Comments on: Law and Gospel

By: Rev. Paul T. McCain

Rev. Paul T. McCain — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 17:24:30 +0000

Just a note of clarification, on what EWR posted.

“Recent Lutheran scholarship” on this point is only modestly helpful. And it is not something that has caught on much beyond the relatively small circle of academics pushing this.

The interest by some Lutheran seminary professors to pursue “Two Kinds of Righteousness” as a “better” paradigm than the proper distinction between Law and Gospel runs up against the Lutheran Confessions consistent insistence that it is precisely the distinction between Law and Gospel that is “a particularly brilliant light” that “serves the purpose of rightly dividing God’s Word and properly explaining and understanding the Scriptures of the holy prophets and apostles.” It is a distinction that must be “guarded” with “special care.”

Those interested in further exploring the Lutheran doctrine of Law and Gospel can consult the Book of Concord, specifically, the fifth article of the Formula of Concord. Here is a link to it:

http://bookofconcord.org/sd-lawandgospel.php

For more on the Lutheran position on this.

By: Nick Brennan

Nick Brennan — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 01:26:01 +0000

Sometimes I think those who would talk about Law and Gospel within Reformed circles (like the Westminster California boys) are wrongly tarred with an absolute antithesis on this. I think I would be right in saying that there is antithesis, but in the matter of justification rather than across the board. In terms of our right standing with God, the way of Law and the way of Gospel are absolutely antithetical but not, say, in the matter of our (progressive) sanctification.

By: EWR

EWR — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 18:36:05 +0000

In addition to the helpful comments mentioned above, it should be noted that some recent Lutheran scholarship has identified Luther’s dominant paradigm for biblical interpretation and preaching as the “2 Kinds of Righteousness” rather than “Law-Gospel”. Part of the impetus behind this shift is the recognition highlighted by Mark Jones (in the link referenced above)that if you approach everything in Scripture with a Law-Gospel paradigm, then whatever is not obviously Gospel (like the Creation Account) automatically becomes Law.

Again – the above comments are also helpful. Lutherans do indeed maintain a distinction between Law & Gospel, not a separation. The three uses of the law also help shed light on this issue.

And as the Luther quote above demonstrates – Luther clearly believes good works should be preached tirelessly. These works contribute nothing to our standing before God, however. Here, before God, Christ’s righteousness alone (which we receive passively) is key. The works (and the exhortation to do good works) are peformed in the realm of active righteousness and are for the sake of our neighbor who is the one who truly needs them.

By: pduggie

pduggie — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 17:42:46 +0000

I like it. Too much do we hear of a Christianity with no “imperatives”, because some erroneously believe that Gospel preachers should never tell their congregations a “do this”.

By: M. Jay Bennett

M. Jay Bennett — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 06:15:34 +0000

The distinction of three uses of the law is helpful. With reference to Gaffin’s teaching above we might say the law in its second use is not good news (i.e. Gospel). It condemns me, even after union with Christ (since I am still guilty of sin even though his righteousness has been counted to me). But the law in its third use is concomitant to the good news as a rule of life, the way I express my love for the Redeemer whose character is revealed therein.

By: donsands

donsands — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 00:27:32 +0000

“the law …is now my friendly guide for life in fellowship with God.”

It is to my inner man. “..I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.” My outer man thinks different.

Luther says this about faith and works, which I think is basically the gospel and law: “”It is a hard and dangerous matter to teach that we are made righteous by faith without works, and yet to require works. Here unless the ministers of Christ are faithful and wise disposers of the mysteries of God, rightly dividing the Word of truth, faith and works are soon confounded. Both these doctrines, faith as well as works, must be diligently taught and urged; and yet so that both may remain within their bounds. Otherwise, if they teach works only then faith is lost. If only faith is taught, then carnal men soon dream that works are not needful.”

By: Rev. Paul T. McCain

Rev. Paul T. McCain — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 00:14:07 +0000

This is a perceptive remark. In our Lutheran circles we speak of the proper *distinction* between Law and Gospel, never a separation or “antithesis” but I fear sometimes in a certain zeal to speak of the Law and Gospel it is far too easy to give the impression that the Law is “bad” or somehow less Word of God than the Gospel.