ROUGHLY EDITED COPY LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS LC2 49 Captioning Provided By: Caption First, Inc. P.O. Box 1924 Lombard, IL 60148 800 825 5234 www.captionfirst.com *** This text is being provided in a rough draft format. Communication Access Realtime Translation (CART) is provided in order to facilitate communication accessibility and may not be a totally verbatim record of the proceedings. *** >> JOSH: Once in Bible class I heard a pastor quote Luther saying something to the effect that distinguishing the law and the Gospel is the easiest thing in the world and also the most difficult. Professor, could you please summarize what the Formula of Concord says on the distinction of law and Gospel? How can we learn to distinguish the two effectively? >> DR. RAST: Josh, your pastor was right on the money. Distinguishing the law and the Gospel is really at the heart of what Lutherans are about. For if we do not properly distinguish between the two, the good news of Christ crucified and risen again for us can become obscured. The assurance of the forgiveness of our sins can become obscured again as well. That's something we always want to avoid. And, as I was saying before, it seems to me that the authors of the Formula of Concord have been moving us toward this particular point for a while. Helping us see really what's at the heart of things, seeing that in the proper distinction between law and Gospel, we have a way of reading the scriptures and hearing God's voice clearly speaking to us. If we turn the law into Gospel, that voice becomes muddled. If we turn the Gospel into law, the same thing happens. So let's look at what they say in this respect. First off, they turn to a text from the scriptures. And, in fact, we're rather familiar with it. It's 2 Timothy 2:15. And it reads like this. Paul is speaking to young pastor Timothy, "Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth." The authors of the Formula interpreted that text as handling the word of truth, meaning distinguishing properly between law and Gospel. In fact, they would make that point explicitly as they began this article. They say this: "The distinction between law and Gospel is a particularly glorious light. It serves to divide God's word properly and to explain correctly and make understandable the writings of the holy prophets and apostles. Therefore, we must diligently preserve this distinction so as not to mix these two teachings together and make the Gospel into a law for this obscures the merit of Christ and robs troubled consciences of the comfort that they otherwise have in the holy Gospel, when it the Gospel is preached clearly and purely." So that's what's at stake. Understanding the scriptures correctly so that Christ, who has carried our sins and risen again gloriously, is proclaimed with great truth, great clarity, and great vigor. Now, of course, that assumes that that wasn't being done in all Lutheran circles. And, as we've seen in the case of all of these articles, so far in the Formula of Concord, there was a controversy that had befallen Lutheranism. What was at stake in this particular case? Well, it goes back some way, as a matter of fact. Even back to the life of Luther. One of Luther's colleagues, a man by the name of John Agricola, was unconvinced of the way Luther handled this particular text, 2 Timothy 2:15 as well as his entire, meaning Luther's entire understanding of the distinction between law and Gospel. In fact, Agricola went so far as to say that Luther had mistake fundamentally the nature of the scriptures and the proclamation of the Gospel. For Agricola there was no law. In fact, he came very close to dismissing the entire Old Testament. What did he put in its place? The New Testament, the Gospel as he called it. And as he spoke of the Gospel, he described it in the broadest possible terms, including very frankly, both law and Gospel as Luther had understood it. And, I might add, as Melanchthon had understand it as well. Luther and Melanchthon were aligned on this point. Agricola attacked them both. By the late 1530s this controversy between Luther and Agricola had become so pronounced that Luther found himself forced on several occasions to write and to speak publicly against Agricola and his confusion of what the scriptures teach. But what was at stake in Luther's mind was the clear proclamation of the forgiveness of sins. He was afraid in fact he was convinced that Agricola was turning the Gospel into a new law. As time went by, Agricola found himself increasingly marginalized and ultimately he left Wittenberg, removed himself from the circle of Luther and his followers and carried out his work in different areas. That, however, did not mean the end of the controversy. Now, after Luther's death, the controversy took on a different kind of character. Some theologians, like Flacius, noted that some of Melanchthon's terminology seemed to reflect that of Agricola. Now this, I don't think was a fair estimation on their point. Because Melanchthon was very clear that the law continued to be applicable in the present time and in fact Melanchthon said the law needed to be applied even to those who were regenerate, to Christians as well. What Melanchthon said, however, is that there is a sense in which the word Gospel is used in the scripture in broader terms. That is to say, one can speak of the Gospel of Christ including all things from repentance, contrition, to conversion, to faith, to justification and so forth. In this respect, Melanchthon was simply making the point that we need to be careful as we distinguish the use of the word Gospel as it appeared in the scriptures. Sometimes we speak of it in a very broad sense. That is, encompassing our entire salvation from repentance to conversion and salvation. Sometimes more narrowly speaking specifically of the good news of Christ crucified and risen again for us. So other theologians misread Melanchthon, I think. In applying the same kind of estimation of Agricola to him. As the controversy continued, it seemed in a lot of ways simply to reflect the personality conflict between Flacius and Melanchthon. After both men had largely passed from the scene after 1560, that allowed the formulators of the Formula of Concord to address the text and the issues more specifically. And what they did was to make, again, some very careful distinctions. What did they say? Well, in the first place, they recognized that these terms law and Gospel need to be carefully defined and that when we speak about the Gospel, and when the Bible speaks about the Gospel, sometimes it is used in a rather broad sense and sometimes in a much more narrow sense. Thus, in the wide sense we can talk about the Gospel being the entire doctrine of Christ. Everything that pertains to his work on our behalf. Take for example a text like Mark chapter 1 