In the first place, I am not comfortable with how some use the terms “law” and “gospel”.  Some admit that they use these terms not in their precise biblical sense, but rather as “systematic” categories.  A few may even be so bold to agree that the Torah contains both “law” and “gospel”.  To insist that the “gospel” equals “done” and the “law” equals “do” invites confusion for any serious student of the Bible.  This antithesis causes a host of problems when read back into Scripture, particularly since Paul has a version of law-gospel that bears little resemblance to the  “Lutheran” antithesis.

The Reformed have historically taught that the gospel both promises and commands.  To say that all imperatives are strictly law reflects an Antinomian position, at least historically.  Samuel Rutherford’s work, “Spirituall Antichrist”, highlights the various tendencies among Antinomian writers of the seventeenth century.  One way to explain what’s at stake in this debate would be to evaluate the contention that the gospel persuades rather than commands.  Rutherford was adamant that the gospel persuades and commands.  Consider the following:

“The Gospel (according to Robert Towne) perswades rather then commands.  But say we, it both commands, (as the Law doth) and with a more strong obligation of the constraining love of Christ…so here be no differences at all” (Spirituall Antichrist, II.122).

Elsewhere Rutherford argues that the law and the gospel require the same obedience (Pt. II.7).  Indeed, “positively”, they are not contrary to one another.  “Perfect obedience, which the Law requireth, and imperfect obedience which the Gospel accepteth are but graduall differences” (II.8).  Moreover, “the Gospel abateth nothing of the height of perfection, in commanding what ever the law commandeth in the same perfection….In acceptation of grace, the Gospel accepteth lesse than the law, but commandeth no lesse” (Pt. II.8).  Incidentally, Rutherford, like Turretin, affirms that good works are necessary for salvation.

Of course, Rutherford was aware of a common cry of the Antinomians, a cry that one often hears today:

(Antinomian): “Yee confound Law and Gospel, and runne on that common error, that the Gospel is conditionall …”

Answer: “It is a new heresie of Antinomians to deny a conditionall Gospel….2. Remission is but one of the promised mercies of the Gospel” (II.63).

I should note that Rutherford was not extreme in his day and William Perkins (see his commentary on Galatians) and John Owen (see Works, III.604-10) echoed similar sentiments.  It is one thing to find authors that speak about distinguishing between law and gospel, but it is quite another thing to understand how these concepts function within their system of thought.

Now, one has to applaud the intentions of the Lutherans and those who agree with how they commonly distinguish between law and gospel.  We should always be zealous to protect justification by faith alone.  My contentions have not so much to do with how this concept relates to justification, but what we mean by the terms “law” and “gospel”.  Sure, the law drives the unconverted to find salvation in Christ, but what about those who are in Christ?

Paul sometimes speaks negatively of the Torah; he shows its impotence apart from the Spirit to give the life it promises.  Some versions of the law-gospel antithesis seem make a mess of Paul’s own antitheses.  For example, in Romans 7 the law is placed on the “Spirit” (not the “flesh”) side of the Spirit-flesh antithesis.  Sin leads to condemnation because the law exposes us as sinners.  But in chapter 8 the law becomes a liberating, not condemning, power because of the Spirit.  So, when we come to Romans 8:13 do we call it “law” or “gospel”.  I think the answer is obvious.  But, I’m not so sure some of my Reformed brothers would come to the same conclusion as I would!

I would also note that Paul often does not place “law” on the expected side of the antithesis (1 Cor. 7:19).  The law in the New Covenant becomes a quickening power that, by the Spirit, sets us free from sin and death (Rom. 8:1-4).

Rutherford realized, as did his contemporaries, that command and promise are sometimes inextricably intertwined with one another (see again Rom. 8:13; life is promised to those who mortify the sinful nature by the Spirit).  But, whatever the case, the promises, as well as the commands, fall under the rubric of Paul’s “gospel”.

All of this is to suggest that I do not view the biblical gospel as synonymous with justification.  It certainly includes justification, but it is not limited to justification.  Christ died for my sins (1 Cor. 15:3), which includes not only its illegal character (Rom. 1-3), but also its enslaving power (Rom. 6).

