Law and Gospel- Response to Brian Borgman part 2

Welcome to No Compromise Radio Ministry. Oh yeah, I know, I'm glad to be back, too. Thanks for the support. Back today in the studio with my friend and colleague, Austin Hobbs. Austin, I saw this summer in my iPhone photo, you know, this day 20 years ago or whatever, you with things that go bump in the church and sexual fidelity.

I think you were in college, Texas A &M, and sent me a picture.

That's right, that was during COVID, during 2020, the COVID era.

Okay, how did you first start listening to No Compromise Radio back in the day?

Well, you know, I think you were just, like, adjacent to other podcasts I listened to, like The White Horsin, Theocast back in the day. And I think I just, I think I saw Pat, I was just seeing you on Twitter.

And so I thought, I'm just going to take a listen to this. It's like, oh, wow, I really like this. Because, also, John Vaughnville. I mean, there's a lot of people who went to Master Seminary, then kind of went more covenant theology, law gospel, assurance-based, marrow men.

So I just kind of got in that stream of podcasts, I guess. And just found you, and off it went.

Well, one of the things I love about Master Seminary graduates, if you can show them from the Bible what you're talking about, they believe it. And so it's like, we're going to trust what the Bible teaches.

And, yeah, I think probably when you first started listening, I wasn't as covenantal, I wasn't as law gospel. But with S. Lewis Johnson's influence and Jerry Bridges, I think I was on my way. Do you think you started listening in 2015?

When?

I mean, definitely. I think college, it would have been 2017 to 2021. So probably you at 2018, 2019.

Okay, so I was on my way. I was preaching through Hebrews. I had cancer, went through the whole assurance thing. So, I think for Pat Abendroth, it was studying the doctrine of justification, led him down the proverbial rabbit hole of law gospel, covenant theology, etc.

Objective and Subjective Assurance of Salvation

For me, I think it was as I was studying assurance that it took me down that. Because the assurance—and this leads us into our topic today, which is kind of part two with this branch of Reformed Baptists that I think are a little more law-heavy, against law gospel.

Brian Borgman, Mark Chansky, is that his name? I don't know. I'll have to pull it up. But the assurance of salvation, the objective side and the subjective side. Because I was really focused on the subjective side, and I think maybe to use the syllogism, Austin, Christians rejoice, I rejoice, I'm a Christian type of thing.

But then realizing, wait a second, the primacy of assurance has to be who God is and what He's done in Christ Jesus. That's the objective assurance, the object of our faith, who Jesus is, His person, and as Westminster Sanders talked about, His promises.

And then, of course, secondarily and importantly, there are fruits and evidences in our lives that the Spirit of God is doing in our lives. And so we say, oh, 2 Peter chapter 1, we have these things in our lives, and we wish we had them more, but these are subjective signs of assurance.

So I think that's probably around 2014, 15, when all that stuff was happening in my mind. Oh, wow. Okay. Great. And then probably they think I'm going to become Paedo-Baptist. I remember telling Scott Clark, I said, Scott, and I just saw him a couple weeks ago, I didn't say this then, but a couple years ago, Scott, I'm never going to become a Presbyterian.

He said, I know, but you don't think like a Baptist. Well, I guess I think like a Baptist on who to baptize and how. Sure. Yeah. So today on the show, we're going to continue with our previous podcast when we talked about Brian Borgman did a lecture on law gospel and was, for the most part, warning against it.

And Justin Perdue wrote a little response, Law Gospels in the News with Reformed Baptist, with Presbyterians Always. And so today, part two, Law Gospel, Brian Borgman, Justin Perdue, and Austin Hobbs.

Hey, how's it going? Do you ever want to write a book?

Maybe one day, you know, we'll see how that goes. But I just want to focus on being here at the church and ministry, and maybe we'll have a kid soon. I don't know. We'll see.

Okay. Well, I tell younger people, don't write books till your kids are a little older. Spend time with your wife and children. And just as a reflection, Austin, I mean, I've written some books, and it's been kind of a good process, and you see it's almost like a baby being born.

