Turning grace into lasciviousness...

For the grace of God has appeared ...instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age... (Titus 2:11,12)

(Tim) The prattle about grace that permeates the sermons, fellowship-hall conversations, and books within the mainstream reformed church today tastes like cotton candy and leaves your hands sticky. In our non-Christian hedonistic day when even the poor are fat, it should be clear that the need of the hour is not more talk of grace. In our pomo, effeminate day, it should be clear our need is not more talk of being graceful.

Nevertheless, within mainstream reformed churches, it's claimed that every last problem is a nail needing the hammer of grace.

Which leaves me scratching my head when I read the Bible. Are these people reading it? The Bible, I mean? Can we seriously think the need of our day is more grace talk, but still not a word about sin, holiness, repentance, and mortification?

And certainly not one word about false conversions. For some time I've been thinking that anyone who holds firmly to what is commonly called "eternal security" must, at the same time, hold firmly to the danger of...

self-delusion and wolves in the church's midst. There ought never to be a proclamation of "eternal security" without a proclamation of the danger of false conversion, also.

The preaching of grace and eternal security destroys souls without preaching and teaching that places an equal emphasis on the prevalence in the church of false professors of faith in Jesus Christ and the hopeless future that awaits them.

When a man hath confirmed his imagination to such an apprehension of grace and mercy as to be able, without bitterness, to swallow and digest daily sins, that man is at the very brink of turning the grace of God into lasciviousness, and being hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. Neither is there a greater evidence of a false and rotten heart in the world than to drive such a trade. To use the blood of Christ, which is given to cleanse us, 1John 1:7, Titus 2:14; the exaltation of Christ, which is to give us repentance, Acts 5:31; the doctrine of grace, which teaches us to deny all ungodliness, Titus 2:11,12, to countenance sin, is a rebellion that in the issue will break the bones.

At this door have gone out from us most of the professors that have apostatized in the days wherein we live. For a while they were most of them under convictions; these kept them unto duties, and brought them to profession; so they "escaped the pollutions that are in the world, through the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ," 2Peter 2:20: but having got an acquaintance with the doctrine of the gospel, and being weary of duty, for which they had no principle, they began to countenance themselves in manifold neglects from the doctrine of grace. Now, when once this evil had laid hold of them, they speedily tumbled into perdition. -John Owen (emphasis in the original)

Comments

[BettySue]

The "problem" with so-called grace is not limited to the reformed churches. We are seeing the same thing over here in the charismatics.
The problem is, grace isn't grace without the doctrine of sin. You must have "All have sinned" BEFORE you can have "The gift of God is eternal life." It destroys the whole message of God to leave the first out and let people continue in sin.

[Patrick Hart]

Obviously this problem transpires the Evangelical world, being that I attend an Evangelical Free Church, I hardly hear the words sin, repentance, mortification from the pulpit. It tends to be the sin of making too much money, and living comfortable lives, but maintaining the lifestyle and patting each other on the back for being so bold. It makes the gift not so much a gift anymore.

[Patrick Hart]

Rewording, not too much money, but not using their wealth rightly.

[Chuck p]

The real problem is no one has the fear of God anymore. Read Jonathan Edwards 'Sinners in the Hand of An Angry God" and you will be so glad that your a believer. God and Jesus are our "buddies." I can't remember the last time I heard a real good warning from the pulpit about the danger of sin. Also Christians are virtually never taught about the "warning passages" that testify that we will stand before Jesus one day and give an account of our works or the lack thereof. Pastors need to be warning believers about the hardness of sin Heb 3:13 "But encourage each other every day while it is "today." Help each other so none of you will become hardened because sin has tricked you." I have struggled with this myself when you start getting hardened to sin and your not tender toward God and his Word. You lose your joy of salvation and everything because a burden involving Christianity.

[Valerie (Kyriosity)]

Hmmm...afraid I've gotta disagree somewhat. We do need more preaching and teaching on grace, but grace can only be truly taught if sin, holiness, repentance, and mortification are taught...and sin, holiness, repentance, and mortification can only be taught if grace is taught. Jesus came to dwell among us full of grace and truth -- not half full of each, but all the way full of both. He is not being preached if both of these fullnesses are not being preached. He is the Lion and the Lamb, and anybody who claims to be presenting His lambish nature without also presenting His lionish nature is really presenting a wool-clad wolf. Such a pastor is like a parent who refuses to discipline his son, thereby desiring his death. So the issue with the mushy-gushy, namby-pamby stuff isn't that it's too much grace, but that it's not enough.

