I have a confession to make: Often when I read Christian blogs (including this one) I have absolutely no idea what in the world the people are talking about. No clue. At all.
Maybe it’s that despite being an evangelical for over thirty years I still don’t quite comprehend evangelicalese (a distinct possibility). Maybe it’s that I’m not that bright (which is a certainty). Or maybe—just maybe—these well-intentioned bloggers are failing to actually communicate with their audience because they are using words and concepts in a way that casts more shadows than light.
I’ll give you one recurring, though nonspecific, example. I often read a lot of vague musing about Gospel and Law. Gospel, in these posts, is an ill-defined term that represents all that is good and holy. If you have the Gospel then you have everything and are doing it right since you’re not really doing anything at all (Jesus does all the work). Law, on the other hand, is an ill-defined term that represents all that is bad and wrong with Christianity. The law is a nasty thing that some Christians (mainly people the blogger doesn’t like) are shoving down people’s throats, leading to all manner of evils and causing them to miss out on the Gospel. From what I can tell, the Gospel is so effective at washing away sin that we can pretty much ignore it completely—both in our lives and in the world. Too much concern about sin means that we are focused on the Law. (Oddly the term “sanctification” rarely enters these discussions at all, though it would seem to have some bearing.)
I read these types of posts and then I read the Bible and then I get thoroughly confused. These are generally godly men and women who are well-versed in the Bible and theology. They have a richness and depth of understanding that I will likely never possess. But for some reason I can’t get quite connect the dots between what scripture says and what they are saying. Reading their posts is like watching a 3-D movie without the special glasses; I can make out vaguely familiar shapes but the whole isn’t recognizable.
I realize this is a maddeningly vague complaint and that my example is an inadequate representation for what I’m trying to describe. I also acknowledge that the misunderstanding may be completely due to my own deficiencies and failings. But if its not, then it means there are other people who are similarly confused. They are likely thinking that they are the only ones who are missing the point and that they are just too dumb to understand this heady theological stuff.
Are there such people or am I the only one? And if there are more of us, how can we communicate our confusion so that others will be able to better explain what they mean?
November 23rd, 2009 | 6:37 am | #1
Joe –
I suspect I know what’s bothering you, but I also suspect that one of the reasons it bothers you is that it speaks to your approach to social issues and says you’re doing it wrong.
Here’s a test to see if I’m wrong about that: let’s think about the reverend Jesse Jackson for a moment. I would be willing for the sake of argument to stipulate that Rev. Jackson is saved by faith thru grace, and is a legitimate minister of the Gospel even though his theology is sight-unseen.
Given the theology-free zone around Rev. Jackson, how does all his public work frame the Gospel for people who have never received it? That is — if you know Rev. Jackson is a Christian, (he has ‘Rev’ tatooed to his name, so you cannot avoid it) what does he make you think of the Gospel and the kind of Christians it produces?
November 23rd, 2009 | 7:37 am | #2
If the average evangelical has no idea what is meant by “gospel,” nor how it relates to “the law,” and need those things constantly defined in each mention, but on the other hand have a good working understanding of political gamesmanship and elections (there are lot of heady political posts in the blogosphere, including in this blog, but you are not calling them out for not defining terms or speaking for the average folk), then those of us who hammer on that confusing gospel stuff are right: evangelicalism is messed up.
November 23rd, 2009 | 7:37 am | #3
Fwiw, I defined the gospel in my last post, “Dude, Where’s My Gospel?” and in fact did so stating it was important to do so.
November 23rd, 2009 | 8:36 am | #4
Not for nothing did the Lutheran theologian C.F.W. Walther describe “rightly distinguishing the Law and the Gospel” as “the most difficult and the highest art of Christians in general and of theologians in particular”, being “taught only by the Holy Spirit in the school of experience”.
Walther’s theses on Law and Gospel (from his book, The Proper Distinction of Law and Gospel) are very useful for understanding how the two are to be related. Some of these are particularly relevant to the discussion here.
First, on the need to be clear in proclaiming the Gospel rather than continuing to hit Christians over the head with the Law:
VIII: the Word of God is not rightly divided when the Law is preached to those who are already in terror on account of their sins, or the Gospel to those who live securely in their sins.
Second, on the common mistake of thinking that sanctification is produced by preaching the Law (a misunderstanding which seems implicit in your comment on “sanctification”):
XXIII: the Word of God is not rightly divided when [...] an endeavor is made, by means of the commands of the Law rather than by the admonitions of the Gospel, to urge the regenerate to do good.
And Walther’s final thesis would seem to sum up Jared’s main overall complaint:
XXV: the Word of God is not rightly divided when the person teaching it does not allow the Gospel to have a general predominance in his teaching.
November 23rd, 2009 | 10:25 am | #5
The reason why bloggers speak in terms that others cannot understand has nothing to do with subject matter. They just assume that the rest of the world can relate to their convoluted way of thinking. They process some thoughts and start writing in the middle of one and think that it is plain to the rest of the world.
November 23rd, 2009 | 10:35 am | #6
Frank I also suspect that one of the reasons it bothers you is that it speaks to your approach to social issues and says you’re doing it wrong.
Maybe, but don’t read too much into the example I used. It was the most obvious example I could think of but this isn’t just a Law/Gospel thing (or how its applied). It’s a more broad-based issue with how terms are used that mean radically different things to various people.
how does all his public work frame the Gospel for people who have never received it?
That’s a good question, but one that I wouldn’t even know how to begin to answer since Jackson is so polarizing.
Jared If the average evangelical has no idea what is meant by “gospel,” . . .
Let me clarify that I don’t think the average evangelical would have a problem defining the term in a general way, either by simply defining it as the “good news of Jesus Christ” or by reference to certain scripture (e.g., John 3:16).
But that is not how the bloggers I’m talking about use the term. They seem to be using it in a more technical sense that has connotations that extend beyond the basic meaning. It’s similar to the way philosophers use the terms “thick” and “thin.” We all know what the terms mean but we don’t necessarily understand what philosophers mean when they say “thick concept.”
nor how it relates to “the law,” and need those things constantly defined in each mention,
I don’t think its necessary in each mention. The problem is that the concepts haven’t really been defined at all. Recently, when I was guest posting at BHT, I asked the fellows to define “Gospel.” Each of them had a slightly different way in which they defined the term which would have an impact on how they used and/or understood it.
As for law, however, I think if you asked people what the relation between the Gospel and the Law is, they would give wildly different answers.
but on the other hand have a good working understanding of political gamesmanship and elections
In some sense people do have a better understanding of how political concepts are used since (at the general level of discourse) we are working with rather clearly demarcated lines. I might criticize people (and often do) for using terms like “conservative” to refer to non-conservative concepts (e.g., libertarianism). But generally speaking, most people have a clear-cut understanding of how the terms involved are being used (even if they disagree with them). That’s not necessarily the case for theological discussions.
then those of us who hammer on that confusing gospel stuff are right: evangelicalism is messed up./em>
Let me clarify that I don’t think the problem is with the “gospel stuff” but with the bloggers who make the gospel, and how it relates to the Christian life, seem confusing.
Fwiw, I defined the gospel in my last post, “Dude, Where’s My Gospel?” and in fact did so stating it was important to do so.
Indeed, you did and I think you did a good job. But I also think you added in some stuff that leads to the very problem I’m referring to. For example:
You seem to be implying that “behavior modification” (i.e., sanctification) is not important. Now I know that this is not what you are saying. But how should other people who may think this statement is to be taken quite literally, be expected to respond? You are creating what could be considered a false dichotomy. Yes, only the gospel saves. But does that mean that Christians are not required to modify their behavior?
John H VIII: the Word of God is not rightly divided when the Law is preached to those who are already in terror on account of their sins, or the Gospel to those who live securely in their sins.
Amen!
Second, on the common mistake of thinking that sanctification is produced by preaching the Law (a misunderstanding which seems implicit in your comment on “sanctification”)
I agree that sanctification is not “preaching the law.” But the problem, for me, is that much of the admonitions of Paul would fit under what is considered “the law” in these discussions.
