You would go ahead and turn in your copies of the scriptures to Paul's letter to Titus. Though it is a topical sermon tonight, again, we'll use as our launching point the same passage we looked at last time, Titus 2, 11 through 14, and you can find that on page 1973. But as we go back to Titus, though we are in a sense, like I said, hitting a pause on our exposition of the book, the reason why we're doing that is we're going to take a little excursus or make a little excursus to the topic, to discuss the topic of the law gospel distinction, law and gospel. And again, the reason why we're doing this is simply twofold. The reason why we're pausing and not moving on and taking a focused look at a topic is first because, as I already mentioned, Titus 2, specifically verses 11 through 12, were a key text, are a key text that comes up in this discussion over the distinction between law and gospel. Because as we saw last time, the gospel not only teaches, but commands. It requires things. There are duties demanded of the gospel. Remember, good news leads to a good life, as we saw. So the first reason is that it's a fitting text to make a little excursion and do a topical sermon. But the second reason is because I watched a lecture recently by a Lutheran theologian who is associated with the White Horse Inn, which is a reformed organization, but that actually just makes it a little more concerning. This Lutheran theologian was giving a lecture on preaching in the church And he was coming at it using the law gospel distinction as a paradigm to speak about preaching. in the church, and what watching that lecture made me realize was that there seems to be, and it probably happens because this Lutheran is associated with a reformed organization, I think it's led to some confusion in the church, broadly speaking, when it comes to this issue of law and gospel and how it applies to preaching. And I think as we'll see tonight, there is quite a difference in some of the ways that the Lutherans talk about this distinction and use this distinction in the way the Reformed tradition uses this distinction. And so what I've realized is that if we're confused, if we lack clarity on what the Reformed mean by law and gospel, or if we bring a Lutheran understanding into a reformed context, we're going to make all kinds of misapplications and have all kinds of wrong expectations. And so though it seems like perhaps a heady topic, it nonetheless is relevant It impacts the way we think about the Christian life and the word of God. It impacts how we sing praises, how we think when we sing, how we sing with understanding. And again, it impacts not only how the preacher preaches, but how the members hear and what they long to hear from the scriptures. So it is a heady topic, perhaps, but it has very practical implications. So that's why we're looking at it tonight, just to clear up what seems to be a confused topic and Lord willing by doing so to prevent wrong expectations and misapplications. So like I said, this will be a topical sermon tonight, and it will probably sound more like a theological lecture. Confession, it kind of is, though it will come with some practical applications. And so it won't follow our normal kind of text doctrine, application, structure, but rather you can kind of see the flow of thought on your handouts, and it's quite a flow to follow, but that's because I put in some extended quotations or just hunks of my sermon manuscript, so in certain places you can follow along with me. So with that brief overview and the rationale for why we're looking at this tonight, we'll hear God's word from Titus 2, 11 through 14, and then we'll begin. This is the word of God. For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men. teaching us that denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in the present age, looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for himself his own special people, zealous for good works. This ends the reading of God's word. May he be pleased to bless it and the preaching and teaching of it this night. As we start out tonight exploring, discussing this theological topic of the law gospel distinction, law and gospel. We first need to just ask, what do we even mean by law? And what do we even mean by gospel? Because if we're confused there, we're going to be confused everywhere else in this discussion. Though you may be tempted to think, well, isn't it pretty obvious what we mean by law and what we mean by gospel? In one sense it is, but you may be surprised that in the discussions about this, the theological discussions, and even in the way the scriptures use these terms, there's a little more nuance and complexity to this discussion than may first appear on the surface. And again, the reason for that, as I already kind of noted, is that because not only the scriptures But also theologians and pastors use these terms, law and gospel, differently depending on the context. And also, in addition to using them differently in a general sense, different theological