The Joint Federal Vision Profession denies the historic Protestant distinction of law and Gospel. It says:
We deny that law and gospel should be considered as hermeneutics, or treated as such. We believe that any passage, whether indicative or imperative, can be heard by the faithful as good news, and that any passage, whether containing gospel promises or not, will be heard by the rebellious as intolerable demand. The fundamental division is not in the text, but rather in the human heart.
This is a blatant denial of the law/Gospel distinction. They do not believe it is in the text itself.
This denial of the Biblical distinction between law and Gospel is a major plank of the Federal Vision system and their confusion of justification by works and faith. As Steve Schlissel said, “The law as God gave it is the Gospel” (“The Monroe Four Speak Out,” pp. 1–2). This has also been confirmed by Doug Wilson:
When we say that all of God’s word is perfect, converting the soul. When we don’t divide it up into law and gospel, when we don’t say law over here, gospel over there, when we say it’s all gospel, it’s all law, it’s all good (“Visible and Invisible Church Revisited”, p. 21).
Thus, there is no law/Gospel distinction except in the way that people may take the passages. It is not in Scripture itself, though they admit there’s a difference between the Old and New Testaments.
The Reformed View
Now, some may say, what does the Reformed Church believe about the law/Gospel distinction? They might wonder, isn’t that a Lutheran distinction? Well, yes, it is. But it’s also a Reformed distinction.
The Reformed Church teaches that one of the most basic heremeneutical principles of the Scripture is the distinction between law and Gospel. These are two different types of communication from God.
The law was given from the beginning and is good and useful, but it cannot save. In order for salvation to occur, there must be another word or communication from God, and that is what we call the Gospel. These two must be distinguished, since one gives the knowledge of salvation and the other does not.
I shall demonstrate the truth of this from three Reformed confessional documents.
1. The Heidelberg Catechism
The Heidelberg Catechism teaches that the law teaches us our sin and misery and can only condemn sinners to eternal hell.
3 Q. How do you come to know your misery? A. The law of God tells me.
10 Q. Will God permit such disobedience and rebellion to go unpunished? A. Certainly not. He is terribly angry about the sin we are born with as well as the sins we personally commit. As a just judge he punishes them now and in eternity. He has declared: “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, and do them.”
In contrast, if we are to find salvation, we must have another word, different from the law. It is called the Gospel:
19 Q. How do you come to know this? A. The holy gospel tells me. God himself began to reveal the gospel already in Paradise; later, he proclaimed it by the holy patriarchs and prophets and portrayed it by the sacrifices and other ceremonies of the law; finally, he fulfilled it through his own dear Son.
Thus, the Gospel alone reveals saving knowledge. It is a distinct type of communication within the Word of God, not in the human heart.
2. The Canons of Dort
The Canons of Dort plainly teach that the law cannot at all save and why. It then presents the way of salvation, which is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. You can see this in Head of Doctrine 3/4, 5–6:
Article 5 — In the same light are we to consider the law of the decalogue, delivered by God to His peculiar people, the Jews, by the hands of Moses. For though it reveals the greatness of sin, and more and more convinces man thereof, yet as it neither points out a remedy nor imparts strength to extricate him from misery, but, being weak through the flesh, leaves the transgressor under the curse, man cannot by this law obtain saving grace.
Article 6 — What, therefore, neither the light of nature, nor the law could do, that God performs by the operation of the Holy Spirit through the word or ministry of reconciliation; which is the glad tidings concerning the Messiah, by means whereof it has pleased God to save such as believe, as well under the Old as under the New Testament.
Thus, there are two types of communication in the Bible itself, law and Gospel. I do not know how the Canons could make this any more plain.
3. The Westminster Larger Catechism
The Westminster Larger Catechism says that the law was given before the Gospel, at the beginning of time. Since the fall, it cannot bring about righteousness and life.
Q. 92. What did God first reveal unto man as the rule of his obedience?
A. The rule of obedience revealed to Adam in the estate of innocence, and to all mankind in him, besides a special command not to eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, was the moral law.
Q. 94. Is there any use of the moral law since the fall?
A. Although no man, since the fall, can attain to righteousness and life by the moral law; yet there is great use thereof, as well common to all men, as peculiar either to the unregenerate, or the regenerate.
