John Robbins Quick Quote

john-robbinsKnowledge is always true. One cannot know that 2 + 2 = 5. Opinions may be true or false. Ignorance is neither true nor false. What distinguishes a true opinion from knowledge is an account of that opinion: It is giving reasons.  [Michael] Sudduth dared me to provide any passage of Scripture that so defines knowledge. It seems to me that there are many. For example, “Be ready to give a reason….” “To the Law and to the testimony: If they speak not according to that Word, there is no light in them.” “In Christ are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.” All, not some. Hidden, not available to discovery by men. The Scripture is both the content and the account on knowledge.

Advertisements
Explore posts in the same categories: John Robbins, Theology

25 Comments on “John Robbins Quick Quote”

  1. Monty L. Collier Says:

    All Knowledge Is True
    All Truth Is Propositional
    All Truth Is Believable
    All Law Is Not Propositional
    ———————–
    Thus, All Law Is Not Believable
    The Gospel Is Believable
    The Gospel Is Propositional
    The Gospel Is True
    The Gospel Is Knowledge
    Anything Not Believeable Is Not Gospel
    —————————————
    Thus, All Law Is Not Gospel

    Sean, do you think the above sorites correctly represents the Law and the Gospel distinction?

    Monty

  2. Sean Gerety Says:

    A precept, while strictly speaking neither true or false is believable, yes? Besides, can’t a command be written in propositional form? In any case, I’m not sure I follow.

  3. Monty L. Collier Says:

    Sean wrote:
    “can’t a command be written in propositional form?”
    Yes.

    Sean wrote:
    “A precept, while strictly speaking neither true or false is believable.”

    Would you please go into this for me?
    I’m studying all the differences between Law and Gospel, and I find this very interesting.
    Thanks.

  4. Sean Gerety Says:

    Hi Monty. I’m not quite sure what you want me to flesh out? You might want to check out The Logic Classroom. I think you might recall Anthony Colletti. He evidently maintains the site for Dr. Carranza who wrote the Logic Workbook which was at one time offered as the companion to Clark’s Logic. In his introduction, Dr. Carranza writes:

    A proposition is a form of words in which the predicate is affirmed or denied of the subject of a declarative sentence. A proposition is the meaning of a declarative sentence. Declarative sentences are either true or false. Propositions are the premises and conclusions of arguments. Other sentences, in expressing commands, posing questions, or conveying exhortations are neither true nor false. Some questions, rhetorical questions, are intended as propositions; but if a question is not rhetorical, then it is neither true nor false.

    This explains why when something is written in the imperative mood, you cannot infer something in the indicative. A command just tells us what we ought to do. For example the command to repent and believe the Gospel can’t tell us whether or not we can do was we ought. This is the typical blunder made by free-willists, Pelagians, and the Arminian lite advocates of the WMO among others. The Arminians attempt to infer from the command that we can do as we ought, which is basically the same error of the Pelagian. WMO advocates try to infer a desire on the part of God for the salvation of all men. Both make the same logical blunder but in slightly different directions.

  5. Monty L. Collier Says:

    Sean,
    Thanks for the clarification.

    Dr. Carranza is correct!

    You are also correct when you state how the proponents of the “Free Offer” wrongly try to infer from commands that God desires the salvation of those reprobates who hear the Gospel preached.

    Do you believe in the Law / Gospel distinction?
    I do.

    Here is a video I made. I’m claiming Federal Vision is mixing the Law and the Gospel. I make use of their signed document “A Joint Federal Vision Statement.” Check it out:

    Do you think the sorites I provided correctly represents the distinction between Law and Gospel?

    Thanks,
    Monty

  6. Monty L. Collier Says:

    Here is the video where John Piper claims Doug Wilson and N.T. Wright are NOT preaching a false gospel.

  7. Sean Gerety Says:

    Thanks Monty. I had read the transcript of Piper above. Really appalling stuff. What a useless and confused shepherd.

    However, in the future, I would prefer it if you didn’t put up video’s in the combox. Email me a link and that way I can decide whether or not to put it up. Thank you.

  8. Monty L. Collier Says:

    Sean,
    I understand. I’m sorry about that. I will certainly email you a link next time, brother.
    Monty

  9. akac Says:

    Monty,
    The Law and Gospel distinction is biblical but I don’t beleive the logic you use here is correct.

