No. 3 Hi, Prof. Ziegler. My name is Eric. You�ve got me curious now. Did you really say �only the gospel is a means of grace�? Does that mean that the gospel is the only important part of Scripture? >>PROFESSOR ROLAND ZIEGLER: Well, Eric, that's a question that comes to mind when you hear that: Well, if the cost was really the only means of grace -- and yes, I did say that and I did mean it -- then, well, that's really the most -- at least the most important part or maybe it is even the only part that's relevant. So why do we read Scripture? I said before "Well, you don't seem to read Scripture to get information." At least that should not be -- you can do it. But that's not the main purpose. Because then at one point in time you would be finished with reading Scripture. "Okay. I know that story. Let's skip it. Let's skip it. Let's skip it." You read Scripture because Scripture does something to you. That is it wakens up your conscience and it comforts you in affliction and it gives you the comfort of the forgiveness of sins. So some people then thought: Well, if you see Scripture as that, not simply as a Codex of information but rather as almost a sacramental book, but what's important is the sacramental impact and not the rest of the book. But that's a false conclusion. First of all, all of Scripture is important because it is God's Word. But it is important in different ways. If you say "Oh, Scripture is only important because it transports the Gospel or only the Gospel in Scripture is important," well, you -- what you would do is you would get rid of the law. Maybe more. Maybe you would even disregard all of those passages that seem to be neither law or Gospel but just bits of information. What about Genesis 1? Well, it doesn't really talk that much about the forgiveness of sins. And it's the source of all kinds of contentions with the scientific community. So let's just ditch it. Because afterall, what's important is the Gospel. Let's get rid of it and we have one problem less to deal with. Now, nobody ever wanted to get rid of John 3:16 or a similar Verse. Nobody ever wanted to do away with the promises that comforts us. But there are these passages that have embarrassed and are embarrassing Christians. There are the passages that seem to contradict science. As I said, do we have to believe that Genesis is literally true or can we just shove that to the edge and maybe a little bit over the edge and get rid of it? We will talk about that a little bit more when we talk about inerrancy. And there is also the other embarrassment that is the rules of conduct that seem to be outdated or even a hindrance for the missionary outreach. We have the culture wars going on. And Scripture seems to be rather opinionated in some ways. And you know, we have all of these passages not only about homosexual conduct. But you have Ephesians 5 that state that wives have to submit to their husbands which leads to some fights when you have marriage counselling and you get the idea that the -- or the couple has the idea that: We don't want that in our service because we are an egalitarian couple. That's just one example. Others are -- can be enumerated. So the Gospel is the means of grace in Scripture. But the law is also necessary. Because the law does not save us does not mean it's superfluous. That the law is condemning is actually important. Because as I said before, the law fulfills a necessary though unpleasant task. We need to hear the law of God in the Scriptures. Otherwise we get diluted about ourselves and do no longer recognize that we have sinned. Though man has a certain innate knowledge of God as Paul says in Romans 2:14 following, this knowledge of the law of God is darkened by the fall. It extends to the knowledge that there is a difference between right and wrong and certain basic rules that are common to almost all cultures in the world. Conscience is the voice of natural law. But we all know from history and our own experience that conscience, well, it's not quite this stainless steel thing that cannot be corrupted. Conscience is partly also formed by the environment. And you can subdue your own conscience. There is this fact that there are people who have done vile things and there's no remorse whatsoever in them. At least no visible remorse. They can live perfectly well with their conscience because their conscience or -- they silenced it or they warped and twisted it. We do need an external standard of the law so that this, our own corruption, does not corrupt God's law. It's not enough that we have the voice of conscience. Now, the problem with the law of God is that sin drives us either into legalism or into an antinomianism. That is either the law is presented to us as an attainment way of salvation or the freedom of the Christian from the law is presented as a license to sin. So that then we don't have the justification of the sinner but the justification of sin. Legalism is only possible as a way of life when actually the law again is corrupted. Now, if the law in its full force hits you, it shows you: This is not a possible way of life for you. You will fall short. So what legalism does is that the sharpness of the law is blunted. "Well, intention is enough." Or "Well, yeah, we are all kind of sinners. But these little things, they are not the problem." Or you put little things in the place of actually the law of God. So what does God want you -- he does not want you to smoke. Well, that's relatively easy to obey. It's much easier than to love your neighbor or to help him in all his circumstances. Or to never bear false witness. Not to smoke? That's pretty easy. Not to drink. Not to dance. So you have all of this kind of pietistic good works that are put in place instead of the real good works. Or in the time of Reformation Luther complained that Roman Catholicism actually extinguished good works. That's kind of strange. Isn't Roman Catholicism