XXV: the Word of God is not rightly divided when the person teaching it does not allow the Gospel to have a general predominance in his teaching.
Amen again.
November 23rd, 2009 | 10:41 am | #7
But how should other people who may think this statement is to be taken quite literally, be expected to respond?
Hopefully with the joyful freedom one feels when the burden of the law is lifted.
If they either sin all the more so that grace may abound or still think the gospel is a down payment that their attempts at good behavior pay toward, they aren’t truly awake to the gospel.
If it’s a false dichotomy, I’ll gladly be “false” with Paul, who issues lots of commands but also says the gospel creates what the law requires and that our behavior modification is the work of the Spirit.
That’s gospel too.
November 23rd, 2009 | 10:58 am | #8
Jared Hopefully with the joyful freedom one feels when the burden of the law is lifted.
Maybe I’m completely wrong about this, but I don’t see too many people for whom “the law” is much of a burden at all. The law is about what our lives would look like if we were to conform to God’s will. Our failure to keep that can be crushing and can make us feel guilty.
But I suspect that when most people feel guilty it is because of psychological reasons, rather a feeling of defeat at having let down an infinitely holy God. (True, they are pricked by conscience which is informed by the law. I just don’t think they make the connection.)
or still think the gospel is a down payment that their attempts at good behavior pay toward, they aren’t truly awake to the gospel.
Agreed. But the comments you’ve made so far seem imply that the Gospel and Law is solely about justification. Where is sanctification in all of this? I suspect that if you started talking about the implications for living out the Gospel—both individually and corporately—you’d have people complaining that you were preaching “works based righteousness” and putting the law back on them.
November 23rd, 2009 | 11:01 am | #9
Here’s my summary of the theology I was given in my first exposure to evangelicalism. It was during my tender college years. It went like this:
“Christianity is not about rules. It is not a system of dos and don’ts. It is about a relationship with God. Now, here are the rules, and listen up, because there’s alot: ….”
In short, I think this problem pre-dates the bloggers by decades.
Personally, I don’t have a problem with rules, as long as they make sense, and there aren’t so many that they drive you to distraction. But when someone tells me it’s not about following rules, and then watches me like a hawk to make sure I don’t break the rules, that just drives me nuts.
November 23rd, 2009 | 11:11 am | #10
Joe, you are really beginning to depress me. Seriously.
Do you really not understand what I’m talking about? Or how sanctification “works”? Or are you playing devil’s advocate? I need to know this. I need to know you’re not just being stubborn.
Because, seriously, if this is all confusing for you and you don’t really get it, and you don’t understand how the gospel speaks to (and creates) sanctification, I will be stunned. You are stunning me with each question you ask. I’m not exaggerating.
Where is sanctification in all of this?
We are created by God for good works, which he prepared beforehand that we might walk in them.
Work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works within you to will and to work according to his pleasure.
The fruit of the Spirit is . . .
Against such things there is no law.
I don’t know what planet you’re from. I’m from Planet Cultural Christianity (aka The Bible Belt), and generations of variations of legalistic teaching — from the hellfire revivalism of the fundamentalists to the 5 Practical Steps to Awesomeness of the modernist evangelicals — have created the problem we both (apparently) see.
The difference is that my prescription, which I think is the Bible’s prescription, is not telling people to get sanctified but telling them God will do it for them. Following the law will not create what it requires. But the gospel will.
And for all the “Gospel-centrality will confuse people who need to act right” talk there is, I can show you that, in my own ministry, the law-abiding success rate is greater among those who are getting a steady dose of gospel than those who are getting a steady dose of “try harder.”
I know it’s counterintuitive, but when you truly see the work is done, it makes you work harder, but freely.
November 23rd, 2009 | 11:20 am | #11
Also, and for instance:
Joe, you write:
But the comments you’ve made so far seem imply that the Gospel and Law is solely about justification.
When in fact I implied no such thing but actually directly said the opposite when I wrote this:
the gospel creates what the law requires and …our behavior modification is the work of the Spirit.
That’s gospel too
November 23rd, 2009 | 11:36 am | #12
Joe, the problem is that the intelligibility of words and actions cannot be sustained apart from a rational, practice-based community. This is Hauerwas’s way of putting Alasdair McIntyre’s point:
To the extent that we do not live with fellow Christian bloggers, who we are trying to understand, in such communities of practice encompassing our whole lives (rather than, for example, our online time or just Sunday or just baseball practice), our communications are limited to a smaller set of shared experiences and traditions that necessarily restricts the intelligibility of the words and actions of those Christian bloggers.
You do–sort of–understand what they mean, just as you do–sort of–share their practices, traditions, and lives. But rationality cannot exist apart and untethered from the practices and institutional aspects of life, so what words are incredibly “obvious” and meaningful to them are not as much to you since their imaginations tie those words to a different, though overlapping, set of practices/institutions which render the words intelligible to them but not as much to yourself.
November 23rd, 2009 | 11:50 am | #13
I often wonder if the average evangelical thinks of the gospel in terms of the presentation of the gospel, the mechanism by which it is delevered. The good news that redemption is by grace through the work of Christ as substitute against God’s judgement ought to be kept separate from the method of the revivalists whose influence has been felt strongly for the last 300 years.
November 23rd, 2009 | 12:00 pm | #14
I think your confusion stems from people trying to impose a popularized Lutheran law-gospel distinction onto first century Jewish texts (and earlier OT texts for that matter; ask Isaiah what the “gospel” is) which do not see the “Law” and the “Gospel” in the same way. (For Paul the dividing line is more along redemptive-historical lines than psychological “command vs. promise” lines).
Also:
“XXIII: the Word of God is not rightly divided when [...] an endeavor is made, by means of the commands of the Law rather than by the admonitions of the Gospel, to urge the regenerate to do good.”
This sounds like a direct contradiction of the Reformed view of the “third use of the law”. I’m not saying that as if that settled the matter, but just that it’s far from agreed upon even among magisterial Protestants, as far as I understand the quote.
November 23rd, 2009 | 1:21 pm | #15
I was also going to bring up Calvin’s third use of the law as a way to understand the law’s use in sanctification:
“The third use of the Law. . .has respect to believers in whose hearts the Spirit of God already flourishes and reigns. . . . For it is the best instrument for enabling them daily to learn with greater truth and certainty what that will of the Lord is which they aspire to follow, and to confirm them in this knowledge”
We with David can say:
ESV Psalm 119:97 Oh how I love your law! It is my meditation all the day.
But we understand that we fall short of the glory of God and that’s when we turn to the gospel to remind us that when we fail there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus (Rom 8:1 ESV)
November 23rd, 2009 | 1:24 pm | #16
Some of us poor, dumb Bible Belt denizens, brought up under revivalism, dispensationalism, the low church tradition, and fundamentalism, read these blogs trying to expand our horizons. For us, the posts are often confusing, and we slog along trying to infer what are the differences between “Lutheran law-gospel distinction” and “the Reformed view of the “third use of the law”. The list is not limited to those.
November 23rd, 2009 | 1:31 pm | #17
Joe Carter wrote, near the end of this blog post:
“But if its not, then it means there are other people who are similarly confused. They are likely thinking that they are the only ones who are missing the point and that they are just too dumb to understand this heady theological stuff.
Are there such people or am I the only one?”
Yes, there are. No, you are not the only one. But since virtually all of the above commenters are Christian bloggers who seem to have taken what you wrote somewhat personally and are responding with even more theologically heady stuff that confuses me, maybe I was confused by your post as well.
Still, I’ll keep reading :-) I do greatly enjoy the occasional understandable gem, and as for the rest — maybe exposure over time will bring clarity!
November 23rd, 2009 | 1:33 pm | #18
Jared,
You wrote: “Because, seriously, if this is all confusing for you and you don’t really get it, and you don’t understand how the gospel speaks to (and creates) sanctification, I will be stunned. You are stunning me with each question you ask.”