    All Knowledge Is True
    All Truth Is Propositional
    All Truth Is Believable
    All Law Is Not Propositional
    ———————–
    Thus, All Law Is Not Believable
    The Gospel Is Believable
    The Gospel Is Propositional
    The Gospel Is True
    The Gospel Is Knowledge
    Anything Not Believeable Is Not Gospel
    —————————————
    Thus, All Law Is Not Gospel

    All law is not believable?? Law is very believable because it comes NATURAL to us. We are creatures of the law and understand it. The GOSPEL is what we as fallen creatures in Adam refuse to believe and can’t believe apart from the work of the spirit. By the power of the Spirit all of scripture is believable. I think you are truely off track here in how your are trying to do whatever you are trying to do.
    T.

  10. Roberto G Says:

    Doesn’t Clark say somewhere that commands can be turned into propositions? For example, “Thou shalt not bear false witness” can be changed to the proposition, ” God commands people to bear witness to the truth”. Or, “God commands people to not bear false witness”. Both are different sentences, but have the same meaning. So, in terms of law and gospel and believability, isn’t the real issue for Protestants/Historic Evangelicals through which means does the sinner find justification, obedience to the law or belief in the gospel? The law and the gospel is distinguished by their purpose, content, effects, etc, no???

  11. Sean Gerety Says:

    Sounds right to me Roberto 🙂

  12. Monty L. Collier Says:

    I think you guys need to study John W. Robbins’ article titled, “What Is The Gospel.”

    Robbins refuses to identify commands to be the Gospel. He lists commands as examples of false gospels, but he never identifies a single command to be the Gospel. Robbins knew the Gospel always appears in declarative remarks, never imperative ones. John W. Robbins writes:

    “But the Gospel is neither accounts of our personal experiences nor commands that we are to obey…The Gospel is the Good News of what Christ did for his people 2,000 years ago…The Gospel is propositions about historical events that happened wholly outside of us. It has consequences and implications for us today.”

    Sounds right to me.

    The command to believe the Gospel is NOT a description of what the Gospel is. Consider this example:

    Johnny asks, “What is the Gospel?”

    Billy says, “Believe the Gospel, Johnny.”

    Johnny responds, “But what is the Gospel, Billy?”

    Billy answers, “I just told you.”

    Johnny asks, “How can I believe something I don’t know?”

    Billy says, “Didn’t you hear me command you to believe the Gospel? That’s what it is.”

    The above easily shows that the command to believe the Gospel is not the Gospel. Such a command tells you nothing of what Christ did for us. You will need declarative statements to do that. And like I said, news, especially Good News, is always in the declarative mood.

  13. Sean Gerety Says:

    Monty, you are misreading Dr. Robbins, or, at the very least, failing to understand him. He wrote:

    But the Gospel is neither accounts of our personal experiences nor commands that we are to obey. The Gospel is the Good News of what Christ did for his people 2,000 years ago. It is not about the new birth, nor the Second Coming, nor the activities of the Holy Spirit in our hearts. The Gospel is propositions about historical events that happened wholly outside of us.

    The Gospel isn’t a set of commands that we need to performed and obeyed in order to be saved either now or on the last day. His point is that the Gospel is a message that is to be believed. However, that said, men are commanded in Scripture to believe it. Nowhere in the entire discussion does Robbins deny that the Gospel includes the command to repent and believe. Which makes sense for if he did he would be contradicting the words of Jesus in Mark 1:15 saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.”

  14. Monty L. Collier Says:

    Sean,
    John Robbins enumerated quite a few false gospels.
    He wrote:
    “The Gospel is not “Repent.”
    “The Gospel is not “Put Jesus on the throne of your life.”
    “The Gospel is not “Trust Jesus.”

    John then carefully points out:
    “A few of them are commands taken from Scripture. But none of them is the Gospel. Not everything in the Bible is the Gospel. The Gospel is Good News.”

    But wait, that command to repent wasn’t that taken from Mark 1:15? It sure was, and it is not the Gospel.

    You see, God’s commands are directed to us, and they demand something from us. If you don’t produce what the command demands, then you will be condemned. It is that simple. The Gospel, on the other hand, doesn’t demand anything from us. The Gospel is unconditional.