There's finally a delivery and the birth, and they ship them and all that stuff. But compared to the joy I have in my adult children, for adult children who are born again, Haley, Luke, Maddie, and Gracie, I mean, there's nothing like it.

So, investment, time, spending time with your wife and children, it's better than any kind of book. All right. So, back to the point again. Summary of what we said yesterday's show, which was about 20 minutes ago.

Law-Gospel Preaching and Christian Obedience

How would you summarize what we've said? Yeah. So, we're just going to summarize that law gospel preaching doesn't have to be antinomian. It doesn't have to discourage living the Christian life. But really, if we really distinguish between the first use of law, the law that condemns, versus the law that guides you, the difference really is the gospel.

And the gospel frees us from condemnation and frees us to obey the Lord. And it frees us and also empowers us to obey Christ because we've been crucified with Christ, crucified the power of sin in our lives and has raised us to walk in newness of life.

And it's really important we have to understand as we preach the Bible that all these commands have a context. And that context ultimately is the resurrection of Jesus. So, we have to preach like Jesus has been raised from the dead.

We have to live like he has been raised from the dead and that he has saved us. So, of course, we want to sympathize with some of the things that Brian Borgman is worried about. We don't want to be denying the law as a guide for Christians.

We don't want to have a defeatist view of sanctification. But it has to be rooted in the fact that the gospel is different from the law, and the gospel is what empowers and empowers us to keep the law.

The Third Use of the Law in Confessional Preaching

So, on a positive note, I think Borgman's right when he would say, and other people are right as they criticize law gospel, hey, you guys believe in the third use of the law, but you don't talk about it much.

That is to say, you kind of act almost like a cryptolutheran where, yes, you have this guide, this use of the law that says, okay, honor the Lord and obey, but you don't talk about it a bunch. Can you think of anybody that you know?

I mean, literally, anybody that you know, Austin, who believes in law gospel, that doesn't regularly and often preach, this is God's law, and in light of who you are in Christ and your ability to obey these things, out of gratitude, obey.

Can you think of anybody who might be in our circles, a Thulian, that didn't talk much about the third use of the law?

Well, I think if you're in a more confessional context, like a confessional Presbyterian or a confessional Baptist, we're usually pretty good at law gospel. I mean, maybe you have some rogue podcaster who is a lay person who just gets into law gospel, maybe is zealous and may not understand.

But I think for the most part, Mike, people in our circles who are confessional, who are qualified to teach and preach, they're going to get this right. They're going to emphasize the third use of the law in light of the gospel.

So I kind of was setting you up, Austin. The answer to the question is, I can't think of one. People are saying, well, you know what, you believe in law gospel, third use of the law is minimized, especially in our circles, Austin, where we preach verse by verse, right?

Where it's, okay, if you're preaching verse by verse, then you'll talk about who you are in Christ, Ephesians chapters 1, 2, and 3, and then walk in a manner worthy of your calling in chapters 4, 5, and 6, where we have most of the imperatives in Ephesians.

I know there's one in 2 .11 or 2 .12. But when you're preaching verse by verse, aren't you preaching the whole counsel of God? And when you come to something that's law or gospel, or if you want to use grammar, indicative, imperative, don't we end up preaching those for all they're worth?

Oh, amen, that's right. So I can't think of one person who minimizes third use of the law preaching who calls themselves a law gospel preacher. I can't think of one. And if we could take our sermons here at Bethlehem Bible Church and Sunday Schools and just put them into some kind of aggregator, I think you would see regularly— and even this last Sunday, as we talked about last show— there's no command to encourage people in Luke chapter 13.

But I wanted to say, in light of Jesus the encourager, don't you think we should encourage more often? Because Jesus said through Paul to the Thessalonians— I almost went into VeggieTale mode. Thessalupians, I think they called it on VeggieTales.

That we should encourage one another? It just naturally comes out of study. And when I'm reading that Jesus encouraged the disciples, and I'm thinking, you know, I'm so thankful for Jesus the encourager.

