iustitia aliena

Here. 

When the Good Becomes Bad – R. Scott Clark in Korean.

Here it is In English http://wscal.edu/resource-center/resource/when-the-good-news-becomes-bad

The article has also been translated into Chinese, click in translation to retrieve the copy.

Thanks to Chris Won in translating it!!!

For those that know the Korean and English if there are any errors in translation, post a comment and let me know, thanks.

Here it is in Korean

들어가는말
복음이란 말은 너무 자주 친숙하게 사용되어서 아마도 그 진짜 의미인 “ 좋은 소식”이라는 관점을 읽어버릴 가능성이 있다. 이 질문은 우리가 복음의 의미를 제정립하려고 추구하는 우리교회들 내에서 일어나는 여러 운동들을 직면할때 중요한 것이다. 각자의 상황에서 우리는 다른 복음에 받아 들여 온 것이다.(갈 1:6). 그리스도의 좋은 소식은 갈라디아 기독교인에 의해 처했던 위협의순서대로 위협을 직면하고 있다.
이 복음에 어떤 일이 있어났는가?
초대교회의 선조들은 복음을 말했지만, 그들의 관심은 변증법,삼위일체,그리스도론, 성경의 정경과 교회에 초점을 맞추는 경향이 있었다 초대교회 선조들 사이의 복음의 메시지는 그리스도가 이미왔고, 구원이 그리스도를 신뢰하고 그렇게 행동하는 모든 자에게 가능하다는 메시지가 종종 아니었다. 죄인들에게 좋은 소식이 아니었던 것이다.
19세기 은혜의 복음은 한 사람의 도덕적인 삶의 진보적인 변형으로 이해되었다. 복음이 성화와 동일시 되었던 것이다. 사람들은 도덕적으로 아픈 것으로 생각되어졌고 은혜라고 불리는 의학적인 물질의 주사가 필요한 것이었다. 이러한 계획안에서, 사람들은 그가 성화된 만큼 의인화 되었고, 성화는 성례안에서 이러한 약(은혜)을 받아 함께 협동함으로 이루어져왔다. 그들의 복음은 외쳤다. “구원은 은혜와 함께 일하는 자에 그리고 율법에 복종하는 자에게 가능하다” 이것은 죄인들에게 더욱 나쁜 소식이었다. 위를 위해 행하신 그리스도의 완전한 의 대신에 우리는 우리안에 있는 부분적인 의만 남겨졌다.
복음의 개혁
대조적으로, 마틴루터와 존 칼빈은 성경이 “두가지 단어-율법과 복음”를 포함하고 있다고 믿는다. 율법은 “이것을 하라 그러면 살리라“ 라고 성경에서 말하는 어떤 것을 묘사하는 반면에(누가복음 10:28),복음은 ”다 이루었다“(요한복음 19:30)라고 말하는 어떤것들을 말한다.
이것을 하면 살리라
율법은 하나님의 확고한 도덕적 의지이다. 이것이 왜 웨스터민스터 신앙고백 19.1에서 타락전후에 하나님의 율법은 “개인적이고 전체적이며 정확하고 영구적인 복종“을 요구하는지 우리에게 상기시켜주는 이유이다. 이것은 정확하게 모세의 교리 신명기27:26와 갈라디아서 3:10에서 바울의 교리”율법책에 기록된 모든 것을 지속적으로 행하지 않는 모든자는 저주를 받으리라“라는 것이다.
개혁자들은 하나님이 행위의 언약이라는 관점에서 아담에게 율법을 드러내셨다고 가르친다. “너가 정녕 그것을 먹는날에는 죽으리라(창세기2:!7)” 아담에게 주어진 영원한 축복의 내재적인 약속은 모든 인류의 대표로서 그가 복종하는 조건이었다.그의 죄에서, 아담은 행함의 언약을 깨고 모든 인류는 그와함께 타락한 것이다. 그 결과로, 의인화의 관련되서 율법은 죄인들에게 나쁜 소식인 것이다. “우리 모두는 하나님의 모든 명령에 대항하여 비통하게도 죄를 범했고, 그들중 어떤 것 하나도 절대 지킬수가 없으며, 여전히 우리 모두는 항상 악한 경향을 가지고 있다.“고 우리에게 고소한다.(하이델베르크 요리문답 60)
다 이루었다.
그러나, 복음은 다른 일이다. 그것은 둘째아담이신 그리스도가 그의 한번의 온전한 복종으로 율법을 지키시고 행위의 언약을 성취하시고 죄인들을 위한 그의 피로 새로운 언약을 맏드신것에 의한 선포이다. 약속된 구원자- 왕은 그의 왕국과 은혜의 언약과 함께 오신다. 율법은 이것들을 “행하라“ 말하는 반면 은혜의 언약은 말하길”안식하라“라 한다. 이것이 왜 복음이 ”좋은소식”인가 하는 이유이다.
왜냐하면 이것은 그리스도에 의해 우리에게 주어진 의인화에 대한것이며 우리에게 값없이 주시는것이기 때문이다.
하이델베르크 요리문답 21에 따르면, 진정한 믿음이란 “영원한 의와 구원은 오직 하나님의 은혜로 말미암아 자유롭게 주어진 것이며,오직 그리스도의 뛰어나신 가치만을 기르기 위한 목적을 위한 것이다. 율법이 나의 완벽한 순종을 요구하는 곳에 복음은 그리스도께서 나를 위해 율법을 다 성취하시고 나를 대항하는 무거운 빚의 통지를 해제하신 것을 선포하시고 약속하신다. 그리고 ” 마치 내가 어떠한 죄도 한번도 범하지 않은것처럼 그리스도의 완벽한 충족과 의와 성결을 나에게 돌리우신다. 만약 내가 믿는 마음으로 이러한 이익들을 받아들이기만 한다면 그리스도께서 날 위해 성취하신 모든 복종을 내가 성취한 것처럼 여겨주신다. (하이델베르크 요리문답60) 이것이 성경에서 말하는 복음이다. 여러곳에서 “복음”이란 명사는 나의 밖에서 이루어지고 있는 나에게 이익을 주는 무엇가를 언급한다. 다른곳에서 우리는 하나님의 구원의 복음의 소식을 날마다 선포해야 한다고 한다. .이러한 모든 것중에 가장 유명한 구약의 구절은 이사야52:7 이다. “ 좋은 소식을 가져오며 평화를 공포하며 복된 좋은 소식을 가져오며 구원을 공포하며 시온을 향하여 이르기를 네 하나님이 통치하신다 하는 자의 산을 넘는 발이 어찌 그리 아름다운고”(ESV)
성경의 히브리서에서 미리 암시됐던것은 신약성경에서 탁월한 명쾌함을 보여줌으로써 활짝 꽃을 피운다. 그 복음이란 우리 주 예수그리스도의 복종하신 삶과 죽음, 부활과 승천안에 나타난 하나님의 백성을 위한 구원의 성취이다. 고린도전서 15:1-5보다 더 쉽게 설명한곳은 없다. 복음은 “그리스도께서 우리의 죄를 위해서 성경대로 그는 죽으시고 성경에 이른대로 장사한지 3일만에 살아나셨느니라…” 이것은 이리석은 메시지는(고전 1;18) 믿는 모든자에게 하나님의 구원의 능력이 되시는 것이다.(로마서 1:16) 복음이란 우리가 착하다면 의롭다고 될수도 있다라는 것이 아니라 그리스도께서 선하시므로 우리가 의롭게 되는 것이다. 이것이 왜 죄인들에게 복음이 좋은 소식인가 하는 것이다 !
그 복음에게 어떤 일이 일어났는가?
바울 당시에 모든 사람들이 오늘날의 그리스도안에 있는 값없는 은혜의 복음에 만족했던 것은 아니다. 초대교회는 은혜의 언약에 조건을 첨가하려는 유혹을 받았다. 그들은 말하길 “그리스도를 신뢰하는 것은 물론, 하나님과 바른관계가 되려면 그리스도를 신뢰하는 것 이상이 필요하다”하였다. 이 복음의 대적자들은 “믿고 복종하기”로 믿음을 재정립하길 원했었다. 그래서 바울이 “사람이 의롭게 되는 것은 율법의 행위에서 난 것이 아니요 오직 예수 그리스도를 믿음으로 말미암는줄 아는고로 우리도 그리스도 예수를 믿나니 이는 우리가 율법의 행위에서 아니고 그리스도를 믿음으로서 의롭다함을 얻으려함이니라 율법의 해위로서는 의롭다 함을 얻을 육체가 없느니라”(갈라디아서 2:16) 라고 선포했다.
개혁자들은 이 구절을 로마교회와 그들의 논쟁에서 바르게 적용했다. 로마교회는 은혜와 함께 협력해서 일하는 복음을 가르쳤다. 그들의 복음의 정의는 우리의 행위를 하나님과 바르게 되는 부분으로 만듬으로써 그리스도께서 이미 끝내신 일의 품격을 떨어뜨렸다. 대조적으로, 사도바울은 복음은 믿는자들은 지금 의롭게 되고 “그러므로 우리 주 예수 그리스도안에 있는자 에게는 결코 정죄함이 없나니(로마서 8:1) 라고 논의했다.
공통의 잘못된 해석들
로마교회처럼 믿음과 복종을 통해 은혜로 의롭게 된다는 잘못된 복음을 받아온 사람들은 갈라디아서 5:6 “믿음은 사랑을 통해 일한다”가르치는 사람들은 진정한 믿음은 대부분 사랑(행위)이 존재함으로 오직을 이것을 통해서 사람이 그가 성화된것처럼 의롭게 될수 있다고 주장한다. 그들은 또한 야고보서 2:24을 통해 “이로 보건대 사람이 행함으로 의롭다 하심을 받고 믿음으로만 아니니라” 주장한다.
