Moo is hardly a Lutheran. From my understanding, Reformed and Lutheran view of Law/Gospel involve some differences.
In Matthew 4:15-23, Jesus began his ministry with the Gospel message to repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand, which was a light to the Gentiles, and God's law was how his audience knew what sin is (Romans 3:20), so repenting from our disobedience to it is a central part of the Gospel message. In Titus 2:14, Jesus gave himself to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself himself a people of his own possession who are zealous for doing good works, so the way to believe in what Jesus spent his ministry teaching by word and by example and in what he accomplished through the cross is by repenting and becoming zealous for doing good works in obedience to God's law (Acts 21:20). So trying to drive a wedge between Law and Gospel destroys the Gospel.
I know. He's Calvinist. The non-Theonomic Reformed view in that book reconciles well with the Lutheran pov.
Yes, one of which is that Luther held salvation, though exceedingly unlikely, could be lost. Although classic Calvinism asserts its "doctrines of grace," the Lutheran doctrine tends to emphasize grace whereas Calvinism emphasizes divine sovereignty. I, personally, hold that sovereignty "preceded" grace because God has the power and authority to be grace-ious rather than the other way around (which would imply God might possibly not be almighty, all-powerful, and sovereign (by chose). Sadly, there are purported differences that don't exist, such as "double-predestination" and the idea the gospel is preach only to the elect, which was not what Calvin taught, versus Luther's belief the gospel was preached to all. Calvin's commentaries make it clear that it was from the pool of sinners the saved were chosen and he believed the gospel was available to all. Google is not likely to show correct results. A more thorough understanding of Lutheran and Calvinist monergisms is necessary. The angels are in the details
.
I don't think anyone is trying to drive a wedge (pitting one against the other) between them, as they both work in tandem.
The title of this thread is about the distinction between Law and Gospel, so I don’t see how you can deny that anyone is trying to drive a wedge between them. In order to create a distinction between them you need to try to force them apart, which guts the Gospel of the Good News.
HP, I'm no expert at this but anecdotally, I would say that because Lutherans tend to emphasize justification, there is more of a contrast between law and gospel, yet with the Reformed having a little more emphasis on sanctification, they tend to muddle law and gospel.
The definitions of 'a wedge' and of 'a distinction' are different. When it comes to law and gospel, both camps (Reformed and Lutheran) will say there is a distinction, but not a wedge.
?????