traditions use these two terms differently, which is to say that different theological traditions, when they say law and gospel, they typically are referring to one kind of use that we'll see of these terms. And other theological traditions typically have in mind another use of these terms that we'll see. So which is to say that not only in general are these terms law and gospel, as we'll see momentarily, used differently, but again, different theological traditions have primary ways that they use these terms, which differ from the primary way that other traditions use them. And so you can just see that if we lack clarity on this issue, it can lead to all sorts of confusion. For instance, if you hear a Lutheran lecturing on law and gospel and you don't understand their view, you don't understand the paradigm through which they are speaking and using those terms over against a reformed view, and you unknowingly go and try and apply this to some reformed aspect of worship, preaching, perhaps, you can see where it will again lead to all sorts of confusion and wrong expectation. Because as we'll see, the Reformed aren't Lutherans, and the Lutherans aren't Reformed either. So what are these general ways, the general ways in which these two terms, law and gospel, How can they be used? Well, they can be used. They are used by certain theological traditions as essentially synonyms for imperatives and indicatives. Or we could say commands. and promises. So when some theological traditions speak about law and gospel, what they have in mind are imperatives or commands, law, and by gospel they are referring to indicatives or promises. So commands versus promises. is what they have in mind when they are speaking of law and gospel. All commands are law. All promises or statements of grace, those are gospel. Second, these terms, law and gospel, can be used narrowly or strictly. You may hear the Reformed use that if you read on this topic, you'll see the term strictly, which is to say that law, depending on context, can refer to, for instance, just the Ten Commandments, just kind of abstracted, kind of the way we do in our larger catechism, just the Ten Commandments, naked or bare, as Calvin would use those terms sometimes, just kind of in and of themselves. And then for gospel, in the narrow or strict sense, you can think of 1 Corinthians 15, 1 through 4, how Paul uses that term gospel. He's going to preach the gospel, and by that he means Christ crucified, buried, and raised. So that simple gospel proclamation of Christ crucified and raised. So you have also these narrow or strict senses in which law and gospel are used. Third, though, there is what we could call a broad large or historical sense in which these terms law and gospel are used. And when they're used in this sense, this redemptive historical or covenant historical sense, law is either essentially synonymous with the covenant of works and gospel with the covenant of grace, okay? Covenant of work, covenant of grace, law, gospel. Or, or, so you see there's like subcategories under this one. Or, law can refer to the Old Testament under Moses, and gospel to the New Testament or New Covenant under Christ. So these are the general ways in which they're used. But then to add on to that, it's also critical to note that these discussions of law and gospel also take place in two different contexts. So they're used in different senses, but then the discussion occurs within different contexts. In the context of justification, or in the context of sanctification. And the context is critical to that discussion. It will have a radical, huge impact on how these terms are used. And so you see, I hope, from the brief little survey of the senses in which these terms are used, and in which the contexts in which these terms are used, that it's a bit more complex than it may seem on the surface. And so if we don't have a clear understanding, or at least a basic understanding of these things, which I'm hoping to accomplish tonight, that at least we have some basic categories, you can see where it can again lead to confusion. wrong expectation and misapplication. But in addition to that, to hopefully not make things more confusing, but hopefully just more clear, in addition to the general senses and contexts in which these terms law and gospel are used, again, like I said, they're also used by different theological traditions in primary or typical senses, which again is to say that different theological traditions will take one of those general uses we just talked about, and that's the typical, not exclusive way they think about it, but it's the typical way in which they frame the discussion, in which they formulate the law gospel distinction. For instance, Lutherans typically, again, not exclusively, Typically, when speaking of law and gospel, are speaking of imperatives or commands, law, and indicatives or promises, gospel. So that's to say, not exclusively, but typically, Lutherans are thinking hermeneutically. And hermeneutics, we know, is the science of