'Crucible Moments' and 'Becoming Lutheran'

Becoming Lutheran
It is very likely that most readers of Intrepid Lutherans have not been following this research, if they even knew about it, but Rev. Matthew Richard (CLBA), who is working on a doctoral degree from Concordia Seminary - St. Louis, has finished the research stage of his dissertation. The title of his dissertation is Becoming Lutheran: Exploring the Journey of American Evangelicals Into Confessional Lutheran Thought, and the research consisted of three surveys whose participants were once active Evangelicals that have made the transition to confessional Lutheranism, or those who are in the process of making that transition. I was one of the survey participants (along with hundreds of others).

The first two surveys (quantitative and qualitative surveys, respectively) have been published:

Results of Survey #1 (quantitative)
Results of Survey #2 (qualitative)

It is unknown to me if he will be publishing the results of the third survey, which concerned advice for Lutheran pastors with respect to prospects or parishioners who are going through the transition.

Rev. Richard has been compiling the results of his research on his Research Journal blog. In addition, he was the subject of a very interesting interview on Worldview Everlasting TV after the results of the first survey were released last February.


Having personally been through the lengthy transition from “Evangelical” to “confessional Lutheran,” and having done so reflectively (that is, I wasn't just jumping from one Evangelical church to another, like so many Evangelicals tend to uncritically do), I find that his results describe very well the process that we endure, and that they also help explain why many of us who've made the transition as adults (again, reflectively and deliberately) cling so tenaciously to sound and genuine Lutheranism and warn so vigorously against anything that smacks of contemporary Evangelicalism. Indeed, both Rev. Richard and Rev. Fisk discuss this very thing in the interview, above. Unlike those Lutherans who have become enamoured with sectarianism and adjure their brothers to “just give it a chance,” we've already “given it a chance,” already know very well the ruin to which it leads, and, rejecting it, urge others not to even dabble in it. Just as there are no non-smokers like former smokers, there are no non-Evangelicals like former Evangelicals. I'm one of them. I highly recommend looking at his research.

Crucible Moments
In the first survey issued by Rev. Richard, “Fear” and “Anger” emerged as two themes repeatedly observed. These two emotions were explored in the second survey – certainly for the sake of gaining a deeper and more objective understanding of these two factors, but, it seems reasonable to think, perhaps also seeking a way of “easing the process.” With the results of the second survey now published, however, I think it is pretty clear that these “emotions” are necessary aspects of the process, and that if a person does not endure them then it seems difficult to say whether a genuine transition to confessional Lutheranism has been made (assuming they actually believed the Evangelical teaching they had previously imbibed over the years).

Worldview Change is Repentance from Falsehood

This result (which may be surprising to some) reminds me of a statistic reported by Josh McDowell in his book, Right from Wrong: 90% of one's values are developed by age 13, while the rest develop mostly between the ages of 13 and 18, and remain essentially fixed through the rest of his life – barring what McDowell called “crucible moments” during adulthood, or moments of ideological or worldview crisis. These “crucible moments” force a person into deep reflection, like no other kind of life experience can, and often result in either a change to, or a significant reinforcement of one's worldview. For any such change to occur in adults, whose values are essentially fixed, worldview crisis is necessary for the change to occur.

As the rest of Rev. Richard's research seems to show, the journey from contemporary pop-church Evangelicalism to genuine confessional Lutheranism is a very definite worldview change. I can personally attest to this fact. If “alleviating” or “easing the process” means hiding distinctive Lutheran teaching and practice in order to avoid “offending” prospects, or to soft-pedal the Second use of the Law in order to avoid “offending” the unregenerate, or to hide the Sacrament for fear of “offending” visitors, then the only effect “easing the process” might have is to attenuate the genuine change itself. That would be unfortunate. Perhaps it is best to simply be aware that individuals making a journey from “Evangelicalism” to “confessional Lutheranism” are struggling through internal conflict, and merely receive it as an explanation for what a given pastor observes as he brings disaffected Evangelicals through adult catechism? Perhaps it is best for a pastor to simply offer direct Scriptural support for every doctrinal claim he makes during the process, instead of trying to practice some form of “armchair psychology,” and leave the prospects to wrestle with the clear statements of Scripture on their own and arrive at their convictions through the Holy Spirit's working? I ask these questions rhetorically, of course, while agreeing with Rev. Richard in the interview, above, that, at the very least, confessional Lutheran pastors ought to patiently stick with disaffected Evangelicals who are in the midst of a worldview crisis.

Anyway, I think that the final product of Rev. Richard's research (which won't be published for several months it appears) will make for interesting reading – as will the many journal articles it will no-doubt produce. For now, I hope our readers will use the links above to give his raw research a look, and I hope that they find something interesting or beneficial in it.

 

“Pursuing freedom from Scripture's clear teachings, by arguing for their ambiguity, results only in tyranny” – Part Two

Erasmus, the Ambiguity of Scripture, and the Tyranny of Man’s opinions

“Though it has been overshadowed by the engagement on the will, an additional major issue in Luther’s Bondage of the Will [a.k.a. De Servo Arbitrio or simply ‘DSA’] concerns the clarity of Scripture. Seeking to protect the integrity and power of human choice, in his Diatribe Erasmus had claimed that the Bible is ambiguous on key matters. In reply, Luther asserted its clarity.”

That quote is the opening sentence of a paper delivered by Rev. Dr. James Nestingen (NALC) at the Lutheran Free Conference that was held on the MLC campus in November 2011 (bold and underline emphasis is mine). The title of his paper was “Biblical Clarity and Ambiguity in The Bondage of the Will”. I was personally present for the reading of this paper at the Conference, along with reactions delivered by Rev. Scott Murray (Vice President, LCMS) and Professor Joel Fredrich (WELS, Martin Luther College), which were essentially appreciative of Dr. Nestingen’s paper.

And I must commend the Conference for their choice of Dr. Nestingen to cover this topic. If anyone cares to do an internet search for information about Nestingen, he will find that Nestingen is Professor Emeritus, Luther Seminary in St. Paul, MN, and has apparently been conservative enough throughout his career to have been considered, at least by some, a thorn in the side of the ELCA. Furthermore, he is a recognized Luther scholar. But what makes his insight so interesting, and useful, is the liberal context in which he spent his career and to which he applied his studies. The ELCA had opened itself up to the perspectives and sensibilities of secular and unregenerate culture, while, again under the guise of offering a Gospel “relevant for Christian living,” its message and ministry devolved to a “Third Use” form of moralistic social activism, consistent with those Worldly perspectives and sensibilities. In other words, the issues raging in the ELCA, to which Dr. Nestingen applied his studies, and to which he applies his analysis of Luther’s Bondage of the Will relative to the perspicuity of Scripture, are very much the same issues raging in greater society today, which impact us everywhere outside the walls of our church buildings, and threaten to enter our Church through our exposure to these issues everywhere else. Professor Fredrich briefly touches on this observation in his reaction paper, confirming for the reader that the observations and applications Dr. Nestingen makes are probably out of reach for WELS scholars – they would never think to make them on their own, simply due to lack of exposure to the issues. Thus, Dr. Nestingen's insight on this topic was much appreciated by me and others.

After covering two of Luther’s preliminary arguments in Bondage of the Will, Dr. Nestingen begins with the issue of ambiguity vs. perspicuity:

“[T]he assumptions of the arguments [Erasmus] employed against the reformer have become so dominant in public culture that they seem inescapable. So searching out the implications of Luther’s replies concerning the clarity of Scripture has to proceed at two levels, one in relation to the historical conflict itself, the other in relation to the victorious heritage of humanism in these times.

“To begin with, Luther’s preliminary arguments expose the assumptions that drive Erasmus’ argument throughout. From the start, Erasmus assumes sufficient detachment from Scripture and the authoritative traditions of the church to choose skepticism as an available alternative. He is the agent, surveying the range of claims before him, discerning their relative value. Having taken such a position for granted, Erasmus’ goal is to preserve his options. Just as he picks and chooses among truths presented to him, in his own mind he will preserve his alternatives before God.

“Thus Erasmus, in illusion if not in reality, remains sovereign... he stands aloof as arbiter of Scripture, the faith of the church and what falls most appropriately on the ears of the peasants. The major premise of the argument controls the conclusion — from the beginning, Erasmus is the acting subject.

“Further, the preliminary argument demonstrates Erasmus’ appraisal of authority. It is essentially negative, setting limits without offering anything significantly positive — the authority of law as opposed to gospel. So it limits and confines without any acknowledged promise or benefit...

“Thus, finally, Erasmus’ freedom is negative. It is an innate quality of the will that asserts itself over and against the authorities that encompass and seek to limit it, not a positive gift or bestowal granted in a life-determining relationship with its saving Lord. Consequently, the self has no alternative but to seize on ambiguity — the absence of any compelling significance or meaning — as though it were liberty. No wonder Luther later described Erasmus as ‘Christless, Spiritless and cold as ice’” (pp. 5-6, bold emphasis mine).

From here, Nestingen goes on to analyze Luther’s argument for the perspicuity of Scripture, identifying in them two levels of clarity: the first “external,” and the second “internal.” In the former case, Luther was essentially referring to the domain of man’s reason set to the tasks of textual criticism and biblical hermeneutics. In the latter, he refers to the Holy Spirit active in the believer, who works to illuminate the Scriptures meaning. Quoting Luther, Nestingen writes,

“Because of the power of sin, ‘All men have their hearts darkened, so that even when they can discuss and quote all that is in Scripture, they do not understand or really know any of it.’ Thus, ‘the Spirit is needed for the understanding of all Scripture and every part of Scripture’” (pg. 5).

and three pages later helpfully amplifies this this, as follows:

“[T]he internal perspicuity of Scripture is not a matter of reason but of faith that has been worked by the Holy Spirit... This begins with a death... and it continues in a daily dying and rising. This death eliminates the self as actor... The gospel is Christ’s work now carried through by his Spirit... bringing the faithful into the rhythm of dying and rising with him...

“Thus internal clarification of the gospel involves continued proclamation and administration... As the gospel creates faith, faith returns to the word daily and afresh. Ambiguity in this context becomes intolerable, threatening to undermine what has become life-defining. But clarification in faith is not merely remedial — it is a joyous renewal in the promises and gifts of the gospel. ‘This is what makes our theology certain,’ as Luther wrote in the Galatians Commentary, ‘it takes us outside of ourselves and brings us to rest in Christ Jesus’” (pg. 9, bold emphasis mine).

It is worth pointing out, as does Professor Fredrich in his reaction paper, that it is proper to consider “external” and “internal” perspicuity together, not separately. One could imagine that separating the two, and admitting only the latter, would result in general preference for and overruling emphasis on the “personal meaning” that individuals may take from their own unique reading of the Scriptures. Such would amount to a self-referential “anthropocentric” Gospel, where meaning is determined from man’s fallen sensibilities; and as unique readings vary, the clear message of the Gospel would swiftly descend into chaos. In any human organization, like the ELCA for instance, unity of teaching could only be asserted, and order could only be maintained around that teaching, not by appeal to and mutual agreement on the objective meaning of Scripture, but democratically: “We shall officially adopt those opinions regarding the teaching of Scripture which are shared by the majority of individuals, determined by vote. Those having opposing opinions are to be silent.”

And such church organizations, insofar as they open themselves up to worldly sensibilities, share fully with the world in these Erasmian conclusions:

“Contemporary uses of Erasmus’ argument for ambiguity follow a similar pattern... Only the measurable, quantifiable and repeatable can be considered factual or truthful; everything else, unable to meet such standards, falls into the category of values or personal opinion. In effect, what Charles Saunders Pierce called ‘the argument from personal tenacity’ has become normative [i.e. ‘it’s true because I say so,’ added Dr. Nestingen as he read this paper]. There literally is no law regarding personal and inter-personal relations — there are just choices.

“In this context, by such standards, the claim that biblical law is ambiguous goes without saying. Ancient, it is by definition out of touch with contemporary realities. Patriarchal, it was conditioned by an age in which male-female relationships — as currently defined by the privileged — were by definition inappropriate. With these and similar objections, the assertion of ambiguity requires no further explanation or defense. It is an assumption that needs no further investigation and brooks no challenge” (pg. 9, bold and underline emphasis mine).

“For this reason, in the mainline churches where the argument for ambiguity has been deployed, the next step has not been the one a reasonable person... would suggest. Because by contemporary definition the self cannot move beyond the self-assertion evident in the use of any form of standard, there’s no point in further examination of the arguments. Bondage to the self represents a given, an a priori which makes further examination pointless. In fact, Erasmus for all of his vaunted cultural significance, has become something of an antique. Only theologians talk about free will anymore. In a cynical reversal, while the heirs of Erasmus reduce the gospel to an appeal — speaking of faith as one alternative among many — the culture describes what the law has condemned as predestined and so beyond any choice...

“For the church, appeals to the supposed ambiguity of the biblical text bring an end to any further conversation. Students of Scripture can cite any number of passages that, at the level of external clarity, require further study. Such investigation is the logical next step, and entirely reasonable. But when a church body invokes ambiguity to legislate a particular reading of passages, the possibility of any other reading has been officially eliminated. The authority of the Scripture has been taken over by its interpreters to enforce their commitments. Imperially silenced, those who disagree, who hold to the biblical priority set by the Formula of Concord, have been effectively excluded, literally unchurched” (pp. 9-10, bold and underline emphasis mine).

Dear reader, we ought to thank Dr. Nestingen for alerting us to the tactic of asserting Scripture’s ambiguity as opportunity for supposed liberty, and for locating the modern source of this tactic in Erasmus – who opposed Luther in this regard. It seems, in our post-modern age, when ALL truth and meaning are self-referentially experiential, that the “discovery” of ambiguity in the Scriptures, having become great sport, has accelerated to an alarming rate!

But it is time for you to comment.

• Have we opened ourselves to the unregenerate and anti-biblical thought patterns of post-modernism? Have we at least been less than watchful for the osmosis of such ideologies from the World?
• Do we see in our own midst the tactic of appealing to Scripture’s “ambiguity” on display?
• Does the acceptance of various anthropocentric aberrations of the Church Growth Movement, including Sectarian Worship, depend, at least in part, on an appeal to “ambiguity” and the license that it grants?
• Does the advocacy of certain translations of the Bible appeal to “ambiguity” – “ambiguity” that we really never knew was there before, but which seem to have been revealed to us in the peculiarities of the post-modern perspectives rampant in popular culture?

If you recognize this tactic at work, where do you identify it? What are its implications for the pure teaching of God’s Word, and for Unity under that teaching?

“Pursuing freedom from Scripture's clear teachings, by arguing for their ambiguity, results only in tyranny” – Part One

Without the “Theology of the Cross” man misuses the best in the worst manner

The title of this two-part series of posts was taken from the closing sentence of my previous post, When the Third Use of the Law pre-dominates.... Through the eyes of those who were there, we caught a glimpse in that post of the decay in clarity of Scripture’s teaching that occurred in the ELCA. As the Second Use of the Law was replaced over time with its Third Use, the perspicuity, or clarity, of Scripture and certainty of its teaching was rendered more and more ambiguous, requiring man to supply clarity in matters which Scripture had previously been thought to clearly teach. Under the guise of offering a Gospel “relevant for Christian living,” Third Use preaching offered little more than a degenerate form of moralistic social activism, well-suited for the itching ears of those no longer disposed to endure sound doctrine, who’ve instead turned to chasing their own lusts (2 Ti. 4:1-5). This decay lead the ELCA officially into the antinomianism it now revels in, having, at its Church Wide Assembly in 2009, officially placed “sin into the ‘not-sin’ category, by majority vote,” declaring that monogamous homosexual relationships “[are] God-pleasing... against the clear Word of Scripture” (quoting from my previous post). The tyranny in this is that in the ELCA, man has become the arbiter of Scripture’s clarity and meaning, rather than Scripture itself, and from the verdict of man’s declaration there is no appeal – that is, there is no recognized higher authority to which one may appeal (Scripture having been declared ambiguous, or unclear because it has been made difficult to understand), making man and his declarations the final authority.

This is what two average individuals, one layman and one clergyman, present in the ELCA throughout its decline, seemed to independently observe. But we don’t really need direct observation of these events to predict that such would happen. Do we?

Scripture clearly teaches that Satan is full of pride and covets God’s glory for himself (Is. 14:13-14; Ma. 4:8-10), and that at the instigation of Satan man Fell into this same sin, in this way separating himself from God: the sin of pride and of desiring equality with God (Ge. 3:1-19). This sinfulness remains part of our fallen human nature. We want to be like God. We desire His wisdom and authority for ourselves. We long for ourselves a share in God’s glory. Being entirely unlike God, however – that is, being unrighteous, unjust, unloving, lacking knowledge, having no real power over Creation, and certainly not being everywhere present all the time – we abuse the Revelations of Himself to us, in our efforts to rob Him of the glory that belongs only to Himself:

In the case of General Revelation – or God’s revelation of Himself to all of mankind within His Created Order – contemporary man studies it not just for the purpose of understanding it and of being good stewards before God in its use, but studies according to his own definitions, contrived by him to specifically rule out any authority above man, for the purpose of bringing Creation under his immediate control. Being like God means that man can predict, guide and control Creation on his own terms, or at least convince himself that he can; and if such control results in death or suffering, this is not significantly different than the results man observes in God’s own control of Creation.

In the case of Special Revelation – or God’s direct revelation of Himself to all of mankind in the clear Word of Scripture, which He has preserved for us, just as He promised, down through the ages to today – man studies it not just for the purpose of understanding it and of being good stewards of its teaching, but for the purpose of discovering where it is wrong, inconsistent or incomplete, and in need of man’s correcting and clarifying efforts. Being like God means that, just as we suffer various shortcomings, we recognize the same in Him – His “failure” to perfectly preserve His Word, for instance, or His “failure” to inspire His Word in perfectly clear terms suitable for direct translation into any language. As His equal, man takes great honor in critiquing God’s Word – in the same manner we would the written work of any of our colleagues – helpfully pointing out His errors, contradictions and lack of clarity, in the hopes that our efforts will assist God in producing a more excellent and well-received message.

Man naturally pursues a “Theology of Glory.” The consequences of this with respect to God’s many gifts to mankind are clearly stated by Dr. Martin Luther, who stated in his 24^th Thesis at the Heidelberg Disputation, “without the 'Theology of the Cross' man misuses the best in the worst manner.” It should come as no surprise, therefore, that where man permits himself the freedom and authority to arbitrate God’s Revelation, he does so with the force and finality of God Himself. It should also come as no surprise that man, according to his nature, does work toward this very end – whether deliberately or quite unconsciously – and that he revels in the glory assigned to him for his efforts.

It seems most charitable to assume that no confessing Christian would deliberately seek a place of judgment over God’s Word, and to leave it at that – remaining oblivious to its likelihood and limiting ourselves to the messy job of first recognizing when it happens and then reacting to it long after the fact. This is, however, a dangerously pollyanna attitude, since the tactic of arguing for the abstruseness of Scripture, in order to deliberately accumulate authority and glory to man, is not unknown in the history of the Church. In fact, this is exactly how, and why, Erasmus, in his Freedom of the Will (a.k.a. De libero arbitrio diatribe sive collatio, or Diatribe), and later supporting works, argued for the ambiguity of the Scriptures – to maintain the freedom and authority of man over against Scripture. And Erasmus’ arguments have remained active as a dominant force in Western Society and, through it, the Christian Church – more so today, perhaps, than ever before.

To be continued in Part Two, tomorrow... (“Pursuing freedom from Scripture's clear teachings, by arguing for their ambiguity, results only in tyranny” – Part Two)

When the Third Use of the Law pre-dominates...

About two weeks ago, one Rev. Mark Schroeder (LCMS), wrote a short piece for the blog The Brothers of John the Steadfast entitled, “I can’t tell you how thrilled and excited I am.”. It was an interesting piece, given Rev. Schroeder's background and perspective: a pastor in the AELC, then ELCA, and then finally LCMS, by colloquy in 2010. He had recently been invited to join the roster of bloggers at BJS, to add his perspectives related to issues in ELCA. The title of the piece is a quote from the newly elected bishop of ELCA's Minneapolis synod, Ann Svennungsen, as of February 18, 2012, which he addresses along with the voting assembly's overwhelming acceptance of a resolution to formally oppose a proposed amendment to the Minnesota State Constitution banning same-sex marriage and defining marriage as between one man and one woman. Rev. Schroeder goes on to lament the apostasy of the ELCA, and more importantly, to humbly correct his fellows in the LCMS for what he perceives as elation at the disintegration of the ELCA, saying:

“Too many of my brothers and sisters in the LCMS seem to be almost thrilled by the demise of the ELCA. I pray I am over-reaching and plain wrong in that analysis. This is a profound sadness... [they] are moving totally into the world and wanting to be a part of it. No longer, 'in the world but not OF the world'... The greater and deeper crisis was succinctly stated by German theologian Wolfhart Pannenberg in 1996:


If a church were to let itself be pushed to the point where it ceased to treat homosexual activity as a departure from the biblical norm, and recognized homosexual unions as a personal partnership of love equivalent to marriage, such a church would stand no longer on biblical ground but against the unequivocal witness of Scripture. A church that took this step would cease to be the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church”..

One must appreciate his sentiments. I, for one, particularly appreciated the straightforward quote he offered from Pannenberg, which poignantly captured the severity of the ELCA's departure from Scripture and the Confessions. While most of us think it, it seems that not many are prepared to actually say that the ELCA is outside "the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church."

But what really caught my attention was the exchange Rev. Schroeder had with an LCMS layman, who was formerly a member of the ELCA. In their exchange, they offered observations regarding the course of ELCA's demise: the growing absence of the Second Use of the Law. The layman, at comment #12, who identifies himself as "Ken M" offers the following observations:

February 26th, 2012 at 19:48 | #12

I am currently a member of LCMS, but most of my background is ELCA and predecessor bodies. To be honest, it puzzles me when most LCMS criticize ELCA, simply because it misses the point of why I left.

ELCA is often criticized as being “antinomian”, and the 3rd use of the Law is often mentioned as a “problem”. My lived experience with the ELCA is not that there is too little Law preached, but rather that it is ONLY Law that is preached. Many attempts at being relevant. Many statements on social issues. As I understand it, this IS 3rd use of the law. Whether it is God’s law that is normative is another problematic issue, admittedly. What I found totally lacking is preaching and teaching of the THEOLOGICAL use of the Law.

Too many sermons are “God is nice. God wants you to be nice. Go be nice.” This is admittedly a bit of a caricature, but it is distilled from too many pastors and bishops out there. If this is a help for anyone, it is only a help for those who “feel” nice. This is not a help for the terrified consciences for which our confessions care so deeply. Any why did Jesus have to die if both he and we are so “nice”? No wonder when I served on a call committee in an ELCA congregation that there was a candidate who sent us some sermon tapes where he didn’t ever mention Jesus doing anything…

I have heard too much crap in LCMS too. The vital difference is that it seems that LCMS is still reformable. As Walther put it in Law and Gospel, the problem with the sin against the spirit is not that it is worse than other sins but rather that it cuts us off from the cure.

This is the sickness to death that I had to reject. And it fills me with a deep sadness and pain to this day that I had to do so.

It is clear that this layman lived under continuous Law preaching, where the Law was not applied according to its Second Use, to convict sinners of their sin as a prelude to a Preachment of the Gospel, but was applied in its Third Use. His description of the Law that he heard over the years was that it was pretty vague and nondescript, summarized as "be nice."

Rev. Schroeder responds at comment #14 as a Pastor with firsthand experience (and clarifies for "Ken M" a bit what it was he was obviously trying to say):

February 27th, 2012 at 19:50 | #14

The distinction that you may find useful is this: the difference between God’s Law (the Decalogue) and man-made law(s), as in the ELCA.

The ELCA is antinomian to the core as indicated by the fact that a church-wide assembly put a sin into the “not-sin” category, by majority vote, and say it is God-pleasing, going against the clear Word of Scripture. So, the result is: there is little, if no, theological (2nd) use of the Law in pulpits and classrooms and you nailed that. I discovered this when as an ELCA pastor, preaching Law and Gospel sermons, some folks would simmer with hostility at to what I was preaching (as I found out later!).

And so the ELCA, in it’s denial of the 2nd Use of the Law (theological) and the resulting antinomianism, the vacuum has been filled by something else: man-made law (and maybe the equivalent to it is human tradition). So what fills the void, for instance, is congregational programs (the bane of many a congregation) and social justice. And as in the true Law of God: if we just do this (man-made law: btw, see Mormonism and Islam), then we will have more people on a Sunday and a true Christian society and nation and we are saved. It’s fairly easy, after all we can vote on it! It is akin to indulgences. Just buy this or just buy into this. And so as I heard one ELCA pastor preach that “Jesus was a self-authentic human being.” No, Savior there.

And I agree with your assessment about “niceness”: a friend and colleague had as his screen saver the scroll: “Nice is the enemy of the good.” “Nice” is a fairly easy man-made law to fulfill. “Have a nice day!” “No thanks, I have better plans.” So does the Lord. My friend also said that our Lord came to justify the ungodly…not ungodliness. The result: no need for Jesus Christ.

And the Third Use of the Law is absolutely blunted: to see if our good works are actually pleasing to God, as in the 10 Commandments and as Luther correctly teaches them in the Catechisms.

In my interview to become an LCMS pastor, one of the panel, a district president, said, you know the LCMS is not perfect. I said, If it were, then the Lord has returned. No church, worth it’s salt, will ever say it is perfect and the LCMS so clings to the fullness of the sound doctrine of Jesus Christ.

Note Rev. Schroeder's comment regarding what happens when the clarity of Scripture, the Law in this context, is diluted: man swoops in to provide that clarity – "It’s fairly easy, after all we can vote on it!" That is, the organization takes on what ought to be the authority of Scripture. This is undoubtedly what has happened in the ELCA with respect to the approval of homosexuality and of female ministers. As Law and Gospel has disappeared from among them, teaching on these issues has also become less clear to the point that the Scriptures have been declared ambiguous regarding these unpopular teachings. As a result, Scripture teaching has not been sought to decide such matters; instead, the organization had absconded with that role, and there is no appealing to any authority above it – Scripture has been declared mute on the subject – leaving the decision of the organization final and authoritative. Thus, the matter is decided and no further discussion on these matters can be entertained.

I will have more to say on this in coming days, as these were precisely the observations of Rev. Dr. Nestingen (formerly ELCA now NALC) in the essay he delivered at the Lutheran Free Conference held at MLC last November – for which I was in attendance: Pursuing freedom from Scripture's clear teachings, by arguing for their ambiguity, results only in tyranny.

Law and Gospel: What do they teach? -- Part 2, The Teaching of the Law

In a previous post back in October of this year, Law and Gospel: What do they teach? -- Part 1, we covered the reason why Law and Gospel must both be preached and yet kept sharply distinguished. We did so, however, without actually articulating either the Law or the Gospel, but promised to adduce these teachings from Scripture in a future post. We begin to do so with today’s post, covering the Scripture’s teaching of the Law. Later this week, we will adduce Scripture’s teaching of the Gospel.

General Revelation reveals God’s Law

Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord of hosts: the whole earth is full of His glory (Is. 6:3b).

O LORD, how manifold are thy works! In wisdom hast thou made them all: the earth is full of thy riches (Ps. 104:24).

For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead (Ro. 1:20).

The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handiwork (Ps. 19:1).

The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God (Ps. 14:1a; 53:1a).

For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves, which show the work of the law written on their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness... (Ro. 2:14-15).

Of these two parts the adversaries select the Law, because human reason naturally understands, in some way, the Law (for it has the same judgment divinely written in the mind); [the natural law agrees with the law of Moses, or the Ten Commandments] and by the Law they seek the remission of sins and justification (AP:IV:7).

For even our first parents before the Fall [before the Law was given] did not live without the Law, who had the Law of God written on their hearts, because they were created in the image of God (Ge. 1:26; 2:16-17; 3:3) (FC:EP:VI:2)

The Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions are clear: God’s Creation gives undeniable evidence of His existence, His glory, His power, and His moral law, and God has written His law on the hearts of all mankind. Observation bears this out, as well. Over the course of history, pagan societies which operate according to the cycles of nature have drawn these very conclusions: deity exists, it is powerful, it has issued laws which must be followed. They have also noticed the effects of sin: disease, death, decay, enmity, strife, calamity. In fear of such consequences, pagan societies have nearly all concluded that the deity must be appeased, through pious exercises and sacrifices of various kinds, as a way of avoiding temporal hardship.

But recognizing God in His created order, and deriving moral and civil law from that order which appeals to His authority as the one establishing it, has not been limited to primitive agrarian or hunter-gatherer societies, or societies otherwise without the benefit of Special Revelation. The Church had long recognized various categories and sources of God’s Law, Aquinas finally articulating four such categories: eternal law, natural law, human law, and divine law. Dr. Thomas Johnson¹ (Professor of Apologetics, Martin Bucer Seminary, Bonn, DE) summarizes these categories from Aquinas’ Treatise on Law:

Aquinas’ scheme of four types of law systematized ideas developed over the preceding centuries of discussion in Christian ethics. ...[T]he eternal law is that law which exists eternally in God’s reason. “Since the Divine Reason’s conception of things is not subject to time but is eternal according to Pr. 8:23, therefore it is this kind of law which must be called eternal.”

...The natural law, according to Aquinas, is the “participation of the eternal law in the rational creature.” The natural law is how God reveals His will in creation. ...The precepts of the natural law in the human mind are the self-evident, indemonstrable first principles of practical reason that instruct us to seek the good and avoid evil. While some propositions about the natural law may only be self-evident to the wise, all people use the natural law when, by practical reason, they identify goods to pursue and evils to avoid. And while sin can blot out the natural law in particular cases, yet the knowledge of the general principles of the natural law cannot be totally blotted out by sin; all people know the difference between good and evil and know that they should pursue the good and avoid evil.

The human law is framed by human lawgivers and given to the community for the common good of the state. [It] is intended to promote peace and virtue, while protecting the innocent from the wicked.

...The divine law is the special revelation of God in the Old and New Testaments. Aquinas found four major reasons why it is necessary to have a divine law in addition to the natural law and the human law. First, the divine law is oriented to man’s eternal happiness in a way that the natural and human laws are not. Second, because the human and natural laws use fallible human judgments, God also gave a law that allows us to know some things without doubt. Third, the divine law judges hidden, interior motivation in a way that human law cannot. Fourth, human law cannot forbid all evil without also hurting the common good; it is left to the divine law to forbid all evil.

A crucial element in Aquinas’ theory of law is that the human law is to be derived from and evaluated primarily by the natural law, not primarily by the divine law. This means that matters in the legal-political sphere of life are to be evaluated primarily by those principles of justice which God built into human reason, not by revelation in Scripture or in Christ.

This is this view of God’s law – especially the recognition of natural law and its relationship to God’s eternal law and to temporal human, or civil, law – which was understood and accepted by the Reformers (both Lutheran and Reformed), and which was carried forward by them as the West transformed under Protestant influence. It was relatively short-lived, however. Beginning early in the 17^th Century, perhaps in response to the bloody and extended political conflicts in Europe which emerged from religious differences within Christianity, a dualism seemed to develop within various legal and political circles, and among some Protestants, which separated the Law of Nature from the Law of God (Hugo Grotius and Samuel Pufendorf), the former constituting a “universal” law and religion to which all could ascribe in the civil realm (Lord Herbert of Cherbury)². This, no doubt, influenced dramatic changes in the idea of natural law occurring a century later.

General Revelation, Natural Law, and Deity – without Specific Religion
Though acknowledging natural law, Enlightenment philosophers and scientists did so primarily as an enemy of the Church, in an attempt to sweep away any need for, or recognition of, Special Revelation and the divine law it contains. Enlightenment “Natural Theology” represented the notion that all there is to be known of God can be determined from a study of nature. A recognition of God and His law in the created order, while rejecting specific knowledge of Him or of His will from Special Revelation, is the foundation of modernistic deism. Following from this foundation, very sophisticated and intellectually honest attempts to systematize nature produced clear evidence of design and of a nameless “Intelligent Designer” that was admitted with little question.

Yet, the discoveries of science did not yield a tranquility and peaceful harmony as, perhaps, some may have thought that neutering revealed religion, by depriving it of Special Revelation and of a voice in society on that basis, would achieve. Instead, the same observations of the primitives manifested themselves: natural systems are inherently corrupt, they deteriorate and decay; cells, like animals, attack and devour one another; there is struggle, exploitation, and miserable death at every level of nature; over time, entropy is the dominant reality of the universe. Escaping the moral consequences of such observations, it seems, by the end of the 19^th Century, even the deity was eliminated from natural law (some of the final blows being struck by the philosophical contributions of Immanuel Kant), making “natural law” entirely anthropocentric³.

By this time also, under the force of modernist natural theology emanating from the Enlightenment, Christianity had been subordinated by Western Society, becoming merely a cultural element, a situation to which Karl Barth and others responded by entirely rejecting natural law as a valid category of God’s law⁴. This is why the “religious right” in America today is criticized for obsession with enacting “Biblical legislation.” Being in many ways the theological descendants of Karl Barth, they have little, if any, recognition of natural law, and insist on nearly exclusive use of divine law regardless of whether the Ecclesiastical or Political estates are involved. These ideals of pop-Christianity are set against those of modern and post-modern Western Society, which has in the past century rejected any notion that law has a transcendent source, whether naturally or divinely derived, in favor of amoral and arbitrary legal-positivism, and more recently, post-modern deconstructionism⁵.

General Revelation does not fully reveal God’s Law
General Revelation has long been recognized as sufficient to suggest the existence, power and glory of a Deity, to prompt man’s recognition of its transcendence and authority, and to derive from the testimony of Creation’s order a moral law for the ordering of society. The Scriptures and the Confessions clearly extol this witness of Creation, and testify to the law of God that is written on the hearts of men, such that, even apart from the Scriptures, mankind is without excuse (Ro. 1:18-21). Moreover, observation of natural and pagan societies bear out the testimony of Scripture in this regard: on the basis of God’s witness to Himself within His created order, man has every reason for a healthy fear of God and a recognition of his need to either appease God’s wrath or to purchase His protection. But such fear and recognition is a basis for works-righteousness, only. The law revealed in General Revelation, alone, is not sufficient to reveal to mankind his truly helpless state before God, to reveal to mankind the true depth of his depravity, nor to reveal the truly fearsome wrath of God toward sin and toward those who commit sin. When we say “Law and Gospel,” it is not General Revelation or Natural Law to which we refer. It is God’s Divine Law, revealed to us only in the Holy Scriptures, which He has personally, through His prophets, given to humanity.


The Law in Special Revelation
Creation
The Scriptures reveal to mankind the true reality of his condition before God. When God created the world, He created it “good,” or “fit for its designed purpose” (Ge. 1:4,10,12,18,21,25). On the sixth day, when God created man in His image, holy and righteous (Ge. 1:26-27), He designated man as the crown of His Creation (Co. 3:10; Ep. 4:24), as “very good” – or exceedingly fit and in harmony with His purposes (Ge. 1:31) – and gave him dominion over it (Ge. 1:28-30), whereupon, He rested from, or ceased, His creative effort (Ge. 2:1-3). The Laws of Nature established, Creation proceeded to function as God designed it. There was no sin, thus, there was neither death nor corruption. Man, together with all of Creation, enjoyed a harmonious relationship with God.

Man’s Fall and its Consequences
At the instigation of the Devil, however, Adam transgressed the Law of God (Ge. 3:1-13), falling into sin (1 Jn. 3:4). As a result, corruption entered Creation (Ge. 6:11-12) and became part of Adam’s nature, poisoning his relationship with God. Harmony turned into dissonance: Adam sought to evade God, hiding from Him as He approached (Ge. 3:8). Peace between God and Adam became conflict: Creation along with Adam and his descendants were cursed by God, and He ejected the first humans from Eden (Ge. 3:14-19,23-24). Adam’s nature thus corrupted by sin, his fallen state has propagated to his descendants (Ge. 1:28; 5:3; 6:12b; 46:26), infecting all of mankind (Ps. 14:1-3; Ro. 3:10-19); all of Creation groans under the weight of sin (Ro. 8:22). No longer unblemished as Adam was before the Fall, mankind is now corrupt in the eyes of God. He is sinful both in the nature he has inherited from Adam through his parents (Original Sin) (Ep. 2:3b, Ro. 5:12, Ps 51:5) and in his works (Actual Sin) – that is, in his thoughts (Ge. 6:5; Mt. 15:19; He. 9:14), words (Ro. 3:13-14), and actions (Mk. 7:21-23; Jn. 3:19; Ro. 8:13) – by what he does (sins of commission) and by what he fails to do (Ja. 4:17) (sins of omission).

As a result of the Fall, mankind is sinful in his nature, he has neither sinlessness nor holiness – he is sinful from the time of his conception (Ps. 51:5), his mind dwells only upon evil and regards God’s truth as foolishness (Ge. 6:5; 1 Co. 2:14), he is by nature the enemy of God (Ro. 8:7), and by his works he can in nowise merit favor with Him (Ep. 2:1,3; Ro. 3:10-18). As an enemy of God, he is in a perpetual state of open rebellion against God. Being contrary to his fallen nature, it is impossible for man to perform the works required of him under God’s Law, and consistent with his fallen nature, he actively struggles against it. The Law is thus a curse (Ga. 3:10); it binds those who are under it to obedience while at the same time stimulating their rebellion (Ro. 7:7).

God hates sin. God hates sinners. Sinners deserve God’s punishment.
Because God and His Law are perfect (De. 32:4; Ps. 18:30; Ps. 19:7a), it is necessary for man to possess the same perfect righteousness as God before there can be any fellowship with Him (Mt. 5:48). To know God, is to obey His Law (1 Jn. 1:3). To love God, is to obey His Law (Jn. 14:15; 1 Jn. 1:4-5). Transgression of God’s Law is sin (1 Jn. 3:4) – it is the opposite of knowing and loving God, it is active rebellion against God. Naturally, therefore, God hates sin, and will purge His Creation of everything corrupted by it (2 Pe. 3:10). God also hates sinners (Ps. 5:5; Ps. 11:5; Le. 20:23; Pr. 6:16-19; Ho. 9:15), and on account of their rebellion, has set Himself against them. Therefore, being perfectly Just, God demands that man’s sin be punished (Co. 3:25), and the Just punishment for sin is death and eternal separation from God (Ro. 6:23a) in the torments of Hell.

The Natural Man seeks to appease God on his own terms
At this point, naturally agreeing that the Creator God is powerful, righteous, and angry with sin, the reasonable man, according to his natural recognition of Natural Law, rightly reasons that God’s wrath must be appeased if he is to avoid eternal punishment. There must be atonement for the wrongs committed by man, and a change in man by which God no longer sees him as sinful. Yet also, the reasonable man sees that providing sufficient payment for sin and living righteously will be a challenge. The former will require his life. Perhaps dedicating and giving his life to God, as a sacrificial act before it is demanded of him by God, will suffice? In the latter case, righteous living is opposed to his very nature as man. Yet, perhaps the truly determined and zealous man can overcome himself, gain victory over sin in his life, and live the rest of his life only for God? Surely, God would be proud of such devotion, regard such a one as meritworthy, and reward him with temporal and eternal blessing! In such ways, man resorts to his natural inclinations as he struggles to find his own way to appease God – testing the good he thinks he does against the reward he thinks he has received as a result of it. He does so because he has not yet heard God’s Divine Law in the full force of its fearsome terror.

We are all by nature the children of wrath

But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away. And there is none that calleth upon thy name, that stirreth up himself to take hold of thee: for thou hast hid thy face from us, and hast consumed us, because of our iniquities. (Is. 64:6-7)

As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. Their throat is an open sepulcher; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: Their feet are swift to shed blood: Destruction and misery are in their ways: And the way of peace have they not known: There is no fear of God before their eyes. Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. (Ro. 3:10-20)

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. (1 Co. 2:14)

For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin. For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I. If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good. Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. ...I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. (Ro. 7:14-21)

But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear. (Is. 59:2)

As long as sin inheres in man’s flesh, it is impossible for him to render the righteous works necessary for meritorious standing before God. The Bible says that man is incapable of mustering the intellectual assent (1 Co. 2:14; Ro. 3:11) or force of will (Jn. 1:13), much less the outward deeds (Ro. 3:20), that would rise to any level of merit before God. Man cannot call upon God, move himself toward God, or take hold of Him (Is. 64:7). Those works man considers good are, before God, spoiled by the evil within him (Ro. 7:21). Before Him, all of man’s righteousness is as filthy rags (Is. 64:6). All attempts of mankind to glorify God on the basis of his prayers, worship, acts of service or other works he considers good or meritworthy, are hopelessly infected with sin; thus, God will not grant merit to and accept man’s works, whether they be good thoughts, fine words or pious acts of worship or dedicated service – it is offensive to Him, He turns his face from it, and He rejects it (Is. 59:2).

Mankind, in his natural state, is spiritually dead in trespasses and sin (Co. 2:10-15; Ep. 2:1-10); and this spiritual death putrifies his flesh, the stench from which is intolerable in the nostrils of God. Each person, like all of Creation, is in a state of decay, and from the time of his birth marches steadily toward eternal death⁶. These are the true wages of sin: eternal death and eternal separation from God in a place He has prepared for the devil and all his angels – Hell. There is nothing we can do to help ourselves. Nothing. In our nature we reject all the things of God (Ro. 3:10-18, Ro. 8:7-8), and are in open rebellion against Him. All of our works are only evil before God, and in the face of His Divine Law, we are impelled toward even greater rebellion. On account of our sin, we are separated from God, He has hidden His face from us, and He will not hear us. It is impossible for us to achieve meritorious standing in the eyes of God. We are helpless before God Who has prepared His throne for judgment, and will judge the world according to righteousness (Ps. 9:8-9). We cannot save ourselves from His righteous judgment; we deserve His eternal wrath and punishment. If we are to escape it, we need to be saved from it. We need a Saviour to do this for us. Without a Saviour, we are doomed.

The Use of God’s Divine Law in the Church – its Ecclesiastical, or Second Use
This is the Church’s use of the Law – unattenuated by the Gospel or by human reason. Equally applicable to all of humanity, its purpose is not to drive us to obedience, but to work contrition and to drive us to a Saviour. In this way, the Second use of the Law prepares the way for the Gospel⁷.



--------------------
Endnotes:

1. Johnson, T. (2005). Natural Law Ethics: An Evangelical Proposal. Bonn: Verlag für Kultur und Wissenschaft. pp. 15-18.
   
2. Ibid. pg. 28.
   
3. Montgomery, J. (2002). Christ our Advocate: Studies in Polemical Theology, Jurisprudence, and Canon Law. Bonn: Verlag für Kultur und Wissenschaft. pg. 20.
   
4. Johnson, T. (2005). Natural Law Ethics: An Evangelical Proposal. Bonn: Verlag für Kultur und Wissenschaft. pp. 19-23.
   
5. Montgomery, J. (2002). Christ our Advocate: Studies in Polemical Theology, Jurisprudence, and Canon Law. Bonn: Verlag für Kultur und Wissenschaft. pg. 32.
   
6. Eternal Death: Physical death while in a state of Spiritual death.
   
7. Which the reader, who is, no doubt, depressed at this point, can expect is forthcoming, about mid-week this week.