The Church Reforming Itself
Brandon P. Hanson
The Church Reforming Itself:
 Law and Gospel
Brandon P. Hanson
MTS Course: AALC History and Polity
American Lutheran Theological Seminary
!1
The Church Reforming Itself
Brandon P. Hanson
Introduction What would happen if, instead of performing his job as an enforcer of the law, a police officer wasn’t content to work within his realm of responsibility and fulfill his duty to protect life and property? What if he decided he would rather act as a prosecutor of those who broke the law? What if every time he suspected someone of a crime, rather than investigating and arresting, he instead accused, passed judgement, and carried out the punishment for the alleged crime which he felt was just? Why, then, the police officer would no longer be acting as a police officer, but as a prosecuting attorney, a judge, and as a warden or executioner. Furthermore, he would be cutting out a very important vocation from the whole affair. Since no one person can be so unbiased, our rogue police officer would not also be able to act neutrally as the defense for the person who allegedly committed the crime. A fair trial would not be possible. Chaos would ensue and it would likely lead to thousands of false convictions. Because this would not be an efficient process for enforcing the law in general, it is just as likely that thousands of actual criminals would get away scot-free. No one would feel safe, or upon being wronged, feel that justice would be served. Because of a lack of fair trials with a dedicated defense and prosecution, important details regarding the guilt or innocence of the alleged could easily be overlooked. Within this type of justice system, citizens would live in fear of being wrongly condemned and punished for crimes they had not committed. Or they would fear that the guilty would not be justly punished and become bolder in their continued crime spree. However, as long as people do the work specific to their vocation, wherein their responsibility to enforce and uphold the law is limited to specific duties which do not present a conflict of interest with other duties, an efficient and productive system will remain in place. This is why we have recognized and put into practice the doctrine of vocation even within a civil context. It makes sense. It works. In a similar way, the doctrines of Law and Gospel have a specific context wherein they operate and work for the benefit of the unrepentant sinner. For the purpose of this paper I will be primarily limiting my discussion of the Law and the Gospel in a narrow sense of how each
!2
The Church Reforming Itself
Brandon P. Hanson
functions: the Law proper in it’s second use or function, and the Gospel proper in it’s promissory and regenerating use or function. The Law terrifies the conscience and brings contrition when it is used properly. It exposes sin obfuscated by a darkened conscience, increasing it in the light of the immutable, perfect will of God so that no one may find excuse, and announces God’s punishment for sin. The Gospel regenerates, creates faith, and engenders fear, love, and trust for God through the promise of forgiveness. The Gospel declares the sinner justified and righteous for the sake of Christ alone, comforting the terrified conscience and drying the tears of contrition, turning sorrow into joy. The distinction between Law and Gospel have always been present. Martin Luther referred to Law and Gospel as the two words which God speaks throughout all the Scriptures.1 Law and Gospel are present throughout all the 66 books of the Bible. In some places they are very clear and obvious, and in others, we have to look a little harder to see them. Sometimes we cannot interpret them in less clear passages without using other, more clear passages to see them clearly.2 Law and Gospel do not contradict each other, but are different. Therefore, they need to be separated or they will be mixed and confused with each other. If this is not done a clear interpretation of God’s Word, comprised and made up of these two words of Law and Gospel, will not be possible. The distinction of Law and Gospel is nothing new. It is as old as Scripture. Paul writes to Timothy giving him this charge: Preach the Law rightly, as well as the Gospel while seeing that
1
Martin Luther. “The Distinction between Law and Gospel: A Sermon by Martin Luther,” trans. Willard L. Burce, Concordia Journal 18 (April 1992): 153. 2 An
example of a less clear Gospel passage needing clarity and other, more clear passages to interpret it is found in the protoevangelium (first Gospel) of Genesis 3:15. If not for the Gospels and Epistles we would not know for certain what God was referring to here. Even Eve was confused. Luther in his commentary on Genesis notes in that Eve believed her firstborn child, Cain, to be the promised seed who would crush the head of the serpent. As evidence of the the difficulty to understand this passage as a promise concerning the Messiah without later revelation, Jewish tradition holds no such view of it according to scholarship. Without recognizing the New Testament as Scripture, Jewish Rabbis interpret “he will bruise your head” as applied to Adam/mankind bruising the serpent’s head. Christianity maintains that this passage is referring directly to Christ, citing the New Testament as confirmation of this.