    The command found in Mark 1:15 demands us sinners to produce faith and repentance. It is impossible for sinful men to meet this demand–and that is the bad news. However, God grants us faith and repentance! Regeneration and sanctification are fruits of the Gospel, but they are not the Gospel. Again, the Gospel is only what Jesus Christ did for His people 2,000 years ago (1 Corinthians 1-4). The Gospel is comprised only of propositions, and a proposition is the meaning of a declarative sentence. Converting Mark 1:15 to standard categorical form does not result in a description of the Gospel. Knowing that Christ demands faith and repentance is not knowing the Gospel, for faith and repentance are the fruits of the Gospel.

  15. Monty L. Collier Says:

    Sorry guys,
    but I was appealing to 1 Corinthians 15:14.

  16. Monty L. Collier Says:

    Sorry, I left out a dash. 1 Corinthians 15:1-4,
    See why we need grace?

  17. Sean Gerety Says:

    John then carefully points out:
    “A few of them are commands taken from Scripture. But none of them is the Gospel. Not everything in the Bible is the Gospel. The Gospel is Good News.”

    The Gospel is good news which Jesus commands all men to believe. NOTHING in John’s piece controverts this fact. You have imputed your failure to understand the distinction between imperatives and propositions to John.

    But wait, that command to repent wasn’t that taken from Mark 1:15? It sure was, and it is not the Gospel.

    Of course it’s not the Gospel. It’s a command to believe the Gospel. Can’t you see the difference?

    You see, God’s commands are directed to us, and they demand something from us. If you don’t produce what the command demands, then you will be condemned.

    Wrong. If you don’t do as your commanded by God you are condemned. That much is true. Whether or not you can “produce” that which is require is irrelevant and IS an example of trying to infer something in the indicative from something written in the imperative. You are making the exact same error you are trying to avoid.

    It is that simple. The Gospel, on the other hand, doesn’t demand anything from us. The Gospel is unconditional.

    Again,you confuse the Gospel with the command to believe it. Apples and oranges, yet your persist on making fruit punch.

    The command found in Mark 1:15 demands us sinners to produce faith and repentance.

    Wrong again. The command just tells us what all men everywhere ought to do. It doesn’t demand sinners produce belief. It tells them what they ought to do and that is to believe. Whether a person can believe is something irrelevant to the command given. You can’t infer anything from something written in the imperative. Why is this hard for you to understand Monty?

    It is impossible for sinful men to meet this demand–and that is the bad news. However, God grants us faith and repentance! Regeneration and sanctification are fruits of the Gospel,

    Wrong again. Belief in the Gospel is the result of regeneration. We’re not regenerated because we believe the Gospel. That’s Arminanism.

    Again, the Gospel is only what Jesus Christ did for His people 2,000 years ago (1 Corinthians 1-4). The Gospel is comprised only of propositions, and a proposition is the meaning of a declarative sentence.

    Yes, the Gospel consists of propositions which all men everywhere are commanded to believe.

    The denial of the command to believe the Gospel is the central error of the heresy of hyper-Calvinism (not to be confused by what Phil Johnson and his confused ilk thinks is hyper-Calvinism). In your zeal to expose the FV as a false gospel, I’m afraid you are going down another road equally as dangerous.

    Knowing that Christ demands faith and repentance is not knowing the Gospel,

    So what? That God commands we are to believe the good news of His Son ought to be enough.

  18. Roberto G Says:

    Again, in a nutshell, what distinguishes law and gospel is NOT believability. Both the law and gospel can be believed AND are to be believed. They both proceed from God. Law & Gospel are distinguished by their design, content, and effects. I think it’s safe and uncontroversial to say that the reformers and the major reformed confessions located the distinction between Law/Gospel in something entirely different from what your initial sketch of the sorites you produced. Theologically, something from the Bible is considered law if through obedience to it we would find justification or by disobedience, we would find ourselves condemned; and the gospel is made up of the the story of redemption planned by God, procured by the Son, and applied to all who believe. It is, essentially, the means of justification (is it not?) that distinguishes law and gospel.

  19. Paul Riemann Says:

    This is a semantical argument that is not at all unimportant. Perhaps there is some arguing past one another going on here. However, this distinction seems vital to me.

    C.F.W. Walther said:

    “Rom. 4, 16 the apostle tells us: Therefore it [righteousness] is of faith that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the Law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all.
    Faith is demanded of us, not in order that there might be at least some little work that we are to do, as otherwise there would be no difference between those who go to hell and those who go to heaven. No; righteousness is of faith in order that it may be of grace. Both statements are identical. When I say: “A person becomes righteous in the sight of God by faith,” I mean to say: “He becomes righteous gratuitously, by grace, by God’s making righteousness a gift to him.” Nothing is demanded of the person; he is only told: “Stretch out your hand, and you have it.” Just that is what faith is — reaching out the hand. Suppose a person had never heard a word concerning faith and, on being told the Gospel, would rejoice, accept it, put his confidence in it, and draw comfort from it, that person would have the true, genuine faith, although he may not have heard a word concerning faith.

