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 second
One 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.