I’m not Joe, but it seems like you’re being a bit dismissive of questions about how sanctification happens. It’s fine to say the Gospel does it, and that the Spirit makes it happen–but it seems like there’s some additional clarifying work that needs to happen. Sanctification is a doctrine, after all, and people have different ways of articulating that doctrine (and different ways of locating it in the structure of theology).
You said: “The difference is that my prescription, which I think is the Bible’s prescription, is not telling people to get sanctified but telling them God will do it for them. Following the law will not create what it requires. But the gospel will.” I don’t know if this is Joe’s question, but it makes me wonder what place Scripture has and the classic spiritual disciplines have.
And I’m going to continue to repeat this Barth quote until someone makes me stop, as I think it’s relevant for, well, everyone who is worried about “the law” and freeing ourselves from it:
The strength of the strong is confronted by an iron barrier. We now stand before the krisis of what we think to be our freedom, of the freedom in which we rejoice as our good. But it is good only when it is the freedom of the Kingdom of God. Do we understand this? Is our freedom nothing but the freedom which God takes to Himself in our doing or in our not doing? Or is it a freedom which we take to ourselves in His name? Or do we perceive that our freedom is important only when it demonstrates His freedom? Or do we suppose our freedom to be in itself important? In displaying our strength, are we anxious that—righteousness and peace and joy should be made known unto men? Or are we, in fact, in the end concerned with—eating and drinking?
November 23rd, 2009 | 3:00 pm | #19
Matthew: Could you translate that into some kind of concept of sanctification that supports your point? Barth lost me.
November 23rd, 2009 | 3:10 pm | #20
what place Scripture has and the classic spiritual disciplines have
Buy my book “Abide,” coming in the spring. It is on the spiritual disciplines. :-)
November 23rd, 2009 | 3:17 pm | #21
Candace, I’m just as confused as you are with the follow-ups.
The Lutheran this and the Reformed that are not where I’m coming from. The answer to whatever confusion in Joe is genuine is not a systematic theology.
It is this: People wakened to the goodness of Christ’s finished work don’t stop working themselves; they work more gladly, more freely, and more faithfully.
Those who are trying to sanctify themselves are trying to pay a debt already paid; they become burned out and bitter.
The gospel creates the fertile soil for the Spirit to grow fruit in someone’s life. I trust the Bible’s testimony on this is true, which is why I personally downplay individual application in my teaching (please note, I didn’t say I “remove” it) and up-play Christ’s finished work.
Evangelicals have been sent home from church with spiritual homework for several decades now. Sometimes it was feel-bad busywork and sometimes feel-good, but neither has produced within evangelicalism a kingdom movement that cannot be “disregarded” by the world (to use Paul’s words to Titus).
“Get to work” is not the gist of the biblical doctrine of sanctification. “I am the vine, you are the branches” is.
That’s all I’m saying, and it’s why the gospel must be central. It is A-Z, as Tim Keller says, not the ABC’s.
November 23rd, 2009 | 3:43 pm | #22
Jared,
Okay, if I must. But you’re infringing on Andrew Murray’s territory there with the title… : )
iMonk,
Yeah, I wasn’t terribly clear in throwing that in at the end. I did it largely for the last two sentences: I worry that in our conversations about law and Gospel, we tend to view the goal of the latter as escaping the former. In other words, the goal of the Gospel becomes our freedom, rather than “righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.”
As such, I worry that our “Gospel-ism” becomes a law unto itself. This is part of the “law/Gospel” dichotomy that opposes the two…but then, I might just be channeling NT Wright at some point here, too. It seems like if our understanding of the Gospel is derived from prior conceptions about “the law” and “legalism,” we’ll actually miss the Gospel (Romans 4 is instructive here, I think).
I agree with Jared that sanctification is a work of the Spirit, but it doesn’t seem like it’s *only* a work of the Spirit. I can put myself in certain contexts and settings that shape me “from the outside in.” In fact, someday I’m going to write a book with a title to that effect. And that shaping is a part of the Spirit’s working in and through ‘natural means’ to sanctify us. Not everything that is (Holy) (S)piritual is internal…
matt
November 23rd, 2009 | 3:56 pm | #23
I can put myself in certain contexts and settings that shape me “from the outside in.”
This is a major premise of my book, as well! :-)
Plug plug plug plug plug . . .
November 23rd, 2009 | 4:08 pm | #24
Wilson, I knew you would take all the good ideas. Jerk.
Matt
November 23rd, 2009 | 5:05 pm | #25
We Lutherans strive to maintain the proper distinction between Law and Gospel, but I suspect when we talk this way most Evangelicals have not a single clue what we mean.
Our confessions of faith, in the Book of Concord, specifically the summary of the Formula of Concord put it this way:
To Top
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Epitome of the Formula of Concord
Comprehensive Summary, Rule and Norm According to which all dogmas should be judged, and the erroneous teachings [controversies]that have occurred should be decided and explained in a Christian way.
1] 1. We believe, teach, and confess that the sole rule and standard according to which all dogmas together with [all] teachers should be estimated and judged are the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures of the Old and of the New Testament alone, as it is written Ps. 119:105: Thy Word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path. And St. Paul: Though an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you, let him be accursed, Gal. 1:8.
2] Other writings, however, of ancient or modern teachers, whatever name they bear, must not be regarded as equal to the Holy Scriptures, but all of them together be subjected to them, and should not be received otherwise or further than as witnesses, [which are to show] in what manner after the time of the apostles, and at what places, this [pure] doctrine of the prophets and apostles was preserved.
3] 2. And because directly after the times of the apostles, and even while they were still living, false teachers and heretics arose, and symbols, i. e., brief, succinct [categorical] confessions, were composed against them in the early Church, which were regarded as the unanimous, universal Christian faith and confession of the orthodox and true Church, namely, the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed, we pledge ourselves to them, and hereby reject all heresies and dogmas which, contrary to them, have been introduced into the Church of God.
4] 3. As to the schisms in matters of faith, however, which have occurred in our time, we regard as the unanimous consensus and declaration of our Christian faith and confession, especially against the Papacy and its false worship, idolatry, superstition, and against other sects, as the symbol of our time, the First, Unaltered Augsburg Confession, delivered to the Emperor Charles V at Augsburg in the year 1530, in the great Diet, together with its Apology, and the Articles composed at Smalcald in the year 1537, and subscribed at that time by the chief theologians.
5] And because such matters concern also the laity and the salvation of their souls, we also confess the Small and Large Catechisms of Dr. Luther, as they are included in Luther’s works, as the Bible of the laity, wherein everything is comprised which is treated at greater length in Holy Scripture, and is necessary for a Christian man to know for his salvation.
6] To this direction, as above announced, all doctrines are to be conformed, and what is, contrary thereto is to be rejected and condemned, as opposed to the unanimous declaration of our faith.
7] In this way the distinction between the Holy Scriptures of the Old and of the New Testament and all other writings is preserved, and the Holy Scriptures alone remain the only judge, rule, and standard, according to which, as the only test-stone, all dogmas shall and must be discerned and judged, as to whether they are good or evil, right or wrong.
8] But the other symbols and writings cited are not judges, as are the Holy Scriptures, but only a testimony and declaration of the faith, as to how at any time the Holy Scriptures have been understood and explained in the articles in controversy in the Church of God by those then living, and how the opposite dogma was rejected and condemned [by what arguments the dogmas conflicting with the Holy Scripture were rejected and condemned].
I. Original Sin.
STATUS CONTROVERSIAE.
The Principal Question in This Controversy.
1] Whether original sin is properly and without any distinction man’s corrupt nature, substance, and essence, or at any rate the principal and best part of his essence [substance], namely, the rational soul itself in its highest state and powers; or whether, even after the Fall, there is a distinction between man’s substance, nature, essence, body, soul, and original sin, so that the nature [itself] is one thing, and original sin, which inheres in the corrupt nature and corrupts the nature, another.