In contrast, there is communication from God that can bring about by the Spirit righteousness and life. It is the Gospel:
Q. 59. Who are made partakers of redemption through Christ?
A. Redemption is certainly applied, and effectually communicated, to all those for whom Christ hath purchased it; who are in time by the Holy Ghost enabled to believe in Christ according to the gospel.
Q. 60. Can they who have never heard the gospel, and so know not Jesus Christ, nor believe in him, be saved by their living according to the light of nature?
A. They who, having never heard the gospel, know not Jesus Christ, and believe not in him, cannot be saved, be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature, or the laws of that religion which they profess; neither is there salvation in any other, but in Christ alone, who is the Savior only of his body the church.
The communication of the Gospel is so necessary for salvation that no one can be saved without it. If you just had the law, you could not be saved. Everyone has the law, but not everyone has the Gospel. Only those who have the Gospel can be saved.
Conclusion
The Reformed Confessions are plain. There are two words or types of communication in the Bible. There is the law, and there is the Gospel. One is saving. The other is not.
It is also plain as day that the Federal Vision denies this distinction. Since this distinction concerns the all-important saving knowledge of the Word of God, to confuse this distinction is extremely dangerous.
One Federal Visionist has actually admitted that the denial of this distinction (via the denial of the bi-covenantal structure of the Standards) is contrary to the system of doctrine in the Westminster Standards. He believes that this view would demand that the entire system be re-worked. He wrote:
I do think the latest scholarly work in biblical theology demands that we go back and redo a great deal of the Westminster standards. They were written when people still thought of the covenant as a contract and believed that “merit” had some role to play in our covenantal relations with God. The whole bi-polar covenant of works/grace schema has got to go. And if that goes, the whole “system” must be reworked.
The choice is plain. Do we believe in the works/grace or law/gospel system of the Reformed Confession, or do we think that all this has to go?
All the best to you in the PCA.
What such churches really need is to recover true confessionalism. John Anderson (d.1830) offers some help:
http://honest2blog.blogspot.com/2010/02/recovering-reformed-communion.html
Great post!
I posted on this a little while back when some FV's were babbling on about the differences between Lutheranism and Reformed theology.
Norman Shepherd, in the Call of Grace, actually begins his first chapter by enumerating the many hermeneutical differences between the two groups.
I like what Zacharias Ursinus says in the beginning of his commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism.
“The doctrine of the church consists of two parts: the Law, and the Gospel; in which we have comprehended the sum and substance of the sacred Scriptures. The law is called the Decalouge, and the gospel is the doctrine concerning Christ the mediator, and the free remission of sins, through faith. This division of the doctrine of the church is established by these plain and forcible arguments."
-Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, p. 2-3
Very different from the Joint Statement, right?
“We deny that law and gospel should be considered as a hermeneutics, or treated as such…. The fundamental division [between law and gospel] is not in the text, but rather in the human heart.”
Really helpful to see all these quotes lined up like this. Thanks!
Wes,
Don’t forget Chapter 19 of the WCF which simply assumes a Law/Gospel distinction:
Chapter XIX: Of the Law of God
1. God gave to Adam a law, as a covenant of works, by which He bound him and all his posterity, to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience, promising life upon the fulfilling, and threatened death upon the breach of it, and endued him with power and ability to keep it.
2. This law, after his fall, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness; and, as such, was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, in ten commandments, and written in two tables: the first four commandments containing our duty towards God; and the other six, our duty to man.
6. Although true believers be not under the law, as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified, or condemned; yet is it of great use to them, as well as to others; in that, as a rule of life informing them of the will of God, and their duty, it directs and binds them to walk accordingly; *discovering also the sinful pollutions of their nature, hearts, and lives; so as, examining themselves thereby, they may come to further conviction of, humiliation for, and hatred against sin, together with a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ, and the perfection of His obedience.* It is likewise of use to the regenerate, to restrain their corruptions, in that it forbids sin; and the threatenings of it serve to shew what even their sins deserve and what afflictions, in this life, they may expect for them, although freed from the curse thereof threatened in the law. The promises of it, in like manner, shew them God=s approbation of obedience, and what blessings they may expect upon the performance thereof: although not as due to them by the law as a covenant of works. So as, a man=s doing good, and refraining from evil, because the law encourageth to the one, and deterreth from the other, is no evidence of his being under the law, and not under grace.
7. Neither are the forementioned uses of the law contrary to the grace of the Gospel, but do sweetly comply with it; the Spirit of Christ subduing and enabling the will of man to do that freely, and cheerfully, which the will of God, revealed in the law, requireth to be done.
So here we see the Ten Commandments explicitly equated to the original moral law which God gave to Adam in what Westminster terms, “the covenant of works.” It follows then that all men are bound to obey it perfectly or be subject to death. Therefore, we note in the third cited paragraph the prominent place that the law’s convicting role plays in the life of the believer, showing him more clearly his ongoing need for Christ. This stands side by side with the positive instruction it gives for us then to live as followers of Christ. And while the last paragraph states plainly that the uses of the law “sweetly comply” with the Gospel, we note that as the law complies with the Gospel, it is thus necessarily not equivalent to the Gospel.
Also, the Second Helvetic Confession (1566)….
Chapter XII: Of the Law of God
We teach that the will of God is explained for us in the law of God, what he wills or does not will us to do, what is good and just, or what is evil and unjust. Therefore, we confess that the law is good and holy….
We teach that this law was not given to men that they might be justified by keeping it, but that rather from what it teaches we may know weakness, sin and condemnation, and, despairing of our strength, might be converted to Christ in faith. For the apostle openly declares, “The law brings wrath,” and “Through the law comes knowledge of sin” (Romans 4:15; 3:20), and, AIf a law had been given which could justify or make alive, then righteousness would indeed be by the law. But the Scripture (that is, the law) has concluded all under sin, that the promise which was of the faith of Jesus might be given to those who believe…. Therefore, the law was our schoolmaster unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith” (Gal. 3:21ff).
For no flesh could or can satisfy the law of God and fulfil it, because of the weakness in our flesh which adheres and remains in us until our last breath. For the apostle says again, “God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do: sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin” (Rom. 8:3). Therefore, Christ is the perfecting of the law and our fulfilment of it (Rom. 10:4), who, in order to take away the curse of the law, was made a curse for us (Gal. 3:13). Thus he imparts to us through faith his fulfilment of the law, and his righteousness and obedience are imputed to us.
Chapter XIII: Of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, of the Promises, and of the Spirit and Letter
The Gospel is, indeed, opposed to the law. For the law works wrath and announces a curse, whereas the Gospel preaches grace and blessing. John says: “For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ” (John 1:17). Yet notwithstanding it is most certain that those who were before the law and under the law, were not altogether destitute of the Gospel. For they had extraordinary evangelical promises….
And although our fathers had the Gospel in this way in the writings of the prophets by which they attained salvation in Christ through faith, yet the Gospel is properly called glad and joyous news, in which, first by John the Baptist, then Christ the Lord himself, and afterwards by the apostles and their successors, is preached to us in the world that God has now performed what he promised from the beginning of the world, and has sent, nay more, has given us his only Son and in him reconciliation with the Father, the remission of sins, all fulness and everlasting life. Therefore, the history delineated by the four Evangelists and explaining how these things were done or fulfilled by Christ, what things Christ taught and did, and that those who believe in him have all fulness, is rightly called the Gospel….
“We believe that any passage, whether indicative or imperative, can be heard by the faithful as good news, and that any passage, whether containing gospel promises or not, will be heard by the rebellious as intolerable demand.”
Seems with this statement that they are missing the point of the Law/Gospel distinction, by making it synonymous with an imperative/indicative voice. This fails to see that there are legal indicatives, and gospel imperatives. The Law/Gospel distinction goes deeper than the form of voice. “Thou shalt love the LORD thy God…” is a legal imperative, while, “Repent, and be baptized…” is a gospel imperative. They are not the only ones who fail to see this distinction. The WTS CA guys often tend to fall into the same trap.
Wes,
I noted there were three PCA men who were among the undersigned. In your opinion, what is keeping them from being disciplined by their presbyteries?
Ken
Hi Wes,
I believe some terms and concepts are being confused when jumping between the Heidelberg and Westminster Standards. In the Heidelberg the “gospel” is said to be found in the Old Testament. But in the Westminster Standards, the term “gospel” seems to refer primarily to the New Testament administration of the Covenant of Grace.