You've encouraged my soul, Lord. We live in an unrepentant world. Is the church really growing? Are your promises true? Yes, they are. The church is growing. And then that makes me say thank you, and then that makes me want to encourage other people.

That's right. For the record, I can't think of one person who has glommed onto law gospel, except maybe, like you said, a rogue podcaster somewhere, who minimizes holy living, who minimizes godliness, who minimizes mortification, vivification, under the realm of sanctification.

I can't think of one. So I think that's kind of a false canard.

Oh yeah, for sure, for sure. I mean, we have to stay with our confessional context and stay within the bounds of the church. I think if you have elders around you who are checking you and encouraging you, that you're going to stay within the realm of orthodoxy here.

Redemptive-Historical Preaching and the Law-Gospel Distinction

So another thing Borgman says, and I don't know how to articulate this, but if you believe in law gospel, how can you then be a redemptive historical preacher? I think he'd agree, redemptive historical is right, but then doesn't he say something like, well, if you're law gospel, then that subsumes or overrides redemptive historical.

So my question to you, Austin, is—I almost call you Dawson, because that's my new son-in-law's name, almost new son-in-law— can you have the theology of law gospel and still be a redemptive historical preacher?

Oh, for sure, Mike, I think you certainly can, because as we see the progression of the biblical storyline, the law and the gospel is going to appear, because at the very beginning we have the covenant of works, that God promises eternal life to Adam if he obeys him, and he breaks that, he is condemned, he is cursed.

But then the next turning point in history is that God promises salvation, that he is going to put enmity between the offspring of the woman and the offspring of the serpent, and the offspring of the woman is going to crush the head of the serpent.

That's gospel. That is not something you should do or else you'll die, but it's something that the seed of the woman will do, and he will save. And then also you get to Abraham, and God makes that unconditional promise that he will give him the land, and he'll make his descent as numerous as the stars in the sky, and the sand in the seashore.

Then we get to the Mosaic Covenant, when God promises, hey, you'll have life on the land, but if you break it, you'll be kicked out of the land. And so that's a law. And the Ten Commandments is law. But then we get, after they're kicked out of the land, they're cursed, God promises the restoration from exile.

And God's promise to Israel to be restored from exile, that's the gospel according to the Old Testament. That's where you get the Greek word for gospel at 1st Isaiah. And that gospel is God will restore his people.

And we see that in the New Testament, and Jesus, he has restored his people, he has brought forth a new exodus by his death on the cross, he has redeemed us from sin, that's gospel. So you really can't escape the law gospel hermeneutic, or that law gospel distinction as you work through scripture.

So it's definitely a category you need. Of course, I mean, when you read through a description in Numbers, like how there's like 14 ,000 donkeys, that's not law or gospel, it's just a description. But it's an extremely important category to have as you read scripture.

Because when you get to the rich, young ruler, is sell everything you have the gospel, or is it the law? And we'd say it's the gospel. If you would be perfect, sell everything you have. And Jesus says that's law.

Well, Austin, when I'm thinking about what you just said, don't you think redemptive historical and law gospel, don't you think they go together? I mean, I think Borgman is trying to say, if you have one, you can't have the other.

And of course, I want redemptive historical. But I do that with law gospel. That helps me understand, what does God require? Law. What does God provide? Our promise. Gospel. Don't we see that in redemptive historical?

In the history of redemption, we see sin, breaking of the law, etc., first use broken. And then we see here how God has provided. And whether it's the animal skin, Adam should have died physically, and here the animal dies instead.

We have the scapegoat and the animal that dies in the Day of Atonement. We have the lamb's blood put over the doorpost in Exodus 12 and Passover. All that I can talk about law gospel, because there's gospel truths there of what God has provided.

I think they are not competing. I think they work hand in hand. They go to both. As a matter of fact, I don't know many people who are redemptive historical who aren't law gospel and vice versa. Have you met one?

Name me one person that's law gospel that doesn't do redemptive historical preaching. I can't think of any people.

