Note to self: I need to do a review post of John Frame's article "Law and Gospel". I think that would help crystallise many of the helpful things I have learnt from Lutheran theology over the last year. It would also be very topical in the mist of a lot of confusion in the Reformed world (or blogosphere at least) that Lutherans may say has been a part of Reformed theology since the beginning.
I think I would start by clearing the air by copying Don Carson's point in his article "The Vindication of Imputation: On Fields of Discourse and Semantic Fields" (in the brilliant Justification: What's at stake in the current debates ed. Mark Husbands & Daniel J. Treier).
I then may point out that characterisation of the traditional dichotomy between law and gospel of law = old covenant, gospel = new covenant, is a caricature (c.f. quote from Timothy Wengert posted previously).
Then I should think about why it is important after all.... I might find this bit hard work to write.
Finally I might think about why Reformed Theology often seems to struggle with conflicting urges in the debate.... this will be where I fall flat on my face because it here it will actually become clear what I may have hidden up till then: my ignorance of historical theology.
Law first, Gospel secondOne of the most challenging things to think about in John Frame's article is that it is more biblical to preach the gospel first and then the law, in contrast to what "one commonly hears that it is important, not only to preach both law and gospel, but also to preach the law first and the gospel second". I can see his point here, and yet he doesn't deal with what for Luther seems to be the biggest argument for that ordering: as Christ died and then was raised, so we are baptised into the water of death and are raised to life and repent of sin and are absolved by the confessor.
Dave,
ReplyDeleteAre you just researching the Lutheran position?
Have you seen Five Views on Law and Gospel?
Good question.
ReplyDeleteI am going to focus on what the Lutheran response to Frame would be for a number of reasons:
1. I don't think Frame is truly in dialogue (where as he is in dialogue with other positions on Law/Gospel).
2. I am finding it very fruitful in helping to understand the scriptures and my relationship with God.
3. I am too strapped for time to do the wide reading that the topic no doubt deserves.
4. I am relatively familiar with the different views of the law/gospel which I put under the umbrella 'reformed' and I think the perspectives in the 5 views book are mainly from within that large umbrella.
That is in no way to deny that there is a vast array of different views out there with much to teach me. Unfortunately though I have trouble processing more than one at a time. I have been meaning to read that book for some time though, mainly for Doug Moo's contribution (I like Doug Moo).
Did you know Doug Moo has a website? (his photos and writings) http://www.djmoophoto.com/biblicalstudies.html
ReplyDeleteThanks again J. I had come across his website before (... still getting over the fact a NT professor can have other interests to biblical studies), but I'm glad you reminded me of it because there are a few things on there that I hadn't noticed before, not least his contribution to the 5 views book.
ReplyDeleteLooking forward to your thoughts Dave. For David Field's ethics class I had to review a Frame book (doctrine of the knowledge of God) and had quite mixed views. David (of the blog fame and an FV proponent) is a Frame fan and found my essay 'worryingly Lutheran'! He then wrote "Don't forget we are saved by doing good" Hmmm.
ReplyDeletehmmm indeed.
ReplyDeleteI hope I actually get round to writing the post.
Just so busy!
Hi Dave, thanks for your comment on my blog. Interesting that you're at YEC; doubtless you've picked up that I'm at the little Baptist church on Priory Street. And you're interested in Lutheranism?! I could never be a Lutheran--I'm too Reformed!
ReplyDeleteI sometimes wonder if there aren't lots of Reformed Christians in the UK are, for want of a better word, 'stuck' in baptistic circles because we just don't know of all the others. Anyway, that's all apropos of very little.
You might be interested to read Mike Horton's God of Promise, where he explains how Adam and Christ are the heads of covenants of law and gospel respectively. In other words, the law/gospel distinction come right out of a Reformed covenantal approach, which of course comes right out of Scripture.
Hi Phil,
ReplyDeleteI did pick up that you were at York Baptist. I'm not sure in which way it is 'little' though. I have even met you as well at games evening at Phil, James and Andrew's house once. I was slightly surprised when I came across a comment of yours in the blogosphere.
I don't think I will ever be a Lutheran. But I'm beginning to think I will never be straightforwardly Reformed too. I think I'll have to stick with the label of Evangelical or Protestant.
I have Mike Horton's book sitting on my shelf but shamefully I have never got past the first dozen pages. I will have to return to it at some point, and give the 'Reformed covenantal approach' a fair hearing. Nevertheless I don't think it can be denied that the doctrine of law and Gospel is more central, cherished, and explored by Lutherans than by the Reformed. And I think that has been there from the beginning. Besides there is more in Lutheranism to love than law and Gospel. In particular it's theology of the Word and sacrament.
Ah, so we *have* met!
ReplyDelete* Word & sacrament: the Reformed centre ecclesiology around Christ as presented in word & sacrament as do the Lutherans. The underlying theology is different in each case, but the Lutherans go places with that I'd (frankly) never want to be seen.
* Law/gospel: Lutheranism does press this hard, but in my view, they can press it far too hard. For instance, they turn it into a hermeneutic, so that Scripture gets chopped up into "Law" bits and "Gospel" bits. (Mike Horton does this too, but not, as I recall, in GoP. That proves that it's not logically necessary. A l/g hermeneutic is like a man describing wave patterns on the sea, but never thinking about what's going on beneath the water's surface.)
I don't know if you've come across John H of confessingevangelical.com, but he's a Lutheran (who's also been, in his time, a Reformed Anglican) and he has a very good blog.
Ooo we could get into a big old discussion here but I best not.
ReplyDeleteMy only worry is that I'm probably already in that place that you would rather never be seen on the Word and sacraments...
Never mind.
I'm confused by your comment that 'A l/g hermeneutic is like a man describing wave patterns on the sea, but never thinking about what's going on beneath the water's surface.' care to expand? It sounds intriguingly enigmatic. I am not entirely sold on the way Lutheran's can sometimes 'divide the Word of truth' like Jamie Oliver chopping onions.
Finally, indeed I have come across John H's blog. In fact, it was in a comment of yours there that I came across your blog.
Actually, the place I *really* don't want to go is "universal justification". Baptismal regeneration and the Real Presence (Lutheran-stylee) are errors, but not quite on the same level. Universal justification comes out of the theology underlying their sacramentology.
ReplyDeleteIn my comment about l/g, what I mean is that if, as I claim, covenant undergirds the law/gospel distinction, then it's inadequate to elevate the distinction into a hermeneutic. It misses what's really going on in the text.
Again, it's akin to a doctor who says, "Well, what's wrong with you is you've got a nasty cough and a bit of a temperature." What you really want is a prescription, and all he gives is a description.
Thanks Phil,
ReplyDeleteI need to do more reading...