Westminster Standards.  This was a great chapter, especially where he talks about these figures and how they closely related natural law and Sinai.  I enjoyed this chapter as much as I did the one on Calvin.

Chapter six also had some things that were new for me.  VanDrunen commented on Stuart Robinson, John Cotton, early Virginian Presbyterian experiences, and Samuel Davies, to mention just a few.  Also worth mentioning for VanDrunen were Charles Hodge and James Henley Thornwell, who wrestled (in the 19th century) over the presbyterian distinction of boards and committees, which had much to do with ecclesiology and Christian liberty.  I’m still mulling over some things in this chapter, so I’ll just state his conclusion: “The Reformed natural law and two kingdoms traditions continued on into the early American experiment and even attained greater degrees of clarity among some theologians amidst the greatly changing social and intellectual contexts” (p. 275).

Chapter seven – the one on Kuyper - could take a book to discuss!  I thought it was helpful how VanDrunen pointed out the fact that Kuyper was working with and within the Reformed scholastic categories.  At the same time, he used some newer terminology and was not 100% consistent in theory and practice (again, none of us are!).  Kuyper’s common and special grace distinction, along with his organizational and institutional church distinction have a lot to do with natural law (i.e. “divine ordinances”) and the two kingdoms of earlier Reformed doctrine.  This chapter (along with earlier stuff I’ve read by Kuyper) has very much made me hesitant to accept statements made by neo-Kuyperians on what Kuyper actually taught.  In other words, some neo-Kuyperians may be more “neo” than they are “kuyperian.”  But don’t take my word for it, read the chapter.  It deserves to be studied in-depth.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Final Justification According To Works? (Part II)

A short while back, Andrew posted a great excerpt from C. Venema on final judgment (here).

Turretin sounds similar:

Although our justification will be fully declared on the last day (our good works also being brought forward as the sign and proof of its truth, Mt. 25.34-40), still falsely would anyone maintain from this a twofold gospel justification – one from faith in this life (which is the first); and the other (and second) from works on the day of judgment (as some hold, agreeing too much with Romanists on this point).  The sentence to be pronounced by the supreme Judge will not be so much a new justification, as the solemn and public declaration of a sentence once passed and its execution by the assignment of the life promised with respect to an innocent person from the preceding justification.  Thus it is nothing else than an adjudicatory sentence of the possession of the kingdom of heaven from the right given before through justification.  And if works are then brought forward, they are not adduced as the foundation of a new justification to be obtained then, but as signs, marks and effects of our true faith and of our justification solely by it.”

Clearly, Venema and Turretin point out the historic Reformation point of view from which the New Perspectives on Paul and Federal Vision depart.  See here and here for earlier posts on a similar topic.  Read Turretin again – he lets the gospel of justification by faith alone remain good news.

Quote from Turretin found in his Institutes, vol II page 687.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Turretin: Law/Gospel and OT/NT

Here’s what the historic Reformers and scholastics mean by the law/gospel distinction, starting way back with Olevian and Ursinus in the 16th century.  The law/gospel distinction is not an OT/NT distinction, for the law/gospel distinction is found in both testaments; furthermore, the OT/NT relationship is in a different category than the law/gospel distinction.

“There is not the same opposition throughout between the Old and New Testaments as there is between the law and the gospel.  The opposition of the law and the gospel (insofar as they are taken properly and strictly for the covenant of works and of grace and are considered in their absolute being) is contrary.  They are opposed as the letter killing and the Spirit quickening; as Hagar gendering to bondage and Sarah gendering to freedom, although the law more broadly taken and in its relative being is subordinated to the gospel.”

“But the opposition of the Old and New Testaments broadly viewed is relative, inasmuch as the Old contained the shadows of things to come (Heb. 10.1) and the New the very image (ten eikona).”

That’s a dense yet excellent paragraph.  I don’t have time to unpack it all, but notice the covenant of works/grace distinction, which is tied into the law/gospel distinction.  Usually these all  stand or fall together.  Also, notice Turretin’s excellent and careful use of words, especially “contrary” and “relative;” those are worth reading over a few times.  If I can summarize, Turretin says the law/gospel “opposition is…contrary,” while the OT/NT “opposition…is relative.”  That is simply brilliant!

Francis Turretin, Institutes, XX.XXII.VIII.xv (easier: pages 236-237 of volume two); very closely related is Turretin’s discussion of the Mosaic covenant on page 264 (and around there).

shane lems

sunnyside wa