interpretation. So they're looking and they're seeing, okay, command, law, promise, gospel. So they're primarily thinking hermeneutically, and they are primarily speaking of the law-gospel distinction in the context of justification. That's just typically the paradigm, not again saying they can't think outside of that, that's just what the Lutheran mind is typically bringing to this discussion. And historically speaking, the antinomians, anti-law, or I mean, sorry, anti-against, opposed, namaste law, so the antinomians in the 17th century, followed more in line with the Lutherans on this topic of law and gospel. So they, too, were thinking sharply, hermeneutically, and typically in the realm of justification. The Reformed, on the other hand, Typically, again, all the traditions acknowledge that like these terms are used in scripture narrowly, right, to speak of Christ crucified and raised and of the Ten Commandments. But typically, in the realm of this discussion of law and gospel, typically, the Reformed are speaking historically. They are not speaking hermeneutically. When I say that they're typically speaking largely, broadly, or historically, what I mean is that in the context of the law gospel distinction, Reformed theologians are thinking either covenant of works, covenant of grace, or slightly more narrowly, Old Testament Moses, New Testament, Jesus Christ. And the reason that's important, again, is because this is why we don't, the Reformed, don't use these law gospel as typically synonymous with imperatives and indicatives. Because then we would just sound goofy when we're talking. Because we think of the gospel as the new covenant, Right? And we understand that the New Covenant has indicatives and imperatives. And so if we used law and gospel as indicatives and imperatives, Speak of the gospel having law and the gospel having gospel. We'd have gospel law and gospel gospel. We'd have law law and law gospel. We would have confused sounding language. Rather we just speak of indicatives and imperatives and we know that the law and the gospel covenantally has both. So it's just important language wise to understand again what we're talking about. in that the Reformed in this discussion of law and gospel are in fact speaking historically as evidenced by the Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter seven, paragraph six, where we read this in reference to the Old Testament and New Testament. To my knowledge, I think this is the only place in the Confession that we use these terms this tight together. This covenant, so the covenant of grace, this covenant was differently administered in the time of the law and in the time of the gospel. So there we see new covenant, gospel, old covenant under Moses, law. That's how the Reformed are thinking of law and gospel. And the reason that the Reformed typically use law and gospel in this discussion historically and not hermeneutically is because, frankly, this is just how the scriptures use these terms. The Scriptures have indicatives and imperatives, promises and commands, but you don't see them using these words, law and gospel, to refer to indicatives and imperatives. You either see law spoken of, of the Ten Commandments, or you see gospel spoken of, of Christ crucified and raised. But actually, perhaps even more often, you see them spoken of historically and largely. Romans 3.27 speaks of the law of works and the law of faith, referring to the principles and standards of the covenant of works and the covenant of grace in a context of justification. Likewise, Romans 6.14, sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law, but under grace. Again, their law in terms of the covenant of works and grace in terms of the covenant of grace. Recently, beloved, we saw in John 1 15 through 17. that the Old Testament, or we saw rather, sorry, the relative and historical contrast between the Old Testament and Moses and the New Testament and Christ using these terms, law and grace or gospel. We saw that it was a relative contrast, grace for grace, not an absolute antithetical contrast. And I would just say that there are many more uses of this large or historical sense. If you're interested, just give Romans, Galatians, and Hebrews a read, and you'll see that these terms are typically used in this broader sense. And that's on the basis of scripture. Again, when they reformed, use these terms. Law and gospel, in the context of this law gospel distinction, when we're thinking law gospel, law gospel, what are we talking about when we're talking about these two things together? They're typically using them largely and historically and covenantally, Old Testament, New Testament, covenant of works, covenant of grace, and not in terms hermeneutically, not in terms of commands and promises like the Lutherans and the antinomians. And though this is the case, though this is the case that we have the Lutherans who typically will use these terms synonymously with commands and promises, no matter the covenant they're used in, commands, law, promises, gospel. and