[Mahoney]

Chuck P., did you ever hear the sermon that was given May 1st, 2009 at CGS? It was great along these lines.

What's so odd about this issue is that I think many pastors think that if they preach grace people will be aware of their own sin and bring it to the cross. However, this doesn't happen, sin must be called out and acknowledged, very specifically in most cases, before it can become grace.

Such pastors are not faithful, they don't lead people through the entire gospel. Are they afraid they can't fit it all in one sermon so they jump to the end of the story and speak only of grace?

Millions of people sit under what would seem to be good preaching each Sunday with sin they can't deal with. And this is all done in the name love when it is closer to the opposite.

-Clint

[PCA Friend]

I can see why you are a Pastor.

You have the well being of the flock in mind.

Jesus is both Savior and Lord- and all glory, laud and honor to our God for that!

[Don Alexander]

That " the church has undertaken the fundamentally impossible task of calling the righteous to repentance " is truer today than it was when Machen spoke these words.

[Tim Bayly]

Estimable Valerie,

If what you write is in disagreement with the post, I'm wrong.

Love,

[Valerie (Kyriosity)]

Oh...maybe not disagreement as much as clarification? ;-)

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

Tim,

You're not wrong. It's a good post.

I'm old-fashioned or out-of-fashion, but I believe in a balance between Law and Grace, AND I believe preaching Law should precede preaching Grace.

[Bob Deal]

Can you give examples? I'm not sure what you mean when you say: "prattle about grace that permeates the sermons, fellowship-hall conversations, and books." Are you talking about the PCA? Is sonship an example of what you are complaining about?

[Tim Bayly]

>>Is sonship an example of what you are complaining about?

Maybe, and maybe not. Any tool can be abused. Maybe the simplest response is to say that the relative importance and frequency of mention of repentance, judgment, hell, etc. shown in Scripture should also be shown in our preaching, teaching, and writing.

Love,

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

Tim: "Maybe the simplest response is to say that the relative importance and frequency of mention of repentance, judgment, hell, etc. shown in Scripture should also be shown in our preaching, teaching, and writing."

D'Oh!!

[Tim Bayly]

>>D'Oh!!

The entire life of pastors is given over to the endless repetition of painfully obvious things. Please don't make fun of me; it's my job.

Love,

[Valerie (Kyriosity)]

Tim, I'm sure you've heard the story of Luther being asked why he didn't preach something different every once in a while and his reply that as soon as they learned what he was preaching, he'd move on to something else. I've heard preachers who think they have to provide novelty each Sunday. No, thanks. Sign me up for that "endless repetition of painfully obvious things"!

[Bob Deal]

the reason I ask is that while the PCA is not really large it is large enough to contain different factions & groups depending on region, theology, ministry philosphy. Others could shout loudly that the reformed world is rife with legalism or hyper-confessionalism or broad evagelicalism or Perimeter seeker sensitivism or New life happy clappy & prob make a good case for it.

[Ken Pierce]

Only one quibble:

i am not sure that we are in the midst of an over-emphasis on grace (that is, a grace at the expense of repentance, holiness, striving against sin), but a complete misunderstanding of grace --a grace that is not worthy of the name.

Grace cannot be understood apart from a radically other-worldly life --that is like quoting Eph 2:8-9 and never getting to v. 10 --we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto Good works, that God ordained beforehand that we should walk in them.

And thus we should always be asking the question, "How are we different from the world?"

[Michael McMillan]

> a complete misunderstanding of grace --a grace that is not worthy of the name.

> Grace cannot be understood apart from a radically other-worldly life

Ken, having recently watched a documantary on him, I can't help but thinking here of Bonhoeffer's "Cheap Grace."

--Michael

[Tim Bayly]

>>Others could shout loudly that the reformed world is rife with legalism or hyper-confessionalism or broad evagelicalism or Perimeter seeker sensitivism or New life happy clappy & prob make a good case for it.

Well sure. It's my observation, though, that all sides demonstrate the same absence of biblical doctrines such as repentance, holiness, and the coming judgment--although maybe not to the same degree. And endless prattle about grace.

Like men, denominations and churches, too, have diseases. It's our work to cure them, also, and not simply individual sheep. If we don't think of our work in this way, we are sinecured.

So yes, some would complain about dead orthodoxy and others about Willow creep within the conservative reformed church. What I'm warning about, though, is the absence of any teaching or preaching or writing on repentance and sanctification and holiness; the absence of any warnings concerning false profession and judgment and Hell.

With love,

[Don Alexander]

The grace that Tim laments is an antinomian grace with no attendant doctrine of sanctification. Or if requisite standards of righteousness are put forth they are largely nonbiblical standards. I spent ten years in a conservative Luthern denomination and this is the only type of grace that I ever heard proclaimed from the pulpit.

[Ken Pierce]

Don,

I agree. But is it not better to say that "WE have distorted grace" rather than that we have over-emphasized it?

I don't think you can overemphasize grace. I believe and practice that grace rightly taught includes repentance (the woman at the well thought it was fantastic that Jesus told her everything she did. She heard the call to repentance as it is --good news!), holiness (Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound), and humility ("by the grace given to me...don't think of yourself more highly than you ought, but esteem others better, etc.)

That said, I agree completely and totally with Tim's take on this Grace hermeneutic we have imposed on the text that neuters the dangers of false profession, worldly attachments, comfortable affluence, and passivity about our own sin.

[Don Alexander]

The god who dispenses this kind of grace was always presented as an avuncular figure in the sky who passes out celestial candy when his children are feeling a little sad ( that god without thunder).

[Don Alexander]

Ken, I posted my last post prior to your post. It was an afterthought to my post, not a response to your post. Of course I agree with you. The grace of God in Jesus Christ cannot possibly be over emphasized.

[Bob Deal]

My experience with the sonship teaching & the MTW version of sonship is that they spend far more time teaching on sin & repentance before they get to adoption & grace.
It was said of C. John Miller who originally wrote sonship that b/e he saw himself as a great sinner that understood grace that much more & was described as someone who strived for holiness.

[Bob Deal]

Actually the sonship teaching & the MTW version of it put a great deal of stress on sin & repentance before they get to talk about grace & adoption.
In fact Jack Miller who wrote the original sonship material saw himself as a great sinner. This allowed him to see how great grace really is. Many remarked that his was a life characterized by holiness and a burden for the lost because he saw himself as a sinner saved by grace.

[Valerie (Kyriosity)]

BTW, Ken's "quibble" and his next comment ("I don't think you can overemphasize grace") better express my "disagreement" than I was able to express it. Just want to avoid falling off into the other ditch, which I don't think is Tim's intent, but it might be read that way. :-)

[Stephen Baker]

Bob,

I, too, share a great respect for Jack Miller.

But I'm afraid that his genuine knowledge of his own sin and the grasp of the gospel that flowed from has become institutionalized in the Sonship / MTW world.

In other words, what we often hear is Miller's phrase, "Cheer up! You are worse than you thought you were. Cheer up! The gospel is bigger than you ever dared to hope." I completely agree. But how much do we really get the first part? I'm afraid that in our quickness to get to the bigness of the gospel, we short circuit the deep awareness of sin.

In addition, our greatest fear is to be a Pharisee / legalist / "older brother." What this often means in practice is that we ignore "rules" and commands. We act and preach as if obedience is all but automatic, as long as we "get the gospel right."

Of course, the problem is that the Bible is full of commands. If obedience was automatic upon "getting the gospel right," then why all those commands? Why all the "do's and don'ts"? We must need both the gospel--the power and the motivation--AND the command.

But the point must be obedience to the command. If the gospel does not produce holiness, then it is another gospel.

[Keith Phillips]

Excuse me if I'm jumping in too abruptly, I mean no disrespect...

But shouldn't we fear the unholiness of "older brother" legalism just as much as we fear the unholiness of "younger brother" license? I'm not known for chanelling Rev. Keller, but isn't unholiness unholiness whichever form it takes?

And what message is offered to those who come to the realization that they never attain complete holiness -- no matter how far they think they've come, they realize that there are more corners with sin to sweep out and that even their obedience is tainted with sin?

Is not the grace available through repentance the only hope? Are not both justification and sanctification dependant on such grace? Is that not why it is good news? How can one prattle about that?

[Ross]

To Keith Phillips - Yes, but:

(a) I don't think the main problem we have in the wider church is with 'elder brother' legalism;

(b) If the Reformed tradition has problems with the mispreaching of Grace, I can confirm that the problems elsewhere in the wider evangelical witness are worse again; and,

(c) As Luther put it, "we are saved by faith alone, but faith itself is never alone".