!3
The Church Reforming Itself
Brandon P. Hanson
no one preaches any different doctrine.3 The distinction between Law and Gospel is not foreign to the Church Fathers either. However, as C. F. W. Walther notes, that distinction was not clearly set forth, people did not learn it, and the light grew dim and the distinction was gradually forgotten.4 Following the course of history, after the Church Fathers, ecclesiastical teachers made no definite statements regarding the distinction. This led to the darkness and obfuscation of the Scriptures by the Papacy which made such rapid headway so soon after.5 Not until the rediscovery of the distinction between Law and Gospel was the darkness of the Papacy dispelled. This brings us to the time of the Reformation and the chief Reformer, Martin Luther. We will examine Martin Luther’s rediscovery of the distinction between Law and Gospel and how this necessary tension, held once more, dispelled the darkness of the Medieval Catholic Church’s aberrant practice of penance and restoring in it’s place true penitence.
Martin Luther Rediscovers the Distinction Martin Luther’s discovery of the distinction between Law and Gospel is dated to between 1508 to 1519. Most likely it took place in 1516 as that was the year he began to lecture on Romans. It is referred to as his “Tower Experience.” It took place in the tower of the Black Cloister at Wittenberg in Germany. Luther struggled with Romans 1:17. He confessed to hating this verse before finally understanding it. The key to finally breaking through his confusion and understanding this verse happened when he came to comprehend the distinction between Law and Gospel. “For a long time I went astray [in the monastery] and didn’t know what I was about. To be sure, I knew something, but I didn’t know what it was until I came to the text in Romans 1 [:17], ‘He who through faith is righteous shall live.’ That text helped me. 3
1 Tim 1:3-20. All Scripture marked ESV.
4
C. F. W. Walther. Law and Gospel: How to Read and Apply the Bible. (St. Louis, Missouri: Concordia Publishing House, 2010): 70. 5
Ibid., 75.
!4
The Church Reforming Itself
Brandon P. Hanson
There I saw what righteousness Paul was talking about. Earlier in the text I read ‘righteousness.’ I related the abstract [‘righteousness’] with the concrete [‘the righteous One’] and became sure of my cause. I learned to distinguish between the righteousness of the law and the righteousness of the gospel. I lacked nothing before this except that I made no distinction between the law and the gospel. I regarded both as the same thing and held that there was no difference between Christ and Moses except the times in which they lived and their degrees of perfection. But when I discovered the proper distinction—namely, that the law is one thing and the gospel is another—I made myself free.”6 Luther, being made a Doctor of Bible by the church, knew much of what the Holy Scriptures contained. However, he was blind concerning what the Scriptures were actually about and could only interpret the Scriptures as a Jew or a pharisee would. He was not free to comprehend what the Scriptures taught concerning passive righteousness or how one was saved by grace through faith in Christ until he learned the difference between the Law and the Gospel. From the point when Luther began to understand the proper distinction between Law and Gospel, the Scriptures availed themselves to him. Where shadows once danced and played in his mind to obscure the revealed mind of God from him, now, new light shown through and enlightened his darkened mind to comprehend and solve what before seemed only hopeless mysteries. Luther’s troubled conscience, though he lived as a monk without reproach, was tormented by the Law and saw even the righteousness of which the Gospel spoke of as the righteousness of an angry God who would justly punish all for their unrighteousness.7 “But up till then it was not the cold blood about the heart, but a single word in Chapter 1[:17], “In it the righteousness of God is revealed,” that had stood in my way. For I hated that word “righteousness of God,” which, according to the use and custom of all the teachers, I had been taught to understand philosophically regarding the formal or active
6
LW, 54:442-3.
7
LW 34:336.
!5
The Church Reforming Itself
Brandon P. Hanson
righteousness, as they called it, with which God is righteous and punishes the unrighteous sinner.”8 Without being able to distinguish Law from Gospel, the Scriptures were a sealed book to Luther. He could find no comfort for his troubled conscience because he had been taught to view them both the same. Tentatio and the Law crushed Luther till he reached total despair of his own ability to perform anywhere near satisfactory before God. Years in the monastery where he filled his time with service and meritorious good works in order to earn God’s favor had done nothing to soothe a troubled conscience that only continued to condemned him unopposed. Relating the words of a poor friar, Luther said of the conscience, “The conscience is an evil beast who makes a man take a stand against himself.”9 Luther certainly knew his own conscience stood against him, even keeping him from comprehending and attaining the comforting word of the Gospel. Luther’s struggle to understand Paul’s words in Romans 1 would finally come, not from days of fasting, flogging, and endless confession and penance, but by God’s mercy. “At last, by the mercy of God, meditating day and night, I gave heed to the context of the words, namely, ‘In it the righteousness of God is revealed, as it is written, “He who through faith is righteous shall live.”’ There I began to understand that the righteousness of God is that by which the righteous lives by a gift of God, namely by faith. And this is the meaning: the righteousness of God is revealed by the gospel, namely, the passive righteousness with which merciful God justifies us by faith, as it is written, ‘He who through faith is righteous shall live.’”10 “Here I felt that I was altogether born again and had entered paradise itself through open gates. There a totally other face of the entire Scripture showed itself to me,”11 says Luther. “And
8
Ibid., 336.
9
LW 54:442.
10
LW, 34:337.
11
Ibid., 337.
!6
The Church Reforming Itself
Brandon P. Hanson
I extolled my sweetest word with a love as great as the hatred with which I had before hated the word ‘righteousness of God.’ Thus that place in Paul was for me truly the gate to paradise.”12 One who has not known they are the victim of such a troubled conscience can scarcely know the joy that Luther experienced in this revelation. More than a revelation, it completely changed the way he approached and apprehended the Scriptures. As he said, it opened to him a totally different “face of the entire Scripture.” One might call this a paradigm shift as it exposed false presuppositions which Luther had held about the Scriptures and opened to him a door to begin to understand not only the Gospel for the first time, but also the proper role and realm of the Law. It is true that at times Luther insisted in his letters to certain people that they “set aside the whole Decalogue.” However, he was not talking about abolishing the Law. Luther’s intent was to guide the sinner’s gaze away from the Law which could only condemn them and to focus it on the Gospel. While a Christian’s conscience is tormented, broken and beaten down, it can no longer receive the Law without condemnation running roughshod over any comfort that the Gospel would offer. Indeed, the Law, not the Gospel, is what is written on the hearts of men. So it is that in order to even hear the Gospel clearly and believe it, the terrified soul must turn their focus completely away from the Law and look only to the Gospel alone for the time being. Luther mentions a humorous discourse he imagines he has with the Law in a sermon, dated January 1, 1532. In this sermon Luther remarks: “Dear Law, if I have failed to do your works, you do them. I am not going to allow myself to be tortured to death on your account and be taken captive and held under you, and thereby forget the Gospel. Whether I have sinned, done wrong, or not done wrong, I leave that for you, Law, to worry about. Be gone with you and leave my heart in peace; in this matter I do not know you. If you want to demand and have it that I live a godly life here on earth, I will gladly do so. But if you want to climb up and break in on me so
12
Ibid., 337.