Thus, I would say that the gospel includes not only what Christ has done for us, but also what Christ does in us, namely, by forming us into the image of God (Rom. 8:29).  This seems to be a central concern of Paul’s throughout his letters.  Thankfully, the gospel includes God’s work in me (Eph. 2:10; Phil. 2:12-13).

The antithesis between law and gospel is not an end in itself.  This antithesis entered because of sin.  But, as Richard Gaffin has noted,

“The gospel is to the end of removing an absolute law-gospel antithesis in the life of the believer.  How so? Briefly, apart from the gospel and outside of Christ the law is my enemy and condemns me.  Why? Because God is my enemy and condemns me.  But with the gospel and in Christ, united to him by faith, the law is no longer my enemy but my friend.  Why? Because now God is no longer my enemy but my friend, and the law, his will, the law in its moral core, as reflective of his character and of concerns eternally inherent in his own person and so of what pleases him, is now my friendly guide for life in fellowship with God” (By Faith, Not by Sight, 103).

I think Ursinus, in his commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism (p. 105), illustrates just how problematic certain versions of the law-gospel antithesis can be when he considers whether a commandment belongs to the gospel.  He writes:

“Objection. There is no precept, or commandment belonging to the gospel, but to the law. The preaching of repentance is a precept. Therefore the preaching of repentance does not belong to the gospel, but to the law.

Answer. We deny the major, if it is taken generally; for this precept is peculiar to the gospel, which commands us to believe, to embrace the benefits of Christ, and to commence new obedience, or that righteousness which the law requires. If it be objected that the law also commands us to believe in God, we reply that it does this only in general, by requiring us to give credit to all the divine promises, precepts and denunciations, and that with a threatening of punishment, unless we do it. But the gospel commands us expressly and particularly to embrace, by faith, the promise of grace; and also exhorts us by the Holy Spirit, and by the Word, to walk worthy of our heavenly calling. This however it does only in general, not specifying any duty in particular, saying thou shalt do this, or that, but it leaves this to the law; as, on the contrary, it does not say in general, believe all the promises of God, leaving this to the law; but it says in particular, Believe this promise; fly to Christ, and thy sins shall be forgiven thee.”

Some time ago I spoke with a Seminarian who had a rather wooden view of the “law-gospel” antithesis and asked him what he thought about the Sermon on the Mount.  It appeared, to use a phrase from T. David Gordon, “that he was entirely flummoxed by it”; indeed, “I would like to think that he was, at some level, aware of his incapacity to make any sense of it.”  This student used the law-gospel antithesis as a pedagogical tool that he brought to every text; but, when he came to Rom. 8:13 he wasn’t quite sure how to divide the text up given his hermeneutical assumptions.

I understand that many have been zealous to protect the graciousness of God’s saving purposes towards his people, but I am not entirely convinced that narrowing the meaning of “gospel” will prove helpful in the long run.  Many good men in our tradition make this clear; and I’d like to think – in fact, I’m sure this is the case – that this is because God’s Word makes this clear.

Besides that which I’ve mentioned above, let me emphasize the importance of maintaining the indicative-imperative structure of theology, which we see clearly delineated in Scripture (Ex. 20; Rom. 1ff.; Eph. 1-6; 1 Peter 1ff.).  But this structure falls within the context of “gospel” preaching.  To preach the gospel is to preach of Christ’s death and resurrection as the basis/ground for both our justification and our Spirit-wrought obedience.  Some might admit that they distinguish between the broader and narrower uses of the term, but, as I said above, this can be very confusing, and the emphasis among some today seems to be on the “narrow” understanding of the terms, which happens to be the less biblical way of looking at the law and the gospel (terms that in the NT are generally used to speak of redemptive-historical contrasts).

The final word from William Perkins:

“The Gospel, as it teacheth what is to be done, so it hath also the efficacy of the Holy Ghost adjoined to it, by whom being regenerated we have strength both to believe the Gospel and to perform those things which it commandeth” (Art of Prophesying VII, [Abingdon, 1970], 341-342).

Goodwin and Owen both wrote works on justification (and on the Holy Spirit).  There are, of course, similarities, but there are also differences.  Goodwin had a special concern with assurance and his work is more pastoral than Owen’s.  Owen’s work is technically superb, but I would rate Goodwin’s work above Owen’s on account of better pastoral emphases.

In his work on justification, Goodwin had a burden to maintain the graciousness of the covenant of grace. Chief among his concerns was that graces and grace had been confused, not only by the Arminians, Socinians, and Catholics, but by some of his own (Calvinistic) brethren who were heavily emphasizing the conditional character of the covenant of grace. For example, Goodwin writes:

“When Paul disputes, as we do against the papists, that no man is justified by works; what! doth he mean external works only? No; but he excludes from our justification our whole righteousness, both root and branch, the inward as the root, and the outward as the branches, because under works of the law is comprehended a complete conformity to the law, and to what the law requires, and so he means hereby inward as well as outward holiness …. And thus when the law forbids any evil work, it forbids original sin as well as actual, for the law binds the whole man” (8:292).

Richard Sibbes, who was a significant influence on Goodwin, was careful to sharply distinguish between justification and sanctification. Indeed, confusing justification with either sanctification or regeneration was tantamount to deserting the faith.

“But some others there are amongst us, that regard not Christ and his satisfaction alone, but join faith and works together in justification; they will have other priests, and other intercessors than Christ. Alas! beloved, how are these men fallen from Christ to another gospel, as if Christ were not an all-sufficient Saviour, and able to deliver to the uttermost! What is the gospel but salvation and redemption by Christ alone?” (Works, 1:388)

Ussher makes a similar point when he speaks of sola fide: [justification is] not considered as a virtue inherent in us, working by love; but only as an instrument or hand of the soul stretched forth to lay hold on the Lord our righteousness” (Ussher, 193).

These sentiments are, of course, standard Westminster orthodoxy where justifying faith is “not because of those other graces which doth always accompany it, or of good works that are the fruits of it, nor as if the grace of faith, or any act thereof, were imputed to him for his justification; but only as it is an instrument by which he receiveth and applieth Christ and his righteousness” (WLC, 73).

For Goodwin, then, the unconditional nature of the covenant of grace is essential to the doctrine of justification and assurance. Goodwin concludes: “He [who comes to faith] cannot rest on promises conditional, for he sees no qualifications of faith or any grace in himself” (8:245). Goodwin is so concerned to not make faith a work, as the Arminians do, that he is far more comfortable speaking of the covenant of grace as unconditional.

This comes out in Goodwin’s doctrine of assurance that Mike Horton has written on.  Goodwin came to the opinion that the subjective element (internal graces) were becoming unhelpful to his people and so, in trying to evade an overly-subjective view of assurance, he looked to the unconditional nature of the covenant of grace while, at the same time, holding to a “sealing-of-the-Spirit” view where believers, some time later in their lives, receive full assurance of their faith through the Spirit’s work.  This may raise some eyebrows, but what Goodwin was trying to do was emphasize the unilateral, unconditional aspect of the covenant of grace. Horton doesn’t think Goodwin succeeded – nor do I – but it’s an interesting point of historical reference nevertheless.

1. Herman Witsius, The Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man, pages 418-419. For example, Witsius writes:

Let us briefly explain the whole manner of this justification in the next world. Christ, the judge, being delegated to that office by the Father, Acts x.42. Acts xvii. 32. will pronounce two things concerning his elect. 1st. That they are truly pious, righteous and holy. And so far this justification will differ from the former; for by that the ungodly is justified, Rom. iv.5. Whereas here, God, when he enjoins his angels to summon one of the parties to be judged, says, ‘gather my saints together’ … these words refer to the last judgment …. The ground of the former is inherent righteousness, graciously communicated to man by the Spirit of sanctification, and good works proceeding therefrom …

2. Thomas Goodwin. See: Works, 7:181ff. Goodwin affirms a double justification by God; the first authoritative, the second declarative or demonstrative.

3. John Owen. See: Works, 5:161ff. Similarly to Goodwin, Owen argues that while we are not justified on account of our works, God will judge all men, “and rendereth unto all men, at the last judgment, according to their works”(5:161). Furthermore, the “end of God in the last judgment is the glory of his remunerative righteousness, 2 Tim. 4:8)” (Ibid).

4. John Calvin. Institutes, III.17.10.  For example, Calvin writes: “As we ourselves, when we have been engrafted into Christ, are righteous in God’s sight because our iniquities are covered by Christ’s sinlessness, so our works are righteous and are thus regarded because whatever fault is otherwise in them is buried in Christ’s purity, and is not charged to our account. Accordingly, we can deservedly say that by faith alone not only we ourselves but our works as well are justified” (Institutes. III.17.10).

5. Samuel Rutherford. The Covenant of Life Opened. Actually, this work is more frustrating than enjoyable for me; it’s way too verbose.

6. Richard Gaffin, By Faith, Not By Sight, p. 94ff.

7. Geerhardus Vos, The Pauline Eschatology, pp. 261-287.

8. Herman Ridderbos, Paul …, pp. 178-81 (“Judgment According to Works”)

9. John Murray, Commentary on Romans, pp. 78-79.

10. Robert Letham, The Work of Christ, pp. 181-86.

“Wherefore, in this matter [i.e. justification] we are not speaking of a fictitious, empty, lazy and dead faith, but of a living, quickening faith. It is and is called a living faith because it apprehends Christ who is life and makes alive, and shows that it is alive by living works.”

Owen echoes this himself:

“For there is a faith whereby we are justified, which he who has shall be assuredly saved; which purifies the heart and works by love. And there is a faith or believing, which does nothing of all this; which who has, and has no more, is not justified, nor can be saved …. Thus it is said of Simon the magician, that he ‘believed,’ Acts viii.13, when he was in the gall of bitterness and bond of iniquity” (Works, Justification, 5:79).

The nature of true faith consists in the “opening of the eyes of the sinner, to see the filth and guilt of sin in the sentence and curse of the law applied unto his conscience, Rom vii. 9, 10” (5:79). This results in the sinner being “sensible of his guilt before God” which is a condition that comes about by the act of sovereign grace. This sense of guilt does not merely consist in the assent (assensus) of the mind because believing is an “act of the heart” (5:81). But if it is “assentia alone”, then Owen rejects such a faith (5:83). This assenting faith is coupled with a “fiducial trust in the grace of God by Christ declared in the promises …” (5:84). While most Reformed theologians spoke of justifying faith involving three elements: knowledge (notitia), assent (assensus), and trust (fiducia), Owen seems to have placed knowledge and assent together.

Not surprisingly Owen identifies Christ as the object of justifying faith (5:86).  However, Owen argues that not only Christ but the Father also is the proper object.  He argues this because Christ is not the object of our faith absolutely but as “the ordinance of God, even the Father … who is also the immediate object of faith as justifying …. ‘He that believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life’ …” (Ibid). Relating to the covenant of redemption, we are to understand “God the Father as sending, and the Son as sent, – that is, Jesus Christ in the work of his mediation, as the ordinance of God for the recovery and salvation of lost sinners” as the object of faith (Ibid).  Owen includes, along with this, “the grace of God, which is the cause; the pardon of sin, which is the effect; and the promises of the gospel, which are the means, of communicating Christ and the benefits of his mediation unto us” (5:87).

The nature of justifying faith, then, consists in the “heart’s approbation of the way of justification and salvation of sinners by Jesus Christ proposed in the gospel, as proceeding from the grace, wisdom, and love of God …” (5:93). This includes a renunciation of attaining righteousness and salvation by any other means except through Christ (5:100). Because the nature of saving faith is not merely assensus for Owen, he makes an important distinction regarding obedience in relation to faith.

Wherefore we say, the faith whereby we are justified, is such as is not found in any but those who are made-partakers of the Holy Ghost, and by him united unto Christ, whose nature is renewed, and in whom there is a principle of all grace, and purpose of obedience. Only we say, it is not any other grace, as charity and the like, nor any obedience, that gives life and form unto this faith; but it is this faith that gives life and efficacy unto all other graces, and form unto all evangelical obedience (5:104).

This brings up another important issue, of which Owen was aware of. According to Owen, some maintain, wrongly, that whatever is a necessary condition of the new covenant is, therefore, also a necessary condition of justification (5:105). However, Owen answers that perseverance to the end, for example, is a condition of the covenant of grace. As a result, if perseverance, because it is a condition of the covenant, is a condition of justification, then no man can be justified while he is in this world. “For”, says Owen, “a condition doth suspend that whereof it is a condition from existence until it be accomplished” (Ibid).

Owen, then, does not equate the new covenant with justification. He does not equate salvation with justification, either.  Perseverance is also a blessing of the covenant of grace. That is, those who are effectually made partakers of the covenant of grace will surely persevere to the end (11:passim). However, justification in this present world, then, is not contingent upon final perseverance to the end.  The Westminster Confession states, similarly, concerning faith, that “Faith justifies a sinner in the sight of God, not because of those other graces which do always accompany it, or of good works that are the fruits of it, nor as if the grace of faith, or any act thereof, were imputed to him for his justification; but only as it is an instrument by which he receiveth and applieth Christ and his righteousness” (WLC, 73). Justification, then, as a blessing of the covenant of grace, is distinct from other graces such as sanctification and perseverance.

The use of faith in our justification is next considered by Owen. Here he affirms, as did the Reformers and Westminster divines, faith to be “the instrumental cause of our justification” (5:108). This is derived from Paul’s teaching in Romans 3:28 where he speaks of the righteousness of God that is through faith (dia pisteo). Owen adds, “It follows, therefore, that where … we are said to be justified … ‘by faith’, an instrumental efficiency is intended” (5:109). Owen, aware that some argue “faith is the condition of our justification,” allows that faith may also be called the condition of our justification so long as no more is intended than God requires faith from us so that we may be justified (emphasis ours) (5:113). He warns, however, regarding faith and obedience, that

“…if it be intended that they are such a condition of the covenant as to be by us performed antecedently unto the participation of any grace, mercy, or privilege of it, so as that they should be the consideration and procuring cause of them, – that they should be all of them, as some speak, the reward of our faith and obedience, – it is most false, and not only contrary to express testimonies of Scripture, but destructive of the nature of the covenant itself” (5:113-4).

Here Owen speaks of the nature of both the covenant and justification. The covenant is conditional insofar as it is understood that faith is required on our part to apprehend the blessings of the covenant. However, this faith, which is the gift of God, brings forth obedience so that the grace, mercies and privileges of the covenant are not dependent upon obedience but obedience flows from the grace, mercies and privileges of the covenant.

Owen also discusses the question of conditions in the covenant of grace.  As he argues for the superiority of the promises in the covenant of grace against any other covenant, he makes the following qualification:

“I do not say the covenant of grace is absolutely without conditions, if by conditions we intend the duties of obedience which God requireth of us in and by virtue of that covenant; but this I say, the principal promises thereof are not in the first place remunerative of our obedience in the covenant, but efficaciously assumptive of us in the covenant, and establishing or confirming the covenant” (23:68-9).

We are only being good Reformed Protestants when we speak of conditions in the New Covenant and include in those conditions both faith and obedience.  Of course, the usual distinctions need to be made, but the language of conditionality should not cause us to bring out the crypto-Popish slurs.

In his letter to Du Moulin, Owen recounted that Du Moulin accused Owen of contradiction, speaking of the “active obedience of Christ imputed to us” on the one hand, and saying that “Christ acquits us by his obedience in death and not by his fulfilling of the law” on the other (Thomson, 144–145). It is telling that the longest section of Owen’s letter deals with a refutation of this accusation.

Owen’s reply to Du Moulin was gentle: “I fear you make use of some corrupt copy of our Confession” (Thomson, 145). Contrary to Du Moulin’s charge, Owen retorted: “…but we say that Christ, by his obedience and death, did fully discharge the debt of all those who are justified – which comprehends both his active and passive righteousness” (Thomson, 145). To Du Moulin’s attempt “to disprove this doctrine of ours concerning the imputation of the active righteousness of Christ unto our justification,” Owen forcefully said, “Pray, sir, do not mistake that such mistaken reasonings can give us any occasion to change our judgments in an article of truth of this importance” (Thomson, 145).

Owen summed us his response to this point, with a wonderful paragraph on the twofold obedience of Jesus Christ for our justification, when he said,

“In the meantime I tell you, we are by the death of Christ freed from all sufferings as they are purely penal, and the effects of the curse, though they spring out of the root; only, sir, you and I know well that we are not freed from pains, afflictions and death itself – which had never been, had they not proceeded from the curse of the law. And so, sir, by the obedience of Christ we are freed from obedience to the law as to justification by the works thereof. We are no more obligated to obey the law in order to justification than we are obligated to undergo the penalties of the law to answer its curse” (Thomson, 145).