Law/Gospel Week 2025!

            Last year we declared the last week starting in April as Law/Gospel week. We did a series of episodes and blog posts. This year we did a podcast introducing a book called Learning God’s Two Words: A Brief Catechism on the Law and the Gospel.

            This is not to take away from the other catechisms but to point toward them and focus in on this one aspect. We need to focus in on it because it needs to be recovered. Tyndale wanted to give the ploughboy the Bible so they could know the Bible better than the popes. We need to give Law/Gospel to the average Christian so they can read the Bible better than the average Bible scholar.

            One example is Mark 10:17f with the story of the rich young ruler. This guy who has it all going for him in sincerity and earnestness comes to Jesus and wants to know how to inherit eternal life. Jesus tries to get him to see the one he is talking to is not just a good teacher by normal human ethical standards but is the Good one, good as only God is good. He gives the man the law which he says he has kept. Jesus then tells him to sell everything. Some modern commentaries say that Jesus was impressed with this guy’s answer, that He wanted him to be a part of His inner circle. A basic Law/Gospel distinction clears it up. This guy is holding onto his earthly treasure. Idolatry and covetousness are shown, not righteousness. The disciples respond rightly, if this guy who has wealth (seen as a sign of blessing), a ruler (maybe in the Synagogue), and probably a morally upright fellow can’t get in, then who can? You can’t on your own righteousness. He failed to see Christ as the Savior he needed. Christ has compassion not because He is impressed, but because the man is lost.

            The law shows us our sin and our need for the Savior, that is the law in the do this in live sense. If you are going to get to heaven by law-keeping you have to do it all, all the time, without fail in the least measure going to the thoughts and intentions of the heart. You can never not love your neighbor perfectly. J.C.Ryle says “Ignorance of the Law and ignorance of the Gospel will generally be found together.” The rich young ruler did not understand either.

            Mark 12:28f with the Scribe would be another example. At the end of the discussion about the law Jesus says you are not far from the Kingdom of God. Again some commentaries don’t understand what the connection is between the law and the kingdom of God. Those with a Law/Gospel distinction do.[1] The Scribe has understood what the standard is, He understood the law! Ryle notes “No wonder that we read next, that our Lord said, “you are not far from the kingdom of God.”” He is half way there as it were, which is far closer than many of the Scribes and Pharisees were. Of course close doesn’t get you to heaven.

            As believers, united to Christ in faith, there is another use of the law. The law does not change, but we relate to it differently, as a rule of life or we say the law comes from the hand of Christ.

            We ought to have a high view of the law. Ryle again says

It is only gross ignorance of the requirements of God’s law which makes people undervalue the Gospel. The man who has the clearest view of the moral law, will always be the man who has the highest sense of the value of Christ’s atoning blood.

            So while law and gospel are opposed to each other in justification they work together in sanctification. We need them both.

           Horatius Bonar says James is writing about the blessedness of doing, not of believing, but of doing as a result of believing. In other words, it is the law as a rule of life. The law then for the believer is liberty. He goes on to say

The law of liberty.—It is only bondage to the unforgiven. To those in reference to whom its penalty has ceased, it is a law of liberty. Obedience to it is true liberty. The greater the obedience, the greater the liberty. Disobedience is bondage. 'I will walk at liberty, for I seek Thy precepts' (Psalm 69:45). Twice over in James it is called the law of liberty; for the law, fulfilled in Christ, and presented to us in the gospel, though unchanged and unmodified, is a law of liberty. In obeying it we are enjoying and exercising true freedom.

And continues

We are delivered from the law's condemnation. We are 'not under the law, but under grace.' But shall we obey it the less? No, the more; for to this end we are delivered, that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us. The condemnation of the law is cancelled, that the righteousness of the law might be free to exhibit itself in us, who are still 'under the law to Christ;' for the law is still good, if a man use it lawfully.[2]

            Some scholars want to use passages like Romans 2:13 to build up the idea that you can do enough to attain eternal life. Calvin says such a one should be laughed at even by children. Do you see how the Law/Gospel distinction can help us read our Bibles better?

            Why a Law/Gospel Catechism for kids? Because we want them to read the Bible well. We want them to read it like Christians should. We want to see the standard of the law so they are driven to Christ as sinners. We want them to believe the gospel and being united to Christ through faith to love God’s law as it guides them in the Christian life. We want them to live the Christian life with assurance because there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. This assurance actually leads to obedience. We want them to understand the Law and so understand and cherish the Gospel. May we know the truth, may we understand the historic Christian category of Law and Gospel, and pass it on to the next generation. It is good for the soul.   
 
​
Jay Wipf


[1] See J.C Ryle Expository Reflections on the Gospels for more notes on these passages.   