Affirmative Theses.
The Pure Doctrine, Faith, and Confession according to the Aforesaid Standard and Summary Declaration.
2] 1. We believe, teach, and confess that there is a distinction between man’s nature, not only as he was originally created by God pure and holy and without sin, but also as we have it [that nature] now after the Fall, namely, between the nature [itself], which even after the Fall is and remains a creature of God, and original sin, and that this distinction is as great as the distinction between a work of God and a work of the devil.
3] 2. We believe, teach, and confess also that this distinction should be maintained with the greatest care, because this doctrine, that no distinction is to be made between our corrupt human nature and original sin, conflicts with the chief articles of our Christian faith concerning creation, redemption, sanctification, and the resurrection of our body, and cannot coexist therewith.
4] For God created not only the body and soul of Adam and Eve before the Fall, but also our bodies and souls after the Fall, notwithstanding that they are corrupt, which God also still acknowledges as His work, as it is written Job 10:8: Thine hands have made me and fashioned me together round about. Deut. 32:18; Is. 45:9ff; 54:5; 64:8; Acts 17:28; Job 10:8; Ps. 100:3; 139:14; Eccl. 12:1.
5] Moreover, the Son of God has assumed this human nature, however, without sin, and therefore not a foreign, but our own flesh, into the unity of His person, and according to it is become our true Brother. Heb. 2:14: Forasmuch, then, as the children were partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise took part of the same. Again, 16; 4:15: He took not on Him the nature of angels, but He took on Him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behooved Him to be made like unto His brethren, yet without sin. 6] In like manner Christ has also redeemed it as His work, sanctifies it as His work, raises it from the dead, and gloriously adorns it as His work. But original sin He has not created, assumed, redeemed, sanctified; nor will He raise it, will neither adorn nor save it in the elect, but in the [blessed] resurrection it will be entirely destroyed.
7] Hence the distinction between the corrupt nature and the corruption which infects the nature and by which the nature became corrupt, can easily be discerned.
8] 3. But, on the other hand, we believe, teach, and confess that original sin is not a slight, but so deep a corruption of human nature that nothing healthy or uncorrupt has remained in man’s body or soul, in his inner or outward powers, but, as the Church sings:
Through Adam’s fall is all corrupt,
Nature and essence human.
9] This damage is unspeakable, and cannot be discerned by reason, but only from God’s Word. 10] And [we affirm] that no one but God alone can separate from one another the nature and this corruption of the nature, which will fully come to pass through death, in the [blessed] resurrection, where our nature which we now bear will rise and live eternally without original sin and separated and sundered from it, as it is written Job 19:26: I shall be compassed again with this my skin, and in my flesh shall I see God, whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold.
Negative Theses.
Rejection of the False Opposite Dogmas.
11] 1. Therefore we reject and condemn the teaching that original sin is only a reatus or debt on account of what has been committed by another [diverted to us] without any corruption of our nature.
12] 2. Also, that evil lusts are not sin, but con-created, essential properties of the nature, or, as though the above-mentioned defect and damage were not truly sin, because of which man without Christ [not ingrafted into Christ] would be a child of wrath.
13] 3. We likewise reject the Pelagian error, by which it is alleged that man’s nature even after the Fall is incorrupt, and especially with respect to spiritual things has remained entirely good and pure in naturalibus, i. e., in its natural powers.
14] 4. Also, that original sin is only a slight, insignificant spot on the outside, dashed upon the nature, or a blemish that has been blown upon it, beneath which [nevertheless] the nature has retained its good powers even in spiritual things.
15] 5. Also, that original sin is only an external impediment to the good spiritual powers, and not a despoliation or want of the same, as when a magnet is smeared with garlic-juice, its natural power is not thereby removed, but only impeded; or that this stain can be easily wiped away like a spot from the face or pigment from the wall.
16] 6. Also, that in man the human nature and essence are not entirely corrupt, but that man still has something good in him, even in spiritual things, namely, capacity, skill, aptness, or ability in spiritual things to begin, to work, or to help working for something [good].
17] 7. On the other hand, we also reject the false dogma of the Manicheans, when it is taught that original sin, as something essential and self-subsisting, has been infused by Satan into the nature, and intermingled with it, as poison and wine are mixed.
18] 8. Also, that not the natural man, but something else and extraneous to man, sins, on account of which not the nature, but only original sin in the nature, is accused.
19] 9. We reject and condemn also as a Manichean error the doctrine that original sin is properly and without any distinction the substance, nature, and essence itself of the corrupt man, so that a distinction between the corrupt nature, as such, after the Fall and original sin should not even be conceived of, nor that they could be distinguished from one another [even] in thought.
20] 10. Now, this original sin is called by Dr. Luther nature-sin, person-sin, essential sin, not because the nature, person, or essence of man is, without any distinction, itself original sin, but in order to indicate by such words the distinction between original sin, which inheres in human nature, and other sins, which are called actual sins.
21] 11. For original sin is not a sin which is committed, but it inheres in the nature, substance, and essence of man, so that, though no wicked thought ever should arise in the heart of corrupt man, no idle word were spoken, no wicked deed were done, yet the nature is nevertheless corrupted through original sin, which is born in us by reason of the sinful seed, and is a fountainhead of all other actual sins, as wicked thoughts, words, and works, as it is written Matt. 15:19: Out of the heart proceed evil thoughts. Also Gen. 6:5; 8:21: The imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth.
22] 12. Thus there is also to be noted well the diverse signification of the word nature, whereby the Manicheans cover their error and lead astray many simple men. For sometimes it means the essence [the very substance] of man, as when it is said: God created human nature. But at other times it means the disposition and the vicious quality [disposition, condition, defect, or vice] of a thing, which inheres in the nature or essence, as when it is said: The nature of the serpent is to bite, and the nature and disposition of man is to sin, and is sin; here the word nature does not mean the substance of man, but something that inheres in the nature or substance.
23] 13. But as to the Latin terms substantia and accidens, because they are not words of Holy Scripture, and besides unknown to the ordinary man, they should not be used in sermons before ordinary, uninstructed people, but simple people should be spared them.
24] But in the schools, among the learned, these words are rightly retained in disputations concerning original sin, because they are well known and used without any misunderstanding, to distinguish exactly between the essence of a thing and what attaches to it in an accidental way.
25] For the distinction between God’s work and that of the devil is thereby designated in the clearest way, because the devil can create no substance, but can only, in an accidental way, by the providence of God [God permitting], corrupt the substance created by God.
II. Free Will.
STATUS CONTROVERSIAE.
The Principal Question in This Controversy.
1] Since the will of man is found in four unlike states, namely: 1. before the Fall; 2. since the Fall; 3. after regeneration; 4. after the resurrection of the body, the chief question is only concerning the will and ability of man in the second state, namely, what powers in spiritual things he has of himself after the fall of our first parents and before regeneration, and whether he is able by his own powers, prior to and before his regeneration by God’s Spirit, to dispose and prepare himself for God’s grace, and to accept [and apprehend], or not, the grace offered through the Holy Ghost in the Word and holy [divinely instituted] Sacraments.
Affirmative Theses.
The Pure Doctrine concerning This Article, according to God’s Word.
2] 1. Concerning this subject, our doctrine, faith, and confession is, that in spiritual things the understanding and reason of man are [altogether] blind, and by their own powers understand nothing, as it is written 1 Cor. 2:14: The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; neither can he know them when he is examined concerning spiritual things.
3] 2. Likewise we believe, teach, and confess that the unregenerate will of man is not only turned away from God, but also has become an enemy of God, so that it only has an inclination and desire for that which is evil and contrary to God, as it is written Gen. 8:21: The imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth. Also Rom. 8:7: The carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the Law of God, neither, indeed, can be. Yea, as little as a dead body can quicken itself to bodily, earthly life, so little can man, who by sin is spiritually dead, raise himself to spiritual life, as it is written Eph. 2:5: Even when we were dead in sins, He hath quickened us together with Christ; 2 Cor. 3:5: Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think anything good as of ourselves, but that we are sufficient is of God.