[Bob Deal]

Stephen I believe what you've written is a complete misread of jack Miller & sonship. He never short circuited his own sin & anyone who knows anything about sonship will tell you that a great deal of time is spent on sin & the need to repent. The charge of antinomionism is actually a superficial charge made without really examining the material. I would challenge you to read the little booklet by Neil Williams The Theology of Sonship.

[Tim Bayly]

>>I don't think you can overemphasize grace.

Dear Brother Ken,

Unless you simply mean that any overemphasis on grace is not true grace, I don't think I agree with you. Yes, we can overemphasize grace, just as we can overemphasize justice, mercy, holiness, etc. Any one of God's perfections can be overemphasized, and it's clear that's what's happening today in the circles I run in. Grace is overemphasized and justice, wrath, and holiness are never mentioned.

What if I were to make the statement here that "I don't think it's possible to overemphasize justice." Yet, speaking theologically, surely there's as much danger of one as the other, right?

Let me be clear: I'm not speaking about Sonship; I am sure there are parts of the reformed world where there's too little emphasis on grace; and I am aware that there have been times when the train has been derailed on the other side of the tracks.

But I've written of my own concern as a physician of souls observing the church of my time. Show me one Judaizer and I'll show you one hundred churches whose members are without compunction of conscience and one-thousand antinomians sitting in those churches' chairs.

With love,

[Valerie (Kyriosity)]

Tim,

I'm with Ken here. His comments have better articulated what I was getting at in my first comment. So I'll try to answer your reply to him.

God is infinite. We can never manage to describe Him. If we began now to discuss His grace, and never stopped, we couldn't possibly every overstate the case. We could however, misstate it. Same with His justice. Same with His glory. Same with His sovereignty. Same with His love. Same with His wrath.

If someone is talking about grace (or justice or whatever) to the exclusion of the other attributes, they are not overstating, they are misstating. Because grace cannot be divorced from the other attributes, nor can it be described without reference to the other attributes. Because every one of God's attributes goes all the way through Him, and therefore goes all the way through all of the other attributes.

I'm not saying (and I don't think Ken is saying) that it's not possible to talk to much about something falsely labeled "grace," but that *real* grace, the grace that is given to cleanse us from real sin and save us from real damnation, is an inexhaustible subject. We need not ever curb our enthusiasm about it.

What you're calling "overemphasis of grace" we're saying is really "distortion of grace," and we agree that it's bad! ;-)

[Steve Prost]

Tim,

I am a PCA active duty Army chaplain and '03 Covenant Seminary grad who dittos all you say in the post and the string of comments, and have felt strongly about this for many years. This is a problem that cuts thru the usual TR-BR tensions/division in our circles. Sadly, I fear the problem you cite is arguably just as bad if not worse in our best Reformed denominations and seminaries, especially concerning the silence on the perennial biblical issue and practical relative urgent importance of those with an orthodox profession and sort of "faith" that does not save due to modern Reformed superficiality in our doctrine of assurance. Our Reformed/Puritan forefathers were the experts in developing these warnings and hard penetrating doctrines, but now we for all our Reformed unparalleled excellency in doctrinal precision may ironically be among the worst in missing the biblical tenor of the fear of the consuming fire God "who can throw both soul and body in hell...yes, I tell you, fear Him" and working out our salvation with fear and trembling in comparison with many of our other evangelical brethren whom we look down our noses at because they don't "get" grace and the safety of the covenant. You can often also ironically expect that speaking this message in our circles will often get you ungraciously ostracized, and all of a sudden the 'winsome' desire to 'irenically' 'dialogue' with you can turn suddenly cold with those who most strongly trumpet this sort of 'grace'.

[Steve Prost]

BTW, one of the best comprehensive treatments of this subject generally is Pink's "Studies in Saving Faith" at
www.reformed.org/books/pink/saving_faith/index.html

Please read just the introduction "Sign of the Times" and see if it does not describe in spades our current condition as described by Tim Bayly and you are not hooked to read the rest of this outstanding biblical doctrinal work.