    No Gospel element, then, must be mingled with the Law. Any one expounding the Law shamefully perverts it by injecting into it grace, the grace, lovingkindness, and patience of God, who forgives sin. He acts like a sick-nurse, who fetches sugar to sweeten the bitter medicine, which the patient dislikes. What is the result? Why, the medicine does not take effect, and the patient remains feverish. In order that it might retain its strength the medicine should not have been sweetened. A preacher must proclaim the Law in such a manner that there remains in it nothing pleasant to lost and condemned sinners. Every sweet ingredient injected into the Law is poison; it renders this heavenly medicine ineffective, neutralizes its operation.”
    (C.F.W. Walther: Law and Gospel – Tenth Evening Lecture, November 28, 1884)

    Some Calvinists will respond to such a quote by saying: “But wait, Walther was a Lutheran”!

    Yes, he was. However, Calvin also spoke to this issue. He said:

    “For Paul often means by the term “law” the rule of righteous living by which God requires of us what is his own, giving us no hope of life unless we completely obey him, and adding on the other hand a curse if we deviate even in the slightest degree. This Paul does when he contends that we are pleasing to God through grace and are accounted righteous through his pardon, because nowhere is found that observance of the law for which the reward has been promised. Paul therefore justly makes contraries of the righteousness of the law and of that of the gospel” [Romans 3:21 ff.; Galatians 3:10 ff.; etc.] (Institutes, 2.9.4).

    Theodore Beza remarked on the subject:

    “We divide this Word into two principal parts or kinds: the one is called the ‘Law,’ the other the ‘Gospel.’ For all the rest can be gathered under the one or other of these two headings…Ignorance of this distinction between Law and Gospel is one of the principal sources of the abuses which corrupted and still corrupt Christianity” (The Christian Faith, 1558).

    Some serious food for thought gentlemen.

    Sean wrote:

    “Nowhere in the entire discussion does Robbins deny that the Gospel INCLUDES the command to repent and believe. Which MAKES SENSE for if he did he would be contradicting the words of Jesus in Mark 1:15 saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.”
    (emphasis my own)

    Sean responding to Monty then wrote:

    Monty – But wait, that command to repent wasn’t that taken from Mark 1:15? It sure was, and it is not the Gospel.

    Sean – Of course it’s NOT the Gospel. It’s a COMMAND TO BELIEVE the Gospel. Can’t you see the difference?
    (emphasis my own)

    Sean, which is it? Does the gospel contain commands or not? I would expect such contradictions in close proximity from a Van Tilian, but not a committed Clarkian. You’re far too sharp a logician to make such a mistake.

    If the gospel includes commands to DO anything it ceases to be “good news”. Paul clearly taught that the primary purpose of the law is to condemn us and leave us in despair because we CANNOT fulfill it. It then drives us to Christ (Gal. 3:24). Only then will we be prepared to hear the good news of what Christ has done for His people. DOING what we couldn’t. Which is why believing the gospel–though a command–is a gift of God’s grace given to us through the work of Christ on our behalf.

  20. Paul Riemann Says:

    (Sean, I’m not sure if that last post went through. It may have been too long with all the quotes. If so, then please just post this one. Thanks, Paul)

    Sean wrote:

    “Nowhere in the entire discussion does Robbins deny that the Gospel INCLUDES the command to repent and believe. Which MAKES SENSE for if he did he would be contradicting the words of Jesus in Mark 1:15 saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.”
    (emphasis my own)

    Sean responding to Monty then wrote:

    Monty – But wait, that command to repent wasn’t that taken from Mark 1:15? It sure was, and it is not the Gospel.

    Sean – Of course it’s NOT the Gospel. It’s a COMMAND TO BELIEVE the Gospel. Can’t you see the difference?
    (emphasis my own)

    Sean, which is it? Does the gospel contain commands or not? I would expect such contradictions in close proximity from a Van Tilian, but not a committed Clarkian. You’re far too sharp a logician to make such a mistake.