That's really important because at the very beginning, there is the covenant of works. And after the covenant of works is broken, all throughout history, there is this administration of the covenant of grace to fix what was broken in the covenant of works and to bring us to Adam's destiny.

So really the whole storyline of Scripture is how do we get back, not only just get back to the garden, but to attain Adam's first promise, that first goal of eternal life in the presence of God. That's gospel.

That's the gospel versus the law right there.

Interpreting Scripture Through Law, Gospel, and the Analogy of Faith

What do you do when people say, you know what, we need to read the Bible in a law gospel way. And what about this verse? This verse, how would you characterize this? What about this verse? Taking atomistic verses and saying, you law gospel guys need to look at this as either law or gospel.

Tell me why you think that's wrong and why it's kind of boiling things down and reducing them to minimums that we don't have to reduce them to.

Right, right. I think for us, the law gospel distinction, it's a very helpful category as we interpret Scripture. And so some things will just inevitably fall under law or gospel. So I actually saw online this morning, this person said, well, is Psalm 1 law or gospel?

Well, I mean, maybe we can use that as an example. What is Psalm 1? Blessed are those whose delight is in the law of the Lord. So I actually got to preach that sermon on Psalm 1 this summer. And really Psalm 1, the law there is Torah.

It's really referring to God's instruction, maybe specifically in the first five books of the Bible, the Torah, the books of Moses. And the books of Moses, they have both law and gospel. That there is, in the Ten Commandments, God's righteous requirement.

But also there's a promise of a king coming from Abraham's line to bless all nations. And that king is going to obey the Torah, write the law, and he's going to be obedient for the people. So there's law and gospel.

So if you want to be blessed, yeah, you have to trust the ultimate instruction of Torah, which is that ultimately the Messiah is coming. He is king. He's going to bless all nations. And from that, we do obey the law.

We obey in light of that. We obey because of that. And we experience true blessing. So, yeah, there's law and gospel. But how do we teach that third use of law there? It's only because the Messiah will come to be that righteous man, to accomplish God's purposes.

And we now live in light of that fulfillment in Jesus Christ.

The Beatitudes, Suffering, and the Inauguration of the Kingdom

Austin, somebody said to me, a friend said, serious question, blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Is that law or gospel? And so, you know, it's almost the wrong question to ask, is it law or gospel?

And instead you say to yourself, okay, what's gone on in Matthew 1, 2, 3, 4, and now in 5? What is Jesus' purpose of the Beatitudes, of the Sermon on the Mount? Does Jesus expose sin or announce his promise?

What's going on there? I'm not looking necessarily for indicative, imperative, grammatical things. I'm looking for something else. What would you say that I'm looking for when I look at a verse like that?

Well, I mean, really looking for, I mean, how is this, again, how is this fitting into this overall plotline of how God is going to redeem his people? And in that passage, you know, Jesus, when he begins the Sermon on the Mount, he's actually subverting expectations.

He says, blessed are those who are poor in spirit. The poor in spirit, those people who suffer, how can they be blessed? How can their, it's basically an age-long question in the Old Testament, how can the righteous suffer?

So the Jews are expecting, like, this is, they know the kingdom has come. We're going to conquer Rome. There's going to be no more being poor in spirit. There's going to be no more mourning. We're going to be rejoicing.

We're going to conquer. We're going to win. But Jesus subverts that, saying, no, blessed are those who are poor in spirit. I can't remember what the ground is like for those in the kingdom. They will inherit the earth or for them to belong to the kingdom of God.

So in some way, like, Jesus, he's not saying, well, go be poor in spirit, and therefore this will belong to you. He's like, no, the fact of living in a fallen world and being part of God's people is that, I mean, you don't have to pursue suffering.

It will find you. And so Jesus, he's announcing that these people, these are blessed. They will experience the beginning and inauguration of the kingdom of God, and they will ultimately inherit the earth.

The Analogy of Faith and Theological Presuppositions

I saw on Twitter a guy said, his name is Braylon, the law gospel stuff becomes silly when you read sermons from our forefathers. They're just preaching the text. If the distinction is relevant, they may bring it up, but usually that's not the case.