[Eric Rasmusen]

It's interesting to think about how the sin/grace legalism/antinomianism dichotomies relate. It's obvious that an antinomian pays too little attention to sin, but so does a legalist-- at least, sin in himself. He thinks that he has avoided sin by not breaking the rules of external behavior. In many cases, it's easy for him not to break the rules, because he'd obey them even if he were an unbeliever (I won't go out and wear earrings and inject heroin even if I lose my faith.) Thus, grace is cheap for the legalist too-- he feels no need of it. He, too, is in need of sermons telling him that he is sinful.

I agree with those who have pointed out that stereotypical legalism is a minor problem for the Church today. A more subtle legalism-- that you are saved so long as, but only so long as you don't commit any crimes or engage in low-class behavior like drinking binges--- is, I think, very common.

[Eric Rasmusen]

Did Miller really say:

"Cheer up! You are worse than you thought you were. Cheer up! The gospel is bigger than you ever dared to hope."

That doesn't make sense. Why should I cheer up on discovering I am worse than I ever thought and deserve Hell forever?

Of course, I should cheer up about the gospel. But the fact that I cheer up when a cure for AIDS is discovered doesn't mean I should be happy I have AIDS.

[Keith Phillips]

Eric,

I agree with you at 11:17, but I'm not sure I agree with you four minutes later at 11:21.

I'm far, far from any expertise in Miller's teaching, but the tiny bit of interaction I've had with it leads me to believe that the cheer up bit is a rhetorical device intended to make a point similar to the one you made at 11:17.

When you begin to see that your subtle legalism hasn't kept you from all sin and you begin to despair, don't! You never were able to save yourself, and it's good, really good, that you've started to realize that.

You should cheer up because you've begun to understand in your bones that you are sick and need a physician. If you don't come to that realization, then why do you need the good news of the gospel?

In other words, you've had AIDS all along, but you weren't looking to the cure because you didn't know (really believe) that you had it. Now that you know you have it, you will look for the cure. And, good news, the cure exists -- God's grace is greater than all my sin.

[Keith Phillips]

Rev. Bayly and Ross,

I am not arguing for antinomianism or cheap grace. Cotton candy theology is not going to satisfy anyone for long, and I'm not a fan. I also have not made any claims about the proportion of "elder brothers" to "younger brothers" in our churches. You may both be right that the younger far outnumber the elder (but using Eric's criteria that's not a given). Anyway, I think I'm with you both so far.

I also think that you are with me, but to verify, allow me a question: Even if there are vastly more "younger brothers" and antinomians in our midst, the solution is not to hold up the "elder brother" or the legalist as the cure is it?

[Ken Pierce]

Tim, you wrote: Unless you simply mean that any overemphasis on grace is not true grace, I don't think I agree with you.

Tim,

That is what I mean! Valerie put it well. It is a distortion of grace to put it forth as any grounds for antinomianism (witness Paul's "absolutely not!"s of Romans).

True grace is never license to sin, or for pursuing worldly comfort. If it is presented that way, it is distorted.

Just like true obedience is never legalism or grounds for boasting. Obedience presented that way is damnable, and in no way true obedience.

Can we be guilty of emphasizing one truth to the exclusion of others? Of course. But, grace, rightly understood can in no way be in opposition to holiness, right?

[Tim Bayly]

>> the solution is not to hold up the "elder brother" or the legalist as the cure is it?

No.

>>grace, rightly understood can in no way be in opposition to holiness, right?

Right. And yet I'm wondering why such a push back on my warnings against the overemphasis on grace in reformed circles, today? I can't help but wonder if it isn't, itself, an indication of the overemphasis on grace, today?

And truly, I don't think it's enough to argue for a return to the doctrines being avoided. My own conviction is that we must warn the church against the overemphasis on grace which is the "look at the birdie" tactic keeping many from noticiing, let alone meditating on, false conversions, judgment, and Hell.

With love,

[Ken Pierce]

Tim, your caveat is well heeded.

I hope I'm not pushing back! Indeed, I understand full well as one whose preaching is sometimes called "discouraging" or legalistic.

To me, the calls to obedience, holiness, and repentance are good news.

[Bret Lee McAtee]

Someone recommended a pro Son-ship book. As such, I would like to recommend a book critiquing son-ship by Jay Adams titled, Biblical Sonship: An Evaluation of the Sonship Discipleship Course." Adams considers Sonship an "aberration of the faith." Having seen MTW use Sonship up close I would agree with Adams critique -- a critique I have read.