    If the gospel includes commands to DO anything it ceases to be “good news”. Paul clearly taught that the primary purpose of the law is to condemn us and leave us in despair because we CANNOT fulfill it. It then drives us to Christ (Gal. 3:24). Only then will we be prepared to hear the good news of what Christ has done for His people. DOING what we couldn’t. Which is why believing the gospel–though a command–is a gift of God’s grace given to us through the work of Christ on our behalf.

  21. Paul Riemann Says:

    Sean wrote:

    “The denial of the command to believe the Gospel is the central error of the heresy of hyper-Calvinism (not to be confused by what Phil Johnson and his confused ilk thinks is hyper-Calvinism). In your zeal to expose the FV as a false gospel, I’m afraid you are going down another road equally as dangerous.”

    I nowhere recall Monty denying that the scripture commands that we believe the gospel. The argument is still whether or not the command to believe the gospel is the gospel ITSELF. Or, is that command “law”?

    As Monty has pointed out, the command to believe the gospel doesn’t tell us what the gospel is. The gospel is always expressed as indicatives, never imperatives.

  22. Sean Gerety Says:

    Paul, sorry for the lag, but for some reason your posts ended up in the spam cue. You wrote:

    If the gospel includes commands to DO anything it ceases to be “good news”.

    Are all men required to believe the good news? If you answer yes, then the Gospel message includes the command to believe. If you don’t like the word “includes,” what other word would you suggest I use?

    I nowhere recall Monty denying that the scripture commands that we believe the gospel. As Monty has pointed out, the command to believe the gospel doesn’t tell us what the gospel is. The gospel is always expressed as indicatives, never imperatives.

    I honestly don’t know how else to understand Monty when he said the command to repent and believe in Mark 1 is law and not Gospel? The command is not to do the law, but to believe the Gospel. His argument against the FV above hangs on their statement that the Gospel can be disobeyed. Well, it can be. If they argue that men are commanded to repent and believe the Gospel message (which you say Monty does not deny), then when men don’t do as they are commanded they are being disobedient. The problem is, Monty claims that for the FV men the Gospel is set of “commands” that are to be obeyed, but that is not what their statement says, at least not explicitly, and not in the section he cites. My point is that the FV men can easily overcome Monty’s argument.

    I fully agree with Monty that the Law/Gospel distinction is obliterated in the FV, it’s just that I don’t think he made the case in his video.

  23. Roger Mann Says:

    I nowhere recall Monty denying that the scripture commands that we believe the gospel. The argument is still whether or not the command to believe the gospel is the gospel ITSELF. Or, is that command “law”?

    Since Paul explicitly teaches that unbelievers “do not obey the gospel” (2 Thessalonians 1:8), and that “obeying” the gospel is equivalent to “believing” the gospel (Romans 10:16), then it follows that obeying the command to believe is distinct from the gospel itself.

    But that doesn’t make the command to believe “law” or believing itself a “work” in the proper legal sense (i.e., viewed as a covenant of works) — “Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt” (Romans 4:4). Rather, the requirement to believe the gospel is an aspect of the covenant of grace (see WCF 7.3), and is completely opposed to the legal principle of the covenant of works — “Therefore it is of faith that it might be according to grace” (Romans 4:16). Thus, while we “obey” God’s command when we believe the gospel, obeying God’s command to believe does not “earn” or “merit” justification as perfectly obeying the law would have done under the covenant of works. It was Jesus’ obedience to the law alone that “merited” justification for us.

  24. Monty L. Collier Says:

    Sean,
    Here is a section from the paper I’m working on concerning the Law / Gospel Distinction. Pay attention to the words I quote from Dr. Robbins. It is crystal clear that John identified the Gospel as only indicative, never imperative. Here’s the section:

    1. One of the easiest ways to distinguish the Law from the Gospel is by being able to distinguish imperative sentences from indicative sentences. It is important to remember that there are different types of sentences found in the Bible. Dr. Gordon H. Clark reminded us of this important point when he wrote, “The Bible–aside from questions and commands–consists of true statements that men can know” (God’s Hammer, 2, page 26). Notice that declarative statements can be true or false, for declarative statements express propositions. Dr. John W. Robbins also correctly wrote, “ A proposition is the meaning of a declarative sentence. Interrogative, imperative, and exclamatory sentences do not express propositions” (The Trinity Review, February/March 2005). Again we read from Dr. Robbins, “Unless one starts with propositions (that is, declarative sentences), one can arrive at no truth whatsoever. Propositions – and truth is always propositional – can come only from propositions” (The Trinity Review, September / October, 2007).

