This is the fifth part of the response to Leighton Flowers video in regards to Luther vs Calvin (two Reformers who carried forth two different stream of Augustinian predestination thoughts).
Flowers’ video can be found here:
https://youtu.be/pZrTO88WmDg
Leighton Flowers claimed that only Calvinists say to hold to things like we don’t save ourselves (see 15:21 minute mark), unmerited grace (see 19:22 minute mark), and faith doesn’t do anything to earn salvation (see 21:27 minute mark) must be dependent on us rejecting decision theology (see 25:21 minute mark)- or the idea we can have faith on our own (see 1 hour and 30 minute mark)- and affirming the unregenerate nature is by nature bound to sin (see 1 hour and 8 minute mark. Unknowingly, he refuted himself at the 1 hour and 27 minute mark when he complained that Luther conflated holding to the bound will and works of the flesh as doing nothing towards salvation. Regardless of his attempts to paint Luther as a Calvinist, he was not a a Calvinist but in line with confessional Lutheran beliefs of salvation is all of God (elective unto salvation, faith is a monergistic or effectual gift of God) and damnation is all of man (God wants all to be saved, Christ died for all, God’s work to give faith to all can be resisted, salvation can be lost).
That goes into the point here that it is not just Calvinists that Flowers object to here (regardless of his claim that only Calvinists would say such things), but also Lutherans. At the heart of why Lutherans would say all the above things, that Flowers claimed only Calvinists would say, without actually being Calvinists, is the strict distinction between law and gospel. Such a distinction that is so central to Lutheran theology.
Luther in fact raised this strict law and gospel distinction throughout his famous Bondage of the Will response to the Catholic humanist Erasmus’ Diatribe Concerning Freewill. Indeed, the Reformer bluntly stated,
“Sect. 60.—IN these passages, our friend Diatribe makes no distinction whatever, between the voice of the Law and the voice of the Gospel: because, forsooth, it is so blind and so ignorant, that it knows not what is the Law and what is the Gospel. For out of all the passages from Isaiah, it produces no one word of the law, save this, 'If thou wilt;' all the rest is Gospel, by which, as the word of offered grace, the bruised and afflicted are called unto consolation. Whereas, the Diatribe makes them the words of the law. But, I pray thee, tell me, what can that man do in theological matters, and the Sacred Writings, who has not even gone so far as to know what is Law and what is Gospel, or, who, if he does know, condemns the observance of the distinction between them? Such an one must confound all things, heaven with hell, and life with death; and will never labour to know any thing of Christ. Concerning which, I shall put my friend Diatribe a little in remembrance, in what follows.”
Luther further admonished Erasmus to learn that distinction:
“But, to away with vanities, the word TURN is used in the Scriptures in a twofold sense, the one legal, the other evangelical. In the legal sense, it is the voice of the exactor and commander, which requires, not an endeavour, but a change in the whole life. In this sense Jeremiah frequently uses it, saying, ‘Turn ye now every one of you from his evil way:’ and, ‘Turn ye unto the Lord:’ in which, he involves the requirement of all the commandments; as is sufficiently evident. In the evangelical sense, it is the voice of the divine consolation and promise, by which nothing is demanded of us, but in which the grace of God is offered unto us. Of this kind is that of Psalm cxxvi. 1, ‘When the Lord shall turn again the captivity of Zion;’ and that of Psalm cxvi. 7, ‘Turn again into thy rest, O my soul.’ Hence, Malachi, in a very brief compendium, has set forth the preaching both of the law and of grace. It is the whole sum of the law, where he saith, ‘Turn ye unto me;’ and it is grace, where he saith, ‘I will turn unto you.’ Wherefore, as much as "Free-will" is proved from this word, ‘Love the Lord,’ or from any other word of particular law, just so much is it proved from this word of summary law,
"'TURN YE.’ It becomes a wise reader of the Scriptures, therefore, to observe what are words of the law and what are words of grace, that he might not be involved in confusion like the unclean Sophists, and like this sleepily-yawning Diatribe.”
Note that while Luther continually to pushed his point of law and gospel distinction as central to his theme of why freewill of man profits nothing towards salvation, he also took the viewpoint of God’s universal desire and will to save as the gospel promise:
“It is the Gospel voice, and the sweetest consolation to miserable sinners, where Ezekiel saith, "I desire not the death of a sinner, but rather, that he should be converted and live," and it is in all respects like unto that of Psalm xxx. 5.; "For His wrath is but for a moment, in His willingness is life." And that of Psalm xxxvi. 7., ‘How sweet is thy loving-kindness, O God.’ Also, ‘For I am merciful,’ And that of Christ, (Matt. xi. 28.) ‘Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.’ And also that of Exodus xx. 6, ‘I will shew mercy unto thousands of them that love me.’
“And what is more than half of the Holy Scripture, but mere promises of grace, by which, mercy, life, peace, and salvation, are extended from God unto men? And what else is the whole word of promise but this:—‘I desire not the death of a sinner?’ Is not His saying, ‘I am merciful,’ the same as saying, I am not angry, I am unwilling to punish, I desire not your death, My will is to pardon, My will is to spare? And if there were not these divine promises standing, by which consciences, afflicted with a sense of sin and terrified at the fear of death and judgment might be raised up, what place would there be for pardon or for hope! What sinner would not sink in despair! But as ‘Free-will’ is not proved from any of the other words of mercy, of promise, and of comfort, so neither is it from this:—"I desire not the death of a sinner," &c.
“But our friend Diatribe, again making no distinction between the words of the law, and the words of the promise, makes this passage of Ezekiel the voice of the law, and expounds it thus:—‘I desire not the death of a sinner:’ that is, I desire not that he should sin unto death, or should become a sinner guilty of death; but rather, that he should be converted from sin, if he have committed any, and thus live. For if it do not expound the passage thus, it will make nothing to its purpose. But this is utterly to destroy and take away that most sweet place of Ezekiel, ‘I desire not the death.’ If we in our blindness will read and understand the Scriptures thus, what wonder if they be 'obscure and ambiguous.' Whereas God does not say, ‘I desire not the sin of man, but, I desire not the death of a sinner,’ which manifestly shews that He is speaking of the punishment of sin, of which the sinner has a sense on account of his sin, that is, of the fear of death; and that He is raising up and comforting the sinner lying under this affliction and desperation, that He might not ‘break the bruised reed nor quench the smoking flax,’ but raise him to the hope of pardon and salvation, in order that he might be further converted, that is, by the conversion unto salvation from the fear of death, and that he might live, that is, might be in peace and rejoice in a good conscience.
“And this is also to be observed, that as the voice of the law is not pronounced but upon those who neither feel nor know their sins, as Paul saith, ‘By the law is the knowledge of sin;’ (Rom. iii. 20,) so, the word of grace does not come but unto those, who, feeling their sins, are distressed and exercised with desperation. Therefore, in all the words of the law, you will find sin to be implied while it shews what we ought to do; as on the contrary, in all the words of the promise, you will find the evil to be implied under which the sinners, or those who are raised up, labour: as here, ‘I desire not the death of a sinner,’ clearly points out the death and the sinner, both the evil itself which is felt, and the sinner himself who feels it. But by this, 'Love God with all thine heart,' is shewn what good we ought to do, not what evil we feel, in order that we might know, how far we are from doing good.”
Luther affirmed God’s desire to save all bound to sin and helpless to save themselves here as well
“Sect. 63.—NOTHING, therefore, could be more absurdly adduced in support of "Free-will" than this passage of Ezekiel, nay, it makes with all possible force directly against ‘Free-will.’ For it is here shewn, in what state "Free-will" is, and what it can do under the knowledge of sin, and in turning itself from it:—that is, that it can only go on to worse, and add to its sins desperation and impenitency, unless God soon come in to help, and to call back, and raise up by the word of promise. For the concern of God in promising grace to recall and raise up the sinner, is itself an argument sufficiently great and conclusive, that ‘Free-will,’ of itself, cannot but go on to worse, and (as the Scripture saith) 'fall down to hell:' unless, indeed, you imagine that God is such a trifler, that He pours forth so great an abundance of the words of promise, not from any necessity of them unto our salvation, but from a mere delight in loquacity! Wherefore, you see, that not only all the words of law stand against ‘Free-will,’ but also, that all the words of the promise utterly confute it; that is, that, the whole Scripture makes directly against it.
“Hence, you see, this word, ‘I desire not the death of a sinner,’ does nothing else but preach and offer divine mercy to the world, which none receive with joy and gratitude but those who are distressed and exercised with the fears of death, for they are they in whom the law has now done its office, that is, in bringing them to the knowledge of sin. But they who have not yet experienced the office of the law, who do not yet know their sin nor feel the fears of death, despise the mercy promised in that word.”
And further down, he made it clear in regards to 1 Timothy 2:4, Matthew 23:37, and Ezekiel 18:23, he took the view of God desiring to save all earnestly while not compromising on his stance that the bound will can do nothing towards salvation:
“Therefore it is rightly said, 'if God does not desire our death, it is to be laid to the charge of our own will, if we perish:' this, I say, is right, if you speak of GOD PREACHED. For He desires that all men should be saved, seeing that, He comes unto all by the word of salvation, and it is the fault of the will which does not receive Him: as He saith. (Matt. xxiii. 37.) "How often would I have gathered thy children together, and thou wouldest not!" But WHY that Majesty does not take away or change this fault of the will IN ALL, seeing that, it is not in the power of man to do it; or why He lays that to the charge of the will, which the man cannot avoid, it becomes us not to inquire, and though you should inquire much, yet you will never find out: as Paul saith, (Rom. ix, 20,) ‘Who art thou that repliest against God!’- Suffice it to have spoken thus upon this passage of Ezekiel.”
The point in all this is the command for us to do is law and the promise of salvation and forgiveness to us is gospel. His point was if God’s command can be done, then there would be no need for gospel as God’s word of promise to rescue us from our sins. If it is in our power to exert faith, just because it is treated as something in us to do, then us “doing” our faith would be law, not gospel. And the law brings wrath since no one can keep God’s commands as required.
And as shown here, Luther wasn’t a Calvinist in regards to his view of universal grace and atonement that can be resisted (though he rejected the synergistic view of conversion).
So it isn’t just Calvinists that Flowers was objecting to. As seen later in this article, Luther did indeed speak for Lutherans.
Luther hammered that law and gospel distinction point home as to why the will bound to sin is useless towards conversion to Erasmus;
“Sect. 65.—THE Diatribe next argues—‘If what is commanded be not in the power of every one, all the numberless exhortations in the Scriptures, and also all the promises, threatenings, expostulations, reproofs, asseverations, benedictions and maledictions, together with all the forms of precepts, must of necessity stand coldly useless.’
“The Diatribe is perpetually forgetting the subject point, and going on with that which is contrary to its professed design: and it does not see, that all these things make with greater force against itself than against us. For from all these passages, it proves the liberty and ability to fulfil all things, as the very words of the conclusion which it draws necessarily declare: whereas, its design was, to prove 'that ‘Free-will’ is that, which cannot will any thing good without grace, and is a certain endeavour that is not to be ascribed to its own powers.' But I do not see that such an endeavour is proved by any of these passages, but that as I have repeatedly said already, that only is required which ought to be done' unless it be needful to repeat it again, as often as the Diatribe harps upon the same string, putting off its readers with a useless profusion of words.
“About the last passage which it brings forward out of the Old Testament, is that of Deut. xxx. 11-14. ‘This commandment which I command thee this day, is not above thee, neither is it far off. Neither is it in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who of us shall ascend up into heaven and bring it down unto us, that we may hear it and do it. But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.’ The Diatribe contends—'that it is declared by this passage, that what is commanded is not only placed in us, but is down-hill work, that is, easy to be done, or at least, not difficult.'
“I thank the Diatribe for such wonderful erudition! For if Moses so plainly declare, that there is in us, not only an ability, but also a power to keep all the commandments with ease, why have I been toiling all this time! Why did I not at once produce this passage and assert ‘Free-will’ before the whole world! What need now of Christ! What need of the Spirit! We have now found a passage which stops the mouths of all, and, which not only plainly asserts the liberty of the will, but teaches that the observance of all the commandments is easy!—What need was there for Christ to purchase for us, even with His own blood, the Spirit, as though necessary, in order that He might make the keeping of the commandments easy unto us, when we were already thus qualified by nature! Nay, here, the Diatribe itself recants its own assertions, where it affirmed, that '’Freewill’ cannot will any thing good without grace,' and now affirms, that ‘Free-will’ is of such power, that it can, not only will good, but keep the greatest, nay, all the commandments, with ease.”
The gospel, which is Christ crucified to obtain forgiveness for our sins, must be kept central:
“But we have here to speak upon two things. First, upon the precepts of the New Testament. And next, upon merit. We shall touch upon each briefly, having already spoken upon them more fully elsewhere.
“The New Testament, properly, consists of promises and exhortations, even as the Old, properly, consists of laws and threatenings. For in the New Testament, the Gospel is preached; which is nothing else than the word, by which, are offered unto us the Spirit, grace; and the remission of sins obtained for us by Christ crucified; and all entirely free, through the mere mercy of God the Father, thus favouring us unworthy creatures, who deserve damnation rather than any thing else.”
Exhortations to good works are given to those whose wills are already freed by the power of God to give faith, through the gospel word of promise, not for those whose wills are still in bondage to sin and need regeneration by the Holy Spirit:
“And then follow exhortations, in order to animate those who are already justified, and who have obtained mercy, to be diligent in the fruits of the Spirit and of righteousness received, to exercise themselves in charity and good works, and to bear courageously the cross and all the other tribulations of this world. This is the whole sum of the New Testament. But how little Erasmus understands of this matter is manifest from this:—it knows not how to make any distinction between the Old Testament and the New, for it can see nothing any where but precepts, by which, men are formed to good manners only. But what the new-birth is, the new-creature, regeneration, and the whole work of the Spirit, of all this it sees nothing whatever. So that, I am struck with wonder and astonishment, that the man, who has spent so much time and study upon these things, should know so little about them.
“This passage therefore, ‘Rejoice, and be exceeding glad, for great is your reward in heaven,’ agrees as well with "Free-will" as light does with darkness. For Christ is there exhorting, not ‘Free-will,’ but His apostles, (who were not only raised above ‘Free-will’ in grace, and justified, but were stationed in the ministry of the Word, that is, in the highest degree of grace,) to endure the tribulations of the world. But we are now disputing about ‘Free-will,’ and that particularly, as it is without Grace; which, by laws and threats, or the Old Testament, is instructed in the knowledge of itself only, that it might flee to the promises presented to it in the New Testament.”
The Lutheran Confessions affirmed Luther’s view of law and gospel distinction taught in Bondage of the Will. The Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord (written by the “second Martin” Chemnitz three decades after Luther’s death) said in article V (on law and gospel):
“1] As the distinction between the Law and the Gospel is a special brilliant light, which serves to the end that God's Word may be rightly divided, and the Scriptures of the holy prophets and apostles may be properly explained and understood, we must guard it with especial care, in order that these two doctrines may not be mingled with one another, or a law be made out of the Gospel, whereby the merit of Christ is obscured and troubled consciences are robbed of their comfort, which they otherwise have in the holy Gospel when it is preached genuinely and in its purity, and by which they can support themselves in their most grievous trials against the terrors of the Law.”
It summarized Luther’s distinction between law and gospel:
“12] Anything that preaches concerning our sins and God's wrath, let it be done how or when it will, that is all a preaching of the Law. Again, the Gospel is such a preaching as shows and gives nothing else than grace and forgiveness in Christ, although it is true and right that the apostles and preachers of the Gospel (as Christ Himself also did) confirm the preaching of the Law, and begin it with those who do not yet acknowledge their sins nor are terrified at [by the sense of] God's wrath; as He says, John 16:8: 13] ‘The Holy Ghost will reprove the world of sin because they believe not on Me.’ Yea, what more forcible, more terrible declaration and preaching of God's wrath against sin is there than just the suffering and death of Christ, His Son? But as long as all this preaches God's wrath and terrifies men, it is not yet the preaching of the Gospel nor Christ's own preaching, but that of Moses and the Law against the impenitent. For the Gospel and Christ were never ordained and given for the purpose of terrifying and condemning, but of comforting and cheering those who are terrified and timid. And again: Christ says, John 16:8: ‘The Holy Ghost will reprove the world of sin’; which cannot be done except through the explanation of the Law.”
As did Luther, the Formula highlighted the futility of man’s corrupt human nature in regards to keeping the law which it is hostile and opposed to:
“20] However, now that man has not kept the Law of God, but transgressed it, his corrupt nature, thoughts, words, and works fighting against it, for which reason he is under God's wrath, death, all temporal calamities, and the punishment of hell-fire, the Gospel is properly a doctrine which teaches what man should believe, that he may obtain forgiveness of sins with God, namely, that the Son of God, our Lord Christ, has taken upon Himself and borne the curse of the Law, has expiated and paid for all our sins, through whom alone we again enter into favor with God, obtain forgiveness of sins by faith, are delivered from death and all the punishments of sins, and eternally saved.”
Article II of the Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord (on freewill) affirmed Luther’s view of the bound will cannot cooperate towards conversion:
“17] Secondly, God's Word testifies that the intellect, heart, and will of the natural, unregenerate man in divine things are not only turned entirely away from God, but also turned and perverted against God to every evil; also, that he is not only weak, incapable, unfit, and dead to good, but also is so lamentably perverted, infected, and corrupted by original sin that he is entirely evil, perverse, and hostile to God by his disposition and nature, and that he is exceedingly strong, alive, and active with respect to everything that is displeasing and contrary to God. Gen. 8:22: The imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth. Jer. 17:9: The heart of man is deceitful and desperately wicked, or perverted and full of misery, so that it is unfathomable. This passage St. Paul explains Rom. 8: The carnal mind is enmity against God. Gal. 5:17: The flesh lusteth against the spirit; and these are contrary the one to the other. Rom. 7:14: We know that the Law is spiritual; but I am carnal, sold under sin. And soon after, 18:23: I know that in me, that is, in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing. For I delight in the Law of God after the inward man, which is regenerate by the Holy Ghost; but I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin.
“18] Now, if in St. Paul and in other regenerate men the natural or carnal free will even after regeneration strives against God's Law, it will be much more obstinate and hostile to God's Law and will before regeneration. Hence it is manifest (as it is further declared in the article concerning original sin, to which we now refer for the sake of brevity) that the free will from its own natural powers, not only cannot work or concur in working anything for its own conversion, righteousness, and salvation, nor follow [obey], believe, or assent to the Holy Ghost, who through the Gospel offers him grace and salvation, but from its innate, wicked, rebellious nature it resists God and His will hostilely, unless it be enlightened and controlled by God's Spirit.”
And as it did Luther, it highlighted the distinction between those under law (by which they are under wrath, bound to their sins) and under the gospel (that freed them from their slavery to sin and forgave them their sins, for Christ’s sake):
“63] But when man has been converted, and is thus enlightened, and his will is renewed, it is then that man wills what is good (so far as he is regenerate or a new man), and delights in the Law of God after the inward man, Rom. 7:22, and henceforth does good to such an extent and as long as he is impelled by God's Spirit, as Paul says, Rom. 8:14: For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. 64] And this impulse of the Holy Ghost is not a coactio, or coercion, but the converted man does good spontaneously, as David says, Ps. 110:4: Thy people shall be willing in the day of Thy power. And nevertheless that also [the strife of the flesh and spirit] remains in the regenerate of which St. Paul wrote, Rom. 7:22f : For I delight in the Law of God after the inward man; but I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. Also, v. 25: So, then, with my mind I myself serve the Law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin. Also, Gal. 5:17: For the flesh lusteth against the spirit and the spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary the one to the other, so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.”
And here as well:
“67] Therefore there is a great difference between baptized and unbaptized men. For since, according to the doctrine of St. Paul, Gal. 3:27, all who have been baptized have put on Christ, and thus are truly regenerate, they have now arbitrium liberatum (a liberated will), that is, as Christ says, they have been made free again, John 8:36; whence they are able not only to hear the Word, but also to assent to it and accept it, although in great weakness.
“68] For since we receive in this life only the first-fruits of the Spirit, and the new birth is not complete, but only begun in us, the combat and struggle of the flesh against the spirit remains even in the elect and truly regenerate men; for there is a great difference perceptible among Christians not only in this, that one is weak and another strong in the spirit, but each Christian, moreover, experiences in himself that at one time he is joyful in spirit, and at another fearful and alarmed; at one time ardent in love, strong in faith and hope, and at another cold and weak.”
Yet, as did Luther, it affirmed universal grace and desire of God to save all that can be resisted by men who are by nature opposed to the things of God in the first place:
“57] But if a man will not hear preaching nor read God's Word, but despises the Word and congregation of God, and thus dies and perishes in his sins, he neither can comfort himself with God's eternal election nor obtain His mercy; for Christ, in whom we are chosen, offers to all men His grace in the Word and holy Sacraments, and wishes earnestly that it be heard, and has promised that where two or three are gathered together in His name and are occupied with His holy Word, He will be in their midst.”
58] But when such a person despises the instrument of the Holy Ghost, and will not hear, no injustice is done to him if the Holy Ghost does not enlighten him, but allows him to remain in the darkness of his unbelief and to perish; for regarding this matter it is written: How often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings; and ye would not! Matt. 23:37.”
And:
“70] For this is certainly true that in genuine conversion a change, new emotion [renewal], and movement in the intellect, will, and heart must take place, namely, that the heart perceive sin, dread God's wrath, turn from sin, perceive and accept the promise of grace in Christ, have good spiritual thoughts, a Christian purpose and diligence, and strive against the flesh. For where none of these occurs or is present, there is also no true conversion. 71] But since the question is de causa efficiente (concerning the efficient cause), that is, who works this in us, and whence man has this, and how he attains it, this doctrine informs us that, since the natural powers of man cannot do anything or help towards it, 1 Cor. 2:14; 2 Cor. 3:5, God, out of His infinite goodness and mercy, comes first to us [precedes us], and causes His holy Gospel to be preached, whereby the Holy Ghost desires to work and accomplish in us this conversion and renewal, and through preaching and meditation upon His Word kindles in us faith and other godly virtues, so that they are gifts and operations of the Holy Ghost alone. 72] This doctrine, therefore, directs us to the means whereby the Holy Ghost desires to begin and work this [which we have mentioned], also instructs us how those gifts are preserved, strengthened, and increased, and admonishes us that we should not let this grace of God be bestowed on us in vain, but diligently exercise it [those gifts], and ponder how grievous a sin it is to hinder and resist such operations of the Holy Ghost.”
Lutheran theologian John Theodore Mueller summarized why Luther and the Lutheran Confessions, as affirmed by all Confessional Lutherans then and now, took such a strong stance against the decision theology that Erasmus and now Leighton Flowers so espoused:
“Synergism derives its doctrines ‘not from any clear statements of the Bible, but by a process of anti-Scriptural and fallacious reasoning’ (ibid.); and it is all the more dangerous and pernicious since ‘it reduces man’s cooperation to a seemingly harmless minimum and clothes itself in ambiguous phrases and apparently pious and plausible formulas’ (ibid). Its line of reasoning is: ‘Since all who are not converted or finally saved must blame, not God, but themselves for rejecting grace, those, too, who are converted must be credited with at least a small share in the work of their salvation, that is to say, with a better conduct toward grace than the conduct of those who are lost.’ This, however, in its final effect, overthrows the entire Gospel of free grace. It was for this reason that Luther and all confessional Lutherans so inculcated the monergism of divine grace”(Christian Dogmatics, pages 361-2).
Fellow Lutheran theologian (and founder of the Lutheran seminary Concordia Theological Semimary) CFW Walther in his twenty-forth lecture on law and gospel distinction put it this way on why decision theology violates law and gospel distinction, since it turned faith into law as something we do unbiblically:
“Thesis XIII.
“In the ninth place, the Word of God is not rightly divided when one makes an appeal to believe or at least help towards that end, instead of preaching faith into a person’s heart by laying the Gospel promises before him.
“This thesis does not score as an error the demand on the part of the pastor, be it ever so urgent, that his hearers believe the Gospel. That demand has been made by all the prophets, all the apostles, yea, by the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. When demanding faith, we do not lay down a demand of the Law, but issue the sweetest invitation, practically saying to our hearers: ‘Come; for all things are now ready.’ Luke 14, 17. When I invite a halfstarved person to sit down to a well-furnished board and to help himself to anything he likes, I do not expect him to tell me that he will take no orders from me. Even so the demand to believe is to be understood not as an order of the Law, but as an invitation of the Gospel.
“The error against which this thesis is directed is this, that man can produce faith in himself. Such a demand would be an order of the Law and turn faith into a work of man. That would be plainly mingling Law and Gospel. A preacher must be able to preach a sermon on faith without ever using the term faith. It is not important that he din the word faith into the ears of his audience, but it is necessary for him to frame his address so as to arouse in every poor sinner the desire to lay the burden of his sins at the feet of the Lord Jesus Christ and say to Him: ‘Thou art mine, and I am Thine.’”
In his second lecture on law and gospel distinction, he reminded us of why we must safeguard this distinction between law and gospel:
“The difference, then, between the Law and the Gospel is this: The Law makes demands of things that we are to do; it insists on works that we are to perform in the service of God and our fellow-men. In the Gospel, however, we are summoned to a distribution of rich alms which we are to receive and take: the loving-kindness of God and eternal salvation. Here is an easy way of illustrating the difference between the two: In offering us help and salvation as a gift and donation of God, the Gospel bids us hold the sack open and have something given us. The Law, however, gives nothing, but only takes and demands things from us. Now, these two, giving and taking, are surely far apart. For when something is given me, I am not doing anything towards that: I only receive and take; I have something given me. Again, when in my profession I carry out commands, likewise when I advise and assist my fellow-man, I receive nothing, but give to another whom I am serving. Thus the Law and the Gospel are distinguished as to their formal statements (in causa formali): the one promises, the other commands. The Gospel gives and bids us take; the Law demands and says, This you are to do.”
Here we stand.
No comments:
Post a Comment