!7
The Church Reforming Itself
Brandon P. Hanson
that I lose what has been given me, then I would much rather not know you at all than lose the gift.”13 Those who know Luther’s life in the monastery will appreciate the humorous contrast one may see between his early years, striving for perfection and never reaching it, and now years later in a sermon where he tells that same Law which used to rule over and torment him, “Law, if I have failed to do your works, you do them.” The contrast is stark and demonstrates Luther’s understanding of the freedom the Christian lives in through the Gospel. Yet, Luther did not intend to say that the Law has no place or function in the life of Christians. Only, that we view it differently now that we are no longer under it, but are under grace. Since we now are under grace, we no longer fear the Law’s condemnation, but love and desire to keep it. While the Law may yet be used to assail the conscience, especially when Satan twists it and takes it out of the context of it’s proper distinction, it is never meant to rule over the Christian. On the one hand, for the Christian the Law can only be a guide showing them what they already desire to do, and as new creations, will do. On the other hand, for the Old Adam who still resides in us all, the Law is meant to beat him down and into submission. Either he has gone to far to one side into antinomianism, or to the other side into self-sufficient moralism. Thus, the Simul has something to add for our consideration when it comes to the Law. We are declared justified in God’s sight, yet, as we are still sinners, the Law has a chastening place in the life of the Christian, but only because they are yet bound to the “body of death.” Luther maintained that “Christ set us free from the curse of the Law, not from the obedience of the Law.”14 Luther’s answer to the question, “Does God want us to go on sinning that grace might abound?” could be taken from His sermon given January 1, 1532. He said, “No, that is not what God wants. He wants us to keep the Commandments with total commitment and diligence;
13
Martin Luther. “The Distinction between Law and Gospel: A Sermon by Martin Luther,” trans. Willard L. Burce, Concordia Journal 18 (April 1992): 161. 14
Ibid., 160.
!8
The Church Reforming Itself
Brandon P. Hanson
but not to put our trust in it when we have done so; or despair if we have not.”15 Luther offers this advice also, saying, “See to it, then, that you distinguish the two words rightly, not giving more to the Law than its due, otherwise you lose the Gospel. Likewise, you should not look at the Gospel or build thoughts upon it as though the Law had collapsed.”16 The distinction between the Law and the Gospel is of the utmost importance. It helps us see God’s view of anthropology from a theological perspective rather than any number of philosophical perspectives (modern, postmodern, platonic, aristotelian). Other alternatives to a theological perspective of anthropology, grounded in anything besides a deep understanding of the distinction between the Law and the Gospel will “leave the human being to oscillate between defiance and despondency, pride and despair.”17 The primary purpose, or “second use” of the Law is to expose our sin and us as sinners, preparing us to receive the Gospel by first tutoring us in the reality of our terrible predicament and eternal fate. It is brail for the lost, blind sinner which reads, “You are lost, though you know it not, and blind, though you think you see. Look, here is the reality of your situation. You stand on a sinking island from which escape is hopeless. This is your own doing and there is nothing you can do to save yourself. Despair, you lost, blind, sinking fool.” Understanding this helps us to see our anthropological position clearly, from God’s perspective rather than a thousand other more flattering anthropologies we’ve fabricated for ourselves. The Gospel, on the other hand is nothing more than the announcement of God’s redemption and salvation of all lost, blind, and sinking sinners. It speaks the words, “You were lost, but now you’re found; blind but now you see; sinking, but now you are lifted up. See here, your salvation is come in Christ alone.” The Gospel does not say, believe this, or repent. Through the Gospel, faith is given us by God so that we do believe the promise. The Gospel finishes the repentance 15
Ibid., 160.
16
Ibid., 160.
17
Robert Kolb and Charles P. Arand. The Genius of Luther’s Theology: A Wittenberg Way of Thinking for the Contemporary Church. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2008.) 25.
!9
The Church Reforming Itself
Brandon P. Hanson
begun by the Law through contrition by adding faith. All that the Gospel demands has already been supplied. We cannot work our own faith, nor repentance. We are only able to acknowledge the fact of their having been given, and us having received them. This is impossible to understand if we do not properly separate the Law from the Gospel. If we should fail in this, we would begin to imagine that the Law provides some help for us to become more righteous. Likewise, we would begin to imagine that the Gospel demands some works from us as a prerequisite for receiving grace. Then see what a terrible mess one will get themselves into and how they will tyrannize the consciences of their hearers, not to mention their own. It is no easy task, or simple thing to distinguish Law from Gospel. Yet, it is as necessary as it is difficult. Luther notes, “Properly separating the Law and the Gospel from one another is a very high art, since it is necessary to do the same also with the commandments (all of which are included under the one word "Law"). We have to distinguish the one from the other, unless we want everything to be completely and totally mixed up—and because there is still failure and defect even when every right and proper distinction has been made.” 18 Just a paragraph later in the same sermon, Luther highlights the difficulty of this distinction and what a high art it truly is by adding, “Therefore whoever knows well this art of dividing the Law from the Gospel should be given a place at the front of the room and be called a doctor of Holy Scripture.”19
The Distinction Clears Up Confusion about Penance and Penitence The formal principle, or chief doctrine, of the Lutheran Reformation is Justification by grace through faith in Christ. Determining this as the formal principle from the material principle, Sola Scriptura, was possible only because of the proper distinction between Law and Gospel. Closely linked to the doctrine of justification was a renewed understanding of the doctrine of penitence. 18
Luther, “The Distinction between Law and Gospel: A Sermon by Martin Luther.” 155.
19
Ibid., 156.
!10
The Church Reforming Itself
Brandon P. Hanson
Great importance was placed on this doctrine by all the reformers. Fagerberg states, “[The Apology to the Augsburg Confession] even calls it “the principal doctrine of the Christian faith” (XXIV 46), an honor usually accorded to justification. Indeed, there is a close relationship between penitence and justification.”20 Controversy over the Medieval Catholic Church’s doctrine and practice of penance was not the least of the sparks which finally lit the fire of Reformation. Luther was very familiar with the practice of penance and experienced firsthand the despair which it wrought. He had been trying to find forgiveness, a clear conscience, and assurance of forgiveness for years as a monk through penance. Furthermore, penance opened the door to the abhorrent practice of selling indulgences which Luther so despised and which made him angry enough to pen 95 theses arguing against and condemning the practice. The importance of the distinction between the Law and the Gospel is highlighted in the fact that it is what finally opened the reformer’s eyes to the error of the medieval doctrine of penance. If not for this distinction they should have been nothing but blind men stumbling after blind guides and the Reformation as we know it might never have been. Penance, according to medieval theology, was a sacrament composed of two parts, materia and forma. Says Fagerberg, “As far as its materia is concerned, one can speak only in a figurative sense, quasi materia, for it is constituted not of a thing but of the act of penance, i. e., the penitent’s contrition, contritio, confession, confessio, and his satisfaction for sin, satisfactio.”21 Penance is clearly a work of man exercising the will. He brings himself to contrition for his sins and upon the priest’s judgement, makes satisfaction for those sins through prescribed acts of penance. Fagerberg continues, “The forma consists of the absolution granted by the priest. The sacrament’s effect, effectus, is the forgiveness of sin through priestly absolution.”22 Very different from Lutheran theology, medieval theology taught that the 20
Holsten Fagerberg. A New Look at the Lutheran Confessions. (St. Louis, Missouri: Concordia Publishing House, 2011). Kindle Edition. Chapter 8, Location 4812-4814. 21
Ibid., 4823-4825.
22
Ibid., 4825-4826.
!11
The Church Reforming Itself
Brandon P. Hanson
absolution, forgiveness, was conditional upon the sinner completing the obligation to make satisfaction. This clearly comes into conflict with a proper distinction of Law and Gospel. It is God, working through the Law, who brings sinners to a place of contrition for their sin. It is then God, working through the Gospel, who brings the contrite sinner to faith in the promise of the forgiveness of their sins. Rather than contrition being brought about by man’s own will, and forgiveness being granted on the basis of the priest’s authority to grant it and the sinner’s completion of meritorious acts of penance, Lutheran theology acknowledges that man is the passive receiver of God’s active work. Penance becomes penitence. From man’s perspective it becomes something done to him by God, and especially, as a Lutheran distinctive, through the Word. Law and Gospel are two distinct doctrines. Their synthesis in the life of the believer, their “practical application” is not something that man applies at all, but which God works in man. The importance and necessity that Law and Gospel should then be preached lies in the truth of the first of Luther’s 95 theses. He wrote, “Our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, when He said Poenitentiam agite, willed that the whole life of believers should be repentance. [Matt. 4:17].”23 If the whole life of the believer is to be one of repentance, which also is in line with what the confessions teach,24 then too must the Law in all its severity and the Gospel in all its sweetness be preached to him. For without these two parts of God’s Word, there cannot be the two parts of penitence. In contradistinction to both medieval and anabaptist theology, Lutheran theology teaches that in order to bring about contrition “God’s activity is not mediated through man’s cooperation, neither does He accomplish it directly; He rather uses the preaching of the Law as the means
23
Martin Luther. Works of Martin Luther With Introductions and Notes,Vol. I. (2011) Kindle Edition. Location 382-383. 24
The Christian lives his life in continual repentance. With Luther, “the Confessions understand penitence as ‘the whole of human existence,’ which includes both a repudiation of sin and a complete turning towards God.” Fagerberg. 4861-4863.
!12
The Church Reforming Itself
Brandon P. Hanson
whereby He works. The mediatory element is found in the Word, which convicts us of sin.”25 Lutheran theology concerning the pastor who preaches Law and Gospel, consecrates the Sacrament of the Alter, baptizes, or pronounces absolution, teaches that “The minister who reads these words is only an instrument for Christ; he acts on Christ’s orders and in His stead. He represents Christ in his function, but not in his person. He has no independent authority, but when he speaks the words of institution, he does so at Christ’s command.”26 The distinction between Law and Gospel takes a radical new direction away from the divine service being about what the priest does on his own authority, as a deputy of Christ, to what is done on Christ’s authority and in His stead by an instrument of Christ, i.e., the man in the office of the ministry. The other aspect of this is seen in a new economy of works, whereby man receives from God alone for Christ’s sake alone, rather than making Christianity about what the Christian does for God. Merit is given us for Christ’s sake, because of His work, and none of our own. We are righteous because Christ’s work is righteous and not ours. Once the reformers had firmly established their position they went on the attack against medieval theology. The Smalcald Articles, specifically the third part, is a calculated assault by Luther against exactly that which he was so familiar with from his years as a monk: the lawlessness and false repentance of the papists. Fagerberg aptly summarizes the 3rd article: “SA is of the opinion that “the false repentance of the papists” is based on the erroneous idea that man possesses unbroken powers which enable him to be genuinely penitent, that by using his reason and will properly he is able to avoid sin, and that theoretically he can therefore stand without guilt before God. But this is sophistry, based on a false conception of sin. None is righteous, all are full of “unbelief, blindness, and ignorance of God and God’s will” (SA III III 32). When God works proper repentance within us through the preaching of the Law, we learn to understand “that we are all utterly lost,
25
Ibid., 4927-4928.
26
Ibid., Chapter 7, 3. The Lord’s Supper, 4239-4241.
!13
The Church Reforming Itself
Brandon P. Hanson
that from head to foot there is no good in us, that we must become altogether new and different men” (SA III III 35).”27 Though we have only looked at contrition from a theological perspective there is the psychological aspect of contrition as well. Though contrition is completely the work of God, man recognizes that he has not fulfilled the Law, that God is just and fair in his wrath, and experiences suffering. False contrition is worldly sorrow which leads to death. It focusses on sorrow, not over sin and breaking God’s Law, but because of consequences which it would rather not bear. It is troubled by the punishment earned by sin, not by the offense it has brought God because of its sin. True contrition asks for nothing for it’s own sake, for a lessening of punishment because it is not fair, but simply on account of God being merciful though mercy is not deserved. Mercy is shown most fully in Christ and proclaimed in the Gospel. Better than a desperate hope, it is even promised. Furthermore, it is most aptly named “grace” as the sinner in whom God has worked contrition now recognizes and is able to appreciate in the Gospel a most undeserved favor. He has labored under the Law and seen that it gets him nowhere. He find upon his shoulders a most heavy burden of works, both those he has left undone and the evil works which he has done in complete and utter abandon. He has not come to this understanding on his own. What else can cause him to recognize this except God working through the Law to reveal what’s already written on His heart, though obscured and needing the revelation of Scripture and the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit? There is no one and nothing else which will bring him to this realization. And only once he is here will he then see the words of Christ for what they are, when He says, “Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.” (Matt 11:28)
27
Ibid., Chapter 8, 4934-4939.
!14
The Church Reforming Itself
Brandon P. Hanson
Conclusion We cannot be too careful to learn and maintain the distinction between Law and Gospel. Walther lamented in his day that the distinction between Law and Gospel was slipping away and growing dim. What of our day then? Satan has no less conspired against us to steal away from the Church this most necessary distinction, and with it the contrition and faith of penitence. The distinction and tension between Law and Gospel is all that holds many Scriptural truths in place. Many think that the significance of the Lutheran Reformation lies in Luther’s rediscovery of the Gospel. In part, it’s true. He did rediscover and bring much needed clarity to the proclamation of Justification by grace through faith in Christ. But this is not where he began. His first and most important discovery was not the Gospel, but the distinction between it and the Law. The Gospel will certainly stand for a time once discovered but, if not for a clear distinction being made between it and the Law, we are always certain to once again begin to obscure and obfuscate it as we slip back into our sinful, default position. By nature, we would mingle the two till there is nothing left of either. It may be tempting to allow this tension to grow lax when we grow concerned with antinomianism or legalism. One might think, We need more Gospel to combat this legalistic spirit that has crept into the Church! Let’s give up preaching the Law for a time until we have chased it out. In the same way, if antinomianism looms on the horizon and threatens the pious sensibilities of the conscientious soul, they might think, Let’s stop preaching the Gospel until we have chased out this lawless spirit. In both cases, the answer is wrong. The answer isn’t all Law and neither is it all Gospel. The answer is Law and Gospel rightly apportioned according to the needs of the hearers. Anytime we completely cut this line of tension between the Law and the Gospel, we do not restore balance, but create more imbalance. Furthermore, we are attempting to take on the role and responsibility of God and trying to separate the chaff from the wheat. Christ has told us that is not our job. If we try to do that, regardless of how good our intentions are, we’ll inevitably uproot the wheat along with the weeds. Our job is to attend to the fields of !15
The Church Reforming Itself
Brandon P. Hanson
harvest, not to the threshing floor. The fields call for us to exercise a proper distinction between Law and Gospel, not to judge between chaff and wheat. Souls, even our own souls, depend on it. It would behoove us to recall often to memory the admonition of Paul to Timothy: “Keep a close watch on yourself and on the teaching. Persist in this, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers.� (1 Tim 4:16)
!16
The Church Reforming Itself
Brandon P. Hanson
Selected Bibliography Fagerberg, Holsten. A New Look at the Lutheran Confessions. St. Louis, Missouri: Concordia Publishing House, 2011. Kindle Edition. Kolb, Robert, and Charles P. Arand. The Genius of Luther’s Theology: A Wittenberg Way of Thinking for the Contemporary Church. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2008. Luther, Martin. “The Distinction between Law and Gospel: A Sermon by Martin Luther,” trans. Willard L. Burce, Concordia Journal 18 (April 1992): 153-163 Luther, Martin. Luther’s Works, Vol. 34: Career of the Reformer IV, ed. Jaroslav Jan Pelikan, Hilton C. Oswald, and Helmut T. Lehmann, vol. 34. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1999. Luther, Martin. Luther’s Works, Vol. 54: Table Talk, ed. Jaroslav Jan Pelikan, Hilton C. Oswald, and Helmut T. Lehmann, vol. 54. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1999. Luther, Martin. Works of Martin Luther With Introductions and Notes,Vol. I. (2011) Kindle Edition. McCain, Paul Timothy, editor. Concordia: The Lutheran Confessions, A Reader’s Edition of the Book of Concord. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2006. C. F. W. Walther. Law and Gospel: How to Read and Apply the Bible. St. Louis, Missouri: Concordia Publishing House, 2010.
!17