Of course the one corrective to the matters that Rev. Bayly laments is Theonomy and it is the one movement that is reviled with the most animus in much of the Reformed world.

Preaching grace as license is not preaching grace. To preach in such a way would not be to overemphasize grace but to distort grace. The preaching of grace is the answer to the preaching of distorted grace.

The preaching of law and gospel is the answer to antinomianism. Followed by a earnest desire for God's glory, gratitude for what Christ has accomplished is always the motivating factor in sanctification, holiness and growth in the Christian faith only the deep searching preaching of the Law followed by the preaching of the expansiveness of grace can cure the puss filled wound of antinomianism that festers in the modern Church.

Ahh ... but this will never do because this will force much of the Reformed church to examine some preciously held assumptions. Assumptions like the moral law does not apply to the public square. Assumptions like the Christian life does not look like something specific in the broader culture when a body of people are changed by grace.

And why do we hold on to these assumptions? We hold on to them because they allow us to have enough correlation with the culture to build large congregations. Allowing public square antinomianism means that we can more easily hold people together as a unit who attend our churches. More people ... more money.

[Tim Bayly]

>>To me, the calls to obedience, holiness, and repentance are good news.

Absolutely. Positively graceful.

>>The preaching of grace is the answer to the preaching of distorted grace.

Actually, the preaching of holiness, judgment, and Hell is the answer to an overemphasis on grace.

[Don Alexander]

When I agreed with Ken that grace cannot be overemphasized I was considering the comprehensive nature of grace. If we desire personal holiness it can be attributed only to God's grace. If we are granted repentance, it is an act of grace. Sanctification is by grace. If faithful church leaders discipline us for our sins, this too is by God's grace. All of God's dealings with his chosen people fall under the heading of grace.

[Bret L. McAtee]

"Actually, the preaching of holiness, judgment, and Hell is the answer to an overemphasis on grace."

Come Come my friend. If somebody was giving away toilet water while calling it honey you wouldn't say that there was to much emphasis on honey and the solution was to give away vinegar. You would correct the distortion and give away honey.

[Valerie (Kyriosity)]

"Actually, the preaching of holiness, judgment, and Hell is the answer to an overemphasis on grace."

How about "Actually, the preaching of holiness, judgment, and hell **IS** the preaching of grace (or at least a vital aspect of the fully-orbed preaching of grace)"?

:-)

[Stephen Baker]

Dear Bob,

You wrote:

"Stephen I believe what you've written is a complete misread of jack Miller & sonship. He never short circuited his own sin & anyone who knows anything about sonship will tell you that a great deal of time is spent on sin & the need to repent. The charge of antinomionism is actually a superficial charge made without really examining the material. I would challenge you to read the little booklet by Neil Williams The Theology of Sonship."

I am quite aware of the World Harvest Mission material, "Gospel Transformation." I use it regularly in my ministry. I have taught through it several times and am currently working through it with a couple in my church. I think it is excellent.

I have also read the book by Neil Williams, and I agree with him.

I was removed from the pastorate of a church plant for believing and preaching those things.

As I said in my first comment, I have a great respect for Jack Miller.

But, again, I'm afraid that his genuine knowledge of his own sin and the grasp of the gospel that flowed from it has become institutionalized in the Sonship / MTW world. In other words, I'm afraid it has become a mantra, rather than a reality.

If you emphasize the Biblical truth that God gives grace so that we can and will obey him, I have no problem. As I said, I use those materials regularly. I fear, though, that certain things are lost in translation.

[Brad Lindvall]

I think we need to hear God's two words – both Law and Gospel. We should be reminded every Lord’s Day of the Holiness of God and how we offend Him daily in word, thought, and deed. We then need to hear the Gospel – reminding us what God has graciously done for us in Christ rescuing us from the wrath we rightly deserve. I’ve found this article very helpful by Michael Horton. http://www.whitehorseinn.org/MHLawGospel.htm

Before the objections come that this ‘sounds Lutheran!' the following posts on R. Scott Clark's blog are very helpful for anyone that is Reformed:

http://heidelblog.wordpress.com/2008/10/18/is-the-lawgospel-distinction-only-lutheran/

http://heidelblog.wordpress.com/2009/01/31/calvin-on-law-and-gospel/

http://heidelblog.wordpress.com/2009/01/31/ursinus-on-law-and-gospel/

http://heidelblog.wordpress.com/2009/01/31/pan-protestantism-on-law-and-gospel/