[2] The Lesser Epistles (eBook) | Monergism, 285, 287. 

hen Joshua was by Jericho, he lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, a man was standing before him with his drawn sword in his hand. And Joshua went to him and said to him, “Are you for us, or for our adversaries?” And he said, “No; but I am the commander of the army of Yahweh. Now I have come.” And Joshua fell on his face to the earth and worshiped and said to him, “What does my Lord say to his servant?” And the commander of Yahweh’s army said to Joshua, “Take off your sandals from your feet, for the place where you are standing is holy.” And Joshua did so (Joshua 5:13–15).
​

One of the more profound points of disagreement between some Particular Baptists and the historic Christian and Reformed understanding of the history of redemption (historia salutis) centers on the question of the nature of the covenant of grace before the New Testament. There are more moderate Baptists who see the covenant of grace as actually present in the Old Testament (i.e., Gen-Malachi). The school of thought that concerns us here, however, is the more radical strain of Particular Baptist theology who reject the idea that the covenant of grace was actually, substantially present in the types and shadows of the Old Testament. In this view, the covenant of grace is only actually present in the New Covenant. In this view, there is a witness to the covenant of grace in the types and shadows and believers under the OT might be said to have apprehended Christ and the covenant of grace by faith but the covenant of grace itself remains wholly future relative to the types and shadows. Indeed, some proponents of this view have argued that all the covenants (including the Abrahamic) before the New Covenant were, in essence, covenants of works and that only the New Covenant is the covenant of grace.

Why is Joining a Church Necessary?
Consider seven important reasons that joining a church is necessary: (1) for the church’s existence, (2) for the church’s purity, (3) for pastoral ministry, (4) for church discipline, (5) for congregational government, (6) for growth in love, and (7) because church membership is implied by the New Testament. 

​The question not infrequently comes to me: “What about cremation?” This is an inherently difficult question because it touches a very personal and private decision: what to do with the remains of a loved one, or what should be done with one’s own remains (it does not get much more personal). It is also difficult because these are decisions often made in a very emotional time.

Here is a short list of some helpful devotionals. 
Daily Joy: A Devotional for Women
christianbook.com
TableTalk from Ligonier
https://store.ligonier.org/the-power-of-the-gospel-a-year-in-romans-hardcover

Isaiah by the day by Alec Motyer
Spurgeon's morning and Evening  Morning and Evening book by Charles Haddon Spurgeon
Spurgeon the promises of God
Spurgeon faiths checkbook
just read some of Spurgeons sermons!
New Morning Mercies by Paul David Tripp
Heart Aflame by Sinclair Ferguson
Be Thou My Vision: A liturgy for daily worship by David Gibson
If you want a short audio devotional the podcast "Things Unseen" with Sinclair Ferguson. 

​The Athanasian Creed does not add any new interpretations on the Trinity or the nature of Jesus Christ (part of the creed, but not analyzed here)—for the most part, it is a summary of the decisions of the past councils. However, it takes the Trinity seriously. It is refreshingly straightforward in that it challenges the reader to believe these things or face eternal damnation.

The Apostles’ Creed is a summary confession of vital Christian doctrines used liturgically throughout the Western church. It was once believed that the Creed originated with the apostles on or around Pentecost, but now most historians reject this view, seeing the Creed as containing the apostolic faith while not actually having been written by the apostles themselves.

The Background to the Apostles’ Creed
How did the Creed originate? First, it is important to recognize that creedal formulations are common in holy Scripture. The Hebrew shema of Deuteronomy 6:4 was itself a kind of confessional statement used daily by pious Hebrews. The language of 1 Corinthians 15 is creedal, where Paul mentions the transmission of the gospel message which he received and passed on to the Corinthians.[1] Brief summaries of the faith were used devotionally and liturgically under the old covenant, and later among the apostles. It makes sense then that the church would adopt this custom.

In the postapostolic period, the need for clear and concise articulations of the faith was due in part to the rapid growth of the church throughout the first few centuries of her existence. It is widely believed that the Apostles’ Creed evolved as a kind of baptismal confession. The articles in the Creed were the elementary principles of the faith which the catechumenate – think ancient new members class – were instructed in prior to being baptized. After a period of learning, they would confess the Creed and then receive the sacrament.

Does this ancient Creed really contain the apostolic “ABC’s” which the first Christians taught initiates? Yes! Consider what the author to the Hebrews said,
Therefore let us leave the elementary doctrine of Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, and of instruction about washings, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. (Heb. 6:1-2)
​
From as early as Hebrews was written, the foundational doctrines taught to new converts centered on Christ, repentance, faith toward God, instruction about washings (perhaps an allusion to sacramental theology?), the laying on of hands (ordination and ecclesiology?), the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. These fundamental teachings (all of which are present in the Apostles’ Creed) made up what the Fathers referred to as the regula fidei, or Rule of Faith. Men like Irenaeus and Tertullian believed this Rule had come down from the apostles, and that they were passing the baton to subsequent generations. The holy deposit of “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ”[2] matured into creeds like the Apostles’ Creed between the 4th and 6th centuries, although each article of the Creed traces its lineage to the earlier teachings of Scripture.
​

The first thing one should notice from the title of this post is that the document produced at the Council of Chalcedon in October 451 was not a “creed”; it was a “definition.” 
A creed, properly speaking, is not a statement of what Christians believe about our faith. (That would be a “confession.”) Instead, a creed is a pledge of allegiance to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Creeds answer the question, “In whom do you believe?” more than the question “What do you believe?”
Creeds were originally intended for liturgical use, as the people of God affirmed their allegiance to the persons of the Trinity prior to baptism or the celebration of the Eucharist. In contrast, a definition is a commentary on a creed, designed to give more terminological precision to the content of that creed.
The Council of ChalcedonAt the Council of Chalcedon (the Fourth Ecumenical Council in the Greco-Roman world), the bishops who assembled were firmly convinced that the Nicene Creed was sufficient to affirm their faith in God, his Son, and his Spirit.
A definition is a commentary on a creed, designed to give more terminological precision to the content of that creed.Click To TweetThey were right: ​