4] 3. God the Holy Ghost, however, does not effect conversion without means, but uses for this purpose the preaching and hearing of God’s Word, as it is written Rom. 1:16: The Gospel is the power of God 5] unto salvation to every one that believeth. Also Rom. 10:17: Faith cometh by hearing of the Word of God. And it is God’s will that His Word should be heard, and that man’s ears should not be closed. Ps. 95:8. With this Word the Holy Ghost is present, and opens hearts, so that they, as Lydia in Acts 16:14, are attentive to it, and are thus converted alone through the grace and power of the Holy Ghost, whose 6] work alone the conversion of man is. For without His grace, and if He do not grant the increase, our willing and running, our planting, sowing, and watering, all are nothing, as Christ says John 15:5: Without Me ye can do nothing. With these brief words He denies to the free will its powers, and ascribes everything to God’s grace, in order that no one may boast before God. 1 Cor. 1:29; 2 Cor. 12:5; Jer. 9:23.
Negative Theses.
Contrary False Doctrine.
7] Accordingly, we reject and condemn all the following errors as contrary to the standard of God’s Word:
8] 1. The delirium [insane dogma] of philosophers who are called Stoics, as also of the Manicheans, who taught that everything that happens must so happen, and cannot happen otherwise, and that everything that man does, even in outward things, he does by compulsion, and that he is coerced to evil works and deeds, as inchastity, robbery, murder, theft, and the like.
9] 2. We reject also the error of the gross Pelagians, who taught that man by his own powers, without the grace of the Holy Ghost, can turn himself to God, believe the Gospel, be obedient from the heart to God’s Law, and thus merit the forgiveness of sins and eternal life.
10] 3. We reject also the error of the Semi-Pelagians, who teach that man by his own powers can make a beginning of his conversion, but without the grace of the Holy Ghost cannot complete it.
11] 4. Also, when it is taught that, although man by his free will before regeneration is too weak to make a beginning, and by his own powers to turn himself to God, and from the heart to be obedient to God, yet, if the Holy Ghost by the preaching of the Word has made a beginning, and therein offered His grace, then the will of man from its own natural powers can add something, though little and feebly, to this end, can help and cooperate, qualify and prepare itself for grace, and embrace and accept it, and believe the Gospel.
12] 5. Also, that man, after he has been born again, can perfectly observe and completely fulfil God’s Law, and that this fulfilling is our righteousness before God, by which we merit eternal life.
13] 6. Also, we reject and condemn the error of the Enthusiasts, who imagine that God without means, without the hearing of God’s Word, also without the use of the holy Sacraments, draws men to Himself, and enlightens, justifies, and saves them. (Enthusiasts we call those who expect the heavenly illumination of the Spirit [celestial revelations] without the preaching of God’s Word.)
14] 7. Also, that in conversion and regeneration God entirely exterminates the substance and essence of the old Adam, and especially the rational soul, and in conversion and regeneration creates a new essence of the soul out of nothing.
15] 8. Also, when the following expressions are employed without explanation, namely, that the will of man before, in, and after conversion resists the Holy Ghost, and that the Holy Ghost is given to those who resist Him intentionally and persistently; for, as Augustine says, in conversion God makes willing persons out of the unwilling and dwells in the willing.
16] As to the expressions of ancient and modern teachers of the Church, when it is said: Deus trahit, sed volentem trahit, i. e., God draws, but He draws the willing; likewise, Hominis voluntas in conversione non est otiosa, sed agit aliquid, i. e., In conversion the will of man is not idle, but also effects something, we maintain that, inasmuch as these expressions have been introduced for confirming [the false opinion concerning] the powers of the natural free will in man’s conversion, against the doctrine of God’s grace, they do not conform to the form of sound doctrine, and therefore, when we speak of conversion to God, justly ought to be avoided.
17] But, on the other hand, it is correctly said that in conversion God, through the drawing of the Holy Ghost, makes out of stubborn and unwilling men willing ones, and that after such conversion in the daily exercise of repentance the regenerate will of man is not idle, but also cooperates in all the works of the Holy Ghost, which He performs through us.
18] 9. Also what Dr. Luther has written, namely, that man’s will in his conversion is pure passive, that is, that it does nothing whatever, is to be understood respectu divinae gratiae in accendendis novis motibus, that is, when God’s Spirit, through the Word heard or the use of the holy Sacraments, lays hold upon man’s will, and works [in man] the new birth and conversion. For when [after] the Holy Ghost has wrought and accomplished this, and man’s will has been changed and renewed by His divine power and working alone, then the new will of man is an instrument and organ of God the Holy Ghost, so that he not only accepts grace, but also cooperates with the Holy Ghost in the works which follow.
19] Therefore, before the conversion of man there are only two efficient causes, namely, the Holy Ghost and the Word of God, as the instrument of the Holy Ghost, by which He works conversion. This Word man is [indeed] to hear; however, it is not by his own powers, but only through the grace and working of the Holy Ghost that he can yield faith to it and accept it.
III. The Righteousness of Faith Before God.
STATUS CONTROVERSIAE.
The Principal Question In This Controversy.
1] Since it is unanimously confessed in our churches, in accordance with God’s Word and the sense of the Augsburg Confession, that we poor sinners are justified before God and saved alone by faith in Christ, and thus Christ alone is our Righteousness, who is true God and man, because in Him the divine and human natures are personally united with one another, Jer. 23:6; 1 Cor. 1:30; 2 Cor. 5:21, the question has arisen: According to which nature is Christ our Righteousness? and thus two contrary errors have arisen in some churches.
2] For the one side has held that Christ according to His divinity alone is our Righteousness, if He dwell in us by faith; contrasted with this divinity, dwelling in us by faith, the sins of all men must be regarded as a drop of water compared to the great ocean. Others, on the contrary, have held that Christ is our Righteousness before God according to the human nature alone.
Affirmative Theses.
Pure Doctrine of the Christian Churches against Both Errors Just Mentioned.
3] 1. Against both the errors just recounted, we unanimously believe, teach, and confess that Christ is our Righteousness neither according to the divine nature alone nor according to the human nature alone, but that it is the entire Christ according to both natures, in His obedience alone, which as God and man He rendered to the Father even unto death, and thereby merited for us the forgiveness of sins and eternal life, as it is written: As by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of One shall many be made righteous, Rom. 5:19.
4] 2. Accordingly, we believe, teach, and confess that our righteousness before God is (this very thing], that God forgives us our sins out of pure grace, without any work, merit, or worthiness of ours preceding, present, or following, that He presents and imputes to us the righteousness of Christ’s obedience, on account of which righteousness we are received into grace by God, and regarded as righteous.
5] 3. We believe, teach, and confess that faith alone is the means and instrument whereby we lay hold of Christ, and thus in Christ of that righteousness which avails before God, for whose sake this faith is imputed to us for righteousness, Rom. 4:5.
6] 4. We believe, teach, and confess that this faith is not a bare knowledge of the history of Christ, but such a gift of God by which we come to the right knowledge of Christ as our Redeemer in the Word of the Gospel, and trust in Him that for the sake of His obedience alone we have, by grace, the forgiveness of sins, are regarded as holy and righteous before God the Father, and eternally saved.
7] 5. We believe, teach, and confess that according to the usage of Holy Scripture the word justify means in this article, to absolve, that is, to declare free from sins. Prov. 17:15: He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the righteous, even they both are abomination to the Lord. Also Rom. 8:33: Who shall lay anything to the charge of God’s elect? It is God that justifieth.
8] And when, in place of this, the words regeneratio and vivificatio, that is, regeneration and vivification, are employed, as in the Apology, this is done in the same sense. By these terms, in other places, the renewal of man is understood, and distinguished from justification by faith.
9] 6. We believe, teach, and confess also that notwithstanding the fact that many weaknesses and defects cling to the true believers and truly regenerate, even to the grave, still they must not on that account doubt either their righteousness which has been imputed to them by faith, or the salvation of their souls, but must regard it as certain that for Christ’s sake, according to the promise and [immovable] Word of the holy Gospel, they have a gracious God.
10] 7. We believe, teach, and confess that for the preservation of the pure doctrine concerning the righteousness of faith before God it is necessary to urge with special diligence the particulae exclusivae, that is, the exclusive particles, i. e., the following words of the holy Apostle Paul, by which the merit of Christ is entirely separated from our works, and the honor given to Christ alone, when the holy Apostle Paul writes: Of grace, without merit, without Law, without works, not of works. All these words together mean as much as that we are justified and saved alone by faith in Christ. Eph. 2:8; Rom. 1:17; 3:24; 4:3ff.; Gal. 3:11; Heb. 11.
11] 8. We believe, teach, and confess that, although the contrition that precedes, and the good works that follow, do not belong to the article of justification before God, yet one is not to imagine a faith of such a kind as can exist and abide with, and alongside of, a wicked intention to sin and to act against the conscience. But after man has been justified by faith, then a true living faith worketh by love, Gal. 5:6, so that thus good works always follow justifying faith, and are surely found with it, if it be true and living; for it never is alone, but always has with it love and hope.
Antitheses: Contrary Doctrines Rejected.
12] Therefore we reject and condemn all the following errors:
13] 1. That Christ is our Righteousness according to His divine nature alone.
14] 2. That Christ is our Righteousness according to His human nature alone.
15] 3. That in the sayings of the prophets and apostles where the righteousness of faith is spoken of the words justify and to be justified are not to signify declaring or being declared free from sins, and obtaining the forgiveness of sins, but actually being made righteous before God, because of love infused by the Holy Ghost, virtues, and the works following them.
16] 4. That faith looks not only to the obedience of Christ, but to His divine nature, as it dwells and works in us, and that by this indwelling our sins are covered.
17] 5. That faith is such a trust in the obedience of Christ as can exist and remain in a man even when he has no genuine repentance, in whom also no love follows, but who persists in sins against his conscience.
18] 6. That not God Himself, but only the gifts of God, dwell in believers.
19] 7. That faith saves on this account, because by faith the renewal, which consists in love to God and one’s neighbor, is begun in us.
20] 8. That faith has the first place in justification, nevertheless also renewal and love belong to our righteousness before God in such a manner that they [renewal and love] are indeed not the chief cause of our righteousness, but that nevertheless our righteousness before God is not entire or perfect without this love and renewal.
21] 9. That believers are justified before God and saved jointly by the imputed righteousness of Christ and by the new obedience begun in them, or in part by the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, but in part also by the new obedience begun in them.
22] 10. That the promise of grace is made our own by faith in the heart, and by the confession which is made with the mouth, and by other virtues.
23] 11. That faith does not justify without good works; so that good works are necessarily required for righteousness, and without their presence man cannot be justified.
IV. Good Works.
STATUS CONTROVERSIAE.
The Principal Question In the Controversy concerning Good Works.
1] Concerning the doctrine of good works two divisions have arisen in some churches:
2] 1. First, some theologians have become divided because of the following expressions, where the one side wrote: Good works are necessary for salvation. It is impossible to be saved without good works. Also: No one has ever been saved without good works. But the other side, on the contrary, wrote: Good works are injurious to salvation.
3] 2. Afterwards a schism arose also between some theologians with respect to the two words necessary and free, since the one side contended that the word necessary should not be employed concerning the new obedience, which, they say, does not flow from necessity and coercion, but from a voluntary spirit. The other side insisted on the word necessary, because, they say, this obedience is not at our option, but regenerate men are obliged to render this obedience.
4] From this disputation concerning the terms a controversy afterwards occurred concerning the subject itself; for the one side contended that among Christians the Law should not be urged at all, but men should be exhorted to good works from the Holy Gospel alone; the other side contradicted this.
Affirmitive Theses.
Pure Doctrine of the Christian Churches concerning This Controversy.
5] For the thorough statement and decision of this controversy our doctrine, faith, and confession is:
6] 1. That good works certainly and without doubt follow true faith, if it is not a dead, but a living faith, as fruits of a good tree.
7] 2. We believe, teach, and confess also that good works should be entirely excluded, just as well in the question concerning salvation as in the article of justification before God, as the apostle testifies with clear words, when he writes as follows: Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, saying, Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin, Rom. 4:6ff And again: By grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not of works, lest any man should boast, Eph. 2:8-9.
8] 3. We believe, teach, and confess also that all men, but those especially who are born again and renewed by the Holy Ghost, are bound to do good works.
9] 4. In this sense the words necessary, shall, and must are employed correctly and in a Christian manner also with respect to the regenerate, and in no way are contrary to the form of sound words and speech.
10] 5. Nevertheless, by the words mentioned, necessitas, necessarium, necessity and necessary, if they be employed concerning the regenerate, not coercion, but only due obedience is to be understood, which the truly believing, so far as they are regenerate, render not from coercion or the driving of the Law, but from a voluntary spirit; because they are no more under the Law, but under grace, Rom. 6:14; 7:6; 8:14.
11] 6. Accordingly, we also believe, teach, and confess that when it is said: The regenerate do good works from a free spirit, this is not to be understood as though it is at the option of the regenerate man to do or to forbear doing good when he wishes, and that he can nevertheless retain faith if he intentionally perseveres in sins.
12] 7. Yet this is not to be understood otherwise than as the Lord Christ and His apostles themselves declare, namely, regarding the liberated spirit, that it does not do this from fear of punishment, like a servant, but from love of righteousness, like children, Rom. 8:15.
13] 8. Although this voluntariness [liberty of spirit] in the elect children of God is not perfect, but burdened with great weakness, as St. Paul complains concerning himself, Rom. 7:14-25; Gal. 5:17;
14] 9. Nevertheless, for the sake of the Lord Christ, the Lord does not impute this weakness to His elect, as it is written: There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, Rom. 8:1.
15] 10. We believe, teach, and confess also that not works maintain faith and salvation in us, but the Spirit of God alone, through faith, of whose presence and indwelling good works are evidences.
Negative Theses.
False Contrary Doctrine.
16] 1. Accordingly, we reject and condemn the following modes of speaking: when it is taught and written that good works are necessary to salvation; also, that no one ever has been saved without good works; also, that it is impossible to be saved without good works.
17] 2. We reject and condemn as offensive and detrimental to Christian discipline the bare expression, when it is said: Good works are injurious to salvation.
18] For especially in these last times it is no less needful to admonish men to Christian discipline [to the way of living aright and godly] and good works, and remind them how necessary it is that they exercise themselves in good works as a declaration of their faith and gratitude to God, than that the works be not mingled in the article of justification; because men may be damned by an Epicurean delusion concerning faith, as well as by papistic and Pharisaic confidence in their own works and merits.
19] 3. We also reject and condemn the dogma that faith and the indwelling of the Holy Ghost are not lost by wilful sin, but that the saints and elect retain the Holy Ghost even though they fall into adultery and other sins and persist therein.
V. Law and Gospel
STATUS CONTROVERSIAE.
The Principal Question In This Controversy.
1] Whether the preaching of the Holy Gospel is properly not only a preaching of grace, which announces the forgiveness of sins, but also a preaching of repentance and reproof, rebuking unbelief, which, they say, is rebuked not in the Law, but alone through the Gospel.
Affirmative Theses.
Pure Doctrine of God’s Word.
2] 1. We believe, teach, and confess that the distinction between the Law and the Gospel is to be maintained in the Church with great diligence as an especially brilliant light, by which, according to the admonition of St. Paul, the Word of God is rightly divided.
3] 2. We believe, teach, and confess that the Law is properly a divine doctrine, which teaches what is right and pleasing to God, and reproves everything that is sin and contrary to God’s will.