문맥을 일어보라. 초대16세기이후로 갈라디아서 5:6은 의인화에 대해서 이야기 하는 것이 아니라 그리스도인의 삶이나 성화에 대해서 이야기 하는 것이 개신교에게는 명백한 것이었다. 존 칼빈은 “저 구절은 의인화에 대한 질문으로 소개되기에는 부절적하다. 왜냐하면 바울은 어떠한 관점의 믿음이나 자선이 인간을 의롭게 할수 있는지를 고려한 것이 아니고 무엇이 기독교인의 완전인가를 보여준…” 이라고 썼다. 이 구절을 믿음과 복종(순종)을 통해 의인화를 가르치는 것으로 해석하는 것은 우리를 다시 율법 아래로 데려간다. 똑같은 방식으로,야고보서 2:24는 야고보서 2:24의 관점에서 읽어야만 한다. 야고보는 진정한 믿음의 증거나 열매에 대해서 쓴 것이다. 만약 누군가 진정한 믿음에 대해 이야기 한다고 하면서 그것에 대한 증거가 없다면 그러한 믿음은 진정한 것이 아닐 것이다. 야고보에게 이슈는 어떻게 우리가 하나님과 바르게 되는냐가 아니라 진정한 믿음의 증거였다. 야고보서 2:24의 “의롭게된“은 ”하나님과 바르게된 것을 선포하는”것을 의미하는 것이 아니라 그것은 진정한 믿음을 입증하는 증거를 의미하는 것이다.
교회 일원으로서 복음 혼동하는 것.
어떤 사람은 복음은 우리가 하나님앞에서 바르게 된 것을 선포하는 것이 아니라 교회의 일원이 된 것을 말하는것이라 주장한다. 그들은 의인화의 믿음의 역할은 단순히 그리스도를 받아들이고 그의 의안에서 안식하는 것이 아니라 세례안에서 우리에게 이미 주어진 것을 우리가 잘 지킬수 있도록 은혜와 함께 적극적으로 협력해서 일해야 한다고 주장한다. 그들은 성경이 우리가 율법을 지키지 못한다면 의인화를 잃어버릴 수도 있다고 가르친다고 주장한다.
개혁신학은 늘 계약적이어왔지만 이러한 접근은 복음과 율법을 혼동함으로써 은혜의 언약을 행위의 언약으로 바꾸어 버린다. 은혜의 언약에서 우리는 “율법의 행위로부터가 아닌 믿음”(로마서 3:28)으로 의롭게 되는 것이다. 만약 구원이 행위에 의해서 보존된다면 이것은 얼마나 은혜로운가? 어떻게 죄인들이 충분히 잘 협혁해서 일할수 있겠는가?
구원은 보이는 실로 교회의 문맥에서 일어나므로 전체와 개인을 나란히 비교할 필요는 없지만 성경 어디에서도 순수하게 전체적이란 용어로 의인화를 말하는곳은 없다. 교회의 일원이 의롭게 되는 것과 동일시 되는 것은 아니다. 보이는 교회의 모든 사람들이 필연적으로 선택된자중의 하나인 것은 아니다. 이스라엘 군중의 다수가 그들이 믿지 않았으므로 은혜의 언약으로부터 혜택을 받지 못했다. 비록 에서는 은혜의 언약의 외부적인 일원이었지만, 그는 선택받은 자가 아니었기 때문에 내부적인 일원이 아니었다. 보이는 회중의 모든 사람들이 실제적으로 그리스도를 그들이 말하는것처럼 “머리로 삼는 머리”로서 연합된 것은 아니다. 이러한 관점은 에서가 그것을 박탈당하기 전까지는 선택된 것으로 볼수 있다.
율법과 함께 복음을 혼동하는 것
마지막으로, 어떤 사람들은 율법이 약속과 복음이 죄인들로 순종하도록 요구하기 때문에 율법과 복음사이에는 진정한 차이가 없다고 주장한다.
율법과 복음 둘다 약속과 요구가 있다는점은 진실이다. 로마서 2:16은 바울의 복음에 따라 “하나님은 예수그리스도로 말미암아 사람의 은밀한 것을 심판하시고“또한 로마서 10:16에서 말하길 ”저희가 다 복음에 순종치 아니하는도다”라고 가르칱다. 그러나,후자의 경우, “복종한다“라는 동사는 ”믿는다“와 같은 행로 정의된다. 로마서 2:16에서 이것은 명백하고 다른곳에서 바울은 넓게 죄와 구원의 전체의 메시지로서 복음을 말하길 사용한다. 그것은 그리스도의 다시오심과 최종심판이 적절하게 포함되어 있다. 로마서 2:16에서 바울이 언급한 심판은 하나님의 율법에 대한 나의 완벽하고 영구적인 순종에 의해 조건지워지는 것 보다는 불신의 죄를 언급하는 것이다.
비록 율법과 복음은 둘다 명령과 약속을 지고 있지만 율법과 복음은 다른 조건들을 가지고 있다. 율법의 조건(행위의 언약)은 완벽하고 영구적인 순종을 의미한다. 복음의 조건은 (은혜의 언약)신뢰하는 믿음을 의미하는 것이다. 예를 들면, 그리스도께서 이미 이루신 것을 받아들이고 그 안에서 안식하는 것 이다.
“하나님의 일“은 ”그를 보내신 이를 믿는 것“이다. (요한복음 6:29)
닫는 글
복음은 그리스도가 율법에 복종하셨고 하나님의 의로운 노를 충족시키셨고 그의 의가 우리에게 자유롭게 전가되었고 오직 믿음을 통해서만 받는 것이다. 성경은 복음에 대해서 명백하고 그것을 부패시키는것에 대해서 매우 강력하게 경고하신다.그럼에도 불구하고, 기독교인의 역사중 많은 부분에서 복음에 대한 혼동이 있어왔다.
그것은 나쁜 소식으로 바뀌어져 왔으므로 관심을 가지고 그것을 지켜야만 할 것이다. 우리는 누구든지 우리를“철학과 헛된 속임수로 우리를 노략할까 주의하라 이것은 사람의 유전과 세상의 초등학문을 좇음이요 그리스도를 쫓음이 아니니라”(골로새서2:8)이러한 것으로 데려가는 것에 주의해야 한다.특히 죄인들을 위한 그리스도의 행하신 복음에 대해 건드릴 때 말이다.

neophytus – a  Young Christian

evangelista - a Minister of the Gospel

—-

neophytus: Indeed sir, if I were holy and so righteous as some men are, and had such power over my sins and corruptions as some men have, then I could easily believe it; but alas! I am so sinful and so unworthy a wretch, that I dare not presume to believe that Christ will accept of me, so as to justify and save me.

evangelista: Alas! man, in this saying, you seem to contradict and gainsay both the apostle Paul, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself; and  that against your own soul: for whereas the apostle Paul says, ‘that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners (1 Tim. 1:15), and doth justify the ungodly (Rom. 4:5), why, you seem to hold, and do in effect say, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save the righteous, and to justify the godly. And whereas our Saviour says, the whole need not a physician but the sick; and that he came not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance (Matt. 9:12); why you seem to hold, and do in effect say that the sick need not a physician, but the whole: and  that he came not to call sinners, but the righteous to repentance. And indeed, in so saying, you seem to conceive, that Christ’s spouse must be purified, washed, and cleansed from all her filthiness, and adorned with a rich robe of righteousness, before he will accept her; whereas he himself said unto her, ‘As for nativity, in the day that thou wast born, thy navel was not cut, neither wast thou washed with water to supple thee; thou wast not swaddled at all, nor salted at all. No eye pitied thee to do any of these things unto thee; but when I passed by thee, and looked upon thee, behold thy time was a time of love. And I spread my skirt over thee, and covered they nakedness; yea, and I sware unto thee, and entered into covenant with thee, and thou becamest mine (Ezek. 16:4-8). ‘And I will marry thee unto me for ever; yea, I will marry thee unto me in righteousness, and in judgement, and in mercy, and compassion (Hos. 2:19).

Wherefore I beseech you, revoke this your erroneous opinion, and contradict the word of truth no longer; but conclude for a certainty, that it is not the righteous and godly man, but the sinful and ungodly man, that Christ came to call, justify, and save: so that if you were a righteous and godly man, you were neither capable of calling, justifying, or saving by Christ; but being a sinful and ungodly man, I will be bold to say unto you as the people said unto blind Bartimaeus, ‘Be of good comfort; arise, he calleth thee’ (Mark 10:49) and will justify and save thee. Go then unto him, I beseech you; and if he come and meet thee, (as his manner is) then do not you unadvisedly say, with Peter, ‘Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord!’ (Luke 5:8); but say, in plain terms, O come unto me; for I am a sinful man, O Lord! Yea, go on further, and say, as Luther bids you, Most Gracious Jesus and sweet Christ, I am a miserable, poor sinner, and, therefore, do judge myself unworthy of thy grace; but yet I, having learned from thy word that thy salvation belongs unto such a one, therefore do I come unto thee, to claim that right which, through thy gracious promise, belong unto me.

Assure yourself man, that Jesus Christ requires no portion with his spouse; no verily, he requires nothing with her but mere poverty: ‘the rich he sends empty away’ (Luke 1:53); but the poor are by him enriched. And, indeed, says Luther, ‘the more miserable, sinful, and distressed a man doth feel himself, and judge himself to be, the more willing is Christ to receive him and relieve him.’ So that, says he, in judging thyself unworthy, thou dost thereby become truly worthy; and so indeed, hast gotten a greater occasion of coming to him. Wherefore, then, in the words of the apostle, I do exhort and beseech you to ‘come boldly to the throne of grace, that you may obtain mercy, and fin grace to help in time of need’ (Heb. 4:16).

neophytus: But truly, si, my heart, as it were, trembles within me, to think of coming to Christ, after such a bold manner; and surely sir, if I should so come unto him, it would argue much pride and presumption in me.

evangelista: Indeed, if you should be encouraged to come unto Christ and to speak thus unto him, because of any godliness, righteousness, or worthiness, that you conceive to be in you; that, I confess, were proud presumption in you. But to come to Christ, by believing that he will accept of you, justify, and save you freely by his grace, according to his gracious promise, this is neither pride nor presumption (see Thomas Boston’s note): for Christ having tendered and offered it to your freely, believe it, it is true humility of heart to take what Christ offers you. (148-150)

Thomas Boston’s note: It is to believe the offer of the gospel, with particular application; to embrace it, and therein to receive Christ. And no man can ever receive and rest on Christ for salvation, without believing, in greater, or lesser measure, that Christ will accept of him to justification and salvation. Remove that gospel truth, that Christ will accept him, and his faith has no ground left to stand upon. (150)

Let’s pray that the Lord may raise up many, many evangelistas.

Readers let me know if there are any typos.

Taken from Michael S. Horton’s Lord and Servant: A Covenant Christology in the introduction under the heading, “Systematic-Theological Development.”

“The heart of the Reformation complaint was that the medieval church had turned the gospel into a new law.  In other words, it had failed to properly distinguish law and gospel, command and promise, imperative and indicative.  This was in no way a distinction between the Old and New Testaments, but rather ran throughout both.  While we must beware excluding the principle of law from the new covenant and the gospel from the old, I am following the suggestion that the biblical covenants themselves call for organization under one of those two rubrics.  Our Reformation forebears were not wide of the mark, therefore, when they said, “Therefore, the law and the gospel are the chief and general divisions of holy scriptures, and comprise the entire doctrine comprehended therein” (Ursinus).

Of course the Reformers were not the first to have been impressed with this paradigm of law and gospel.   They themselves were influenced not only by their reading of Paul but also by Augustin’s reading of the apostle to the gentiles.  So how did covenant theology come to identify three basic covenants in the biblical motif of covenant a way of expressing the inherent unity of God’s external works in creation, redemption, and consummation.  A broad consensus emerged with respect to the existence in Scripture (Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic), but these are all seen as specific subcovenants of these broader arrangements.  I will merely summarize these three overarching covenants here, without further exegetical ado, to expand on them under their appropriate topics in this volume.

An eternal compact between the persons of the Trinity, the covenant of redemption (pactum salutis) is represented in federal theology as the basis for all of God’s covenantal activity in history.  Accordingly, the Father elects a people whom he gives to the Son as their mediator and the Spirit promises to unite them to the Son.  Already we glimpse the intra-Trinitarian perichoresis that I will more fully develop in my discussion of creation: the Father does all things in the Son and through the Spirit.  Thus Trinitarian theology has always been not only a central concept but an organizing motif in the classic Reformed systems.

The two covenants executed in history are the covenants of creation and grace.  Created in righteousness and ethically equipped to fulfill the task of imitating God’s own “works” in order to enter his Sabbath “rest,” Adam as the representative head of the human race was already eschatologically oriented toward the future.  As a reward for his faithfulness to the covenant, he would lead humanity in triumphant procession into the everlasting consummation, confirmed in righteousness.  However, as a consequence of his disobedience and the mysterious solidarity of humanity in Adam, the sanctions of the creation covenant were invoked.  In contrast to the conditional emphasis of the pre-fall covenant, however, God issues a unilateral promise to overcome the curse through the woman’s offspring.  This covenant of grace, carried forward to Seth and his descendants, is renewed in the Abrahamic covenant, just as the works principle in the creation covenant is renewed in the Sinai covenant.  On the basis of the Messiah’s fulfillment of the covenant of works (in fulfillment of his mediatorial role assigned in the covenant of redemption), the people of God are accepted on the terms of the covenant of grace.  (x-xii)

January 18th, 2011.  It’s straight up cold here in Seoul. 

Concise Reformed Dogmatics (CRD) is a joy to read- tis Biblical, clear, and confessional.  Reading plans after reading CRD: 1.) Get my hands on Michael Horton’s The Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims on Their Way 2.) Read it and pray.

Here are some quotes from CRD,

“We still need to consider the meaning of 2 Corinthians 5:21 and Galatians 3:13.  These words make us stand in awe.

God “hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him” (2 Cor. 5:21).  This means that God treated Christ as a sinner, because he imputed our sins to him.  Through faith we know that this is the reason why sin is not imputed to us (cf. Rom. 4:8).  We are declared to be righteous.  This constitutes a “wonderful exchange” (Luther).  ”Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, “Cursed is everyone that hangeth on a three” (Gal. 3:13).  According to Wiersinga (1971, 35ff.), this is the curse of the Jewish authorities, the defenders of the law, and not the curse of God.  However, the verse by itself and the context of Paul’s message are clear enough.  The apostle means God’s law and God’s curse (cf. Ridderbos, 1972, 28-32). ” (516)

“Dogmatics came to distinguish between Christ’s active and passive obedience. Although his obedience is indivisible, it does have these two facets.  He met the demand of God’s law on behalf of his people and bore the punishment for sin.  Whereas the former stresses what he did, the latter brings out what he suffered–” (518)

Taken from Michael S. Horton, Covenant and Eschatology: The Divine Drama. The brackets [] are mine.

“Although moderns have made far too much out of central dogmas and termini a quo [I don't know what the latin phrase is in English, but I will find out, nonetheless, keep reading], there is a irresistable urge to find a significant core of doctrine which all things in scripture point to Christ.  This, I think, is suggested by the way in which all things in scripture point to Christ, a hermeneutical principle that Jesus Himself authorizes ( John 5:39-40, Luke 24:13-29). It is not a canon within a canon, but it is a canonical center that Jesus’ identity and mission represents. And yet his centrality cannot be accounted for in the abstract. It requires a context, and that context seems to be shaped in scripture by the notion of covenant. It is not Jesus Christ the healer, as guide, as fellow traveler, as ruler, or a host of other things, that this particular story highlights, although it is true that Jesus was and is all of these. It is Jesus Christ as the mediator of the covenant that occupies center stage and unites the drama of redemption in its Old and New Testament acts.” (18)

Here.

Via the Heidelblog.

“Now before beginning to treat each heading individually, it is good first to know what pertains to understanding all of it.  For the first, let it be resolved that human life ought to be ruled by the law not only as regards external honorableness but also as regards inward and spiritual righteousness.  However, this latter, although, although it cannot be denied, is considered by very few because people do not consider the Lawgiver, for the nature of the law should be valued according the nature of the Lawgiver.  If some king prohibited fornication, murder, and robbery by edict, I admit that someone who only conceived in his heart some desire to fornicate, or steal, or murder, without acting on it and without any attempt to put it into action, would not be bound by the penalty established for breaking the law.  Becausae the provision of the mortal lawgiver doe not extend beyond external honorableness, his ordinances are not violated unless the evil is put into action.  But God — before whose eye nothing is hidden and who does not stop short with external appearance of good but goes to purity of the heart — when forbids fornication, homicide, and stealing, He is prohibiting all carnal concupiscence, hatred, coveting of someone else’s goods, deceit, and everything else like these.  For since He is a spiritual Lawgiver, He speaks to the soul as much as to the body.  Now wrath and hatred are murder, as far as the soul is concerned; coveting is stealing; ill-regulated love is fornication.

But someone could say: “Human laws are concerned with the reason and will of people just as well, and not with fortutious happenings.”  I admit that, but the human laws mean the will which is expressed in action; for they consider with that intention each act was done but they do not inquire about secret thoughts.  That is why someone who abstains from outward transgression satisfies the laws of the government.  On the contrary, because God’s law is given to our souls, if we want to keep it well, it is out souls which must be principally be rebuked.  Now, even when they want to hide the fact that they despise the law, the majority of people in some way train their eyes, feet, hands, and other parts of the their bodies to keep what it commands, but their heart remains completely opposed to obeying it.  So they think they have well discharged their debt if they have hidden from people what appears before God.  They hear: “You shall not murder, you shall not commit fornication, you shall not steal,” so they do not take out their sword to kill, they do not mess around with lovers, they do not set hands on someone else’s goods.  All that is good.  But their heart is full of murder and burns with carnal concupiscence; they can only see their neighbor’s goods crookedly, devouring them with coveting, and so they are lacking what is the chief part of the law.  From where does such torpor come, I ask you, unless they ignore the Lawgiver and accomodate the righteousness to their own understanding?  St. Paul cries out loudly and strongly against this view, saying that “the law is spiritual” (Rom. 7[14]).   By that he means that not only does it require obedience from the soul, the understanding, and the will, but also an angelic purity which is cleansed of every carnal spot so that it savors of nothing but spirit.

In saying that this is the meaning of the law, we are not bringing forward a new exposition of our own but we are following Christ, who is a very good expositor of it.  For becauase the Pharisees had sown among the people the perverse view that one who did not commit any external act against the law was one who kept it well, He rebukes this error by saying that “an indecent look at a woman is fornication and all those who hate their brothers are homicides” (Matt. 5[22ff, 28ff]).  For He makes all who have simple conceived some anger in their heart, guilty of judgment; and all who by murmuring show some offense of heart, guilty before the consistory; and all who by doing harm have openly declared their evil intent, guilty of the Gehenna of fire.  Those who have no understood this imagined that Christ was a second Moses who brought the gospel law to supply what was lacking in the Mosaic law.  That is where this popular saying came from, that “the perfection of the gospel law is much greater than that of the former law.”  This is a very perverse error.  For when we later summarize the precepts of Moses it will appear by his very words what great insult they do to God’s law in saying this” 

-John Calvin.  Taken from John Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion: 1541 French Edition. The First English Edition, translated by Elsie Anne Mckee, pages 119-120.  

–

  “Removing, then, mention of law, and laying aside all consideration of works, we should, when justification is being discussed, embrace God’s mercy alone, turn our attention from ourselves, and look only to Christ….If consciences wish to attain any certainty in this matter, they ought to give no place to the law.”   (Calvin Institutes 3.19.2, quoting via Horton’s Covenant and Salvation: Union with Christ).

–

Three Uses of the Law on the White Horse Inn

Michael Horton: Well, what do we do then about the Law in terms of its different uses? What are the different uses of the Law? Is the law there only to tell us that we haven’t kept it? Are there any other uses of the Law?

 Rod Rosenbladt: The Reformers talked of three uses. Both the Lutherans and the Reformed talk of three uses of the Law. Luther and, I think, Calvin would have agreed that the major use of the Law was what you referred to from Galatians—to break all source of false images we have of our self and bring us to dust. Our self-righteousness is dying on the floor in arriving heap. As a preparation to drive us to Christ who has died for us in the place of all of our rebellion.

 Then, they also talked about a first use of the law, the civil use of the law that they said applied to everybody. That this would be true of everybody on earth, some sort of basic Romans 2:14 and 15, basic, basic, basic Law put into every human being, not a full tilt ethics but the basics, so that our systems of judges and jails and all of that should reflect that first use of the law and keep me from killing my neighbor in order not to steal his wife or his speedboat. There will be jails and courts to deal with that and that’s God’s good gift to keep sinners from doing what we would do by nature.

 And then a third use of the Law; that’s for Christians only. That fleshes out what is it that I am to reflect as a Christian if I’m not free in the sense of libertine. What is the Christian life to look like? And it was to flesh that out. This is what it’s to look like—it was content, it was “this is what it would look like.” Is it still Law? Yeah, it’s still Law and if that use of the Law is killing you, you go back to the second use and go to Christ again. This is why in the White Horse Inn and the MR we have as a theme “Christ death is great enough to even save a Christian.” Christ death could even save a Christian. And I think both of us—our traditions could easily get into that, that third use stuff for most of the sermon, and we ought not do that. (italics mine)

“This transcription of “Rightly Dividing the Word: Law and Gospel” is a
broadcast of the White Horse Inn radio program that originally aired on May
22, 2005 and is posted with permission. The White Horse Inn exists to equip
Christians to “know what you believe and why you believe it.” For more
information about the White Horse Inn, please visit www.whitehorseinn.org or
call (800) 890-7556 .

–

To get the White Horse Inn quotes above in context go here

and especially here (questions and answers 1-21).

Grace Community Church’s (GCC) statement on the Lordship Salvation here.

A good book (republished) regarding the Lordship Salvation here.

A helpful comment here regarding GCC’s statement on the Lordship Salvation by R. Scott Clark:

…Yes, it’s clear from this statement that the problem continues. This statement is highly problematic. It doesn’t appear that the folks at Grace Community Church have paid attention to the book. I’m not saying that there is no truth in the statement but one would think that, after all these years, they would be able to produce a more nuanced statement. To begin with the bald statement that the “gospel that Jesus proclaimed was a call to discipleship, a call to follow him in submissive obedience….” is not helpful. First it doesn’t distinguish between the way the word “gospel” is used broadly in the NT and the narrower sense of the word. Perhaps I missed but I don’t see anywhere a clear, unequivocal statement that the gospel is a declaration of what Christ did for sinners. According to the statement, the first sense of “gospel” is a call for us to obey. As I understand Scripture, that would be “law.” Yes, Christians are morally obligated to produce fruit, in union with Christ, by grace alone, through faith alone. That fruit will include obedience to the law and humble submission to the Lordship of Christ.

There’s more on this here. See also this volume where the WSC faculty worked through these issues.

Before folks start screaming about the antinomianism of what I wrote above please consult these sources:

Zacharias Ursinus (1534-83). Q.36 What distinguishes law and gospel? A: The law contains a covenant of nature begun by God with men in creation, that is, it is a natural sign to men, and it requires of us perfect obedience toward God. It promises eternal life to those keeping it, and threatens eternal punishment to those not keeping it. In fact, the gospel contains a covenant of grace, that is, one known not at all under nature. This covenant declares to us fulfillment of its righteousness in Christ, which the law requires, and our restoration through Christ’s Spirit. To those who believe in him, it freely promises eternal life for Christ’s sake (Larger Catechism, Q. 36).

Zacharias Ursinus (1534-83) on the organization of the Heidelberg Catechism. The chief and most important parts of the first principles of the doctrine of the church, as appears from the passage just quoted from the Epistle to the Hebrews, are repentance and faith in Christ, which we may regard as synonymous with the law and gospel. Hence, the catechism in its primary and most general sense, may be divided as the doctrine of the church, into the law and gospel. It does not differ from the doctrine of the church as it respects the subject and matter of which it treats, but only in the form and manner in which these things are presented, just as strong meat designed for adults, to which the doctrine of the church may be compared, does not differ in essence from the milk and meat prepared for children, to which the catechism is compared by Paul in the passage already referred to. These two parts are termed, by the great mass of men, the Decalogue and the Apostles’ creed; because the Decalogue comprehends the substance of the law, and the Apostles’ creed that of the gospel. Another distinction made by this same class of persons is that of the doctrine of faith and works, or the doctrine of those things which are to be believed and those which are to be done.

There are others who divide the catechism into these three parts; considering, in the first place, the doctrine respecting God, then the doctrine respecting his will, and lastly that respecting his works, which they distinguish as the works of creation, preservation, and redemption. But all these different parts are treated of either in the law or the gospel, or in both, so that this division may easily be reduced to the former.

There are others, again, who make the catechism consist of five different parts; the Decalogue, the Apostles’ Creed, Baptism, the Lord’s Supper, and Prayer; of which, the Decalogue was delivered immediately by God himself, whilst the other parts were delivered mediately, either through the manifestation of the Son of God in the flesh, as is true of the Lord’s Prayer, Baptism, and the Eucharist, or through the ministry of the apostles, as is true of the Apostles’ Creed. But all these different parts may also be reduced to the two general heads noticed in the first division. The Decalogue contains the substance of the law, the Apostles’ Creed that of the gospel; the sacraments are parts of the gospel, and may, therefore, be embraced in it as far as they are seals of the grace which it promises, but as far as they are testimonies of our obedience to God, they have the nature of sacrifices and pertain to the law, whilst prayer, in like manner, may be referred to the law, being a part of the worship of God.

The catechism of which we shall speak in these lectures consists of three parts. The first treats of the misery of man, the second of his deliverance from this misery, and the third of gratitude, which division does not, in reality, differ from the above, because all the parts which are there specified are embraced in these three general heads. The Decalogue belongs to the first part, in as far as it is the mirror through which we are brought to see ourselves, and thus led to a knowledge of our sins and misery, and to the third part in as far as it is the rule of true thankfulness and of a Christian life. The Apostles’ Creed is embraced in the second part inasmuch as it unfolds the way of deliverance from sins. The sacraments, belonging to the doctrine of faith and being the seals that are attached thereto, belong in like manner to this second part of the catechism, which treats of deliverance from the misery of man. And prayer, being the chief part of spiritual worship and of thankfulness, may, with great propriety, be referred to the third general part.

Zacharias Ursinus. In What Does The Law Differ From The Gospel? The exposition of this question is necessary for a variety of considerations, and especially that we may have a proper understanding of the law and the gospel, to which a knowledge of that in which they differ greatly contributes. According to the definition of the law, which says, that it promises rewards to those who render perfect obedience; and that it promises them freely, inasmuch as no obedience can be meritorious in the sight of God, it would seem that it does not differ from the gospel, which also promises eternal life freely. Yet notwithstanding this seeming agreement, there is a great difference between the law and the gospel. They differ, 1. As to the mode of revelation peculiar to each. The law is known naturally: the gospel was divinely revealed after the fall of man. 2. In matter or doctrine. The law declares the justice of God separately considered: the gospel declares it in connection with his mercy. The law teaches what we ought to be in order that we may be saved: the gospel teaches in addition to this, how we may become such as this law requires, viz: by faith in Christ. 3. In their conditions or promises. The law promises eternal life and all good things upon the condition of our own and perfect righteousness, and of obedience in us: the gospel promises the same blessings upon the condition that we exercise faith in Christ, by which we embrace the obedience which another, even Christ, has performed in our behalf; or the gospel teaches that we are justified freely by faith in Christ. With this faith is also connected, as by an indissoluble bond, the condition of new obedience. 4. In their effects. The law works wrath, and is the ministration of death: the gospel is the ministration of life and of the Spirit (Rom. 4:15, 2 Cor. 3:7) (Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, Q. 92).

Caspar Olevian (1536-87). For this reason the distinction between law and Gospel is retained. The law does not promise freely, but under the condition that you keep it completely. And if someone should transgress it once, the law or legal covenant does not have the promise of the remission of sins. On the other hand, the Gospel promises freely the remission of sins and life, not if we keep the law, but for the sake of the Son of God, through faith (Ad Romanos Notae, 148; Geneva, 1579).

Theodore Beza (1534-1605). We divide this Word into two principal parts or kinds: the one is called the ‘Law,’ the other the ‘Gospel.’ For all the rest can be gathered under the one or other of these two headings…Ignorance of this distinction between Law and Gospel is one of the principal sources of the abuses which corrupted and still corrupt Christianity (The Christian Faith, 1558)

William Perkins 1558-1602). The basic principle in application is to know whether the passage is a statement of the law or of the gospel. For when the Word is preached, the law and the gospel operate differently. The law exposes the disease of sin, and as a side-effect, stimulates and stirs it up. But it provides no remedy for it. However the gospel not only teaches us what is to be done, it also has the power of the Holy Spirit joined to it….A statement of the law indicates the need for a perfect inherent righteousness, of eternal life given through the works of the law, of the sins which are contrary to the law and of the curse that is due them…. By contrast, a statement of the gospel speaks of Christ and his benefits, and of faith being fruitful in good works (The Art of Prophesying, 1592, repr. Banner of Truth Trust,1996, 54-55).

Edward Fisher (c.1601-1655). Now, the law is a doctrine partly known by nature, teaching us that there is a God, and what God is, and what he requires us to do, binding all reasonable creatures to perfect obedience, both internal and external, promising the favour of God, and everlasting life to all those who yield perfect obedience thereunto, and denouncing the curse of God and everlasting damnation to all those who are not perfectly correspondent thereunto. But the gospel is a doctrine revealed from heaven by the Son of God, presently after the fall of mankind into sin and death, and afterwards manifested more clearly and fully to the patriarchs and prophets, to the evangelists and apostles, and by them spread abroad to others; wherein freedom from sin, from the curse of the law, the wrath of God, death, and hell, is freely promised for Christ’s sake unto all who truly believe on his name (The Marrow of Modern Divinity; 1645, repr. 1978, 337-38.