verse 4. And here we hear the evangelist writing in this way: John appeared baptizing in the wilderness and proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins." Here you see the Gospel, the Gospel of the kingdom as it will be called, a little bit later are in this chapter of Mark being applied to all of the proclamation that John was involved in. And this is the point the formulators are making. We need to be careful as we discuss these particular points. Another case in point in this regard might be Matthew chapter 28 where Christ speaking on the mount immediately prior to his ascension says, "Go ye, therefore, and preach the Gospel to all nations." What does he mean? Preach the entire doctrine that he has taught to the disciples, proclaim all of this because it all needs to be heard. The law in its severity to that people come to know of their sinfulness, the Gospel in all of its purity delivering and giving the forgiveness of sins. So be careful in that sense as you work through it. Of course the word Gospel is also used in a much more narrow sense. And we see that happening also in Mark chapter 1, verses 14 and 15. Here we hear, "Now, after John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee proclaiming the Gospel of God and saying, 'The time is fulfilled and the kingdom of God is at hand. Repent and believe in the Gospel.'" So there you have the distinction very clearly between repentance and Gospel, more narrowly speaking. Earlier, it incorporates both in the broad sense. Here in Mark chapter 1:15, the two are very carefully distinguished. So, say the Lutheran formulators, we're simply taking our cues from the scripture themselves as they speak to this important point. That, however, was not enough because Agricola had also claimed that the Gospel created contrition and repentance. And this was of some concern to the Lutheran formulators as well saying it is the law in their minds alone that produces contrition, that is, sorrow over sin. And the Gospel alone produces, creates faith. Just as the word Gospel was used sometimes in a broader sense and sometimes in a more narrow sense, so, argued the Lutheran formulators, the word repentance was used similarly, sometimes in a broad sense, sometimes in a more narrow sense. In regard to the broad sense of the word "repentance" they turned to Luke chapter 13 verse 5 where the Lord says, "No, I tell you, but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish." Here they understood Jesus speaking to repentance in the broad sense. Perishing is the result of human sin. The wilful act of human beings to resist the good news of Christ. Repentance in this particular text, they took to mean that Christ was speaking to the entire action that involves contrition over sin, sorrow over the life that's been led, and the turn towards God that occurs only by the work of the Holy Spirit as he proclaims the good news of the Gospel. On the other hand, they said that there is a sense in which repentance is used more narrowly. And here they turn to Luke chapter 24 verses 46 to 47. "And Jesus said to them, 'Thus, it is written that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations." Here you see once again repentance and forgiveness being distinguished. And so repentance specifically referring in this particular text to contrition over sin. This is the key, they said, to properly understanding this distinction between law and Gospel, specifically in terms of these particular terms law, Gospel. Gospel, broadly, narrowly. Repentance, broadly narrowly. If these distinctions are missed, they said, Then the Gospel easily turned in a law. Bottom line for them was that the law produces contrition, sorrow over sin. Drives human beings into despair. And leads them to see there is nothing that they can do to make themselves pleasing in God's sight. That is the proper functioning of the law. Luther often described it as a hammer that crushes the human spirit and its imagination regarding its own spiritual well being. The Gospel alone delivers the promise of forgiveness, the goodness that Christ has already forgiven all those sins. And that was the point that they wanted to make so clearly. And the conclusions they wanted to draw so specifically. They discussed this at some length in the solid declaration of the Formula of Concord article 5 on law and Gospel. They put it this way: "Everything that proclaims something about our sin and God's wrath is the proclamation of the law. However, and whenever that may take place. On the other hand, the Gospel is the kind of proclamation that points to and bestows nothing else than grace and forgiveness in Christ.". There's the proper distinction between law and Gospel. The law threatens and condemns. The Gospel gives the promise of the Christ. Properly speaking, as they carefully note here, those are how the terms are defined. More generally speaking as the scriptures use the terms, we must be aware of how they are being used in particular points. More broadly, more narrowly. Particularly in regard to Gospel and repentance. Thus, say the formulators, both law and Gospel are necessary. They must continue to be proclaimed in the present time. Sinful people need to hear the law that crushes them, that shows them their sinfulness because without that knowledge of their sinfulness, without that conviction that they have rebelled against God and sought their own path at odds with him, then they see no need for a Savior. A Gospel preached without the law having preceded it is, in their minds, really no Gospel at all. Because what is a savior for if there is nothing to save a person from? He simply becomes a model or an example to follow. And that leads one back into the law, they are convinced. Be more like Jesus and God may save you. No, say the Lutheran formulators. The law says you must do this. This is the demanded of you. It shows us we have not completed these things but in fact we have repeatedly rebelled against these things and broken the revealed will of God. Seeing that, crushed in our sinfulness, we then here this glorious message that Christ, already knowing these things, while we were yet dead in sin, has come into this world, carried those sins, taken them to the cross to pay for them once and for all. That's what's at stake in all of this. And that's why the Lutheran formulators go to the extent that they do in making this careful distinction. However, another question then remained regarding the law. That is, okay. We proclaim the law still within the context of the church in order that the Gospel may be heard more clearly. But once a person has heard the Gospel, do they then need to continue to hear the law? Not surprisingly there was a controversy over this point. And that's the point that we'll turn to in the next article of the Formula of Concord, Article XI on the third use of the law.