The Distinction Between Law And Gospel Emerged From Augustine’s Struggle With Pelagius

​When many Christians think about the Reformation, they do not think about the distinction between law and gospel. Indeed, it is a truism for not a few modern Reformed folk that the distinction between law and gospel is solely a Lutheran conviction. Of course, this would come as a great surprise to Calvin, Beza, Ursinus, Olevianus, and many others who taught the very same distinction between law and gospel that Luther taught but, nonetheless, when they think of the Reformation (if they should happen to think about it) they think about sola Scriptura or sola fide or perhaps soli Deo gloria.
Despite its widespread neglect, the distinction between law and gospel was just as essential to the Reformation as any of the Reformation solas. Recovery of the theological and hermeneutical distinction between law and gospel was one of the five most significant developments in Luther’s theology between 1513—18.
What does it mean to distinguish law and gospel theologically? Well, traditionally, very early in the history of Christian theology, the early post-apostolic theologians spoke of the “old law” and the “new law.” They did this in order to express the essential unity of Scripture and redemption. Some of our more important theologians (e.g., Barnabas, 2 Clement, Justin, and Irenaeus) even turned to the biblical category of covenant to express this unity. For the most part, when, in the ancient and medieval church, theologians spoke of law and gospel they were speaking in historical and chronological terms or categories, not theological categories.

The Distinction Between Law And Gospel Emerged From Augustine’s Struggle With Pelagius | The Heidelblog
​