    Questions (interrogative statements) and commands (imperative statements) cannot be true or false, so they cannot be believed or disbelieved. Questions and commands both make demands from us, whereas declarative remarks describe a subject to us. A question demands an answer, while a command demands obedience. For example, The Bible says, “Thou shalt not kill. Thou shalt not commit adultery. Thou shalt not steal. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor” (Exodus 20:13-16). These four sentences are in the imperative mood: they are commands. They tell us what we should or should not do. On the other hand, the Gospel is always in the indicative mood. The Bible says, “For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures; And that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures” (1 Corinthians 15:3-4). This is Gospel. Notice these two verses do not tell us what we should or should not do; these two verses demand nothing from us; but they simply explain to us what Jesus Christ did for us. The Gospel is the Good News. What Jesus Christ did for us is the Good News. News is always found in the indicative mood, never the imperative mood, and never in the interrogative mood. Good grammar is an essential part of Christianity. In fact, Christianity may be defined as the logical, grammatical, contextual, and literal interpretation of the Bible alone.

    Dr. John W. Robbins understood the imperative nature of the Law and the indicative nature of the Gospel. In an article titled “What Is The Gospel?,” Dr Robbins enumerated some false gospels, which are very popular today. He wrote:

    “The Gospel is not “Repent.”
    “The Gospel is not “Put Jesus on the throne of your life.”
    “The Gospel is not “Trust Jesus.”
    “The Gospel is not “Draw nigh unto God.”
    (The Trinity Review, March /April 1988)

    Notice how this selection of false gospels all appear in the imperative mood. Dr. Robbins commented on the above examples saying: “A few of them are commands taken from Scripture. But none of them is the Gospel. Not everything in the Bible is the Gospel. The Gospel is Good News” (The Trinity Review, March / April 1999). Not even the command to trust in Jesus is the Gospel, for it tells us what we ought to do, not what Jesus did for us. Dr. Robbins concluded this article by stating:

    But the Gospel is neither accounts of our personal experiences nor commands that we are to obey…The Gospel is the Good News of what Christ did for his people 2,000 years ago…The Gospel is propositions about historical events that happened wholly outside of us. It has consequences and implications for us today.
    (The Trinity Review, March / April 1988–emphasis mine)

    The Law / Gospel Distinction is again demonstrated in another article by Dr. John W. Robbins titled “The Means Of Sanctification.” Dr. Robbins wrote, “When writing to the Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians, for instance, the apostle first reminds them of the Gospel (the indicative), and on that basis he lays down the law (the imperative) as a rule of life for the believing community” (Against The Churches: The Trinity Review, 1989-1998, 142, page 388). Notice how Dr. Robbins was careful to point out the indicative nature of the Gospel, while teaching the imperative nature of the Law: this is an essential part of distinguishing and separating the Gospel. In Dr. Robbins’ article titled “Healing The Mortal Wound,” we read the following:

    When God justifies a person, he does not say, “Let this man be righteous”; he does not speak in the imperative mood; he does not give a command to anyone or anything. In justification, God declares the righteousness of the sinner on the basis of the substitution of his only legal representative, Jesus Christ; God speaks in the indicative mood; he speaks in declarative, not imperative sentences…In justification, God the Judge, not God the creator, declares–not commands.
    (Against The Churches: The Trinity Review, 1989-1998, 146, page 422)

    Hope that helps,
    Monty

  25. Roberto G Says:

    Monty was motivated to share his argument about the distinction between law/gospel because of the Robbins quote concerning knowledge. Sean granted that that commands in Scripture are distinct from the propositions of the gospel. However, once converted to propositions, the commands of scripture are believable in the same sense that any propositions, including the gospel, are believable. The unstated reason in this is because God’s commands are intelligible, including the commands to believe the gospel. Anything intelligible is capable of being believed.
    Robbins’ quote was not addressing the issue of justification or the law/gospel distinction. It was addressing knowledge, knowledge of the truth, knowledge of God, etc.
    Monty asked if his argument that the gospel is believable while law is not believable correctly stated the distinction between law/gospel. The answer has to be, “no”, because although the command to believe the gospel is distinct from the gospel itself, the commands are indeed intelligible, believable, and it is much better (Biblical) to locate the distinction between law/gospel in something else.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: