True and False Christ

I am increasingly concerned about preaching that does not deliver properly either Law or Gospel, that in an effort, well-meaning no doubt, to put forward the "proper distinction" between the two, ends up falling into antinomian notions about the Christian Faith, thus finally delivering neither Law nor Gospel. The formulaic sermons I often read go something like this: you are of course a sinner. You do bad things. You feel bad about it. You are sinful! But...Jesus loves you and saves you. Come take Holy Communion. Amen. What about sanctification? What about good works? When we neglect sanctification are we preaching the true and real Christ? What do you say? I would respectfully suggest that we simply must free ourselves of the idea that specifically urging our people to good works is inappropriate, or that if we point out how sinful people are and how they do not keep God's Law that is sufficient for a proper exhortation to good works. Read on for what one Lutheran had to say about it:

Christ wants to cover our sins, but He also wants to take them away. He wants to clothe us with His righteousness, but He also wants to take shape in us, to be the High Priest who reconciles us with God, and to the King who rules over and in us. He suffered and died to atone for our sins, but He also rose and ascended into heaven that He might live in us and we in Him and so we might walk in a new life. For this reason, “No one who abides in him keeps on sinning; no one who keeps on sinning has either seen Him or known Him…The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil.” (1 John 3:6, 8). Therefore, whoever has trusted in a Christ who would allow him to remain in his sins yet to come into heaven without repentance, without conversion, without sanctification and without self-denial needs to know that there is no such Christ. His Christ is a false Christ, who will not rescue him from death, damnation, and judgment, but will forsake him in the greatest distress. Whoever wants the right Christ must turn to Him whom God made our wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption. With Him there is salvation. He helps against sin, trouble, and death. To Him be praise and glory in eternity.

C.F.W. Walther, “God Grant It” (CPH: 2006), p. 889.

Comments

[Paul Beisel]

Paul,

I could not agree with you more. I have had the same criticism of sermons (including most of my own for the first 2-3 years of preaching).

The more I read Luther's sermons, the more I am convinced that Law and Gospel are not properly distinguished in sermons when fear of not preaching justification by grace through faith keeps us from encouraging, exhorting, and admonishing good works.

Luther, I believe, tends to preach not so much "Law/Gospel" but faith and love.

[Holger Sonntag]

I today had a conversation with a fellow pastor on how to "classify" the law. One traditional way of doing that is "curb, mirror, rule;" we all got that down pat. But, while not wrong (at least not totally), is it the most helpful distinction?Luther, and here I agree with Brother Beisel, is much richer. How about we study Luther again before organizing our sermons forever on distinctions that have, perhaps, over the years grown steril because we don't have a good grasp of their proper context anymore? E.g., "faith and love" is, again agreement with Pr. Beisel, richer (Luther's Freedom of the Christian is about that, including a helpful discussion on freedom and love in matters liturgical -- much needed; can "law-gospel" handle it as well?). I also commend to everyone interested Luther's Disputations against the Antinomians (WA 39/1) where Luther has much to say about the law and esp. the Spirit in the life of the Christian without confusing law and gospel. But, really, it's all there for those who aren't fluent in Latin: Freedom of a Christian, Against Latomus, and the Large Catechism esp. on Baptism (the new man grows or he is not; the gospel is given not only to save us but also to help us do the law). Luther's On the Councils and the Church has a fine discussion of the seven means the Spirit uses to sanctify (passively and actively) the church, w/ excursus on the Antinomians and their "unchristian" Christ who only(!) saves. Much to learn for all of us here.

[Joe Burnham]

This is why I believe "Two Kinds of Righteousness" is a far better foundation for Lutheran theology than Law/Gospel as it embraces all three uses of the Law.

With a strict Law/Gospel approach, we all too easily make God's good and holy Law something bad and in opposition to the Gospel.

[Randy Short, Fort Wayne]

Pastors,
Be radical in your proclamation, not wishy-washy. Proclaim to the extreme the Law and to the extreme the Gospel, not Law, Gospel and ever so slightly the Law.
This is what happens when a preacher turns from proclamation to parenting his flock. I don't need another parent. I need to here Law and Gospel. Everytime another human being tells me what I am free to do, the Law creeps back in to my mind and I am accused once again. So much for freedom.
When I here the glorious news of my forgiveness in Christ, I right away think of living in that freedom. I don't need you or any pastor to treat me as though I can't handle being free in the Gospel. Free me and leave me be until next week when you can convict and free me again.
Pastors, please do not be a parent to your parishioners, be a proclaimer. Proclaim to the extremes the Law and the Gospel.

[Paul Beisel]

I don't think we should just scrap the "Law/Gospel" concept. We need to preach Christ, both as the atonement for sins and also our sanctification. I like that quote from Luther. In some of his sermons, he will actually begin like this: "In this Gospel we learn first of all what it means to have faith in God...Secondly, this Gospel teaches us love in that..." In the context of that he makes it clear that love does not justify before God, only faith. Preaching the Law is not just telling people how bad they are. And the confessions teach that in this life, Christians *do* begin to keep the Law, only very imperfectly. I hear a lot of: "We can't keep the law at all" (even addressed to Christians).

[Michael L. Anderson]

The Christ who willingly died on the cross, for our sins, is the very same Lord who ... a few days earlier ... knocked over some tables at the Temple in His displeasure with the sins of men. He expected changes in behavior. I am not bold enough to think that He was just kidding, so as to kindle a court trial.

He also once said, "Go and sin no more." He didn't say, "I am going to die for you, so 'fo'gettaboutit.'" No. The Incarnate Word came not to end the Law for us, but to fulfill it in our stead. He crushed the curse of the Law, for those graced. The Law itself, as Word, still stands.

On the other hand, 1 John 3:6,8 is a very complex piece of writing. Of course I am forced to conclude that I keep on sinning. That is the reality of things. I am a Baptized child of God, I have the promise ... yet I the reprobate keep on sinning anyway. Such is my life's misery. I must cling with all my being to the revelation that the Son of God indeed "destroyed the works of the devil," the testimony of my rods and cones and auditory hair-cells to the contrary. God looks at my sins, and because through life-giving Baptism I soulfully see the Father (and the Son and the Holy Ghost, of course), yet He instead prefers to see His Christ. Consequently, I am saved on account of Christ, for eternity. Frankly, the devil must be going nuts.

There is "love and faith" even in 1 John 3.

“No one who abides in him keeps on sinning; no one who keeps on sinning has either seen Him or known Him…The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil.”

[David Speers]

Paul,

As we talked about at our mission festival about 1.5 years ago, I do not think it so much a matter of trying to preach sanctification/3rd use, but that Law is not rightly preached when the impression is given that we can remain in sin, or especially *intend* to sin in the future and still claim to have faith. (essentially a partial definition of mortal sin). Our confessions are filled with warnings against mortal sin, especially throughout art 4 of the Apology and the Formula. We have lost that distinction which makes the notion of simplistic preaching which you mention.

Wrt preaching sanctification, I believe that this IS found in the preaching of the 2nd use, inasmuch as the Holy Spirit now takes the same word which convicted the sinner and calls upon them to apply it, change/amend etc. However, and here I think the true danger comes. The separation of Sanctification from the means in our preaching. In fact much of our preaching sounds like disconnected cliches, law, Gospel, and then do good..everything separated as if there was very little relationship between repentance/justification/sanctification etc.

[Jeffery Grams]

Simply put: As I read and listen to many sermons, the failure to "preach sanctification" is truly just a failure to articulate the Law in such a way that it calls for repentance and the new life that flows from it. "You are a sinner" is the weakest preaching of the Law possible, and does not serve the Gospel well. Instead we should be specific as it relates to our text, for example: "When you cheat on you taxes you have stolen from the rightful government that the Lord has established: repent of your sin and steal no more." This will hold the true "mirror" before a soul in sin and prepare the way for the sweet application of the Gospel.

Let us not blame "Law and Gospel" for our failure - as our failure truly grows from the lack of courage needed to offend a sinful world by the clear preaching of the Law. Nor let us foolishly think that simply tacking on "instruction" at the end of the sermon is preaching "sanctification", for the Law ALWAYS accuses.

[Rev. Andrew Green, Pastor, Grace LCMS, Killeen, Texas]

Brothers, I certainly agree with the issue of the dangers of our sermons becoming formulaic and that we need to strive to preach a message that is balanced between law, gospel, faith, love, justification, sanctification, and (not yet mentioned in any of the previous posts) vocation. As Paul writes to Timothy, he who seeks to be an overseer desires a noble task.

I see two causes for sermons that routinely fall into this rut. First, this kind of L/G preaching is the paradigm which has been reinforced by the church. We learned it from the pastors who shepherded us, we learned it in the seminaries, and we learn it from the criticisms which come from the fellow brothers. I recall when I was at the seminary how the administration lamented the fact that very few fourth year students would volunteer to preach at chapel. The primary reason that they didn't was fear of the criticisms that would come if "the Law and the Gospel were not rightly distinguished." It is a paradigm of preaching from which it is diffiuclt to break free.

The second cause of this issue is, ironically, fear from breaking free from that paradigm for it is then easy to spiral down the slippery slope and wind up preaching like Joel Osteen and Rod Parsley. This, I would assert, is far more detremental to our flocks as the sermon then becomes void of all theology, L/G, Christ, faith, love, justification,sanctification, and vocation.

[Alvin J. Schmidt]

When I travel and lecture in different parts of the country, I hear quite a few LCMS pastors preach on Sundays, and I too hear very little preaching that accents sanctificaton in response to justification. There seems to be a lot of "but Jesus loves you" sermons without also urging hearers to "be doers of the Word." And law is not preached that makes hearers really appreciate the words "Jesus loves you."

There are also a couple of other things that are lacking in all too many sermons today. One, I hear very few proof texts cited in sermons, assuring hearers that what is preached is "thus says the Lord." Second, I hardly ever see a Bible in the pulpit. Instead I see pastors (especially younger ones) shuffling 8 1/2 by 11 inch sheets where there they ought have a Bible that shows hearers the sermon is expounding the Bible, rather than conveying a think piece of the pastor. Third, what ever happened to the once-salutary practice of preaching without a manuscript that required pastors really to know ("memorize") their sermons? When I was a seminary student, we could not even take a crib note into the pulpit when we preached our practice sermons. Nor did we know whether we would preach the first half or second half of our sermons until we were called upon. Why have our homiletics professors lowered the bar? It seems that the lowering of America's educational standards have also invaded the teaching of homiletics at our seminaries. I believe God's people in the pews deserve better than what they, for the most part, are getting, and I think God too expects more.

[Glen Kleppe]

I was somewhat "misled" at the seminary in two ways. First, I was told not to preach the "third use" of the Law. Second, I was told that the sermon should be preached Law and then Gospel, in that order. I have come to the conclusion that when I preach the Law specifically and underscore the seriousness of sin, the hearer determines what "use" it will have in his/her life. I also find that a return to Law after the Gospel in the sermon places the Law-abiding behavior in its proper place, as a reaction to the Gospel.
Incidentally, Advent is a great time to emphasize the seriousness of sin.

[Mike]

Some more quotes from that "one Lutheran" on true versus fake and how one can proclaim good works (as Paul did) without confusing Law and Gospel:

"The inefficiency of faith that fails to work by love is not due to a lack of love, but to the fact that it is no real, honest faith. Love must not be added to faith but grow out of it. A fruitful tree does not produce fruit by somebody's order, but because, while there is vitality in it and it is not dried up, it must produce fruit spontaneously. Faith is such a tree; it proves its vitaility by bearing fruit. It is withered when it fails to bring forth fruit. The sun, likewise need not be told to shine, it will continue shining till Judgment Day without any one's issuing orders to it. Faith is such a sun."
-C.F.W. Walther, 1885

"For a person who by the Holy Spirit and the grace of God has obtained a living confidence in Christ cannot abide in sin. His faith changes and purifies his heart."
-C.F.W. Walther, 1885

There are many churches (of the non-Lutheran variety) who teach "Law and Gospel". The problem comes when they comingle it. C.F.W. Walther clearly outlined what is Law and what is Gospel and how much of each should be delivered in a sermon and why.

If by "exhorting good works" you mean pointing them out as evidence of true faith in the true Christ then I agree with you because that is a clear presentation of the Gospel (like what Walther said in the above quotes.)

I think that the danger is when the Gospel is turned into a new Law and the good fruit becomes the means and not the evidence.

I lived under the Law, Gospel, New Law (now go do good works) formula for most of my life. It lead me to dispair, spiritual starvation, and doom. Sanctification is where the majority of modern error lies. It is the dangerous minefield where souls are won and lost.

I have yet to find a way to properly classify or deliver good works without speaking as Paul, Luther and Walther did... good works is the fruit or the evidence of true faith. If you find that you are without good works, the problem is not the lack works but the lack faith.

[Aaron D. Wolf]

Rev. McCain,

This might be the most important discussion on the internet today. You have hit on a (if not the) major issue we are facing in Lutheranism. The Church of the Augsburg Confession is, yes, devoted to the Sacrament of the Altar, and efforts among Confessional Lutherans to restore it to its rightful place have been very important. But we are a people of Word and Sacrament, and that Word is chiefly (though not exclusively) the Word of the mouth house, "rightly preached." If, as Fr. Weedon has argued lately, our Lutheran ecclesiology insists that it is our job is to manifest the Church and Her unity—not to "create" it—then anemic preaching says much more in answer to the question "Where is the Church?" than arguments about the need for a "valid" episcopal order. When Dr. Korby asked if we (Lutherans) were willing to confess that the Word of God is enough to create and sustain the Church, he also insisted that it isn't a paper-subscription that counts but a preached-subscription. That is, what is preached reveals who we are.

I remember hearing Rod Rosenbladt ask, years ago, whether our seminarians actually read Luther's sermons. Perhaps doing so would clear up some of the confusion, since we might expect that Luther was familiar with the proper distinction between Law and Gospel, yet he was not afraid to get specific about sin. And I think the reason he had to was that Scripture does, and he was preaching the Word.

[McCain: I hate to tell you this, but one very knowledgeable brother told me point blank that Luther did NOT properly distinguish Law and Gospel, which is truly an indictment on our understanding today of what precisely is the proper distinction between Law and Gospel!]

And that, I think, relates to the problem we are discussing. So often, I find, today's Lutheran sermons amount to a few minutes of Lutheran philosophy, with occasional references to the text. In the case of the "moderates," it often seems that the text for the day is an illustration, and Scripture is then cited to support the illustration. In the case of Confessionals/conservatives, it seems the text for the day is the Lutheran philosophical mantra (which you outlined in your post), and the Gospel lesson for the day is used to support it.

Luther's sermons often walk verse by verse through the lesson, and, of course, his "what does this mean?" response to each verse comes filtered through his theology (Law/Gospel, two kinds of righteousness, etc.). Still, it is the text he is wrestling with, which means that, if St. Paul goes after drunkards, Luther must go after drunkards, etc.

When I get into arguments over this topic, there are usually two responses. Some argue that to preach in the manner I am suggesting (as Luther did!) is to be Reformed and turn the church into a lecture hall. Others insist that it is overburdening to get specific about sin, because people already feel guilty, and/or it is only the Prediger's job to condemn generally, and the Holy Ghost will make specific applications. I cannot see how either of these opinions could be faithful to the text, nor do they follow the examples of preaching bequeathed us by the Fathers, including our Lutheran ones. Those who argue against the preaching of the Law (not the concept of "Law" but the actual preaching of the Law) are flirting with antinomianism (literally). And they seem to have imbibed the Reformed understanding of regeneration, which leaves no room for the abiding and treacherous presence of the Old Man, who must be killed by more than generalities and concepts. The mind of the Christian, simul justus et peccator, must be taught the commandments specifically. It is not by accident that the Small Catechism begins with them, nor can we forget that "What does this mean" does not shy away from specifics ranging from sorcery to cattle.

[Erich Heidenreich]

How does one "preach the third use of the law?"

Is there a way to preach the law in which it doesn't have all three potential effects?

If it is preached with the intention of the speaker to instruct the hearers, does it not also convict?

If it is preached with the intention of the speaker to convict the hearers, does it not also instruct?

If it is preached with either or both of these purposes, does it not also curb the actions of the unbeliever?

McCain: Here's the problem. Some of my respected colleagues believe that one should not urge congregants to good works or describe those good works in such a way as to urge folks to do them. They believe that by preaching the Second Use of the Law very specifically then the hearer will also be hearing "Third Use" and apply it to himself in that fashion. This however flies directly in the face both of Sacred Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions. The fear is that any talk of good works in sermons will cause people to rely on themselves. Antinomianism is not, pardon the pun, "justified." And that is what we have when pastors simply avoid urging their congregants to a life of holiness and sanctification as a result of justification. Luther never hesitated to do this. Neither did Walther. Nor do any of the great preachers in Christianity, such as St. Paul and our dear Lord Christ.

[David Speers]

Paul,

One more thing about this topic. I find that we need to be careful of the ditch of pietism into which many fall, as they seek to find comfort in their sanctification, in the law, etc. Sanctification will never provide a certain assurance of a living faith. Christians are not called to be, as Dr. Feuerhahn reminded us at a conference on pietism, fruit inspectors. We are to fix our eyes on Christ. Sanctification, according to the creed, catechism et al, is an article of faith, and therefore, we get into all sorts of troubles, creating doubt in the minds of people, when we seek to make sanctification a thing of sight and not of faith, because the law will never be satisfied in our works, but only in Christ. The law will accuse and condemn our best works as worthy of death.

We also need to be sure that we do not teach sanctification as if it was a part of a series of spiritual techniques. Law-("ok, beat me up for a while, I need it") , Gospel ("ok, now tell me good stuff, I need it"), now you are supposed to respond ("ok, now to prove to myself that I really, really, really believe, I am going to do this"-and here sanctification is lost and sin is put into practice under the guise of piety). We need to remember, as the Abiding Word essay on sanctification reminds us, that sanctification is wholly the work of the Holy Spirit through the means.

Preaching sanctification is not simply telling someone to act/do etc, but is the application of and integration of the Gospel into the life of the believer, which brings forth fruit in the life of the believer.

McCain: All true, see comment on previous posts. Neglecting to urge congregants to a life of good works and holiness simply has no, pardon the pun, justification either Biblically or according to the Lutheran Confessions. The Law is in fact a guide for holy living, not the Gospel and there is nothing wrong with preaching the Law in this fashion. Of course it always accuses, but it does not *only* accuse. My concen is that the manner in which a good bit of preaching is done these days is a cause for many to be *excusing* sin.

[Todd Wilken]

I honestly don't understand the problem.

WHY do we need more preaching of sanctification?

What EXACTLY is the problem, and how would more preaching of sanctification solve it?

McCain: The problem is Antinomianism. Recently, for example, on one blog site that somebody pointed me toward a person was bragging about his love for R-rated slasher movies and how he is "free in the Gospel" to "enjoy" this "entertainment" .... a person defending him said, "Of course it is sinful, but we are both saint and sinner and so we live in forgiveness." Disconnect and I believe it is precisely in that we neglect what Walther so wisely points out in that quote, and elsewhere. Antinomianism is rearing its ugly head and we just should not be so afraid to take cues from: Jesus, St. Paul, Luther, to mention but a few notable preachers. Parenesis is OK!

P.S.
Mike, Walther quotes?! What could Walther possibly add to this discussion? I mean, come on, isn't he dead? It's not like Lutherans are Confessionally BOUND to this whole Law/Gospel thing, is it? (SD V)

McCain: Silly me, what was I thinking?

[Erich Heidenreich]

Rev. McCain,

I understand what you are saying now. I guess there is a way to "try" to preach the law with a specific use in mind. I guess I've just been blessed with good sermons, because I don't remember hearing a sermon in which my pastor preached with only the second use in mind.

Perhaps one way to satisfy both sides of this question in the same sermon is to preach in the beginning of a sermon with the third use as the intention, follow it up with what perfect obedience to this law requires, provide the comfort of the gospel, and then speak again urging the good works which is only possible when one has believed the Gospel.

I see nothing in Walther's Law and Gospel that says one must end a sermon with the gospel.

[Steve]

Recently, I have heard lots of criticisms about sermons, mostly from non-parish pastors. However, most of my fellow parish pastors already feel guilty about their sermon prep. I find that sermon prep gets pushed to the background because pastors feel guilty about spending time in their offices studying during the week. This lack of preparation is probably what leads to formulaic preaching. As parish pastors, we need encouragement, not more guilt. We should not feel guilty about pushing council meeting preparation behind sermon prep.

McCain: Ah, yes, the second use of the Law can smart, no doubt.Sadly it is probably those pastors such as yourself who feel this guilt who are in fact doing a very fine job. You do not really have a perspective on what is going on "out there" with preaching because you are necessarily attending to your own preaching. I doubt you have a chance to hear much preaching beyond your own parish. I just heard last week from a long-time veteran of the cross, Dr. Karl Barth, who was calling to express just how upset he is by the lack of the Gospel he is hearing in sermons. He attended a funeral in which the pastor failed to mention the Cross or the Resurrection, but just had a passing comment about "salvation in Jesus." I hear all the time from retired pastors who do a lot of travelling who report the same thing. Just the other day a pious laywoman was telling me about her parish's Thanksgiving sermon in which the pastor urged the congregation to be thankful that our nation has such wonderful weapons that allow us precisely to target our enemies in Iraq. He did not mention Christ and the Gospel. I wish, I truly do, that I could say there is not a problem out there, but in fact there is and it is growing. There is no point in trying to avoid the issue. We need to get it out on the table. I can go on and on and tell you account after account where the doctrine of justification is being neglected, etc. etc. etc. Sorry if it sends you on a guilt trip!

By no means, do I consider myself a great preacher. I am one of those who uses a manuscript weekly (for which I do feel guilty).

McCain: Dear brother, may I respectfully suggest you work at moving away from a manuscript in the pulpit? I know it is hard and it is frightening, but you can do it and your preaching will be better for it. Move to an extended outline. Then move to a brief outline. You can do it!

When I write a sermon, I try to let the text determine the structure to an extent. I ask a few questions: 1) Does this sermon preach the text? 2) Does this sermon preach Christ? 3) Are the Law and the Gospel distinguished? 4) Does it address the people in the pew?

Concerning sanctification vs. Law/Gospel preaching, I believe there is a lot of confusion and misunderstanding. A review of the Formula art.3-6 is a good place to start. I am a little mystified as to how you call sinners to repent without actually calling them to repent. In other words, how do you tell some one they are sinning, but leave believing that they should/can keep sinning.

Perhaps, the problem of sanctification is related to our understanding of repentance. Repentance is not merely being sorry, but also the resolve to amend my life and sin no more.

Eph. 2:8-10 and Gal. 2:20 come to mind as beautiful expressions of sanctification.

McCain: Great thoughts all. Blessings on your preaching Steve.

[David Speers]

Paul,

After reading your other comment and this to me, I would like to offer this;

Perhaps you are not speaking to textual preaching, but I believe that sanctification, holy living per se, is not found, strictly speaking, in every text.

When I preach on Romans 13:11-14 this Sunday, the call to sanctification is clear, that is holy living. But other texts call us to faith, repentance, etc. In the Romans text, the law will serve as both an accuser and guide, explicitly. And the challenge is not to just to preach the 2nd and 3rd use, they are there in spades, but to make sure that the Gospel is integrated into that whole discussion so that the hearer does not walk away thinking, I will do, rather than trusting that God will do, enable eetc. On the other hand a text which calls for faith, is not necessarily calling for holy living in the same sense of Romans 13, explicitly, nor to be a proper preaching of the Word, does it require the preacher to do this.

Proper preaching is first rightly dividing the Word of truth, and then applying that Word to the people in your care. One cannot do everything in every sermon, nor does the Lord require it, lest it break down into cliches and platitudes repeated ad nauseum ad infinitum. What is so good about the historic lectionary is that, as Dean Reuning used to say, it covers the major points of doctrine, throughout the year. We do not do it all on one Sunday.

Finally, I am afraid that I am hearing from some that the preaching of the 3rd use will produce something positive. The law cannot accomplish this. (1st, 2nd or 3rd use) The Gospel is the only means that God gives to produce sanctification. While the 3rd use teaches, it is only the Gospel, as it is applied to the renewed Christian, and here not in some formulaic technique, (God loves you so you...almost theraputic technique), but rather, as the Lord works through that Gospel applied, supper, absolution, Word, to renew and sanctify. This is an article of faith.

[Todd Wilken]

Paul:

Don't believe everything you read on blogs... except this:

A very wise blogger once said that antinomianism and legalism are the same error, expressed in two different ways. It is always a dual danger.

[David Speers]

ok, I am supposed to go to the gym and beat my flesh into submission (is that 2nd or 3rd use?), but one more comment.

Antinomianism, strictly speaking, is not about preaching the law, but about using the Gospel to do the work of the law. Sometimes we think of the anti as against, and here I think, if I have read Luther and the stuff on this controversy rightly, that the anti, like that in the term antiChrist, means in the place of. The Gospel now works repentance, etc.

Finally, in one comment you mention the guy who, in Christian freedom, likes slasher movies, (and here we need to be careful lest we forget Luther at Heidleberg where he said unless we repent of our good works (that is, the sin in them), they become mortal sins,) that the idea that I have the freedom to go forward in sin is a classic picture of mortal sin. Therefore, the need here is not a preaching of sanctification, but of repentance for the abuse of the Gospel and for rank, deadly sin. The old man, in this case, needs to be put to death, the problem is not one of guidance, strictly speaking...ok, now to beat the flesh up with some weights, running and all that fun stuff. Will I be more sanctified when I am done?

McCain: We just have to stop fretting so much over trying to apply rigid "categories" ... when I look at the preaching of Christ, Paul and Luther, to name but three, I simply do not see the kind of formulaic categories in operation. I'm beginning to wonder if what we today mean by "proper distinction between Law and Gospel" is what they understood by it. I'm growing strongly suspicious we are the ones who have it wrong. One chap told me that in fact, yes, Luther didn't properly distinguish between Law and Gospel. Why are we so fearful of parenesis and urging our folks to lives of good work and holiness? Our fear of legalism and pietism has, in my opinion, caused us to fall into the other side of the ditch to the point now that we believe that unless we end every sermon with Gospel we have failed properly to distinguish between Law and Gospel and that if/when we conclude by the great "therefore" of the Pauline epistles we have therefore negated the Gospel. I just don't believe this to be true.

[Deacon James Jarrett]

For an excellent example of the kind of preaching you are extolling, see Helmut Thielicke's "The Waiting Father: Sermons on the Parables of Jesus" (Harper & Row, 1959). Thielicke is inexorable in his use of the Law and applies it to God's people with stern exhortation. Far from excusing sin, Thielicke's proclamation drives one to the cross and lets the Gospel shine through with the idea that repentance is not so much the giving up of what is dear to us in exchange for an austere existence, but rather becuase we are so consumed with Christ, repentence is the laying aside of things which are simply no longer important.

I commend it to clergy and laity alike for clear, compelling edification.

[Aaron D. Wolf]

In Luther's sermon on Romans 13:11-14 (1521), he anticipates questions about the Law and believers:

Do you ask, Why this passage to believers? ["Let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armor of light."] As already stated, preaching is twofold in character: it may teach or it may incite and exhort. No one ever gets to the point of knowledge where it is not necessary to admonish him—continually to urge him—to new reflections upon what he already knows; for there is danger of his untiring enemies the devil, the world and the flesh—wearying him and causing him to become negligent, and ultimately lulling him to sleep. Peter says (1 Pet 5, 8): "Your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour." In consequence of this fact, he says: "Be sober, be watchful." Similarly Paul's thought here is that since the devil, the world and the flesh cease not to assail us, there should be continuous exhorting and impelling to vigilance and activity. Hence the Holy Spirit is called the Paraclete, the Comforter or Helper, who incites and urges to good.

And what of specifics?

Now, the armor of light is, briefly, the good works opposed to gluttony, drunkenness, licentiousness; to indolence, strife and envying: such as fasting, watchfulness, prayer, labor, chastity, modesty, temperance, goodness, endurance of hunger and thirst, of cold and heat. Not to employ my own words, let us hear Paul's enumeration of good works in Galatians 5, 22- 23: "The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, meekness, self-control." But he makes a still more comprehensive count in Second Corinthians 6, 1-10: "We entreat also that ye receive not the grace of God in vain (for he saith, At an acceptable time I hearkened unto thee, and in a day of salvation did I succor thee: behold, now is the acceptable time; behold, now is the day of salvation) [in other words, For now is salvation nearer to us than when we first believed, and now is the time to awake out of sleep]: giving no occasion of stumbling in anything, that our ministration be not blamed; but in everything commending ourselves, as ministers of God, in much patience, in afflictions, in necessities, in distresses, in stripes, in imprisonments, in tumults, in labors, in watchings, in fastings; in pureness, in knowledge, in longsuffering, in kindness, in the Holy Spirit, in love unfeigned, in the word of truth, in the power of God; by the armor of righteousness on the right hand and on the left, by glory and dishonor, by evil report and good report; as deceivers, and yet true; as unknown, and yet well known; as dying, and behold, we live; as chastened, and not killed; as sorrowful, yet always rejoicing; as poor, yet making many rich; as having nothing, and yet possessing all things." What a rich stream of eloquence flows from Paul's lips! He makes plain enough in what consists the armor of light on the left hand and on the right. To practice these good works is truly putting on Jesus Christ.

And what of motivation, condemnation, "uses"?

It is a very beautiful feature in this passage that it presents the very highest example, the Lord himself, when it says, "Put ye on the Lord." Here is a strong incentive. For the individual who can see his master fasting, laboring, watching, enduring hunger and fatigue, while he himself feasts, idles, sleeps, and lives in luxury, must be a scoundrel. What master could tolerate such conduct in a servant? Or what servant would dare attempt such things? We can but blush with shame when we behold our unlikeness to Christ.

Walking through the lesson (as I mentioned earlier), Luther then arrives at "And make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof."

Paul here briefly notices two different provisions for the flesh. One is supplying its natural wants—furnishing the body with food and raiment necessary to sustain life and vigor; guarding against enfeebling it and unfitting it for labor by too much restraint.

The other provision is a sinful one, the gratification of the lusts and inordinate appetites. This Paul here forbids. It is conducive to works of darkness. The flesh must be restrained and made subservient to the spirit. It must not dismount its master, but carry him if necessary. Sirach (ch 33, 24) [ADW: Sirach? ;) ] says: "Fodder, a wand, and burdens are for the ass; and bread, correction, and work for a servant." He does not say the animal is to be mistreated or maimed; nor does he say the servant is to be abused or imprisoned. Thus to the body pertains subjection, labor and whatever is essential to its proper welfare. Paul says of himself: "I buffet my body, and bring it into bondage [subjection]." 1 Cor 9, 27. He does not say he brings his body to illness or death, but makes it serve in submission to the spirit.

Obviously, I have left out much of that sermon. Luther makes it clear elsewhere in this sermon that we are not to place our trust in our works to be justified. I merely wanted to illustrate (1) what is often lacking in today's preaching and (2) Luther's adherence to the text itself in his sermon.

[David Speers]

Paul,

I am waiting for my family to eat lunch now...this discussion has kept us all back from our trip to the big city of effingham for exercise and shopping before the big storm.

I do not know that I have ever said that I am afraid to preach the parenetic sections of scripture. In fact, I have been preaching the epistles since Trinity, basically. And the epistles chosen in the historic lectionary are, as one brother and I discovered as we did the work in greek, hard words to hear and preach.

I think that we are not to condone falling off the horse on either side, as if one were better than the other. Interestingly, our friends among us that are tempted to move east have affinities with those among us who stumble into pietism and the need to *see* life. They stumble in the same direction, away from the means and towards what Pieper referred to was the monster of uncertainty. That monster is never satisfied, no matter which side of justification you allow it room to move. Rather, it will destroy faith in Christ, either way, as assurance is settled on sight and not on the promise.

The concern, Paul, is that a misuse of the Law, a forsaking of the Gospel as the means for sanctification, and here what I am afraid that I hear, is the bellowing of those who basically claim we need to preach more sanctification (by which they mean, more pointed law), who make no effort in their preaching to connect sanctification and the Gospel for the hearer. That is the hard work, Paul. The "we should be gratefuls" "we oughts" are not motivation, nor is the example of Christ, which Aaron notes from Luther's sermon of 1521.

I have been called to leave...have a safe drive home.

[weedon]

A tendency I have observed in my own preaching (and try to fight against) is a law focus that tends toward emotion, rather than behavior. I think it's simply in the air we breathe culturally to make us think of ourselves first and foremost as emotional beings. Thus, addressing fear and anxiety comes far more easily than addressing actions: stealing, hurting, gossip, dishonoring of authority, etc.

I think the best Luther to cure this entire matter in his instructions to the visitors of electoral Saxony. He's rebounding there from the antinomian controversy, which just seems to blow his mind. He says:

Many now talk only about the forgiveness of sins and say little or nothing about repentance. There neither is forgiveness of sins without repentance nor can forgiveness of sins be understood without repentance. It follows that if we preach the forgiveness of sins without repentance that the people imagine that they have already obtained forgiveness of sins, becoming thereby secure and without compunction of conscience. **This would be a greater error and sin than all the errors hitherto prevailing.** Surely we need to be concerned lest, as Christ says in Matt 12, the last state becomes worse than the first." AE 40:274

"The preachers are to condemn the gross sins of the common man, but more rigorously demand repentance where there is false holiness." AE 40:275

"They are to point out and condemn the various specific vices, as adultery, drunkenness, envy, and hate, and how God has punished these... The people are thus to be urged and exhorted to fear God, to repent and show contrition, les their easy and life of false security be punished... We are to teach the people diligently that this faith cannot exist without earnest and true contrition and fear of God." AE 40:276

[Paul Beisel]

Here is another sermon outline: 1. You suck. 2. This is why. 3. Jesus died for you. 4. Do missions. 5. You suck because you don't do missions.

[Mike]

"I see nothing in Walther's Law and Gospel that says one must end a sermon with the gospel."

...except for the parts where he says the we should preach the Law first and then the Gospel.

I could give several more examples when I have the complete book in front of me, but for starters:

"Thesis V.

The first manner of confounding Law and Gospel is the one most easily recognized―and the grossest....that Christ is represented as a new Moses, or Lawgiver, and the GOSPEL TURNED INTO A DOCTRINE OF MERITORIOUS WORKS, while at the same time those who teach that the Gospel is the message of the free grace of God in Christ are condemned and anathematized, as is done by the papists." (Emphasis added)

and

"Thesis VII.

In the third place, the Word of God is not rightly divided when the Gospel is preached first AND THEN THE LAW; sanctification first and then justification...." (Emphasis added)

and

"Thesis XV.

In the eleventh place, the Word of God is not rightly divided when the Gospel is turned into A PREACHING OF REPENTANCE." (Emphasis added)

and

"Thesis XXIII.

In the nineteenth place, the Word of God is not right divided when an attempt is made by means of the demands or the threats or the promises of the Law to induce the unregenerate to put away their sins and engage in good works and thus become godly; on the other hand, when an endeavor is made, by means of the commands of the Law rather than by the admonition of the Gospel, to urge the regenerate to do good."

The misapplication of the Third Use is very dear to me because the preaching of it cemented me in my error for so long. All it takes is one wrongly worded phrase or a mistimed point to change Justification and Sanctification for the hearer into an abomination that confuses instead of saves.

I know Baptist pastors who quote the "Third Use" to support their preaching. Many of them reason that if one is in faith, coming down front and "accepting Jesus" is the fruit of that faith. It is a thin line between going back and preaching works after the Gospel and Semi-Pelagianism.

The moment good work starts to sound like a cause instead of an effect, that is when souls (like mine) begin down the path to synergism.

The only way that true good works can be accomplished is by our decrease and the increase of Christ. That is not achieved by anything we do, but by the work of God.

Good works happen as a result of faith. Our focus should be on strengthening and building faith and the fruit will be produced automatically.

I have come to realize that Justification and Sanctification are so close that I have trouble distinguishing between the two in my own life.

When I claimed to be in faith, but lived in unrepentant sin...

Was I Justified but desperately in need of Sanctification?

...or was I never Justified in the first place?

Looking back now, I wonder if I was ever saved at all... and I was SO sure of it then. The Third Use was my out from under the First and Second. I loved God and I earnestly desired to follow his commands. After all, I was so obviously repentant. The truth was that I was never forced to face the Law's primary role in Justification.

Good works can not be removed from the need to clearly state that they are not our works, but the work of the Holy Spirit in us by faith. There is no danger in that statement.

The moment good works no longer sound like fruit and they become a lifestyle, the impact of the Law's power to convict sinners has been nulified.

[Todd Wilken]

Paul:

(Picking up on you comment to David) Personally, I fear BOTH legalism AND antinomianism.

Both are equally wrong and detrimental to faith.

Both fail to teach that it is the Gospel alone that produces good works.

Speers is right. The person who feels free to sin knows what he does is sin; he just doesn't care. He hasn't failed to hear Law's instruction (third use); he has failed to hear the Law's accusation (2nd use). He's not ignorant, he's unrepentant.

[Paul Beisel]

I think we should forget about motivation. The Law does not give us the power to fulfill its commands. The Gospel does. But the thing is, we are preaching to people in whom the Holy Spirit dwells by faith. I think that too often I am preaching to a straw man, someone that doesn't exist. I'm not saying the answer is be more pointed. To preach the Law is to tell the people what they should and should not be doing as Christians. Period. I honestly don't know whether Bob or Jane struggle with lust. Maybe they struggle with Jealousy, or rage. I don't think that I should stand up there and pretend to know what people have or have not done (or left undone). What I can do is teach them what it means to keep the Law or to break it. Luther does as much in his "Personal Prayer Book". For each commandment he has two sections: "Keeping this commandment and Breaking this commandment." That is what we should be emphasizing to the people. That is what our preaching of the Law should be (textually of course). Luther has plenty of positive instruction in keeping the commandments. But he also makes it clear that it is faith alone that justifies us before God. We are not justified on the basis of our sanctification or Christ's work in us.

[Chris B.]

I'm intrigued by how some pastors here seem to be missing the whole point of Pastor McCain's post and the quote. They are evidently squirming in discomfort with it. Obviously, Pastor McCain's post has "hit home." Pastor McCain has never suggested it is ever the Law that justifies and sanctifies. Some of you pastors are setting up straw men and knocking them down well, but you are missing the point of Pastor McCain's post. We do have a problem pastors, when people run around talking about how much they can remain in their sin because they are forgiven. I find this aspect of the discussion disturbing.

Some pastors are so anxious not to preach "good works" for the sake of self redemption that they are not preaching sanctification at all. It's rather like a three act play with the last
act chopped out.

[Paul Beisel]

I rather think Law and Gospel is more of a pastoral rule in dealing with individual sinners than it is a homiletical device.

[Aaron D. Wolf]

Perhaps we're stumbling over whether one (who is called according to rite) should "preach sanctification," as if that portion of the sermon were a compartment free of the semper accusavit. However, what I think some of us are seeing is that the Law is being preached anti-sanctification. By which I mean that the often very general condemnation of the preached Law-concept comes across as hostile toward specific good works. I see that in the Rev. McCain's initial post, in the "*of course* you are a sinner." As in an implied "Don't bother."

Now, certainly, it is meet and right to say, "If you think for one minute that your attempts to keep the commandments will merit eternal life, don't bother." But it now seems that pastors shy away from saying, "Our Dear Lord desires us to do X," without some dismissive qualifier attached to it such as " . . . and, of course, we don't do X, and that is why we have Communion." What's missing is repentance—specifically, preaching repentance. As quoted above, we must be "exhorted to repent and show contrition." For the desired sanctification cannot come apart from faith in the Gospel, which "cannot exist without earnest and true contrition and fear of God."

In other words, it isn't enough to preach the general condemnation of the Law-concept, then pronounce forgiveness and peace with an invitation to Communion. (Response: "I wish I wasn't how I am, which I can't change anyway, and I'm glad I'm forgiven.") The Law must be preached in such a way (whether directly or indirectly) that repentance is "urged" (per Luther), then the Gospel and Its glorious benefits. (Response: "God be merciful to me, a sinner; thanks be to God for His indescribable gift.")

Speaking of ways to end a sermon: One pastor preached an entire sermon on stealing—outlining ways we steal, obvious and subtle, in excruciating detail, no stone left unturned, no one able to wiggle free and thank God that he isn't like the publican, etc. The preacher concluded this way:

Whoever now seeks and desires good works will find here more than enough such as are heartily acceptable and pleasing to God, and in addition are favored and crowned with excellent blessings, that we are to be richly compensated for all that we do for our neighbor's good and from friendship; as King Solomon also teaches Prov. 19, 17: He that hath pity upon the poor lendeth unto the Lord; and that which he hath given will He pay him again. Here, then, you have a rich Lord, who is certainly sufficient for you, and who will not suffer you to come short in anything or to want; thus you can with a joyful conscience enjoy a hundred times more than you could scrape together with unfaithfulness and wrong. Now, whoever does not desire the blessing will find wrath and misfortune enough.

Does this ending fit the "end-only-with Gospel" formula? Does the "whoever now seeks and desires good works" statement amount to "preaching sanctification"? Was the pastor's language too loose, implying works righteousness by citing Solomon's "that which he hath given will He pay him again"?

[Steven Hein]

I think that it would be good to clarify what needs to be clarified when talking about "preaching" sanctification or good works within the framework of rightly dividing Law and Gospel It is certainly appropriate as many have pointed out to use the sermon as the context to teach our people about what sanctification is, who it is accomplished and what flows from it. In this sense, we would be using the sermon for pedagogical purposes as Luther certainly did on many occasions. We teach about the Gospel and its articles of faith from the pulpit. We can do the same concerning good works.

But if we are talking about preaching, in the narrow sense - speaking the Gospel work, gifts, and promises for and in behalf of Christ; then there is no such thing as "preaching sanctification" any more than there is preaching "good works" or "union with Christ" or the "fullness of the Spirit." All of these things are the result of the divine working of Christ and His Spirit through the preaching of pure Gospel at full-strength. We must trust that God will have his way with His Saving Word in the lives of repentant sinners, when, where and as he chooses.

But then, if Paul's concern is that there is too little sanctification being accomplished in the lives of God's people, if he thinks that they are also flagging in good works - servicing Christ in the neighbor's need where they they have been called to serve . . . well that is an entirely different matter. Neither sanctification nor good works are produced by devoting a lot of correct information about them. Nor are they in any way produced by exhorting them. They are the result of the impact of the Gospel preached to repentant sinners - applying the saving gifts whereby faith and life in Christ is matured, good works empowered, and God's people are fed.

I agree that there is poor teaching in many quarters of our church about sanctification - telling our people that good works help produce sanctification, rather than explaining that good works are the consequence of God's work of sanctification. By all means let is teach sanctification from the pulpit and the classroom! But let it be rightly taught concerning what it is, how it is produced, and what are its outcomes in the Christian life of faith. And when we do, let us not compromise or fudge our understanding that all the work of our salvation is monergistic - totally accomplished by the will and working of our gracious God through his appointed sacred means.

Steven Hein

[Chris B.]

Dr. Hein, what I'm not seeing in your comments is any acknowledgement that in fact it is entirely "good, right and salutary" to engage in NT parenesis, that is, exhorting people to do good works and then describing those "works prepared beforehand that we might walk in them."

[Chris B.]

Dr. Hein, I meant also to say that I would really like to read your specific response to Mr. Wolf's post previous to your's. Thanks.

[Holger Sonntag]

Ok, Pr. Wilken hasn't met a Christian who said: I can continue in sin because I'm forgiven. Not to engage in semantic arguments here (a la: would a person who said that really be a Christian since, as the Confessions frequently teach and warn, faith cannot coexist with impenitence?), but does not Paul's question in Rom. 6:1 indicate that there were back then, and that there will be till the end of the world, those who say this, at least in their minds and hearts? Is that not the way of the old Adam if we let him have his way? Why else all those warnings in Scripture not to let sin rule over us, to examine ourselves?

Luther found such people in the Antinomians of his day and in their followers, see Sm. Art. III, III:42-45; esp. in his "On the Councils and the Church" (AE 41:113-115).

Preaching Christ against / without the Holy Spirit, as Luther sees the Antinomians doing, is a problem because then the gospel is a tranquilizing drug, a human idea without any divine power in it, not the sword of the Spirit.

Consider the words of the Small Catechism: Christ is my Lord who has redeemed me *that I may be his own and live under him in his kingdom and serve him in everlasting righteousness, innocence and blessedness.* Redemption aims at now actually serving the one whom you belong, Jesus, in thought, word, and deed, according to his holy will, the 10 C.s. While redemption is not a "first step" in the sense that we can now securely forget about it ("forgiveness is always needed," said Luther in the Large Cat.), it is also not simply an end in itself.

All I'm saying is this: the old Adam can take on many religiously justified masks -- he can pose as a works saint or as a swine (Luther's choice word). Since we don't exclude the works saint from "Christian" possibilities, why should we eliminate the pig variation? I don't think that the latter is just a rhetorical scarecrow or a straw man that inept preachers set up because they don't have anyhting of value to say.

To summarize Luther's On Christian Freedom in a paragraph: There is a Christian way of life; inwardly, toward God, it is faith in the gospel; outwardly, toward the neighbor, it is love, obedience to the holy law of God. (Confusion arises when faith and love are confused: love applied to God (legalism); faith applied to neighbor (antinomianism).) Christians live in a certain way; they do certain things, not others. (And for any doctrinal antinomians (there are likely more of these than of moral antinomians): Christians also *believe* certain things, not others!)

I liked Paul Beisel's short and sweet definition of the law: Tells us what God wants us to do and what God wants us to let undone (see LC II, 1 and, really, the whole first chief part of both catechisms: "fear and love God, so that we *don't* ... but *do* ...") -- the threats and rewards attached to the law tell (the old) man that God really means what he just said. That's basic. The "uses" we typically get bogged down in build on that and, well, show us this revelation of God's will in "use" / "action": what happens when God's will meets man (tells him what (not) to do; leads him to outward righteousness; leads him to dispair -- is the "rule" use perhaps the most basic one??)? (There is, BTW, a fine distinction between theological and political use of the law based on 2 Cor. 3: Christ's spritual use of the law that cuts to the core of our existence and exposes original sin (see Ep. V, 8).)

So, as Walther said: we need not talk much about faith, though sometimes we should also talk about it; mostly preaching the gospel will do -- let's now also say: we need not talk much about the "uses" of the law, though sometimes we should (and we always need to know them); mostly preaching what God wants us to do and not to do does the job, however God then wants to use his law.

[David Speers]

Aaron,

When you speak about the preaching of the law and gospel wrt sanctification, that is, "Our Dear Lord desires us to do X," without some dismissive qualifier attached to it such as " . . . and, of course, we don't do X, and that is why we have Communion", are you saying that communion is just kind of a cover up for that which is lacking? That is, ok, you did not live a good Christian life, so this will make you feel better for your failure? Kind of like a theraputic bandaid?

[Paul T. McCain]

Excuse the interruption in the commentary thread, but I had to remove several comments that were off-topic and ended up being attacks on another person's blog site. Thanks for staying on topic.

[Steven Hein]

Let me clarify a couple of points. As I have tried to point out an important distinction between preaching the Gospel and teaching about the Gospel - whatever the articles of faith, e.g. sanctification; The same point holds true about the Law. There is a time to teach about the Law - what it is, what it does, and why we need it in the Christian life. And there is a time to preach it. My point is that when we preach it we do so at full-strength - make it in your face, smash-mouth Law. Don't water it down into doability. Yes, Let us exhort, demand, and insist with the voice of God works that flow from fear, love and trust in God, works that are within the parameters of God's Law, and have the specific command that comes from one's vocational offices. We exhort them to be done perfectly, constantly, spontaneously, and joyously. Parenesis does not mean encourage, entice, beg, bargain or bribe. And . . . if we are preaching Good Works with full-strenght Law,we do it BEFORE the Gospel (not after!) so that should God have humbled any out there from our preaching to repentance, they may receive the sweet comfort of the Gospel of Christ's righteousness, which alone will mature the new creation to be fruitful in accord to what we have been exhorting and demanding about Good Works in the name of God.

Let me also indicate that I think that in no sense should we be talking to one another or our people in a way that would imply that preaching or teaching good works is preaching or teaching sanctification. Good works are to be taught and understood as the fruit of a live and growing faith and life in Christ, never a contributing cause. We are not to give our people the impression that they should step up their zeal for good works so that they can become more sanctified. This is protestant heresy. We are indeed God's workmanship throughout our life of faith. But, only as he does his promised work of sustaining, empowering, and growing our life in Christ through the Gospel will the works flow or increase.

Steven Hein

[Todd Wilken]

I'm honestly still trying to understand the problem this thread is trying to address. Someone, --anyone-- answer these questions:

If I advocate preaching the Law in all its sterness (and specificity), and the Gospel in all its sweetness, IN THAT ORDER, with a general predominance of the Gospel, does that make me antinomian?

Does such preaching produce antinomians?

If not, then again, what is the problem?

[Steven Hein]

Todd

If you preach full-strenght stern Law and then the Gospel in all its sweetness, you are most certainly not an anti-nomian.

An antinomian is one who teaches that Christians no longer need the preaching or teaching of the Law.

Steven Hein

[David Speers]

Todd,

You bring to mind one thing that I wanted to say about this whole business, wrt the predominance of the Gospel. When we say that the Gospel is to predominate, we are not saying that the Gospel must come last, in some form of technical structure, but rather, that whatever law is spoken in the sermon, whatever sin is exposed/condemned, whatever exhortation and failures are brought up, the answer is found in the Gospel. That is, the Gospel predominates, in the sense that the person who is listening will find the solution, God's work, for Christ's sake, in our lives. That *He* justifies and sanctifies us wholly.

Therefore, the proper preaching of law and gospel is not some technique or quantitative issue, but one which is better described as that which is wounded by the law, is healed by the gospel.

[Todd Wilken]

David:

The order in which Law and Gospel are preached is important. We aren't Barthians (I hope).

Technique has nothing to do with it. As you say, the Law doesn't answer the Gospel; the Gospel answers the Law. The Gospel doesn't serve the Law; the Law serves the Gospel.

Why would a preacher want to give the Law (which always accuses in all three uses) the final word?

Or to put it in your terms, why wouldn't a preacher want to leave his hearers with the Gospel that heals?

Again, does ending with the Gospel produce antinomians? If so, then why wouldn't ending with the Law produce legalists?

[Paul T. McCain]

But here's the point. I'm not so sure that our assumptions about structure of a sermon necessarily are "properly distinguishing Law and Gospel."

If what you and Steve are saying is true then indeed we must conclude that Martin Luther and C.F.W. Walther were quite miserable at Law/Gospel distinction and preaching.

No?

[Todd Wilken]

Paul:

Are you suggesting that we rethink Law and Gospel according to how Luther and Walther preached, rather than what they wrote about Law and Gospel?

Please bear with me.

I seems that such a redefinition would touch on more than just questions of order. It would require a wholesale rethinking of the basic assumptions. Is the distinction between Law and Gospel even valid? Can the two be mingled without harm? Does the Law produce good works? Does the Gospel contain commands?

For instance, perhaps Walther really meant for the Law to predominate in Christian preaching. I’m sure we could find a sermon or two of his where that is the case. No?

Upon what objective basis would such a re-evaluation take place? Which sermons, by which preachers, would serve as our guide?

Would Walther’s “Proper Distinction” even be useful as a seminary text any more? Certainly not without extensive explanatory notes or revisions, or both.

And finally, what would that mean for the all the sermons that have been preached according to the traditional understanding of Law and Gospel? Have faithful preachers really been unfaithful preachers? Have generations of Lutheran pastors been mishandling God’s Word from our pulpits all these centuries? Worse yet, have generations of listeners been misled? Have they been preached unwittingly into perdition?

As I keep asking, where has the traditional understanding of Law and Gospel proven deficient?

McCain: It is my position that the *traditional* understanding is by no means deficient at all, but rather the deficiency lies in the present manner in which an increasing number of pastors preach. Traditionally, such as Walther's quote that started this post shows, there was no hesitation in Lutheran preaching to speak very clear about good works and not get all tied up in knots over trying to *avoid* very clear parenesis in sermons or to try to force every sermon into a mold of condemning sin-declaring forgiveness-exhorting to take Communion and then nary a word exhorting the saints to do good works. That is why I put the question to you the way I did. Given what you seem to think is the proper way to distinguish Law and Gospel in sermons, then Luther and Walther would have get low marks. And it is precisely my study of Luther's sermons, and Walther's, that has led me conclude that there is a short circuit in relatively recent homiletical theory and method in our Synod, not any sort of problem with the traditional understanding and application of the proper distinction between Law and Gospel.

[Steven Hein]

Paul,

Concluding that Luther or even one's self are in the "needs improvement" category when it comes to rightly dividing Law and Gospel in our preaching should not be so disturbing. Luther indicated that he has not mastered the art, even thought I certainly think he got it right, as did Walther on what it is that we ought to be doing - what it is that rightly divides them.

I think it is a whole lot easier to theologize and teach ABOUT the ministries of Law and Gospel, as we have been doing, than actually doing it in our sermons.

While I do indeed think that the structure of the sermon must represent clearly to those who hear it, the Word that kills before the Word that brings life (Law before Gospel); and this as a logical assumption, this is not the only consideration. Each is also to be kept at full strength and as Walther taught so well, we are to preach so that secure sinners hear only full-strength Law and terrified sinners only the pure sweetness of the Gospel. Easy to prescribe . . . hard to do in practice.

I do think that when we preach and teach, we do need to be very careful on how we use language. The term "sanctification"has been terribly misused in much contemporary preaching and teaching. As an integral part of the saving work of Christ throught the Gospel, it just is not to be equated with our efforts, commitments, or busy-ness in the works of faith. These works, shaped by vocatio, are resulting consequences of sanctification - of our life and growth in Christ through the impact of the Gospel.

Exhorting good works is indeed a part of the ministry of the Law, which while it informs, produces not an ounce of faith, life, or good works in Christ. It just makes us hungry for the Gospel gifts. And this is not a trivial point. The actual production of the works flows from the impact of the Gospel in the hearts of repentant, hungry, and grateful believers.

My bone with those who want to talk about preaching Good Works is that they often either water them down into mere civilly righteous works what are very doable even by sinful resolve, or else they push some pet works on all our people that do not respect the diversity of our our vocational offices, e.g. everyone should get out there and evangelize their neighborhoods.

I believe that we need to teach our people that our good works are God's secret; held right now hidden with him in Heaven. The works that Christ will extol as done unto him are those which have a character about them that cannot be seen in this life, by anyone but our Lord himself. He alone sees the faith and the fear, love and trust in God by which he will reckon them as done unto him. Without this component now hidden in the heart, we are not talking about the theological category of "Good Works." Only on an outward civil righteousness level can we show our works to others. And of course, the hypocrites, false believers, and sectarians can and do the same.

Luther remarked that "things were bad with the Pope, but worse among us." His point involved the frustrating recognition that it is only where the preaching and teaching of pure Gospel takes place, where sinners hear that they are saved by Christ alone, from grace alone, by faith alone that the Devil can tempt the faithful to use grace as a license for sin. Tnat sin can involve both commission and omission. But despite how exasperated we may rightly become about this, I do not believe that it is a sign that the preaching and teaching about sanctification and good works has been flagging. Rather, I believe that it is a sign of believers who are choking on the Gospel from an attitude of ingratitude. They are suffering from an unbalanced diet of Gospel, Gospel, Gospel. What is missing is God's great appetite builder, full strength Law that truly works the continual dying to sin in the repentant heart. That alone makes the heart soft and ready to actually take in the Gospel gifts where they may have their impact unto sanctification and good works.

I believe that sanctification suffers in our midst where all there is is a steady bland diet of a Gospel, often watered down, about how God loves you and the love of Christ, ad nauseaum. The Law is talked about as a doctrine, but no real preaching of it that confronts us with our own sickness unto death take place. The faithful are not continually dying to sin from full strength Law. And without that, few are being raised up anew by the Gospel. They are just becoming spiritually bored.

Or am I all wet here?

Steven Hein

Steve: You are not all wet, but you are arguing against points I'm certainly not making or asserting, and in so doing, I believe, with respect, missing my point. Nowhere am I suggesting that the Law has any power to produce good work, etc. etc.

[Mark Louderback]

Prof David Schmitt of CSL wrote an excellent article on "Law then Gospel". See the Jan 1999 issue of Concordia Journal.

His point was that while all sermons do indeed involve a Law/Gospel presentation, we can bore our audiences and thus be completely ineffective if our presentation is always "Law then Gospel."

He gives examples from Walther and Luther who often preached sermons that were not just "Law then Gospel" but were "Law then Gospel then Law then Gospel then Law then Gospel." Or even another structure.

Check out the article for yourself--my description doesn't do it justice. (it is not on the CSL website unfortunately.)

[Holger Sonntag]

Todd: It might seem strange but there are indeed people, maybe not on this thread, who will say that every attempt / desire to fulfill the law is an attept at self-justification. And they will also not want the stern preaching of the law to be "constructive," in any sense of "rule" (unfortunate term but ...). As Paul McCain said some time earlier on this thread: the argument is made that "always accuses" really means "only accuses," ever. This collapses all "our" three uses into one which allows us then to degrade anyone with more than one use as Reformed or, worse yet, some crypto works saint.

To be sure, Melanchthon not only says that the law *always* accuses (Ap. IV:38 etc.). He also says, at least once (Ap. IV:257, first (quarto) ed., see Tapert and BSLK, cf. p. 160 first full para. of Kolb/Wengert which translates the second (octavo) ed.): the law *only* accuses, tantum accusat (Melanchthon is talking about preaching of repentance here).

Thus, the law always and only accuses us. Yet Melanchthon, unlike some modern folks, does expect the Christian to begin to actually fulfill the law. For in Ap. IV under the head "Love and the Fulfillment of the Law" he states that through Christ we receive forgiveness and the Holy Spirit who, first of all, shows us the magnitude of our sin by letting us see the unveiled face of Moses (133-135), then shows us our Savior, and then enables us to *begin* to do the law more and more (Ap. IV:125, 132, 136). Evidently, only faith in Christ frees from the law's ongoing and constant accusation of the imperfect active sanctification of the reborn (140, 166f.). Emphatically Melanchthon states that good works are not optional for the Christian: faith cannot be seperated from love; the one is never without the other (141-144).

So then: the law always and only accuses; and yet the law is also what Christians begin to fulfill in the power of the Holy Spirit inwardly and outwardly.

Ultimately, seeing the true scope of the law (the true affections of the heart that also belong "to the *essence* of the divine law," Ap. IV, 130; beyond the merely outward decency human reason knows) is a pneumatological event: the Spirit has to remove the veil. Seeing God's grace in Christ in the gospel, despite God's wrath in the law, is also an effect of the Spirit (see SD V:10-11). Beginning to do the law is a fruit of the Spirit given in the gospel.

As Luther observed, if we don't pay attention to the Spirit (working in and through the word in law and gospel, sure), we end up with half the Christ.

So, I still think the Catechism can be a fine school for preaching. Why not simply tell the people what they should do, what they shouldn't do according to God's holy will, the Ten Commandments? By God's Spirit, they will then also realize (experience in conscience) that they haven't done it perfectly, can't do it on their own and are therefore under God's wrath (since he threatens to punish all who break these commandments). That's when the saving gospel preached will be appreciated and the help of the Spirit will be sought to do what God, indeed, wants all men to do from the heart out (2nd + 3rd Art. of Creed).

McCain: I herewith designate Holger as my official spokesman on this topic! Thanks Holger for bringing our conversation back to our Confessions, the pattern of sound words.

[David Speers]

Todd,

I would certainly agree that the Gospel must be the final word, but does it have to be the *last* word, structurally? Or could that predominance/answer/final word be understood apart from some structural technique? I think that sometimes, we slip into technique and do not really consider the whole and what and how it has been said. What do you think? To put it another way, do I, every time I proclaim the law, (not generic, but related to a text, creating a certain wound, that is specific law), do I need to repeat, right after that statement, the Gospel? I certainly agree that we are not Barthians, nor would we suggest preaching Gospel first. But is a sermon only and also one part law and one part Gospel? I think we all would agree that this may be true of some sermons, but not all. In fact, some sermons, if they are textual, will force the preacher to open more than one wound, and thus require a kind of back and forth, law/gospel, throughout the sermon.

Your questions about antinomians and legalism, that they come into existence because of the structural form of the sermon, well, I disagree with that. Again, I think we have to be a bit more circumspect about *what* the sermon says, and not totally run the thing from structure. As I said before, antinomians, afaik, are not saying that the functions of the law are not present in the sermons of their ilk, but that the Gospel takes the place of the law, in order to accomplish this. I do not think that they are truly trying to say that the content of the law does not stand, but that the law is not to be used to communicate/teach/bring about what we normally consider a function of the law.So, for the antinomian, the gospel is supposed to do the work of teaching us to live good, christian lives. Do you agree with this characterization?

[David Speers]

Holger,

You say,

"As Paul McCain said some time earlier on this thread: the argument is made that "always accuses" really means "only accuses," ever. This collapses all "our" three uses into one which allows us then to degrade anyone with more than one use as Reformed or, worse yet, some crypto works saint",

and while I certainly have seen this kind of thing going on, I also would tend to ask you to read the confessions a bit more carefully, when it comes these uses. Rev Jonathon Lange did a paper on the 3rd use, awhile ago, in which he stated, based on the confessions, that the 3rd use was the Holy Spirit's use. That we do not decide, "I'm gonna preach some sanctification now", and hence determine how the Spirit applies those words to a heart. We need to remember that first and foremost, our preaching is attached to a text, it is a thus sayeth the Lord. And even if the text is a parenetic text, it can be applied in an almost exclusively 2nd use manner to a Christian who is denying the Word of God in this part of their life, and in a primarily 3rd use manner to another, at that time and place. It is the Holy Spirit who determines the use, essentially.

Therefore, I believe that it is an error for the preacher to do more than proclaim the text to his hearers. Ie, for the preacher to determine what he is going to do with the text in the hearts and minds of people. (eg 2nd or 3rd use--this is beyond his office) The text is not ours, but God's Word, which the Spirit uses. So if the text is parenetic, then that is what must be preached, but that does not determine, what use will be applied.