Does the Gospel contain warnings? (With Austin Hobbs)

Law and Gospel in Their Strict and Broad Senses

Welcome to No Compromise Radio Ministry. I almost could not say No Compromise. I had to take care of a lot of things this morning, but I didn't have to talk, so this is like one of the first sentences uttered.

Let me try that again. Welcome to No Compromise Radio Ministry. And in house today, in studio, is our resident theologian, Austin Hobbs. Welcome. Thank you, Mike. I'm happy to be here. It's interesting, Austin, we have some churches where you'll look at the staff profile page on the websites, and it'll say elder, assimilation pastor, something like that.

And then sometimes it'll say resident theologian. Like somehow the pastors aren't theologians or something, I don't know. But if I do have a question about things, I sometimes ask you because you're sharp, you've still kind of got that seminary analysis thing going on, and so I defer to sometimes your theological acumen.

Well, thank you, Mike. I owe it all to RTS, RTS and Jackson.

There you go. What was your decision-making process for going to RTS before we get into the topic today?

Well, you know, I was actually listening to NoCo and to Pat, and I know y 'all really loved Michael Horton, David Van Drunen, R. Scott Clark, J .B. Fesco.

And so you were reading Fesco, Horton, those kind of things.

I was, yeah. I really loved their content and actually visited their seminary during COVID, during March 2020, like as things were closing down, as things were shutting down. So I loved it. I just thought it was kind of far from home from Texas.

Plus, the RTS Jackson, that's about seven hours away. It's drivable. J .B. Fesco moved there, same theology. Plus, I just wanted to get good law gospel, as we're going to talk about today, law gospel distinction, Christ-centered preaching, non-pietistic, encouraging preaching.

Nice. Well, I'm glad you went there. And I think I told you I called up J .B. Fesco and said, I'm thinking about hiring this young man. What do you think? And you know God's providentially good, because in spite of what J .B. said, I hired you anyway.

Oh, no. Today, I want to talk about law and gospel. And my wife would probably say, come on, honey, move on. But in a unique way, or in a different way, there's something that some people call gospel warnings, gospel admonitions.

And I have just read recently Ryan McGraw's chapter in his John Owen book. The book is called Trajectories in Reformed Orthodox Theology. It's a Palgrave Macmillan print. And the chapter four is The Threats of the Gospel, John Owen on What the Law Gospel Distinction is Not.

And so, of course, Austin, we know that if we define the word law as due, that'd be basic, and in a strict sense, that's true. Sometimes Calvin might call the Old Testament law in a general way. He might call Mosaic Covenant law.

So we can use law—I'm losing my voice—even like for Torah, right, the first five books of the Bible. So give me kind of an overview of law in its strict sense.

And general sense. Right, that sounds great. That's a great place to start. So law in its strict sense says due. It's all of God's moral requirements. So what you see in the Ten Commandments, what you see in the two Great Commandments, to love God with all of your heart, soul, mind, and strength, to love your neighbor as yourself, that is law.

And so we can think about that in a strict sense. In more of a general, maybe a general sense, we can think about law as the Old Covenant. You know, very, very often is a law referred to as the Old Covenant in Paul and the rest of the Bible.

Also, we can think about law as maybe an overall era, maybe, like before the work, before Christ. Are you a dispensationalist? Yeah, you know, and that actually caused some issues in the 90s, 80s. So, well, the law was in the Old Testament and the Gospel in the New Testament, therefore there must be no moral requirements.

But then other people came along like, no, there are moral requirements. The Sermon on the Mount commands, so the Gospel must also command then. So there's a little confusion there. So we need to have tight categories here.

We have, you know, the law in itself, you know, strictly speaking, the law as, you know, maybe a covenant, you know, an era, a redemptive history. So we should be very clear about what we mean by law and by Gospel.

The Gospel as Good News and the Work of Christ

Good. So now let's do the same thing when it comes to Gospel. Gospel means good news, glad tidings, something that I think Tyndale would say should make you want to sing and shout, because it's the good news about the promise of the Lord Jesus, His person, His work, sent by the Father, applied by the Spirit of God, etc.

And so Gospel, it means good news. So strictly speaking, there are no commands in the Gospel, there are no threats in the Gospel, this is about who Jesus is, grace incarnate. And then we could use Gospel in other ways that are not so strict.

Matthew, Mark, Luke, John are kind of literature, right? They're called the Gospels. You have sometimes the New Testament called the Gospel. And then there's an administration of the Gospel that we'll talk about in a little bit.

