 |
| Dr. Michael Brown |
Anyways, the term cheap grace is completely foolish. It was actually Dietrich Bonhoeffer who popularized the term, and Bonhoeffer was a Lutheran, of all things. Granted, he was a liberal one.
 |
| Dietrich Bonhoeffer |
 |
| John MacArthur |
The Gospel and the Law are two different words from God Almighty Himself. The Law kills us and drives us to Christ, who gives us pure unadulterated grace as a one-sided free gift in the Gospel.
The problem is, the more law we inject into the gospel, the less good news there is. Ultimately, the people who rail against "cheap grace" are railing against the Gospel being a pure and free gift, in a sense. They're worried that people are going to start rewriting St. Paul and saying: "Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Heck yes!" But who does that?
They're worried that people are not going to be moral enough. They're worried that people aren't going to act right. Their problem is, the solution they come up with is to inject the law into the gospel.
The Gospel ceases to be good news when you do that. It puts conditions on the Gospel, and that is a huge error. It turns the gospel into just another command to be obeyed. In other words, it turns the gospel into law.
If they want to talk about the third use of the law or about sanctification or the new obedience, then by all means, let's talk about that. But let's not inject the law into the gospel and create a version of Christianity that teeters dangerously on works salvation.
Thus, ultimately, what these folks are worried about is cheap law, and ultimately, they're worried more about the actions of Christians (third use, sanctification) than they are with the Gospel (Christ for you outside of yourself), and they make the grievous error of mingling the two, thus downgrading the Gospel and grace and mixing our actions into it.
Ultimately, this turns Christianity into a law-based religion. And while I will not say that Dr. Brown, Dietrich Bonhoeffer or John MacArthur are not Christians (I have no reason to believe they aren't.), I will point out that all three of them have a big error when it comes to law and gospel.
They mix them badly and end up making the good news into less good news and robbing numerous Christians of assurance of their salvation by basing it upon their own changed life and actions and not on Christ crucified for the forgiveness of their sins, given to them in Word and Sacrament by promise.
Therefore, Dr. Brown, John MacArthur (who are opponents generally), and Bonhoeffer's stance on this particular topic is very heterodox. Christians are being robbed of the good news of Christ outside of them by these sorts of teachings.
And to sum, you cannot obey a promise, because it's something conditioned on the promise giver, not on you. And grace (Gospel) is a promise.
+Pax+
Actually, Bonhoeffer was a Protestant, not a Lutheran. Lutherans all but disappeared from the German scene in 1817 at the Prussian Union.
ReplyDeleteIt's all about preferring man's false religion over God's true religion. It makes us feel good about ourselves, that we are accomplishing SOMETHING in this life, while ailing to admit our desperation. There are only two results of this: despair (when realizing, finally, that they can't do it) or pride (thinking they are better than others because they are doing X, Y, or Z, or better yet, avoiding X, Y, or Z sin.
ReplyDelete"3rd use" is just another add-on to Christ.
ReplyDelete"Christ is the end of the law…"
That's good enough for the believer.
The 10 Commandment don't apply to Christians. They apply to His creatures.
We are either free (Gal.5:1)…or we are not.
Go all in!
After all, He went all in. Our sins don't even belong to us anymore. He bought and paid for every single one.
Steve, do you reject the Epitome VI and the Solid Declaration VI???
ReplyDeleteI place greater credence to the gospel. Grace alway trumps the law.
ReplyDeleteThe Lutheran Confessions are great…but they certainly are NOT Holy Scripture.
Melanchton's role in writing those sections that let the law back into the henhouse like a fox, need to take a backseat to the gospel itself.
The law has two uses. Luther never preached to taught about a third.
Steve, I agree that the Lutheran Confessions are certainly not Holy Scripture. But on the other hand, I'm one of those Confessional types who holds Scripture in one hand and the Book of Concord in the other and says they agree. So, I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one. I heartily affirm the third use. Not as a means of sanctification or anything like that, but certainly as something that tells us what is good in God's eyes. And so on.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Andrew.
ReplyDeleteThe first two uses do that quite nicely.
The "3rd use" open the door to legalism and is not necessary. That is why Luther never preached on it. But Melancthon, who was a humanist, felt the need to insert it in the Confessions.
On this matter, I will go with what the Scriptures say about it. That being that "Christ is the end of the law…"
I agree that many church bodies use the third use incorrectly and legalism results. The OPC is notorious for that. But that does not mean there is not a correct third use...
ReplyDeleteThe danger that needs to be avoided is...that we are sanctified BY our obedience. That is nonsense, of course.
ReplyDeleteSteve, you are back on this whole "Melanchon's role" canard regarding the Formula of Concord.
ReplyDeleteYou have yet to prove that Chemnitz, Andreae, et al. were influenced by Melanthchon. You have only asserted it. Assertions like this are meaningless.
It is not enough for you to prove that the term "3rd use" originated with Melanchthon. Lots of terms originated with Melanchthon. You must also prove that Luther, the Chief Interpreter of the Augsburg Confession, taught something different than FoC, SD, VI. That you cannot do because there is ample Luther available that speaks to the use of the Law among the regenerate.
You are so right.
ReplyDeleteBut "freedom" is the goal of Christ for us. That is what He has won for us (Gal.5:1).
There is NO real freedom in life by using the law for anything.
I repeat (St. Paul repeats), "Christ is the end of the law for righteousness for all who believe."
Steve - I don 't think St. Paul is saying that the law has no use in that passage. I think he is simply saying that for those in Christ, the law does not threaten us anymore, as we are imputed with the righteousness of Christ.
ReplyDeleteHence, St. Paul's language is: "...end of the law *for righteousness.*"
ReplyDeleteIn other words, you cannot keep the law to be righteous. That's much of what Galatians is about. We all hold to that as Lutherans. But that passage says nothing about the third use one way or the other.
This brief piece explains it better than I can:
ReplyDeletehttp://wordandworld.luthersem.edu/content/pdfs/21-3_The_Law/21-3_Paulson.pdf
For all those who accuse me of being an Antinomian, read the above link for a true example of one. Its essentially the same thing as a gospel reductionist or good old fashion theological liberal.
ReplyDeleteOr for an example of my hate-filled, bass ackward, legalistic third use heresy, see my latest sermon on here =)
ReplyDelete