Do you think that's true that our forefathers, I don't know who he means by forefathers, but do you think our forefathers just preached the text and they never thought through a law gospel grid?

I mean, they always thought through a law gospel grid because they're Protestants. Of course, not every sermon was about the law gospel distinction, of course, but that's always been an important consideration as they came to the text.

And plus also, I mean, our forefathers, no one's perfect. Maybe they got it wrong. I mean, that's all people. We're all sinful. But I mean, the early Protestants, like John Calvin, they firmly believe in the law gospel distinction, and they practice it and pastor people in light of that.

I can't know for sure, obviously, because I can't read motives or anything, and Twitter is just Twitter. I mean, X is X. But when they say they're just preaching the text, it almost sounds like he's a biblicist in our modern negative way of talking about biblicism, where it's just like, well, whatever the text says, it says.

But there are grids. There are things that we have in our mind when we approach the text. So let's not use law gospel for a second, but let's look at the analogy of faith. Let's look at the analogy of Scripture.

When we come to a text, we're coming to the text with a lot of information. It's just not new to Scripture. It's just not naked. It's just not me and that, the Bible. I mean, when you come to Genesis 1 -1, Austin, in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

Do you think to yourself, Triune God created the heavens and the earth? I do, yeah. Yeah, but there's nothing prior to that for you to say that. So how can you think Yahweh the Father, Yahweh the Son, Yahweh the Spirit, Elohim the Father, Elohim the Spirit, Elohim the Son?

How can you think Trinitarianly when we don't get any hints of Trinity until we get down to 26 or 28 of the same chapter?

Right, we read that in a lot of the whole of Scripture, especially John 1, which says in the beginning there is the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

We're getting into other weeds here, but I think it's Kaiser who said you can't— and Barcelos does a good job of exposing Kaiser—. You can't look at anything in Scripture without an antecedent presence or mention, or you have to have something

Mean, we don't even know— we're not even told it's sin in Genesis 3 until later. We don't think we're even told that it's Satan until later, are we not? Yeah, right.

It's like, we all come to the text with some theological beliefs. I mean, once you see something in Scripture, you can't unsee that, and you can't somehow not apply that in your interpretation of the text.

So maybe a lot of these people love Calvinism, and I'm sure all of them, if they're Calvinists, they will read some objections that Arminians bring from the text in light of their beliefs. They'll say, well, in light of these other texts, we can affirm this belief, and so we can understand this text in light of the more clear passages.

So everyone does this. So if you're saying that you are purely objective, and you purely are just following the text, and you have no beliefs guiding you as you approach each verse, that's just a fantasy.

Whether the Gospel Can Be Obeyed

Mike Ebendroth with Austin Hobbs today talking about law gospel in light of Brian Borgman's lecture and internet discussions and Justin Perdue's follow-up. Justin also noticed this as Borgman talked about, hey, see you law gospel guys, this doesn't work out, because can the gospel be obeyed?

You have to obey the gospel. That's what the text says. So here's the grammar, obey law gospel, so you obey the gospel. What about that? Can you obey the gospel?

Does that make this all wrong? Well, again, I think this goes back to a previous episode we had about how the law and gospel can be broadly defined and strictly defined. And sometimes in the New Testament, especially in Paul, we get this idea that the gospel is about the broad overall message of the apostles about Jesus and his mission and what God requires of people.

It's more of a broad message, essentially. So yeah, in that sense, the whole message of Christianity involves repentance and faith, and that's right. But repentance and faith is not the crucifixion of Christ.

It is not the resurrection of Christ. It's not his act of obedience. It's not his incarnation. You don't obey the incarnation. You don't obey the act of obedience of Christ. You don't obey the resurrection.

But in light of that, in light of all these things, when Paul calls you to repent and believe, that's the command. You're called to repent and believe in light of the gospel.

Well, without getting into legal imperatives and gospel imperatives, to obey the gospel is to believe, right? That's right. This is what God has done in Christ Jesus, person, promises, etc. And so you are to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.

You're to rest in him. You're to accept him. You're to receive him. Do we believe in obeying the gospel? Of course. That means to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. Amen. All right. We've got a little bit of time left.

Gospel Assurance and the Grounds of Christian Certainty

What do you think—I don't know if Borgman addressed it, but others have online— there's a little pushback with Law Gospel stuff regarding assurance. And we talked a little bit about this at the last show, but I want to talk about it again, and probably somebody should write a book, a collection of essays called Gospel Assurance.

That'd probably be good. The root word, assure, is sure. So how can you be sure of your salvation? Austin, work through that a little bit with law, using law to be sure, and then gospel truths to be sure, and where they both fit in if we just think about do and done through the lens of assurance.

Right, right, for sure.

So the Confession of Faith lays out three reasons about how— or three ways Christians can be assured, and it says the deepest way a Christian is assured of his salvation is ultimately the promises of God in Scripture.

So that's gospel. That is like, Jesus, he has died for all of your sins. There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. So if I'm in Christ Jesus, then there is no condemnation for me.

If I believe, then I am saved. I belong to him forever. As Paul says, I write to you, you little children, so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ, the righteous.

He is the propitiation for our sins. So if we believe that, that belongs to us. That is the promise of God to us, and we can believe that and be assured of that. Of course, there's other foundations. Like you maybe mentioned before about the practical syllogism, that only true believers produce the fruit of the Spirit.

I produce the fruit of the Spirit, therefore I'm a true believer. That's supposed to bolster your assurance. Of course, our keeping the law, that can certainly strengthen our assurance because that reminds us that the Holy Spirit is living inside of us.

Those good works don't come from us. They come from the Holy Spirit. So even that, the work of the Spirit in our lives, that is gospel. So again, even when you find assurance in you keeping the third use of the law, it points back to the fact that any desire for obedience, any working of that comes from a God who is both in you, both to will and to work, for His good pleasure.

So even though you're obeying third use of the law, that's because of the gospel, duplex gratia, that power for sanctification. And finally, it's the fact that we are sons of God, that the Holy Spirit testifies with our spirit that we are indeed, we do indeed belong to the Father and that we will inherit the whole new creation.

That's the work of the Spirit in our hearts, and that's a result of, again, gospel.

Thanks, Austin. Good description and analysis. For those who are listening that want to read more on law gospel, Modern Day Books, Pat Habendroth and Hicks will have their books on law gospel. I wrote a little primer on it that probably needs to be expanded, but I think it'll be a good intro.

You can read other books on law gospel by John Cahoon. It doesn't look like K-A-H-O-O-N, but it's John Cahoon. I'm trying to think of other books on law gospel. How about Redemptive Historical Preaching?

Any good books on that besides Dennis Johnson's Hymn We Proclaim?

I can't think of anything on top of my mind, but that's a great book. I loved reading that book in college, so that's great. Also, there's Graham's Goldsworthy. He has a great biblical theology on the Bible, so he's a really great resource.

Meredith Klein, if you want to get in the weeds there.

The Convergence of Biblical Theology, Covenant Theology, and Law-Gospel Preaching

Isn't this all fascinating, Austin, where you have this convergence of biblical theology and redemptive historical and law gospel and covenantal theology? Even for those who believe in a future for Israel can still believe in the three main covenants.

Do you think there's been a resurgence of many evangelicals who want to study these things?

Yeah, I think so. I think a lot of evangelicals may be wearied with all the moralistic, really practical, but again, moralistic, Christless Christianity. I think Michael Horton had a great book on that.

So they want something deep. They want something that reminds them of who Christ is and the foundation of justification. So that's going to be central, for sure.

Well, to that point, Michael Horton's books will be very helpful. Scott Clark, if you go to heidelblog .net and type in law gospel, I think you'll get a lot of stuff there. Austin, thanks for being on the show again.

It's good to talk about these things. Law do, gospel done.