all about good works? Yes. But what were the good works? Oh, you give money to the church so you have another shrine there. You do pilgrimages. You fast. You pray a Rosary. You attend mass. Just be there. That's enough. You say some prayers and then you gain indulgence and so forth. Instead of saying: No, the Christian life isn't about these things. The Christian life is about faith and love. And love means you help your neighbor. That's what God first and foremost wants you to do. So against this danger of legalism that either law is blunted or the law is substituted by things that are manageable but are not the works that God actually wants you to do against this kind of legalism, Scripture brings back the full force of the law and the true law. Therefore, the content of the law is of vital importance to avoid legalism and is also of vital importance to avoid antinomianism. Antinomianism starts with the true assertion that the Christian has been freed of the burden and the curse of the law. We are dead to the law. That is true. Now, the error in antinomianism is it says we are also free from the works that the law demands, the good works. So that whatever you do: Hey, the law is -- can no longer catch you. Therefore, it becomes again a license to do whatever you want. This antinomianism can only be combatted by again preaching of the law. The law -- when the law hits us in its full force, when the Holy Spirit works through the law, then it is asserted that: Well, you know, it's not that easy to get off the hook. And no, God actually does want us to love our neighbor. It's not just "Well, I said that but I don't really mean it" and as a Christian you are free and do whatever you want. So that's -- so Scripture says law is important. But also the statements in Scripture that seem to be neither direct law nor Gospel. Scripture is important. First of all, in Scripture there's neat separation between theological and non-theological statements in Scripture. You cannot go with your red and green highlighter through Scripture and then you underline the law passages in red and you highlight the Gospel passages in green and then like Thomas Jefferson you kind of cut them out and paste them and then you don't need the rest anymore. Most of the Bible is stories. Not propositions. As stories they teach law and Gospel. Or maybe only law or maybe only Gospel. But without these stories there is no law and Gospel. So we need, first of all, the stories. They are not dispensable. You can't reduce the Bible to a set of propositions, even two propositions, law and Gospel. But these stories are not only important as stories but they are important as stories that happened. A Gospel and the law that are based on some kind of parables are different from law and Gospel based on history. It does make a difference if God really enters this world and acts in it or if he is just the force behind the development of myths that tell us some deep truth about us, the world and God. It does ultimately change the Gospel. It does change God when one starts to select from Scripture and relegates certain features to the dust bin. Maybe not so crassly. But really defacto. We can see that in some of the development of what was called Gospel Reductionism in the '70s. They really proposed that thesis that only what's in the Gospel is important and binding on the Christian and all the rest is not. And you have a CTCR document from '73, "Gospel and ***Descriptious" where this question is taken up and discussed. When you look at some of the proponents of this Gospel Reductionism today, many of them have already passed away. But there are still some living. First of all, how you see how they fall in the trap of antinomianism and now they have a home in the ELCA and there is no -- there are no antidotes to calling to act that dogmatic and ethical deterioration in the ELCA because the authority of Scripture has been broken down. And the Gospel then becomes something different. It is no longer the good news that saves us from the condemnation of the law. Because the law has been changed. There is one statement by Ed ***Schrader who was a professor at St. Louis until '74 where he discusses the question of homosexuality and says: Well, even if Paul wrote that, even if Paul thought that it is a sign of the wrath of God that he gives man into the desire for other men, nevertheless, I have encountered Christians who are good Christians and they say they are differently wired. And afterall, that's not the Gospel and that can't be binding on us. Now, that's rank antinomianism. It's simply rank antinomianism. And what happens is we ditch the authority of the written Word of God. And what comes in? There's no empty space. What comes in is your experience. And your experience is shaped by your surrounding. The problem is: How is your life shaped? It does not remain formless and void. Okay? You can't have a primeval chaos in your life. Otherwise you are probably a case for the mental institution. But your life is shaped. What does shape it? If it's not the Word of God, it is something else. And that's again why we need the Word of God, so that our lives are shaped, so that our consciences are shaped and formed and reformed. And because this is not a process once and for all. You know, it's not something that happens and then you can go on and you don't have to bother about that. Because there's something living. We are living things. We have to be reformed. It's kind of like -- it's almost like as if we disintegrate from moment to moment if we don't have the Word of God keeping us together and keeping us in shape. And that's why we need all of Scripture. It's law. That's also why we need the stories. That's also why we assert that the stories actually happened because we deal with a God who acts in space and time and not some force that gives us ideas Christianity is not about ideas. It's about realities.