So, in the Heidelberg, what you say it true: “If we are to find salvation, we must have another word, different from the law. It is called the Gospel”. But in Westminster vocabulary, salvation is not tied to the word “gospel”. Rather, salvation was available under the law.
“ This covenant of grace is frequently set forth in Scripture by the name of a testament, in reference to the death of Jesus Christ the Testator, and to the everlasting inheritance, with all things belonging to it, therein bequeathed.”
“This covenant was differently administered in the time of the law, and in the time of the gospel: under the law, it was administered by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all foresignifying Christ to come; which were, for that time, sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah, by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation; and is called the old testament.”
“Under the gospel, when Christ, the substance, was exhibited, …”
Of course the Westminster and Heidelberg are not at odds with each other on the conceptual basis, but the different use of terms is worthy of note.
The language of “Law/Gospel Distinction” seems to work better with Heidelberg vocabulary than Westminster. For those using the Westminster Standards (i.e. PCA folks), speaking of “Law/Gospel distinction” can be pretty confusing. In the PCA, wouldn’t it be better to speak of a “Covenant of Works / Covenant of Grace Distinction”?
Hi Ken,
That is a good question. I think that one reason that these men continue in the PCA is that they were already in somewhat FV-friendly presbyteries to begin with. One reason that Rich Lusk is not in the PCA is because he attempted to go to a presbytery that was not FV-friendly. So, it is not really surprising that these men are still in the PCA. If they were not in FV-friendly Presbyteries, they probably would have left a long time ago. However, even in these presbyteries, there is enough anti-FV sentiment to continue to force the issue (sometimes with a little help from the outside). The issue will probably be decided this year as these cases are tried and come before the PCA’s highest court, the Standing Judicial Commission.
Hello Andrew,
Thank you for the opportunity to clarify some points. I think the ambiguity of law/gospel arises from the Bible itself. The basic law/gospel division is between justification by works and justification by faith. However, because the law is the most prominent presentation in the Old Testament, it is sometimes called “the law” in contrast to the New Testament where the Gospel is the most prominent and hence sometimes called “the Gospel.”
However, in Romans and Galatians especially, the law and gospel are clearly used for two types of communication from God, one which saves sinners and the other which condemns them. According to these passages, “law” and “gospel” are two types of communication in the Old Testament itself. Thus, I think this distinction should simply be explained not discarded. You can clearly see from the passages I cited in the Westminster Larger Catechism that law and gospel do not refer to the Old and New Testaments but to different types of communication from God.
The covenant of works and the covenant of grace do specify the law/gospel distinction clearly. However, those who question the law/gospel distinction often fail to properly distinguish the covenant of works and the covenant of grace, as the quote in my post illustrates as well as my critique of the Joint Federal Vision Profession’s rejection of the substance of the biblical and confessional covenant of works/grace distinction (read it here).
“Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.”
Sounds like good news to me. As Doug Wilson said; “[W]hen we say it’s all gospel, it’s all law, it’s all good.” What did Paul know about biblical imperatives anyway.
I wonder which PCA pastor said; “The whole bi-polar covenant of works/grace schema has got to go.”
As to your question; “Do we believe in the works/grace or law/gospel system of the Reformed Confession, or do we think that all this has to go?” Haven’t a number of PCA courts in their exoneration (and in some cases repeatedly) of known Federal Visionist already answered that?
Federal Visionists are quite adept in taking some of the finer points of Reformed theology and twisting them to serve their own foolish end.
For example, some Reformed theologians have pointed out that the Covenant of Works is, in some sense, gracious. What that means is that the establishment of the CoW was an act of condescension on God’s part.
I don’t believe that these FV guys are stupid. I don’t believe that these FV guys just simply do not get that these Reformed theologians, who are saying that the CoW is, in a sense, gracious, are not talking about saving grace (demerited favor) in the prelapsarian state. Because, if they’re that stupid, then I wonder how they got ordained in the first place.
A similar thing happens with what some Reformed theologians (ex. Bavinck, Vos, etc.) have pointed out about the Reformed understanding of the Law/Gospel distinction. Just because these theologians are saying that the Reformed perspective on the matter is different from the Lutheran view, that doesn’t mean that the Law/Gospel distinction is being denied. However, as pointed out, these FV guys are taking these finer points and twisting them in order to make it appear that this fits with their agenda.
Riley- “The WTS CA guys often tend to fall into the same trap” !!! You been hanging out with Gerety?
Riley – That’s where you are wrong. “Repent” is a law imperative, for ALL men are called to repentance (“duty-faith”). “Be Baptized” is also a law imperative, of the 3rd use of the law for Christians.
So the command “Repent, and be baptized” is a law imperative, not a “gospel imperative”, as if such a fiction exists.
Daniel, all men are called to obey the gospel. That is a gospel imperative. And yes, it applies to all men without distinction. That entails believing in and embracing Christ as he is revealed in the gospel. Yes, it is imperative.
Mark 1:15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.
2 Thessalonians 1:8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:
Thanks for illustrating exactly what I was talking about when I said that some (e. g. WTS CA guys) tend to mistakenly equate gospel with the indicative and law with the imperative voice.
The covenant of grace, which is itself a monergistic covenant, is synergistic in its administration and application to all humanity. Hence, it has imperatives for mankind.
Notice that the Westminster Standards describe Repentance unto Life as an “evangelical” i. e. gospel “grace”, and a “saving grace.” Notice also that it is “required of us, that we may escape God’s wrath.” Hence it is a gospel imperative.
WCF 15:1 Repentance unto life is an evangelical grace, the doctrine whereof is to be preached by every minister of the Gospel, as well as that of faith in Christ.
WLC 76 What is repentance unto life? A. Repentance unto life is a saving grace,(1) wrought in the heart of a sinner by the Spirit(2) and word of God,(3) whereby out of the sight and sense, not only of the danger,(4) but also of the filthiness and odiousness of his sins,(5) and upon the apprehension of God’s mercy in Christ to such as are penitent,(6) he so grieves for(7) and hates his sins,(8) as that he turns from them all to God,(9) purposing and endeavouring constantly to walk with him in all the ways of new obedience.(10)
WSC 85 What doth God require of us, that we may escape his wrath and curse due to us for sin? A. To escape the wrath and curse of God due to us for sin, God requireth of us faith in Jesus Christ, repentance unto life,(1) with the diligent use of all the outward means whereby Christ communicateth to us the benefits of redemption.(2)
WSC 87 What is repentance unto life? A. Repentance unto life is a saving grace,(1) whereby a sinner, out of a true sense of his sin,(2) and apprehension of the mercy of God in Christ,(3) doth, with grief and hatred of his sin, turn from it unto God,(4) with full purpose of, and endeavour after, new obedience.(5)
GLW, sorry, don’t know him.
@Riley:
You make the point of confusing Law and Gospel. There is no such thing as a “Gospel imperative”, which is a figment of imagination. Repentance is required even of Nineveh even though the city of Nineveh heard no Gospel message from Jonah, who wanted God to destroy Nineveh anyway.
People are not called to obey the Gospel as Law. Instead, people are told to take heed to hear and believe the Gospel (ύπακουω) – that is what the Scripture mean by “obey the Gospel”. Nowhere is the phrase “obey the Gospel” meant to denote some form of good works required to be done, but just assent and trust to the Gospel message. And just fyi, trust is not faithfulness, but rather the right disposition that should rightly come from true assent.
I have already said that “Repent and be baptized” consists of two Law imperatives, one of the 1st use and the other of the 3rd use. You have not refuted that at all. The verse 2 Thess. 1:8 uses the Greek lexeme ύπακουω which roughly means “take heed, give ear”. The onus is on you to show how that word means “faithfulness in good works”, as you are doing.
>The covenant of grace, which is itself a monergistic covenant, is synergistic in its administration and application to all humanity
Are you serious? That is the precise error behind Federal Vision. The Covnenant of Grace is monergistic by grace from beginning to end. Salvation is fully of God not of Man.
>Notice that the Westminster Standards describe Repentance unto Life as an “evangelical” i. e. gospel “grace”, and a “saving grace.”
Wow! You have massacred the teachings of the Westminster Standards on this topic. Let us look into the exa,ples given one by one.
>WCF 15:1 Repentance unto life is an evangelical grace, the doctrine whereof is to be preached by every minister of the Gospel, as well as that of faith in Christ.
What is meant by “evangelical grace”? What it teaches is that the Gospel of repentance unto life cannot be believed by Man in his unregenerate state, but only through the work of the Spirit alone. That is why it is an evangelical grace, for though the command is Law, the provision to fulfil that command is Gospel.
WCF15:1 therefore teaches that ministers of the Gospel ought to preach the Law which God’s commands as well as the gracious provision to meet that command through Christ in His Gospel mediated by the Holy Spirit. This Gospel is therefore an evangelical grace as it provides for Man’s need of repentance unto life.
>WLC 76 What is repentance unto life? A. Repentance unto life is a saving grace.
Also WSC85 and 87.
Repentance unto life is a saving grace precisely because it is God’s appointed process through which sinners are saved. Means and processes are not equivalent to Gospel.
Daniel,
How far are you taking your equation of law/gospel with imperative/indicative?
Would you reject the conclusion which Bavinck reached when he said:
“Viewed concretely, law and Gospel differ not so much in that the law always meets us in the form of command and the Gospel in the form of promise, for the law too has promises and the Gospel too has warnings and obligations. But they differ especially in content: the law demands that man work out his own righteousness, while the Gospel invites him to renounce all self-righteousness and to receive the righteousness of Christ, to which end it even bestows the gift of faith.”
I do not mean here to imply that Bavinck rejected the narrower sense that you are implying, and you can find his larger discussion on law and gospel here: (http://www.christchurchreformed.com/Galatians/Additional%20Documents/The%20Law%20Gospel%20Disctinction%20%28Bavinck%29.htm) Particularly, if you wanted to engage in a war of quotation, you could always pull “And indeed, in the strictest sense there are in the Gospel no demands and conditions, but only promises and gifts…” from a paragraph or so earlier.
I think Bavinck’s point, and the one being made here was that the gospel is always in many ways dependent on the law, both for its administration and in the fact that purpose of the gospel involves restoration of the law. Lest this be taken the wrong way, I will again appeal to Bavinck: “Freedom from the law consists, then, not in the fact that the Christian has nothing more to do with the law, but lies in the fact that the law demands nothing more from the Christian as a condition of salvation. The law can no longer judge and condemn him. Instead he delights in the law of God according to the inner man and yearns for it day and night.”
I will let Riley speak for himself as to his meaning, but the point I would make here is that liberally using indicative and imperative as a short-hand way of saying gospel and law, as I have heard at least one pastor do, will lead to confusion among congregants. I have heard a pastor refer to the law as the “bad news” and the gospel as “good news”, which is totally correct if referring strictly to the redemptive power (none) presented by the law. However, there’s an easy logical connection to be made here: if law = imperative and law = “bad news”, then the call to “repent and believe” becomes “bad news” for a Christian, serving only to condemn us further and make us more aware of our sins.
I do not believe that you would be asserting this conclusion, and I believe the criticism would be that “law” is being used in different senses in the little logical exercise I made. Therefore, I don’t see anything wrong with saying that the gospel contains a command to believe as well as to be righteous, the difference is that the gospel grants what it demands.
Perhaps you believe that I am confusing law and gospel. Perhaps you believe Bavinck does so as well (or at least that I have misrepresented him). However, I have experienced the confusion that comes from thinking ministers are called to preach the gospel, which means indicatives only, leading to repeated calls to “rest in Christ” (not a bad thing) and a reflexive aversion to command language as something that is either meant to convict us or meant to be worked out at home. Many Lutherans did not believe the third use of the law should be preached, since it would be sufficiently obvious to believers. I don’t share that opinion, and, having experienced something which seems very near to that view, I have left many Sundays being assured by the sweet call to rest in Christ, but almost counseled against showing my gratitude for this salvation in any other way than coming forward and partaking in the Sacrament.
Maybe we are in full agreement here, but you are appealing to technical meanings whereas I’m speaking of the practicalities of preaching. However, I’m sensing that you would recoil from anyone saying “the gospel commands/demands…” and I’m suggesting that binding Law and Gospel in their full senses strictly to Imperative and Indicative is, at the very least, an unhelpful shorthand for average Christians.
@Donald:
as broad categories, we can speak about “Gospel imperatives” in the sense that believing in the Gospel implies that the new man is obligated to live according to His new nature (cf Rom. 6).
However, I am speaking on, and the discussion is about, Law and Gospel in the narrower categories of “what we ought to do” (imperatives) and “what is done for us” (indicatives). When discussing the command “Repent, and be baptized”, I have stated that the command to be baptized is the Law in its 3rd use. So Christians do have to obey God, but this obedience is strictly speaking Law, in its 3rd use.
So pastorially, I am all for preaching of what Christians ought to do. However, that is Law, not Gospel. There are not technically speaking “Gospel imperatives”, but “Law imperatives”, which Christians are to obey (the Law).
So yes, I am adverse to the saying “the gospel commands/demands”. Not only is it wrong theology, but it diminishes both the graciousness of the Gospel and the demands of the Law. Pastorially, there is a possible subtle insinuation that the Gospel is not actually free because it requires something of us. And since the command is from the Gospel and not the Law, we breed a sortof doctrinal Antinomianism as the Law is downplayed since what is commanded is not Law-based but Gospel-based.
As for “average Christians,” at least in my case it does not apply. I am not of course not the standard, and it may be helpful to survey what others think when they hear of such terminology. From people I know however, it seems that confusing Law and Gospel is similarly detrimental. For me, when I hear the phrase “the Gospel commands,” the Gospel ceases to be all of grace but a contract whereby God has initiated my salvation for sure, but now that He has done His part, I must now fulfil my part of this salvation bargain, otherwise God will not love me and punish me for not obeying Him. Sure, I am still saved, but God’s favor depends on my doing good works.
I suspect this may be the case for many Christians.
David,
You said that the commands to “repent” and “be baptized” are law, not gospel, but you didn’t prove it. Furthermore, I don’t believe it. These are the very terms preached in the free offer of the gospel to sinners by Peter at Pentecost in Acts 2. How can these imperatives be law? Since you didn’t offer any support to back-up your claim, I will disregard it for now. On the other hand I offered the secondary support of the Westminster Standards which describe repentance unto life as a gospel grace and yet as an imperative obligation.
Also, I said nothing of “good works of faithfulness.” So please don’t put words into my mouth. As dangerous and erroneous as the FV teaching is, that doesn’t mean we need to check our brains at the door an accept the unbiblical gospel-indicative/law-imperative paradigm. Honestly, this sounds like something that was dreamed up by an English teacher.
“Are you serious? That is the precise error behind Federal Vision. The Covnenant of Grace is monergistic by grace from beginning to end. Salvation is fully of God not of Man.”
Yes, I’m serious. One does have to believe in Christ in order to be saved. So in that narrow sense it is synergistic. The application is synergistic, though the source is monergistic. In other words salvation completely originates in God’s gift of grace, yet it is synergistically applied, i. e., a man is saved by believing in Christ. Did you not believe in Christ to be saved?
Another way to say this is that the covenant of grace is in its nature unconditional. God has chosen to save a people for himself, and effected all the means necessary to do it. Yet in its administration it is presented as conditional. Salvation is conditioned upon faith and repentance from sin, and it is expressed in these conditional terms in the free offer of the gospel. These conditions of faith and repentance are therefore gospel imperatives.
“>WCF 15:1 Repentance unto life is an evangelical grace, the doctrine whereof is to be preached by every minister of the Gospel, as well as that of faith in Christ.
What is meant by “evangelical grace”? What it teaches is that the Gospel of repentance unto life cannot be believed by Man in his unregenerate state, but only through the work of the Spirit alone. That is why it is an evangelical grace, for though the command is Law, the provision to fulfil that command is Gospel.”
David, can you please support your contention that the command is law? If the grace is a gospel grace, then this same grace does not cease to be grace when it is set before sinners as the condition or imperative obligation to be saved.
“WCF15:1 therefore teaches that ministers of the Gospel ought to preach the Law which God’s commands as well as the gracious provision to meet that command through Christ in His Gospel mediated by the Holy Spirit. This Gospel is therefore an evangelical grace as it provides for Man’s need of repentance unto life.”
No, WCF 15:1 classifies repentance unto life as a grace. Only you are classifying it as law. Ministers must preach the law as well as the gospel, but WCF 15:1 doesn’t mention the law.
“Repentance unto life is a saving grace precisely because it is God’s appointed process through which sinners are saved. Means and processes are not equivalent to Gospel.”
So that means, in your view, that WCF 15:1 is wrong where it refers to repentance unto life as an “evangelical grace?” i. e. gospel grace
Also, David, note that we are talking about the gospel, and salvation, broadly considered. We are not just speaking about Justification. There is a significant difference. Salvation cannot be reduced to only justification.
Daniel,
Not to pile on too much here, but I wanted to push back a little on “repent” and “be baptized” as fitting within the third use of the law. The third use of the law is as a guide for our gratitude, so from this I assume you’re saying the call to repent from sins and be baptized is actually a call to show gratitude for the salvation we’ve already been given? I suppose we could add “believe” into the list too, since that’s part of the call.
I can see a narrow sense where you could say that the regenerating work of the Spirit is what enables all of these actions, but I do wonder if that’s a helpful way to characterize the call that is intrinsic to the gospel. The message we bring is now, “the law only serves to condemn, but there is also no condemnation in Christ, listen now as I condemn you to repent and believe in Him.”
The more troubling application of this as third use is that there is no condemnation in the law, especially not in the third use, and yet someone who has not repented of their sin is not saved. We can repent and be forgiven of a multitude of transgressions against the law, even after salvation. Repentant prostitutes, adulterers, drunks, and murderers are all welcomed into our churches as true Christians, yet anyone who does not repent of these things would be expelled from a true church.
Perhaps we want to ameliorate the nature of repentance and belief until they are sufficiently passive or inactive to fall under an indicative; however, I think the more proper “gospel demands” statement that I would make is “the gospel demands a response.”
In fact, in this way, the gospel is like the law in that rejecting it actually multiplies condemnation. The condemnation of Jerusalem will be all the greater on the last day because of her rejection of the gospel, yet if the gospel is merely an indicative message of victory, a notice posted on the wall that there’s grace out there to be had, then one questions how it could increase condemnation.
The reason this sounds a little silly is that, as a grammatical matter, even things stated in an indicative voice can carry an unstated imperative. If I run into the house and scream “the house is on fire!” the unstated imperative is “get the heck out of here!” If you want to parse the clause, and say that “the house is on fire” is gospel, while the unstated law imperative is the part that would cause us to condemn a sleepy person who stayed inside to burn alive, I suppose I cannot dissuade you.
The way I see it, the proclamation that death and hell have been vanquished and that we are all free in Christ is very much like saying “the house is on fire.” It is a strictly indicative message on the one hand, but it carries an incredibly powerful imperative with it, and both of these are properly part of the gospel. While I can affirm a division of law and gospel, and I can appreciate the difference between indicative and imperative, I don’t think that the two sets are fully synonymous with one another, and that makes me very hesitant to reduce them to that.
@Donald:
I have said that the commnad to repent is first and foremost the 1st use of the law, not the 3rd use. The 3rd use of repentance comes later for Christians. And thus I refuse to defend a misreading of my position.
@Riley:
again, mere repetition ad-nauseum without showing why my reading of the Westminster standards is wrong is not helping anyone. Just because I disagree with your interpretation of the Wesminster standards does not mean that I am against the standards.
>These are the very terms preached in the free offer of the gospel to sinners by Peter at Pentecost in Acts 2
So in your view, are you saying that the Law is not present in a Gospel proclamation?
> One does have to believe in Christ in order to be saved. So in that narrow sense it is synergistic.
That is a non sequitur. The condition of faith cannot be fulfilled apart from the Spirit’s regenerating grace, and therefore it is monergistic.. The free offer is Law, not Gospel, because the offer does not create faith in and of itself.
> can you please support your contention that the command is law? If the grace is a gospel grace, then this same grace does not cease to be grace when it is set before sinners as the condition or imperative obligation to be saved.
The mere fact that the English language states that law and command are very much equivalent proves the point. The evangelical grace refers to the work of the Spirit through the means of the Gospel offer, it does not refer to the offer apart from the work of the Spirit.
>No, WCF 15:1 classifies repentance unto life as a grace.
Again, you are misreading the Confession. The Confession states that it is gracious because the Spirit uses the twin means of the Law and the Gospel (repentance, and faith, unto life) to bring Man to salvation.
>So that means, in your view, that WCF 15:1 is wrong where it refers to repentance unto life as an “evangelical grace?” i. e. gospel grace
No, WCF 15.1 is right. It is your interpretation of WCF 15.1 that is wrong.