the Reformed use them largely and historically. Before we move on to where the real rub begins and the real disagreements begin to happen, we should acknowledge that all of the Protestant traditions in the terms of Lutheran and Reformed and even Antinomian agree that when we're talking about law and gospel, In the context of justification, there is no disagreement. We are friends against Rome. Okay? When it comes to law and gospel, in terms of justification, there is an absolute antithesis, total opposition between the operating principles. Law and grace are not friends. You're either justified by works and law or you're justified by grace in the gospel. And so we rejoice that there is agreement on this issue of justification. And also all sides agree that These terms are used narrowly sometimes to speak to the proclamation of Christ crucified and raised into the Ten Commandments. And so we rejoice again in that. However, however, There is disagreement between the camps over the large or historical or covenantal use of these terms, law and gospel, or in this law gospel discussion, the paths diverge. when we get to the large view and when we get to its application to sanctification, which we'll see momentarily. For even when the Lutherans, and we love Lutherans, this is not a Lutheran bashing sermon, this is for clarification. We love our Lutheran brethren who are faithful, To the Lord, we believe they're a true branch of the church. So this is not a Lutheran bashing sermon. But nevertheless, this is the truth. Even when the Lutherans affirm the large or historical use of law and gospel, and that particularly in terms of the Old Testament and the New Testament, they see these two as antithetical. they see the old covenant as antithetical, as opposed to the new covenant. After quoting from the Lutheran formula of Concord to this end, which sets Moses in absolute antithetical contrast to Christ, the authors of a Puritan theology write this, quote, simply put, though recognizing the multiple senses in which the scriptures speak of law and gospel. So the Lutherans acknowledge that there are these different senses in which law and gospel are used. But though recognizing this, they go on, the Lutherans, quote, preferred to understand the law only only as a message of condemnation for sin, and the gospel only as a message of consolation in Christ. So you see that the Lutherans and the antinomians set up this absolute contrast between Moses and Christ, Old Covenant and New Covenant, law and gospel, law, condemnation, gospel, consolation, The antinomians would say things like this, the gospel persuades rather than commands. Or the law requires doing, but the gospel no doing. So you see they have this absolute contrast. And that's why they develop this sharp hermeneutical divide, commands, Law, that's all about doing. Gospel, no doing, so just promises. All of this theology and underpinning manifests itself in their typical hermeneutical distinction, sharp distinction between law and gospel. And these antithetical law gospel views of the Lutherans and the antinomians are both, frankly, contrary to a reformed view. which states in Westminster Confession of Faith, 19, paragraph seven, that the law in all of its uses in the covenant of grace is not contrary nor antithetical to, but does sweetly comply, to use their language, sweetly comply with gospel grace. And so, beloved, you see that these disagreements, these divergences, when we get to the larger view, the covenantal view of law and gospel, that the Lutherans who see these two things, law and gospel, as antithetical and opposed to one another, And the Reformed who see them in sweet compliance with one another for the believer. We see that these must have implications. These must have implications. And thus, this brings us to the heart of the debate. We've seen the various ways in which law and gospel are used, the different contexts that they take place within, the typical ways that Lutherans and the antinomian minds think about these terms and the way the Reformed think about them. and how they begin to have sharp disagreements when we're speaking historically and covenantally. And thus, this brings us to really the real heart of the debate, the real practical rub of the law, gospel, discussion, and disagreement amongst theological traditions. And it's this, the place, the place of imperatives or commands in the New Covenant for the justified believer? What is the place, what place do the commands in the New Covenant have for the justified believer? To say it another way, what is the principle and right use of the law for the Christian in their sanctification. Okay? This is really the rub of the debate. And before we go on any further, just to make sure we're clear, since I've used principle use or right use of the law, let's remember what we mean by uses of the law. We have the three uses of the law, right? Westminster Confession of Faith, 1906, if you wanna look those up. But anyways, and these, you may find varying orders on these, but for our purposes tonight, the first use of the law, we could call the convicting use. The convicting use. And it's that use of the law which convicts the sinner of their sin and drives them to Jesus Christ alone for their justification. That's the first use of the law. The convicting use. The second use of the law we could call the restraining use. The restraining use. It's that use of the law which restrains sin in society in general. The restraining use of the law. Third, you have the guiding use of the law, the guiding use of the law. It serves as a perfect guide for the Christian in holiness, righteousness, Christ-likeness. It guides the believer in their sanctification, in their sanctification. And so again, the heart of the issue over this whole discussion of law and gospel amongst the theological traditions is what use of the law is primary for believers, for justified believers? And how, how are the uses of the law rightly used? How do we rightly use these three uses of the law? Again, to simply just put it another way, again, what is the place and purpose of commands in the new covenant for believers? What purpose do they serve? What purpose do they serve? And to get to the rub all the more, to get at the heart of the debate and bring things even more to light, I hope. You've got a quote in your handout, a long quote from Richard Muller. He's about as authoritative as a mere human source as you could get on the topic of 17th century Reformed and Lutheran thought. He's wrote a dictionary on Latin and Greek theological terms and this comes from this. But speaking of the uses of the law, and again you have this I believe underlined in your thing if you prefer to follow along and we'll pause and make some comments. Muller states this, there is one major distinction between the Lutherans and the Reformed in the discussion and application of the uses of the law. The Reformed lay heavy stress on the third use of the law. Remember, that's the guiding use for sanctification. Lay heavy stress on the third use of the law, assuming faith must spring forth and bear the fruit of good works as defined by the law in its normative function. Normative function refers to the law as the guiding norm, the standard for Christian life. The Lutherans, however, see here the danger of works righteousness and insist that the third use or the normative or the guiding use ultimately returns the believer who remains simultaneously just in center to the first or the convicting use and from there again to Christ and His grace as the sole source of salvation. Let me just pause there so we can see what Moeller's saying. What he's saying is that though the Lutherans, and the antinomians for that matter, who do essentially follow the Lutherans on this discussion, what he's saying is that though they acknowledge the third use of the law, the guiding use of the law in the life of believers, for them, the right use of the third use is simply to get the believer back to the first use. You see that? And so, functionally speaking, they have no third use of the law. They, functionally speaking, only have a first and second use because all the third does is turn the believer back to Christ to remind him of his justification. And it was fascinating seeing this play out in that Lutheran lecture. This Lutheran's lecturing on preaching. And he's talking about law and gospel. And he's slamming preachers, reformed preachers, for wrongly using the third use. and says that there's a right way to use it. It's fascinating. He never tells us, to my memory, what that right use is. What is that, Mr. Lutheran? I can't help but wonder that he doesn't tell us what that is because he has no right use in our sense. All he means, or what it is for him, the right use, the Lutherans, is to simply return us to the first use. And so again, he functionally doesn't have a third use, and so that's why he can't give any counsel to preachers on the right use of the third use, because he well knows, according to Lutheran theology, the right use of the third use is simply the first use. It's that simple. Luther, or I'm sorry, not Luther, Muller goes on. And you see this in Muller's statement of Lutheran theology. The law. And again, this is why this Lutheran would have struggled to articulate a right use of the third use. He goes on to say that the law for Lutheranism can never become the ultimate norm. Can never become the ultimate norm for Christian living. but instead must always lead to Christ who alone is righteous. I'll just say we love the law leading us to Christ, but that's the first use of the law. Must always lead to Christ who alone is righteous. This difference between the Lutherans and the Reformed arises out of the dialectical, that is opposing or antithetical, relationship of law and gospel in Lutheranism as opposed to the simple distinction of law and gospel within the one covenant of grace held among the reformed. So you see what he's saying there. And that's why we took the time to kind of talk about this a little bit. It's because the Lutherans and the antinomians have this dialectical, This antithetical view of law and gospel that sets law and gospel in opposition to one another, commands and promises in opposition that the law, the imperatives can never truly become the guide for the Christian in holiness. All they can do is drive back to Christ. All they can do is remind of justification. So again, this is why or rather because the Lutherans hold to this sharp law gospel imperative, indicative, antithesis and contrast. This is why Muller says that they view. reformed preaching as dangerously close to, if not outright, moralistic and legalistic. And that's important to understand. Because that means for the mind, whether it knows it has a Lutheran or antinomian theology or not, the mind that thinks like the Lutheran or the antinomian in this discussion of law and gospel will not just think that legalistic and moralistic preaching is legalistic and moralistic, but they will think that reformed preaching is legalistic and moralistic, or at least dangerously close to it. And so you see how these things start to play out practically. If you have an antinomian or Lutheran view, even if you don't know it, you will accuse Reformed preaching of being moralistic and legalistic because that's a simple outworking of the theology that you have. And so it's understandable. But you're critiquing Reformed preaching from a Lutheran or antinomian paradigm. And it also brings the implication that for the Lutheran and the antinomian on this issue, the gospel becomes essentially synonymous with the doctrine of justification through faith alone. Sanctification falls under the category of law, and law is only to be used to remind of one's justification. And thus, practically, reminding one of their justification for the Lutheran or the antinomian mind is the primary means and instrument of sanctification. How does a Christian grow in sanctification? Drive them back to Christ for their justification. Not give them guidance by the law of God. For then the gospel is foremost, if not practically, exclusively, a proclamation of what Christ has done for sinners with little, if any, place for what Christ does in sinners. And as Mark Jones well notes on these points, again, the antinomians had much more in common with the Lutherans than they did with the Reformed. And this again, beloved, because the Reformed in this discussion primarily think of law and gospel covenantally, covenantally and historically. And thus, for the Reformed, we think of law, depending on the context, again, as either synonymous with the covenant of works and covenant of grace or slightly more narrowly of the Old Testament and the New Testament. Or we think of gospel as essentially synonymous with Christ and the whole Christ, which is to say Christ and all of his benefits. So not merely justification, but sanctification, adoption and future glorification. And so it is to say that, frankly, we just have a broader view, a broader view. Again, this is not slamming our Lutheran brethren. It's just stating the facts that we have a broader, larger view of what the gospel is and of the whole Christ than they typically functionally operate with. And again, this has theological and practical implications. For one, the Reformed see the third use of the law, so that guiding use, that normative use. For the Reformed, they see the third use of the law as the principal use, the primary use for the justified believer who has already, by the first use, been convicted of their sins. and driven to Christ once and for all for justification. We, the Reformed, see the third use of the law not as an instrument to get us back to the first use, but as an instrument of the Spirit used for our sanctification. And then contrary. to the Lutherans and antinomians on this issue. In Christ, the Reformed, we see the law as friend and not as foe. And because of these things, because we understand the gospel primarily in terms of the covenant, contrary to our Lutheran brethren, we don't believe that the gospel merely proclaims or promises without commanding. We believe it does both. We don't believe that the gospel with the antinomians merely persuades or woos without driving. We believe it does both. We don't believe it merely places a carrot without using a stick or a rod. We believe it does both. We see the imperatives of the gospel, beloved, not as mere friendly advice per the antinomian mind, but as authoritative commands. We, along with the canons of Dort, confess that the gospel not only promises, but that it exhorts and it even threatens. It even threatens. Beloved, all of this is consistent with what we saw from Titus 2, 11 to 14, that the gospel and its grace teaches and commands, consists of both indicatives and imperatives, that it is not merely Christ for us, but Christ in us. And this understanding of the gospel, beloved, I feel rather confident telling you is the main Reformed view. It's not merely the musings of some slightly greater-than-rookie pastor. It's the view of the Westminster Confession of Faith, the Canons of Dort, and a multitude of Reformed heavyweights past and present. And if you'd like to study this issue more, I'd simply recommend to you the chapter in a Puritan theology on law and gospel, and Mark Jones' book, Antinomianism. He has a chapter in there on law and gospel as well. So to sum up the topical portion here, I think most of this is on your sheet. From this brief overview of the topic of law and gospel, we've seen that the real issue between the Lutherans and the antinomians and the reformed is not whether there is a law gospel distinction, but rather how it is understood, formulated, and practically applied. We've seen, praise be to God, that there is no disagreement over the strict use of these terms. or over the use of these terms in their place in the context of justification. But we have seen that there is disagreement amongst them in certain things. Namely, is law and gospel primarily a hermeneutical or a historical distinction? Also, is the gospel to be primarily understood narrowly and strictly as essentially synonymous with the doctrine of justification through faith alone, per the Lutherans and the antinomians, or per the Reformed, is it primarily in this discussion to be understood broadly and largely as essentially synonymous with the covenant of grace or the new covenant, perhaps more particularly and as the reception of the whole Christ, as not only what Christ did for us, but what Christ does in us. And then we've seen tonight that these divergent theologies lead to divergent emphases and practices in the theological traditions. Namely, the use of the law for the justified believer in the estate of grace. In that estate, is the law to be used even in its third use to convict of sin and drive to Christ per our Lutheran brethren? Or is it to primarily be used to guide and conform to Christ by the Spirit of God per the Reformed? To put that again another way, how are the imperatives in the New Covenant supposed to be used? How are the commands supposed to be used? How are they to be preached to you, the New Covenant justified people of God? Are they a guide unto your life? Are they merely to turn you back to Christ? for your justification or a reminder of it. So beloved, our view of these things, as we've hinted at, it does have practical implications. I'd like to ever so briefly make some of those to the Christian life praise and preaching. It won't be too much longer. First to the Christian life, The first application to the Christian life is by way of further instruction. We've already hinted at this already. Sometimes I can't contain myself. Hinted at this already in the CE class. And I hope that it not only instructs and clarifies but comforts and encourages and it's this. The reform taught and teach that a key difference between law and gospel understood in terms of the covenant of works and covenant of grace. While they both command perfection of all, covenant of works and covenant of grace, both command perfection of all, they nonetheless differ as to what they accept. The law understood as the covenant of works commands and only accepts perfection. But the gospel, beloved, though it commands the same perfection, accepts Imperfection. And this, as our confession puts it, because of Christ's perfection and your union with him. And thus, beloved, the comfort and encouragement is this, that your Father in heaven is pleased with even the least bit of sincerity. He is pleased with sincere weakness and imperfection. He's pleased, beloved, with your weak, even lukewarm at times, worship in Christ because of Christ. And that, beloved, is a gospel comfort that the law is a covenant of works cannot give. And it's an encouragement to press on in Christ, knowing that your Father in heaven is pleased with you in him. And then second, in terms of the Christian life, I just encourage you, beloved, to go to the law, to look to those gospel imperatives for your sanctification, for these are friends, not foes. Gifts given for your good in Christ. And so love and search God's law. And let it be a guide to your life. and then applied to praise, as it's been pointed out by others and we already did hint at in the singing of Psalm 119. A reformed view of law and gospel, one that we've taken today, that sees the gospel, the law as large things, the gospel as covenantal, which sees it as having both indicatives and imperatives, which sees it as speaking to the believer of the whole Christ and sees the imperatives and the indicatives not as antithetical but as sweetly complying. Beloved, that theology informs your praise. Psalm 47 commands that you sing with understanding. And you're enabled to do that rightly with the right theology of law and gospel because again, It helps you to sing the Psalms that speak of obeying the law of God, not merely of Christ and to Christ, but of yourself in Christ. You can actually take those words on your lips and praise God with them. And then lastly, in terms of preaching, there are implications in terms of preaching and hearing. For the preacher or the hearers of the preacher have a Lutheran or antinomian theology of law and gospel rather than a reformed or covenantal theology of law and gospel, then two things can and likely will to some degree happen. The first is this, the preacher will not preach gospel threatenings. per passages like Hebrews 6, Hebrews 10, Hebrews 12, where in the New Covenant, believers are threatened against apostasy and what will happen if they turn from the faith. These will be preached and heard as having no real force for the Christian and thus a vital and gracious, God-ordained means unto their preservation will be weakened if not forsaken. And so, beloved, a Reformed preacher must preach gospel threatenings, and Reformed hearers ought want them and heed them. Second, the preacher will not preach and apply imperatives as Christian duty if he has a Lutheran or antinomian theology of law and gospel in the place of imperatives in the Christian life. He will only preach the imperatives in the new covenant as a means for convicting of sin, driving to Christ, and reminding of justification. And a hearer with a Lutheran or antinomian theology, whether again they know it or not, will not want to hear imperatives preached and applied as real duty unto sanctification. And so, beloved, Lutheran and antinomian theology not only inevitably leads to preaching and hearing that hinders preservation but also to preaching and hearing that hinders sanctification. I fully admit, beloved, that I am not a perfect Reformed preacher, but I am nonetheless a Reformed preacher. And so I'm always open to and do always desire and work with the session often to grow as a preacher. but again as a Reformed preacher. Preaching from a Reformed and not a Lutheran or antinomian understanding of law and gospel. And I hope that's what you desire to hear, beloved. Reformed preaching. And better and better Reformed preaching from me, from this pulpit. And that's what I hope and promise to try and give you over a lifetime together. As we close tonight, though, nonetheless, I do desire greatly to give you briefly the kind of law gospel preaching that all Protestants agree on. The strict law gospel preaching that applies to those outside of Christ unto justification. And it's this, that in Adam, in Adam all sin, Guilt, corruption, and alienation came upon all men. And there are none righteous, no, not one. And if you sit here tonight outside of Jesus Christ, you know that you're an idolater. You know that you're a blasphemer, a Sabbath breaker, a disrespecter of parents and inferiors and superiors, a murderer at heart, an adulterer, a thief, a liar, and a coveter. And you know you're guilty and deserving of condemnation and the wrath and curse of God. But you know what that ought to do to you if that's you? It ought to drive you to Jesus Christ, who came to obey that law perfectly, who came to lay down His life for sinners, for idolaters, and blasphemers, and murderers, and adulterers, and thieves, and liars, and covetous. He came to die for them, and He offers His grace freely to you. The gospel is a free offer, Christ crucified and raised, and that in Him you could leave here tonight totally forgiven of all your sins, because as we heard this morning, He's the Lamb of God who came to take away the sins of the world, and that He did on that cross. So if you don't know the Lord Jesus Christ and you know yourself to be a sinner, forget all of the theology we've talked about tonight other than this. Run to Jesus Christ. Run to Jesus Christ and find your life in him. Let's pray together. Our Father in heaven, we thank you for your word. We thank you for those who have come before us, who have helped us to think about topics like this, to make distinctions, which can seem like, why do I care about that? But Lord, these things have very practical implications. Theology informs life. It just does. And wrong theology will always lead to wrong application. Lord, you may spare us from harming ourselves with that wrong application. Absolutely. Absolutely. By your grace, you do. And we thank you for that. But we don't want that. We want right theology so that we can rightly apply, so that we have right expectations, and frankly, just so that we can understand one another. So we can understand where our Lutheran brethren are coming from when we discuss this topic and have cordial conversations about it. But Lord, what we don't want, we don't want to judge the Lutherans with our theology and go in, speak with them with wrong expectations, and nor do we want accidental misapplications and expectations thrown our way. Lord, we want to have our minds conformed to Christ. And so we pray that you'd protect us from confusion, that you'd protect us from all kinds of things which can cause division amongst our body. Lord, protect us, instruct us, keep us, we pray. And may this lecture tonight Be a means toward the renewal of our minds in Christ, and right living, praise, and preaching. We pray all these things in Christ's name. Amen.