4] 3. For this reason, then, everything that reproves sin is, and belongs to, the preaching of the Law.
5] 4. But the Gospel is properly such a doctrine as teaches what man who has not observed the Law, and therefore is condemned by it, is to believe, namely, that Christ has expiated and made satisfaction for all sins, and has obtained and acquired for him, without any merit of his [no merit of the sinner intervening], forgiveness of sins, righteousness that avails before God, and eternal life.
6] 5. But since the term Gospel is not used in one and the same sense in the Holy Scriptures, on account of which this dissension originally arose, we believe, teach, and confess that if by the term Gospel is understood the entire doctrine of Christ which He proposed in His ministry, as also did His apostles (in which sense it is employed, Mark 1:15; Acts 20:21), it is correctly said and written that the Gospel is a preaching of repentance and of the forgiveness of sins.
7] 6. But if the Law and the Gospel, likewise also Moses himself [as] a teacher of the Law and Christ as a preacher of the Gospel are contrasted with one another, we believe, teach, and confess that the Gospel is not a preaching of repentance or reproof, but properly nothing else than a preaching of consolation, and a joyful message which does not reprove or terrify, but comforts consciences against the terrors of the Law, points alone to the merit of Christ, and raises them up again by the lovely preaching of the grace and favor of God, obtained through Christ’s merit.
8] 7. As to the revelation of sin, because the veil of Moses hangs before the eyes of all men as long as they hear the bare preaching of the Law, and nothing concerning Christ, and therefore do not learn from the Law to perceive their sins aright, but either become presumptuous hypocrites [who swell with the opinion of their own righteousness] as the Pharisees, or despair like Judas, Christ takes the Law into His hands, and explains it spiritually, Matt. 5:21ff ; Rom. 7:14. And thus the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all sinners [ Rom. 1:18 ], how great it is; by this means they are directed [sent back] to the Law, and then first learn from it to know aright their sins-a knowledge which Moses never could have forced out of them.
9] Accordingly, although the preaching of the suffering and death of Christ, the Son of God, is an earnest and terrible proclamation and declaration of God’s wrath, whereby men are first led into the Law aright, after the veil of Moses has been removed from them, so that they first know aright how great things God in His Law requires of us, none of which we can observe, and therefore are to seek all our righteousness in Christ:
10] 8. Yet as long as all this (namely, Christ’s suffering and death) proclaims God’s wrath and terrifies man, it is still not properly the preaching of the Gospel, but the preaching of Moses and the Law, and therefore a foreign work of Christ, by which He arrives at His proper office, that is, to preach grace, console, and quicken, which is properly the preaching of the Gospel.
Negative Theses.
Contrary Doctrine which is Rejected.
11] Accordingly we reject and regard as incorrect and injurious the dogma that the Gospel is properly a preaching of repentance or reproof, and not alone a preaching of grace; for thereby the Gospel is again converted into a doctrine of the Law, the merit of Christ and Holy Scripture are obscured, Christians robbed of true consolation, and the door is opened again to [the errors and superstitions of] the Papacy.
November 23rd, 2009 | 5:07 pm | #26
Wow, sorry about that, that was a WHOLE lot more than I intended to paste into my comment.
November 23rd, 2009 | 5:12 pm | #27
Um, that’s the longest comment EVER. Well done, Rev. Paul! : )
November 23rd, 2009 | 5:35 pm | #28
Jared Do you really not understand what I’m talking about? Or how sanctification “works”? Or are you playing devil’s advocate? I need to know this. I need to know you’re not just being stubborn.
For the past couple of years now I’ve had to make my living as an editor, which has caused me to read things in a different light. Normally, when I used to read your posts I would constantly read between the lines, filling in what you write with what I know about you, your beliefs, your denomination, etc. Now I try to read them as if I didn’t know much about you (and not just you, but all the rest of the people I’m talking about). That requires dealing with what you say, not what I think you mean.
Work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works within you to will and to work according to his pleasure.
Okay, this is a good example. First, while I know it is from Philippians 2:12-13 (okay, I knew it was from the Bible and had to look up the exact verse) not everyone will know that. Some people won’t know whether this is “Thus saith the Lord” or “Thus saith Jared.”
Second, this passage is not self-evident. What does it mean to “work out your salvation” when it is God who is working within you? If you’re writing for your fellow pastors then it may make sense to use shorthand like this and assume that everyone knows what you’re talking about. If not, then you may have to unpack such statements and explain what you think they mean.
I’m from Planet Cultural Christianity (aka The Bible Belt), and generations of variations of legalistic teaching — from the hellfire revivalism of the fundamentalists to the 5 Practical Steps to Awesomeness of the modernist evangelicals — have created the problem we both (apparently) see.
I think this is the crux of the problem. On this blog along with have a national (and to a lesser extent international) audience with a wide range of backgrounds (from evangelical to RC to agnostic to everythign else). Sometimes it seems that you are directing your posts to a particular person in your congregation who you’d really like to get a message to. The problem, though, is that not everyone brings the same theological and socio-cultural baggage to the conversation.
The difference is that my prescription, which I think is the Bible’s prescription, is not telling people to get sanctified but telling them God will do it for them.
So people can be passive and allow sanctification (like justification) to just happen to them? (Exibit #99 for what I’m talking about when I say that what you write and what you expect us to read between the lines varies considerably.)
Candace maybe I was confused by your post as well.
No, your reaction is exactly what I was getting at. Too often we bloggers make the assumption that everyone is starting with the theological knowledge and presupposition that we are.
November 23rd, 2009 | 5:46 pm | #29
Some people won’t know whether this is “Thus saith the Lord” or “Thus saith Jared.”
Joe, I was responding to you, not to some theoretical audience. You. If I was responding to someone else, I would have tailored the response to them and their question.
I now know you are turning our conversation into some bizarre exercise for some theoretical purpose.
I have had some good off-blog conversations about this comment thread today, receiving emails and Facebook messages from the very “type” of people you claim to be concerned about. And they reveal to me that the “uninformed masses” whose case you’re pleading know exactly what I’m talking about.
I notice you’re not taking any of the heady theological commenters to task. No appeals to the lengthy comments from the Lutheran confessional minutiae devotees or the political junkies to tone it down for the sake of the hypothetical riff-raff. Just for me and my gospel tunnel-vision. It’s telling.
Peace
November 23rd, 2009 | 6:15 pm | #30
I’m doubly confused. I think Joe’s original point was exactly right and I share his original confusion. On top of that, I really don’t understand the direction this conversation has taken in response to his post. And, if I may point out, telling people that we shouldn’t be embarked on behavior modification programs is inescapably an attempt at modifying the behaviors of those who are embarked on said programs.
November 23rd, 2009 | 6:21 pm | #31
Fair enough. I’m comforted that all the confused people are the long-churched smart people.
I am a pastor in the least churched state in the nation. Every week I meet with people who are, for lack of a better word, “simple” in their faith (or lacking in faith). Most are blue collar, uneducated, and do not understand the vocabulary of theology. But they are evidencing real freedom, real growth, real comfort, real life change from the very stuff I post here that is being found so dense and indiscernible.
And this is how I know that some of the Internet objections are asinine.
November 23rd, 2009 | 6:33 pm | #32
Bob: I’d say that the preaching of the gospel is the biggest and most effective “behaviour modification programme” ever devised.
I think there is sometimes a fear among Christians that, while the gospel is fine as far as it goes, we need a good dose of law to keep us on the straight and narrow. At its worst, this can devolve into a view in which the gospel is seen as solely about justification, while sanctification is seen as more reliant on the third use of the law; or one in which the message of the forgiveness of sins through Christ is seen as a message only for non-Christians, because Christians are already forgiven and don’t need to be told about it each week. But even where things don’t go that far, many of us (knowing our own hearts) feel more comfortable using the law as a hedge around the gospel, as it were.
So no-one is saying that sanctification doesn’t matter; just that the means by which the Holy Spirit sanctifies us is principally the preaching of the gospel of the forgiveness of sins in Christ. The “third use” has to be understood in that context (as the voluntary obedience, without anxiety or coercion, of the “new man” – as my pastor puts it, “faith wants to do this”).
That’s counter-intuitive, which is why we so easily fall back on our to-do lists and checklists of appropriate Christian behaviour.
November 23rd, 2009 | 7:41 pm | #33
Joe – I think part of the problem, and this meta illustrates it quite effectively, is that “evangelicalism” is such a huge tribe that when you put a bunch of us together in a medium as impersonal as a blog, it’s impossible to have clear communication for a couple reasons:
1) We have the same vocabulary but different dictionaries. Even when the definitions are subtle and we may ultimately have similar convictions, the different definitions still create confusion. (See: “Gospel” and “Law”) I think Joe and Jared would ultimately agree on a definition of “gospel” but they’d have subtle differences in how they’d express it, how they’d apply it, etc.
2) There are, in addition to subtle differences in definitions amongst people who ultimately agree, areas of real and substantial disagreement. In these areas, I wish we could treat each other a bit more charitably. And in order to avoid being fuzzy in my prescription, here’s what I mean: Every time a question is raised we answer it as if it’s the first time we’ve heard it. It’d make the ongoing debates about catholicism at this blog (and elsewhere) much more productive, I think.
Joe, is this a fair assessment of the situation?
November 23rd, 2009 | 8:57 pm | #34
Joe, it isn’t that too much concern about sin means that we are focused on the Law. It’s that too much concern about rules – what we eat or drink or how much we deny ourselves, that sort of thing – will leave us pious but unsanctified. Such rules are very popular today, as always, but they provide no help in conquering a person’s evil desires.
November 23rd, 2009 | 9:42 pm | #35
It just comes down to works & faith, or faith alone. If justification is by faith alone, then once people have faith there is never any way to motivate people to do good through fear (including guilt, shame, etc.), since the worse that can happen is going to hell, and if they have faith they go to heaven. Maybe you can appeal to lack of rewards or something in this life or the next, but that mainly appeals to the ambitious go-getter type.
So, if I listen to talks about sanctification through this mindset, and they are just boring, prescriptive talks describing lengthy, tedious, habit forming activities, I can see no motivation at work except an underlying appeal to fear. Perhaps disguised by some other word, but fear is all it can really come down to. Many forms of Protestantism also use a clever form where they say we’re saved by faith, but I can only know I have saving faith through my works. But, this is practically indistinguishable from a Catholic works and faith doctrine.
This leads me to my conclusion that no Christian, no matter how Protestant, really believes in faith alone. Even Luther wished he hadn’t preached faith alone to the masses. Thus my respect for Catholicism, since at least pre-Vatican 2 is very straightforward and clear about its doctrine (insofar as I’ve researched).
November 23rd, 2009 | 10:45 pm | #36
Joe,
I would like to compliment you on coming out of your shell and if you think I’m wrong please accept my apology. If am mistaken then my excuse will be that I have not read enough of your post and/or other materials, simply said I just don’t know you yet. Besides, trying to figure someone out by picking his/her brain is not very polite as far as my God is concerned so I’ll just keep reading and let “The Holy Spirit” tell me what i really think about you.
But just the same I would advise you from my experience not to get too far from that spiritual/reality shell of your JOB. :)
There’s so much to digest here that I’m not sure if I will ever get out of my shell also but if “The Holy Spirit” tells me to comment again, there’s no way that I could refuse HIM?
I hear ya! You’re not out of your shell yet Victor? Go Figure!
Peace
November 23rd, 2009 | 11:18 pm | #37
Victor,
That’s officially the most confusing comment I’ve read yet at this blog.
I think I speak for us all when I say, eh?
Matt
November 24th, 2009 | 12:07 am | #38
Let the one without sin cast the first stone!
I could go on and on but I’ll simply close by saying, may God Bless you in His Own Way Matt!
Peace
November 24th, 2009 | 12:32 am | #39
Jared I have had some good off-blog conversations about this comment thread today, receiving emails and Facebook messages from the very “type” of people you claim to be concerned about. And they reveal to me that the “uninformed masses” whose case you’re pleading know exactly what I’m talking about.
First, let me say that this post wasn’t just about you. Though I think you are one of the bloggers that I’m referring to, you are certainly not the only—or even the primary one—I’m talking about.
Second, the most I ever expect of anyone I criticize (and that seems to be a harsher word than I intend) is what I expect of myself: Listen to the criticism, see if it is correct, and apply if necessary.
If you’re receiving a number of responses saying that you are right and that my critique is off-base, then you should listen to them. I’m just one guy with an opinion. As I said in the post, I could be wrong about all of this. Generally, on your posts I can (I think) read between the lines and get the gist of what you are saying. That is more than what I can do with some other folks.
So if I’m the only one thinks your posts are sometimes lacking in clarity, then I apologize that I included you in the critique.
November 24th, 2009 | 1:19 am | #40
I think people learn theology when their understanding of the faith gives them trouble. They gravitate towards using the terms used by those who provide the answers that make sense to them. I don’t think too many people randomly start memorizing terminology of theological groups they haven’t found compelling in any way.
There was a time when I didn’t understand the Lutheran “Law and Gospel” terminology. When I heard some good discussions using it, I realized they were answering questions I had had since I was about nine years old.
The questions from age nine came when a woman who taught VBS tried to explain the difference between a Christian and a non-Christian. For the Christian, among other things, “bad thoughts” went away. I found I could still picture a car accident despite praying the prayer. Well, while that specific example might have been something evangelical teaching could have gotten me beyond, the deeper question of basing assurance of salvation on some degree of measurable change remained a problem. When the Lutheran answer was presented, it made a lot of sense to me. And distinguishing between Law and Gospel was a lot of what solved this.
I wonder what “New Perspective on Paul” people teach in VBS.
November 24th, 2009 | 3:19 am | #41
Whatever happened to John 14:15 “If you love me you will keep my commandments.” Or Paul’s declaration that the Law is holy and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.
I always thought that the point of the “gospel” was that we finally had a lawkeeper who covered our sin and now enabled us to be law keepers ourselves.
Or perhaps I have completely missed the point of this whole conversation.
November 24th, 2009 | 10:21 pm | #42
“I have a confession to make: Often when I read Christian blogs (including this one) I have absolutely no idea what in the world the people are talking about. No clue. At all.”
I feel the same way sometimes. It’s like I stumbled into a Star Trek convention and two guys with Spock-ears are arguing about episode 1 in Season 4 of The Next Generation (which, by the way, was “The Best of Both Worlds, Part II”).
November 25th, 2009 | 9:28 am | #43
Seeing that we are talking about confession of the confused, Francis, I also have a confession to make: I have absolutely no idea what in the world most sinners in the world are talking about. No clue. At all.”
I feel the same way sometimes. “IT” is like me, myself and i have stumbled into a 2012 end of the world movie of our next generation (which, I saw last night and I guess time will tell which of these world was or is the best. :)
Peace
November 25th, 2009 | 2:52 pm | #44
Let me point make an observation. Consider “work out your salvation … for it is God who is at work in you”:
1. The basis of the statement is that God is at work in you. Working out your salvation without acknowledging that leads to the problem that Jared is worried about. If we ignore God’s sovereignty in sanctification, we end up moving in the direction of the Galatian heresy.
2. The command in the statement is to work out your salvation. That means actually doing something, even if that doing is based on what God is doing and reliant on God ultimately fulfilling that promise in us. If we take God’s sovereignty in sanctification to be a reason not to bother becoming sanctified, then we use grace as a means for sin, something Paul is as opposed to as trying to merit our salvation in the above way.
I submit that Jared is most worried about the first problem, Joe is most worried about the second problem, and Paul has concern to instruct people to avoid both (usually in different places).
The problem is when we read attempts to avoid the problem in 1 as encouragement to commit the problem in 2 or vice versa.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact