For those in the so-called "new Calvinism" camp, the puritans are often considered the apex of Reformed Christianity. I personally, even while I was a Reformed Christian, never liked the puritans all that much. I never really even appreciated the writings of Jonathan Edwards (despite the fact that I live right near the church he preached at), as he was far too introspective. Though I do appreciate his philosophical acumen. A recent review of Tullian Tchividjian's book "Jesus + Nothing = Everything" on the podcast Reformed Media Review highlights some of the reasons which I do not have an affinity with the Puritans. Puritan scholar Mark Jones at one point stated the issue rather clearly,
"The Protestant Scholastics and Puritans viewed the gospel not simply as Christ for us... but the gospel for them actually commanded as well as promised. And Samuel Rutherford actually says that the gospel commands with an even stronger force than the law because of the great indicative behind the commands."
Though many in the Reformed camp try to highlight similarities between the Lutheran and Reformed perspectives on law and gospel, this demonstrates where we often have parted ways. Yes, there are some who hold to a more strict distinction between law and gospel (though limited atonement really negates Luther's distinction), but there is no consensus in Reformed theology on the issue either historically, or in modern discussions.
These kinds of statements simply don't hold water Biblically.
Look how the Mosaic law is described by Peter at the council of Jerusalem,
"Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?" (Acts 15:10)
Look at how the gospel is described by Jesus,
"For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light." (Matthew 11:30)
Does the gospel command with a stronger force than the law? I think the texts speak for themselves.