But what do you want to add to that, Austin, in terms of general and strict sense of the word Gospel?

Right, yeah, the Gospel says done. It's all of what Christ has done to earn your salvation, both His perfect life of obedience to the law, but also Him suffering the curse of the law in His crucifixion.

So all that Christ has done, that is Gospel. That's all what Christ has done. So that in a strict sense, maybe in a general sense, I would add, Paul would say that in Romans 2 that this day of judgment is coming, and he says that judgment day is according to my Gospel.

So that just refers to the overall message of Paul and the apostles. So that, of course, will include both law in the strict sense and Gospel in the strict sense. So Gospel.

As an overall message of the apostles. Great. Well, that leads us into today's discussion. Are there warnings in the Gospel? Is it in the administration and the economy of the Gospel? These warnings are found—I had my Bible opened to Romans 2, verse 16, and you just quoted it—on the day when, according to my Gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.

And so, maybe you're going to read that, and you're going to say—I just said gonna, and I corrected myself—maybe you're going to say—do you know who enunciates words almost perfectly in the sense that you need to make sure you enunciate the last consonant or the last vowel, the last letters?

The person that strikes me as the most adept at that is Paul McCartney. And maybe it's his Liverpudlian accent, but he pronounces—and maybe it's because he was a singer, is a singer—you want to say the last—you don't want to just say John Owen.

You want to say John Owen, right? We want to pronounce the end, especially if you're singing or speaking. So I'm not going to say gonna. But that's my Nebraska education. I told you I went to Masters Elementary School in Omaha, Nebraska, along with my brother, but I prefer not to get my brother involved in this situation.

So, warnings. You read this passage and you think, well, I've been taught by theologians that it's due, law, done, gospel, good news about Jesus, but now there's judgment here. God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus, and this is according to the gospel.

So let's just marinate on that for a little bit. I think it's Justin Perdue that says, let's riff on that. So does this mess up our paradigm where we no longer law gospel people because here's a warning that comes out of gospel language?

Yeah, I don't think so. I think, you know,.

As Paul says, it's just according to my gospel. The word my there, that pronoun my, that's referring to Paul in his position as an apostle. He is the authoritative messenger of Christ. He has seen the resurrected Christ.

He has been appointed by the resurrected Christ to preach the gospel and to be this foundation of the church. So this overall message is that, you know, Christ has been risen for the dead. You know, a big portion of that is that he has come to save us from our sins.

But another part of them being raised from the dead is that he's been appointed by the father to judge the living and the dead. We see that Acts chapter 17. So overall message of Jesus is that, yes, he has come to forgive, but he's also come to condemn.

But we would just say, Mike, that we would still make distinction between law and gospel there. You know, Jesus coming to condemn, that is going to be, he is the lawgiver and he is going to implement the curses of the law.

But also as gospel, the one who holds the word of promise in his hands, he has come to forgive sinners. So there's law and gospel in the broader gospel message.

Good. And I think it was a Graham Goldsworthy article who in that article said something like, okay, strictly speaking, let's keep gospel language for the person and work and promises of the Lord Jesus.

And then we can say things like, there's the need for the gospel, sin and judgment and wrath and hell. There are instruments to receive the gospel, faith alone. There are consequences of the gospel in terms of fruit and evidence, right?

And so, strictly speaking, we're still keeping the gospel category intact, but there are offshoots. I'm trying to think of another word, but there are ramifications of the if I don't believe it, if I receive it, et cetera.

Does that make sense?

Exactly. Yeah. Greater condemnation for not believing the gospel.

John Owen, Ryan McGraw, and the Threats of the Gospel

So I read this article, and by the way, I'll blame Clark and Perkins and whoever else is on, I can't remember the other guy, Sean, somebody, on Heidelcast, and Scott and Harrison and Sean were talking about these gospel warnings, and Harrison recommended this article or just referred to it, and so I thought I would pull it up, because it's interesting to me.

And those men said exactly what we're saying, that strictly speaking, laws do, gospel's done, but in the administration or the economy of the gospel as it's preached and people are responding or not responding, that yes, it's true.

If you don't believe this message, you will be damned, and if you do believe it, you will be saved. And so, I thought I'd pull up the article, and so today we're going to talk about—there we go again, we're gonna—threats of the gospel, John Owen, on what the law-gospel distinction is not.

So, Austin, give me an overview of the article first. What's it say? And then we'll analyze it. So, data first, then reasoning second.

Sure. So, Ryan McGraw, he's studying the theology of John Owen. In this chapter, he studies how Owen uses the words law and gospel. So, he attempts to criticize people. And you'll like Michael Horton, who say that the Reformed and Lutheran have the same view of the law and the gospel.

So, he points out how Owen, even Calvin, they use it in multiple different senses. So, they talk about the law. Of course, they do talk about the law in itself. That's kind of, you know, relegated. It's minimized in this chapter, I would say, but they talk about law as an era of history, gospel as an era of history, you know, old covenant, new covenant, gospel as an overall message of the Bible, and gospel as a covenant, law as covenant.

So, he would say that, you know, Lutherans and Reformed would disagree on those things. So, people like Michael Horton who say that law, there's no gospel in the law, there's no law in the gospel, that the law in itself condemns, the gospel in itself justifies, you say, well, Lutherans and Reformed, we don't fully agree on that.

So, that's kind of the main point here. He wants to show how in Owen, there is like threats in the gospel in the sense that there are threats in this new covenant era, essentially. And what do you think Horton's.

Take is on that? Do you think he believes that there are threats in the new covenant era that.

Stem from a denial of the gospel? You know, Mike Horton seems to be just referring to the gospel in itself, you know, strictly speaking, all that what Christ has done, what he has accomplished for sinners, his active and passive obedience.

So, Mike, he's simply talking about that. I'm sure he would definitely affirm that, yeah, we should preach the message, like, if you don't believe the gospel, you'll be condemned, you need to repent. So, Mike Horton would believe that.

My analysis is that Brian McGraw is expecting Mike Horton to be using all these different senses of the words law and gospel, while Mike simply means law in itself, gospel in itself. And that's exactly what Lutherans, Reformed, and all Protestants have to.

Believe in order to be Protestant. So, Austin, this almost goes back to this false bifurcation between Lutherans and Reformed on three uses of the law, while there can be more of an emphasis on first use for Lutherans and third use for Calvinists or whatever, but it's almost that, hey, you're a Lutheran, you're Reformed, and there are differences between those two, but I don't see the differences in terms of the definition strictly of law gospel.

And as Ryan says, that Owen affirmed that there—generically, that there was an antithesis between law and gospel. He says that right from the get-go. So, do you think this is spiraling back to, well, that's Lutheran and we're Reformed, because I don't really see the difference between Lutheran and Reformed except in emphasis when it comes to third use.

No, I agree, Mike, I agree.

Both Reformed and Lutheran both want to preach the gospel, the law clearly, also to preach that you must obey, but only after receiving the gospel, right? So, it's very important to keep those two strict senses in its proper place.

I know Dort has some gospel.

Warnings as well, but I guess the purpose of the show today is just to let you listeners know it's okay to have strict views of the law and gospel, general views of the law and gospel, give people warnings, but you still have a paradigm of, this is due and this is done.

That's really what I'm after. What else does he say that kind of made you bristle? Not John Owen, but McGraw. Perhaps the idea that the gospel as a covenant.

Covenant of Grace Warnings, Hebrews, and Apostasy

Can also threaten and condemn. So, Mike, you know, this is probably where perhaps we as Baptists would probably depart from some Reformed people. So, we would say that the new covenant itself is unbreakable, because the Lord will meet every condition for us to be in the new covenant, to forgive our sins, to give us new hearts, to give us faith, even.

So, we would say that, in light of all God's dealings with man and the old covenant, it's trending towards this new creation, this unbreakable covenant bond that God has with people. That's exactly what he promised to Israel, that he will restore them from exile and he will prevent the exile from happening ever again.

All of his covenant people will be saved and to enjoy that new creation, that new Jerusalem with the Lord forever. So, when we come to passages like, you know, Hebrews 6, like the apostasy is a real thing.

You can definitely be baptized, join the membership of the church, and you can deny Christ. However, we would just say that this is, as just good Calvinists, that they're never part of the covenant of grace to begin with.

They had never received the grace of salvation, regeneration, justification. They never had true faith in Christ. So, they're simply falling away from that visible identification, but then they're never, in essence, part of the church, part of that covenant of grace.

So, when it comes to the warning passages in Hebrews, I'm trying to remember them all, Hebrews 2, Hebrews 3 and 4, Hebrews 6, 10, and 12, I think those. How do we, as Calvinists, as Reformed, even if we're small, are Reformed.

How can we be friends with Clark when he only calls us small, are Reformed? What is going on? Scott, I hope you're listening today. I don't even know what my question was again. What was it?

How can we think through these warning passages?

Yeah, the warning passages. Are they real warnings? Yeah, they're real warnings. Is there any bite to them, or are they just kind of there?

Right, yeah. So, of course, as mere humans, as mere creatures, we don't have an infallible knowledge of the elect like God does. However, we do have some knowledge about it. Paul says that if you continue in these works of flesh, you shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

He can say that authoritatively. So, we can say that if you're not bearing this fruit, if you're not trusting Christ, then you will perish. But on the other end, we have to know that God has promised that he will save his elect, and he will never turn away from doing good to his new covenant people.

But again, we do see the reality of apostasy in the new covenant era. So, what we can say when we come to these warning passages about apostasy is that these people who fall away from the visible church, they only appeared to be part of the covenant, but they weren't essentially part of the covenant.

And there's some places you can go in the book of Hebrews to talk about that, because in the book of Hebrews, I think chapter 10, it says they have profaned the blood of the covenant by which they were sanctified.

So, that word for sanctified, some people take this simply on the level of the church holiness, ecclesiological. But really, in the book of Hebrews, that's something that can be more soteriological, that the blood of Christ is sanctified for all time.

You know, those who've been cleansed by his blood. I don't have the text open up right now, but Christ's blood has sanctified us. He's able to save to the uttermost. So, if you're covered by the blood of Christ, that is something that will confirm you forever, according to God's new covenant promise.

Well, those warnings in.

Hebrews and other places, do they not help us to be vigilant and alert? Do they not assist us in, let's run back and keep believing in who Jesus is? They remind us of the awfulness of sin, God's holiness, thankfulness that we are walking by faith alone, and so they serve all kinds of purposes, rooting out unbelievers.

And so, I am pro-warning passages in the book of Hebrews. Right, right. They are, I think as theologians say, they are the divine means to the end that is the preservation and the perseverance of the saints.

I'm reading Owen now, and this is, I've been trying to read through all the works of Owen. I think I probably told you the story, Austin. I met a man in New Zealand, and I was speaking and quoted Owen a lot, and he came up to me and he said, have you read all of John Owen?

I said, no, but I'd like to. He said, well, I have. Or I said something like, how much have you read? And he said, I've read all 16 of the Banner of Truth Green volumes, Gould commentaries, I mean, and the additional seven Hebrews commentaries.

I said, you've read them all? I've never met anybody that read them. It's back to what Sinclair Ferguson said. If you ever see a set of Owen on sale at a used store, buy them, because they'll be untouched.

Oh, wow. Right? That almost every student, pastor, theologian has Owen, but he doesn't read Owen, except maybe for mortification. So anyway, I said, where did you read all of John Owen? And he said, prison.

He got saved and just decided to read all of Owen. Anyway, I'm reading Owen now, and there's a huge, it's like 400 pages where he's dissecting a man, an Arminian, whose last name is Goodwin, not Thomas, but a different Goodwin, and he, Goodwin, denies perseverance of the saints.

So he's talking a lot about these kind of issues with threats, but we can affirm both perseverance of the saints and these warnings are real warnings. Of course Christians can't lose their salvation because Jesus can't lose a Christian.

Condemnation, Fear, and the Christian Life

Okay, back to the article again, and today the show is about law and gospel. Strictly speaking, are there threats and warnings in the gospel, in the economy of the gospel? I'm with Austin Hobbs, and we're talking about threats of the gospel, John Owen.

When McGraw says these threats were becoming to the gospel, Christ's honor necessitated them, since those who neglected or rejected him deserved condemnation. What do you think of that? I mean, I don't think that's wrong, so I'll just tell you.

What I think ahead of time. What's your thoughts? Yeah, I think rejecting the gospel does bring greater condemnation because you have greater revelation. Imagine being the Pharisees who have had the Torah, who've had the prophets in their writings.

They see Jesus right in front of them, and they're rejecting him. Yeah, Jesus said that their beating will be a lot worse, more severe than maybe those who were Native Americans who never heard the gospel, right?

So that greater revelation of Jesus brings greater condemnation, but I probably wouldn't place that condemnation as a result, as part of the gospel itself, in a strict sense of the word, Mike. So I really put it as a sense of, you're rejecting the revelation, you're rejecting God's word, and all through the Bible that's commanded you to believe God's word.

So that still falls under the pillar of law,.

I would say. Agreed. And it seems like, while there were some interesting things in the article, it seemed like McGraw almost undoes—how do you say that? He would undo. Undo. Why am I thinking undoes?

Because I went to Masters—not seminary, but Masters Elementary. They're not related, by the way. Our nickname at Masters Elementary School was the Masters Monarchs. Okay. And we would go around and we would collect monarchs and put them in some kind of chemical thing that would kill them, and then you would take pins and pin them.

You know, you'd collect butterflies and present it to your class. Wow. That was the same school where we made ashtrays for our fathers for Father's Day. Really? And I just found my cigarette ashtray that I made when I was six years old, or sixth grade, I don't know which one.

On the back, it says Mike Ebendroth, and there's this little ashtray that you'd make for your dad. It's a different era. But he undoes, he reverses, when he quotes Owen at the end of his article. Owen, the gospel in the dispensation thereof, that's key, is not only attended with promises and rewards, but also with threatenings and punishments.

And so he's saying, Owen, is what we're saying, and that is, strictly speaking, there are no threats, there are no condemnations, there's no law in the gospel, but in the administration of the dispensation thereof,.

There are. That's all we're saying. Absolutely. And John Owen is very clear in the gospel, strictly speaking, the law, strictly speaking, this is what he says. He says that John Owen added that no one could attain salvation by works of the law.

The law threatened eternal punishment against sinners without providing relief. The gospel alone promised eternal life to sinners through Christ's merit. That's law in itself, gospel itself. That's all we're saying.

That's all Mike Horton is saying. That's all the Lutherans are saying. So we're not really.

Disagreeing in this regard. Well, on the positive side, I liked it when McGraw told me, and told all the readers, that Owen taught four kinds of fear. And I'd never seen that before, because I would do the typical Luther servile fear, right, unbelievers before a holy judge, filial fear, a fear of a son to a father in terms of reverence and awe and wanting to honor him.

Owen taught four kinds of fear. Natural, right, a bear's running after you or something. Civil, sinful, and religious. So natural fear, you know, a lion roars. Sinful fear, you know what, God made that promise, but I don't really know if it's true or not.

Religious fear, civil fear. I just liked all this.

Oh, yeah, it's a great way of categorizing it, you know, that natural fear of God, like God is holy. He is an all-consuming fire, and that's why he flew to Christ, by faith,.

To escape his wrath as a judge. That's right. So let me go to the end of the article, and let's see what he says again for a conclusion as we conclude ourselves. Three conclusions. First, in Owen's view, the law that drove sinners to Christ was not the law considered in itself or even the law as a covenant of works.

Okay, so that's Richard Barcellos. Exactly. Second, that there were threats that were proper to the covenant of grace, which God added to the threats of the law. Hmm. Austin's being on his best behavior.

Third, law did not admit of simple categorization in Owen's writings. In that part, I wouldn't say, hmm. I'd say, oh, just like us, just like Calvin. Oh, when I say law, what do I mean? The strange thing is, he starts off his whole article by quoting John Newton, and something about Newton when he said, you know, some of the—oh, here it is.

Ignorance of the nature and design of the law is at the bottom of most religious mistakes. Right. I'm sure Ryan is a fine fellow. This has nothing to do with some personal attack or anything. This is, I think, what we're after, at least what I'm after.

It's more nuance, precision, battle for we can still keep these Lutheran reform categories of law, due, and gospel done.

Yeah, exactly. You know, we don't want to get so—do so many theological gymnastics that we obscure just the simple meaning of law and gospel. We need to make this clear for our people. I mean, our people are going to be, like, working through all these different uses.

Hey, we should be clear. Law says due. Gospel says done. And we're going to preach both of those to you in church.

Absolutely. And when the text says that we're to obey the gospel, what in the world is that?

Answer? That's the message of the gospel, to repent and believe in what Christ has done for you.

So if you're a believer, you have obeyed the gospel. Yeah, right. Because you have obeyed, and that is the work that God wants you to do, Jesus said, is to believe. And so to obey the gospel is simply to obey.

I think I'm going to update my book, Law, Gospel, a Primer, Austin, and I'm going to put some of these chapters in—gospel imperative, legal imperative, when it comes to believe and repent. What about this administration of gospel, and can you have wrath and threatenings in there?

I think I'll probably just add that in. That's good. That's good. Thanks for listening today. Austin Hobbs with me, Mike Abendroth. You can write us, mike at nocompromiseradio .com. I'm trying to think of something that's interesting that's coming up.

Pactam Conference is in October. My daughter's getting married in September. That's big. I know. What am I going to do for the dowry? Thanks for listening.