Vincent, Calvin certainly advocated it. Like it was discussed on another topic here, there seems to be a gulf between Calvin's Calvinism and the post-Puritan Calvinism. It's very different.
And the thing that would most bother me if I were a staunch Calvinist concerning people like Frame, Steve Lawson, and Mr. Jones (author of the book "Antinomianism") is that they start sounding a whole lot more like Arminians than they do Calvinists when they ratchet up their law like this.
Question, Jordan: would the frowning upon the law/gospel distinction (as Frame is perceiving it) be due in part to the difference in justification, because Calvinists see it as a one time declaration, vs. Lutheranism which sees it more as a regular renewal?
On today's program I finished my response to John Frame's article on the distinction between Law and Gospel. 
3 comments:
Is the law gospel distinction vital to Reformed orthodoxy aswell? Why are the Reformed denying it?
Vincent,
Calvin certainly advocated it. Like it was discussed on another topic here, there seems to be a gulf between Calvin's Calvinism and the post-Puritan Calvinism. It's very different.
And the thing that would most bother me if I were a staunch Calvinist concerning people like Frame, Steve Lawson, and Mr. Jones (author of the book "Antinomianism") is that they start sounding a whole lot more like Arminians than they do Calvinists when they ratchet up their law like this.
Question, Jordan: would the frowning upon the law/gospel distinction (as Frame is perceiving it) be due in part to the difference in justification, because Calvinists see it as a one time declaration, vs. Lutheranism which sees it more as a regular renewal?
Vincent,
That's a debate among Reformed theologians. Some certainly did talk of a Law-Gospel distinction in some sense.
Yes, I do think that the differences on justification get to the heart of a lot of these issues of Law and Gospel, etc.
Post a Comment