RSS

Category Archives: Uncategorized

Meditations for Radical Lutherans on Luther’s Antinomian Disputations (part 5 of 6)

Yes? “God is not united by law and gospel but divided.” — Steven Paulson, 24

 

Part 1, 2, 3, 4

+++

Seeking Refuge from the Law’s Inherent Goodness in the “Hidden God”? (part 5)

One might think that because of the nature of God’s law, given in Eden and still inscribed on human hearts today, Christ and the Holy Spirit should not ultimately be set against the law in any way.

As we saw in our last post however, in the Radical Lutheran account the Holy Spirit is said to be the “opposite of the law.” In his article “Luther’s Antinomian Disputations and lex aeterna” (see my response to this article in the latest Concordia Theological Quarterly here) we see that Radical Lutheran theologian Nicholas Hopman also asserts that:

  • “[T]he content of the commandment/law is always a weapon attacking human sin” (159).
  • “[T]he fulfillment of the law actually empties the law of all its content, namely, its threatening teeth” (160, italics mine)
  • “Where there is no accusation, there is no law” (164)
  • “[T]he law and delight in the law are two mutually exclusive realities” (167)
  • “The Christian, in faith alone, is beyond the law” (160)
  • The Christian is successful vs. sin because the Christian and Holy Spirit are not law (171)
  • “[The] law is present only where Christ is absent” (164)

In sum, in the Radical Lutheran account, the law appears to be fully identified with “the hidden God” — God as human beings see him though their sin-infested reason. Again, they desire to stand before God with their good works, their “ladder theology” and/or “law story” (see part 2). The revealed God, however, has nothing to do with law, and comes in the form of Jesus Christ. He, actually, is the end of the law.

So — while Luther warned about flirting with God hidden in wrath, some modern theologians would prefer to make it a staple in how we do theology, especially when it comes to the law.

If Jesus had been born today, would we even recognize this “outlaw God”?

 

Jack Kilcrease explains “the self-evident threat posed by the hidden God to humanity” the Radical Lutheran sees:

“Relying on several remarks Luther made in his Antinomian Disputations, [Gerhard] Forde identifies the hidden God’s threatening activity with the law. Forde writes in The Law-Gospel Debate that the law must be broadly understood as “a general term for the manner in which the will of God impinges on Man…” (278). 

Again, as noted in part 3, man’s response to God’s law, the nature of which is said to be our sense of accusation, is “Hell if I am going to be God’s slave.” As such, they “flee from what they perceive as the unreasonable expectations and control (oppression, coercion… punishment!) of the True God.”

Pauson and Hopman agree. And so, whatever their own intentions may be, they in any case show how Radical Lutherans can conveniently bracket God’s good law in the category of the “hidden God”…

“The resurrection is Christ’s victory over sin, death, hell, the devil, and even over God hidden in wrath (deus absconditus)—along with his law. Death is the last, greatest enemy but the law is the strangest enemy.” (“Hated God,” 23)

Indeed.
“It is dangerous to want to explore and comprehend the divinity by means of human reason without Christ” (SDEA, 89).

 

The Radical Lutherans explain to us that this “strangest enemy,” the law, even justly accused Jesus Christ! As I wrote in a past post:

[W]hat it comes down to is this: Christ ends up a damned sinner, “defeated” by that most coercive and even killing of forces: the merciless “order keeping” law!

What do I mean?

By “order keeping” I mean something like this: law is not necessarily associated first and foremost – or at all! — with God’s law, the 10 commandments, but is rather anything which provides boundaries, “makes life work,” and keeps peace – all good things! What really is true, right, and just may not even need to be considered here, as this story from a good friend of mine illustrates:

“In Kindergarten I was accused of and punished for throwing a snowball at recess. I had not done it. Oddly enough, 45 years later, it still kind of hurts to think about.

In other words, even though I was not guilty of the sin for which I was punished, there was significant suffering involved on my part. I didn’t need to be the sinner to suffer for the sin of whoever did commit that sin. Although that is what I, for all intents and purposes, became.

And justice was served. The boy hit by the snowball in the face, and his parents, were satisfied. The teacher and principal upheld the law. My classmates learned from my experience.”

.

In sum, for the Radical Lutheran, the law is understood in terms of the wrath we see in God’s creation[i], and might be said to rightfully demand the death of all sinners with nary a concern for God’s mercy.[ii] Ultimately, with its “relatively good” order-keeping coerciveness, it–not just the ceremonial laws abolished in the New Testament–is temporal and passes away. It is not connected with God as He really is.

We are told by the Radical Lutherans that the revealed will of God is very different from–nay, the complete opposite of–the law. It is the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ: “God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting people’s sins against them.”

Unlike the law, it actually cares about both truth and individuals, ultimately aiming to save all persons in Christ through preachers! (see Romans 10).

Does this approach to this issue not cause unnecessary confusion? Should we really be wondering whether God’s will and the law of God are two completely different things? Should we really be opening up doors for those who, asserting the temporal nature of God’s law (and of course redefining “nature,” “God,” and “law” in the process!), are also eager to see it evolve in a “Hegelian” fashion or otherwise?

Who is really being the Erasmian skeptic and “enthusiast” here?

“…no answer is ever given to those who seek to judge God’s justice. He will remain a hidden God to those who try to access him experientially…” – Pastor Philip Hale, p. 24

 

Does it really make sense that the “the law of the Spirit who gives life” is the opposite of the law? Or does it make sense that it is instead the opposite of “the law of sin and death,” from which Christ has set us free (Rom. 8:2)!?

Again, going along with the previous posts (part 3), how we size up this issue will also determine how we view the law’s role in the Christian’s conscience and life of repentance.

“When the conscience is under attack, one must abandon the law completely”? In this case?

 

Here, it also does us well to note that Luther speaks of the current world as a place where we can still, in spite of the fall, speak of “the good” (SDEA 33). And to re-iterate once again, even though Luther did speak of the law in Eden in terms of it being a threat, an evaluation of his Genesis commentary reveals that in no sense did this law actually accuse or terrify Adam and Eve, who were already at peace with God.[iii] And while for Nicholas Hopman’s Luther “[w]here there is no accusation, there is no law” (Hopman, 164), we also know that in Eden this was not the case. The law was not meant to drive, by force, God’s people to this or that (Hopman, 160), but rather to inform them of and to keep them from a very specific danger, as well as being an invitation to grow in the fear, love and trust in God (again, see my longer, more detailed argument in the latest Concordia Theological Quarterly here).

And the fact also remains that the law/commands of God, used by the Holy Spirit, are always good. With the Gospel of forgiveness ringing in our ears, it guides His people in paths that are right and true and safe. If God meant for “very good” Adam and Eve to be prevented from sinning via his command in the Garden, how much more might this be true for us who have fallen and who now face not only the devil, but the fallen world and our sinful flesh?

“In Adam we have all been one…” or no? Not Luther’s view?: “Attempts to get God off the hook of our suffering and death commonly end with a theory of the misuse of human free will as the cause of our suffering and the reason for the presence of evil.” — Steve D. Paulson, p. 365

 

Indeed, until the time that the law is fulfilled in us perfectly, the Christian will be at war with these three under his commander, Christ. And here, the Holy Spirit – and the good law that He brings which says “[t]he law does not want you to despair of God… it wills that you despair of yourself, but expect good from God…” – is not to be denied (SDEA 367, 369)

Whatever else can be said here – and much more must be said and will be said in the final post of this series – this much is clear: the law and gospel – just like the Holy Spirit – reveal an important truth which is exactly the same: God has an overriding desire to do good to all men (even, finally, desiring that each not despair but be saved in Christ). This holds true even as the purposes of the law and gospel are distinct and must always remain so.

Yes? “God is not consistent but contradicts himself. Here we see God against God!” — Oswald Bayer, p. 104.

 

When only reading some of what Luther says, it might be easy to at times get the impression that God’s Holy Spirit only brings peace and joy in the “spirit” by the perfect Gospel, and that the “flesh” is dealt with only according to the imperfect law, at odds with the Holy Spirit (and here, we might see increasing insistence from many that we deal with this or that topic in light of stricter and stricter distinctions between the left-hand and right-hand kingdoms). This kind of “practical Gnosticizing” however, does not take into account what Luther says elsewhere.

For example, in response to the 29th argument in the Second Disputation Against the Antinomians, Luther not only insists that “God preached” (vs. “God not preached,” i.e. the hidden God) is a God of law too, but that He hides also so as to not terrify us:

“God by himself, without certain signs, cannot be comprehended; and whoever searched for God in his majesty and divinity, would be crushed by the glory of God. Yet later he emptied himself and became lovable and admirable, a boy put in the womb of the Virgin and in the manger. In this way we can bear him and he becomes easy to deal with. Otherwise, a man will not see him and live. Yet clothed and dressed in human flesh, born of the Virgin and incarnate of our flesh, made our brother and flesh, I cannot dread him.

In the same way the Holy Spirit in his majesty is incomprehensible, and when he in his majesty as God reveals the law, he cannot but kill and vehe­mently terrify. Therefore, he at last, in order to be Consoler and Sanctifier, also becomes a Gift… the Holy Spirit as God terrifies in the law, but consoles, sanctifies, and vivifies as Gift, in the form of a dove, and in a flame of fire” (bold and italics mine, SDEA 225).

Even if the theme of the hidden God in Luther’s theology is being abused by Radical Lutherans, the proper articulation of it (this is a very nice summary) makes a critical point. The idea here is that God is a God who hides Himself, and a temptation of man is to peek into the window of heaven, trying to catch a glimpse of the “bare God” that He has not revealed to us in Scripture.

Indeed. Ironically? “To seek God behind this giving of himself in words preached is to seek some God… who might allow us to bypass the revelation of our own nature as sinners and creatures.” – Steven D. Paulson, p. 367, 368

 

Interestingly, elsewhere in the Antinomian Disputations, we can readily discern that Luther in fact speaks of two different kinds of “bare God” in the minds of men.

There is one which, in line with the Scriptures, “speaks in his majesty,” “only terrif[ying] and kill[ing],” – and yet, being ultimately revealed as the merciful Christ who dies for the sins of the world, and who disciplines His children in love. On the other hand, those who neglect this “basic truth” of the gospel, follow “seemingly magnificent and divine illuminations and revelations” which are “in reality satanic”. Their “bare God” is an illusion, and they “finally fall into despair” (SDEA 91).

Luther: “These true disciples of Satan seem to think that the law is something temporal that has ceased under Christ, like circumcision.”

 

When Luther talks in the Antinomian Disputations about the law showing sin “without this Holy Spirit who is the Gift” He is nevertheless talking about the same Holy Spirit! The Holy Spirit is, in fact, the true bare God, the One who in his majesty reveals the law and convicts of sin unto salvation and not damnation (John 16-8-10).

He also reveals the true bare God, that is, the baby, born of Mary and wrapped in swaddling clothes. He is the One who still hides Himself, but now not in wrath, but in humility, simplicity, and weakness – in the human flesh of the man Jesus Christ. For us.

And He does this, for example, in the Lord’s Supper, so as not to further terrify those who have known His wrath (and what is the Radical Lutheran’s view of this Supper?) We can, really, and truly, partake of His true body and blood in peace and joy. In fact, we can have the grace of God applied to each one of us in an exceedingly personal and intimate way.

He does so through simple and humble bread and wine, and importantly, simple and humble words to believe, still “hiding” in a sense, for our sake!

Given for you, like this, so as not to terrify you…

 

What sweet Gospel this is! “Truly, you are a God who hides himself, O God of Israel, the Savior!” (Isaiah 45:15)

And, as Luther puts it, if one believes in the revealed God, Jesus Christ, Christ will “gradually also reveal the hidden God; for ‘He who sees Me also sees the Father.’” (LW 5:46 ; LW 28:126 ; see here).

Much more on this kind of thing in the final post…

FIN

 

Notes

[i] Hopman has written elsewhere that “the hidden God works even life in his wrath,” and “God in his wrath works life”.

[ii] Instead of: “The law does not want you to despair of Godit wills that you despair of yourself, but expect good from God…” — Luther (ODE, 195), the view towards the law might be like what is described in this post:

“By its own standard, which cannot be violated (as a friend once told me “When the Law says ‘stone’ you stone!), the law “justly” but falsely accuses Jesus of being a sinner.

([As you say:] “Here Paul’s point is exact: the law is no respecter of persons, it does not identify Christ among sinners as an exception to the rule. Law as “blind lady justice” executes its judgment regardless of race, color, creed—or divinity.”)”

You can listen to some more official 1517 Legacy folks discuss the atonement quite well here.

[iii] See, e.g. LW 1: 62-63, 65, 111.

Images: Jörg Schubert ; The outlaw (https://www.flickr.com/photos/tinto/31228355070)

Advertisements
 
Leave a comment

Posted by on December 13, 2018 in Uncategorized

 

Meditations for Radical Lutherans on Luther’s Antinomian Disputations (part 4 of 6)

Simply put, for the Radical Lutheran, the law of God cannot be said to be the lex aeterna, the eternal will of God. Is the Holy Spirit “the opposite of the law”?

 

Part 1, 2, 3, 4…

+++

The Law of God Set Against God’s Holy Spirit? (part 4)

First, this quote from the “First Disputation Against the Antinomians,” which will serve to set up both this post as well as the final two posts of this series. It is a good one to spend some time with:

Fourth Argument

Against thesis 25. [“For the entire Scripture teaches that repentance must be initiated by the law, which is what the order of the matter itself and also experience shows.”]

The Holy Spirit had to be sent in order to bring about what the law was unable to bring about. The law was not sufficient to terrify souls. Therefore the Holy Spirit had to be sent for this purpose.

Explanation: The law is not a sufficient cause without the heart being moved. It does not even accomplish it externally. Hence the Holy Spirit, who speaks and intercedes for us, is necessary.

Response of Dr. Luther:

“…it is impossible for the law to show sin and move hearts without the Holy Spirit.” – Luther

 

This argument has already been explained. The consequence is bad: The law does not do its work without inner movement; therefore it is to be removed. The magnitude of sin and of God’s wrath has to be shown carefully by the law, and then the matter has to be entrusted to God. He moves the hearts he wills.

Yet it is to be noted that the 16th proposition of the Antinomians states that the law only shows sins, certainly without the Holy Spirit, so it therefore only shows them unto damnation. This they babble impiously since it is impossible for the law to show sin and move hearts without the Holy Spirit, who is God the Creator of all things and who wrote the law with his finger on tablets of stone, as is said in Exodus (31:18).

We therefore distinguish between the Holy Spirit and God in his divine nature and substance on the one hand, and the Spirit as he is given us on the other hand. God in his nature and majesty is our adversary, requires the law, and threatens transgressors with death. Yet when he associates himself with our infirmity, when he takes on our nature, sins, and evils, then he is not our adversary, as Is. 9(:6) proves: “Unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given,” unto us is given the true God; he becomes our Priest and Savior. Thus the Holy Spirit is in his majesty when he writes with his finger on Moses’ tablets of stone. He certainly convicts sins and terrifies hearts. Yet when he is enveloped in tongues and spiritual gifts, then he is called Gift, sanctifies, and vivifies. It is without this Holy Spirit who is the Gift that the law shows sin, because the law is not a gift, but the word of the eternal and almighty God, who is fire for consciences.

But the law does not show sin without the Holy Spirit. The reason is God the Giver of the law. Therefore one cannot say that the law shows sin without the Holy Spirit. Yet in that they say that the law shows sin unto damnation, this they rightly say.

Yet then they infer that the law is to be removed because of this effect. This is impious and blasphemous. I’d buy golden shoes for that prophet who showed me for sure from the Scriptures that the law is to be abolished because it shows sins unto damnation. For by abolishing the law in this way they also abolish death and hell. For when there is no accusing and condemning law, what do I need Christ for who gave himself for my sins? Yet when death comes you certainly feel that sin accuses and condemns you so horribly so that you would despair unless you were lifted up by Christ’s promise.

Satan hates the teaching of piety (cf. 1 Tim. 6:3). This is why he wants to remove the law through such spirits. For the same reason for which they remove the law, it has to be established and retained all the more, namely, that it shows and points out true sin, and by this pointing out, it reduces man to nothingness and condemns and impels him to seek help from Christ, Gal. 3(:24)” (SDEA 55, 57, Italics mine).

+++

First of all, if you think Satan only wants to squelch the Gospel narrowly defined (Christ’s work for the forgiveness of our sins that we can be justified before Him and know that we will go to heaven), read this from Thomas Lemke.

Second, let’s get to the heart of the Radical Lutheran’s argument.

For Radical Lutheran theologian Nicholas Hopman, a definition of God’s law devoid of an accusation of sin is inconceivable (see “Luther’s Antinomian Disputations and lex aeterna,” 164). Furthermore, “[T]here is no distinction between the law’s requirement/demand (exactio) and the law’s accusation/condemnation (accusatio)” (159). But now, he says, thanks be to God, for the law’s stinger has been removed!

Here, a serious yet charitable Lutheran construction would say that there is nothing wrong with those last two sentences above, even if more certainly must be said! (even heretics, after all, tend to, for the most part, utter entirely true statements). Still, is it reasonable to wonder whether there might be more to the story as well?

Yes, it most certainly is.

In fact, questions abound regarding the Radical Lutheran account. One notices, for example, that when Hopman talks about the law’s “stinger” being removed, he means that the entire content of the law – the qualities and behavior it speaks to – is removed as well: “[t]he law’s instructional, guiding command or demand [no longer] remains for believers” (italics mine)[ii]

Let’s be clear. For the RL, the name of the game is not the law’s intrinsic and spiritual goodness, but its “relatively good” order-keeping coerciveness: “Forde writes in The Law-Gospel Debate that the law must be broadly understood as ‘a general term for the manner in which the will of God impinges on Man.'” — Jack Kilcrease.

 

One can see why Hopman wrongly insists that a definition of law devoid of an accusation of sin is inconceivable. For him, the truly significant thing about the law is what he says is its nature: its accusation of sin in the human heart. Therefore, any good behavior that comes about even in part because of the law’s involvement can only be due to a fear of some kind of punishment, temporal or eternal. Therefore, for him, any instruction and guidance are synonymous with coercion, and any “third use of the law” is, to say the least, suspect (nevermind, evidently, that the Christian as new man once again begins to enjoy and delight in the law, even as he will also continue, insofar as he is the old Adam, to be accused by it!).

These, however, are not the only ideas that Hopman has that prompt questions. He also goes so far to say, with sketchy textual evidence from the Antinomian Disputations[iii], that “law is present only where Christ is absent” (164). Even more puzzling, he claims, citing 2 Cor. 3:6 and Gal. 3:5, that the Holy Spirit is “the opposite of the law”! (166)[iv] In other words, in spite of Luther’s words from the Antinomian Disputations above which give the opposite impression, Hopman’s paper “Luther’s Antinomian Disputations and lex aeterna” seems to say that the law of God contained in the Scriptures and the Holy Spirit who convicts of sin are two things which, in our theology, need not be kept together.

Or must not be.

What happens to John 16 here, formally a staple passage in Lutheran theology?:

“When he comes, he will prove the world to be in the wrong about sin and righteousness and judgment: about sin, because people do not believe in me; 10 about righteousness, because I am going to the Father, where you can see me no longer; 11 and about judgment, because the prince of this world now stands condemned.”

 

Sermons from Luther on John 16 that are must reading for today. Does He mean to pick a fight or something?

 

For Luther, the law of God contained in the Scriptures and the Holy Spirit who convicts of sin go hand in hand. The great reformer not only notes how “the Spirit first convicts the world of sin in order to teach faith in Christ, that is, the remission of sins (John 16:8)” (SDEA 37), going on to speak about how Adam, David, and Paul are killed by the law. He also says that, in accordance with God’s will, the law does not do its work without God’s Holy Spirit, who gives “all truth, wherever it might be,” for “to forbid the law is to forbid the truth of God” (SDEA 139, italics mine ; see also 55).[v]

What is the ultimate reason for the kinds of problems that we see here on display in the writings of Radical Lutherans? Could it have to do with the fact that their view of the Christian life, like that of Gerhard Forde before them, is completely imputation-driven? Ironically even as–at least in Gerhard Forde’s reckoning–there is not vicarious atonement, and hence blessings from the vicarious atonement, to impute to the believer?!

And since the emphasis in this account is on how God’s justifying word does what it says, everything that happens in the Christian’s life is about getting this message out (and not so much on getting the message right – again, vicarious atonement? Meh.). In other words, in the end, it is about doing and not being, even if that doing has to do with preaching the Radical Gospel.[vi]

“Cooper’s scholasticism is too abstract to preach and not concrete enough to fully confess Christ as a person, flesh and blood, whose incarnation, when it comes to us, was not primarily about being something, but about doing things.” — Wade Johnston, on Lex Aeterna.

 

What is key here for the Radical Lutheran however is that everything is really about God’s doing (He does work all in all, after all, as Radical Lutherans are eager to remind some of us – who I am guessing they doubt believe it). But – and notice this – not the Holy Spirit’s “doing the law and gospel” through the preacher without ambiguity, but really just the Holy Spirit’s doing the gospel alone through the preacher.[vii]

The rest is certainly God (Hopman, 157), but ultimately this really needs to be qualified as the hidden God, involving as it does the temporal law which is passing away…

Intrigued? I hope so.

Good stuff we should talk about more: “The hidden god is what man says about God, not what the gracious father reveals about Himself.” – Pastor Philip Hale, p. 25

 

More about the meaning of this in the next post.

FIN

 

Notes:

[ii] As it has served its purpose to be a “pedagogue” to Christ.

[iii] Also note that in the quote above, Luther says “It is without this Holy Spirit who is the Gift that the law shows sin, because the law is not a gift, but the word of the eternal and almighty God, who is fire for consciences.” What does this mean? Does it mean that we distinguish the Holy Spirit’s work of administering the law and the gospel? Yes. Does it mean that the law of God and the will of God are necessarily opposed? No. Luther goes on to say “Yet in that they say that the law shows sin unto damnation, this they rightly say,” and such a statement does not accuse the new man in the Christians, but causes him to rejoice. Not because of the eternal suffering of the wicked, but because of the salvation of the children of God. As I wrote in this post: “Justice is also a help to the oppressed godly ones – a balancing of the scales weighed against them! Their vindication! Their protection! Their preservation! Defeat to those who rebel vs their God and His eternal will! To them, God’s righteous anger, born of His Father’s heart for His children, is Gospel. Come quickly Lord Jesus!” Can one say this and also desire that all persons be saved? Why not?

[iv] This would seem to be corollary to his earlier mentioned claim that “the law and delight in the law are two mutually exclusive realities.” (167)  Of course, if the law is the “hidden God” who only works death in the end, as Hopman has written elsewhere with Steve Paulson, this makes all the sense in the world: the law and “the law of sin and death” appear to be one in the same! In truth however, such a law is clearly an abstraction removed from Christ, the Holy Spirit, the historical account found in the Holy Scriptures, not to mention the Antinomian Disputations.

[v] In the Antinomian Disputations, while some in the disputants shared the argument that the law was “not sufficient to terrify souls” (see the quote at the beginning of this post), Luther alternatively argued that God’s law is always at work, and that it is “false that the law convicts of sin without the Holy Spirit” (SDEA 139).

[vi] Of course being is discussed as well. The main figure in Radical Lutheranism, Gerhard Forde, rightly pointed out how those who are justified and have peace with God are also those who are sanctified. It is most certainly true that those who are justified by faith have a faith that is alive – for they have also experienced the sanctified power of the Holy Spirit (passive sanctification). This said, what, ultimately does it mean to say that “sanctification is simply the art of getting used to justification?” Does it means that we can say that in this and because of this new relationship with Christ by faith, we begin to act according to the law by loving God and neighbor? If not, why not? If the answer is “no” is it because, as regards the proper standard of conduct for the reborn, it can only be said to be their relatedness to Christ, which is not compatible with the unchanging will of God, the Ten Commandments? (“relatedness” vs. “law”)

[vii] In addition, one often gets the impression that the Spirit not only preaches to the Christian but also believes for the Christian in the Christian. 

Note: added image and quote from Wade Johnston at 8:14 am central time.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on December 10, 2018 in Uncategorized

 

Is the Bible Clear?

.
+++
.
According to Luther in the Bondage of the Will, the answer is a resounding yes (thanks James Swan, for doing all this work) — with some considerable nuance when it comes to the details:
.

“But the notion that in Scripture some things are recondite and all is not plain was spread by the godless Sophists… —who have never yet cited a single item to prove their crazy view; nor can they. And Satan has used these unsubstantial spectres to scare men off reading the sacred text, and to destroy all sense of its value, so as to ensure that his own brand of poisonous philosophy reigns supreme in the church. I certainly grant that many passages in the Scriptures are obscure and hard to elucidate, but that is due, not to the exalted nature of their subject, but to our own linguistic and grammatical ignorance; and it does not in any way prevent our knowing all the contents of Scripture. For what solemn truth can the Scriptures still be concealing, now that the seals are broken, the stone rolled away from the door of the tomb and that greatest of all mysteries brought to light—that Christ, God’s Son, became man, that God is Three in One, that Christ suffered for us, and will reign for ever? And are not these things known, and sung in our streets? Take Christ from the Scriptures—and what more will you find in them? You see, then that the entire content of the Scriptures has now been brought to light, even though some passages which contain unknown words remain obscure. Thus it is unintelligent, and ungodly too, when you know that the contents of Scripture are as clear as can be, to pronounce them obscure on account of those few obscure words. If words are obscure in one place, they are clear in another. What God has so plainly declared to the world is in some parts of Scripture stated in plain words, while in other parts it still lies hidden under obscure words. But when something stands in broad daylight, and a mass of evidence for it is in broad daylight also, it does not matter whether there is any evidence for it in the dark. Who will maintain that the town fountain does not stand in the light because the people down some alley cannot see it, while everyone in the square can see it?

There is nothing, then, in your remark about the ‘Corycian cavern’; matters are not so in the Scriptures. The profoundest mysteries of the supreme Majesty are no more hidden away, but are now brought out of doors and displayed to public view. Christ has opened our understanding, that we might understand the Scriptures, and the Gospel is preached to every creature. ‘Their sound is gone out into all lands’ (Ps. 19.4). ‘All things that are written, are written for our instruction’ (Rom. 15.4). Again: ‘All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for instruction’ (2 Tim. 3.16). Come forward then, you, and all the Sophists with you, and cite a single mystery which is still obscure in the Scripture. I know that to many people a great deal remains obscure; but that is due, not to any lack of clarity in Scripture, but to their own blindness and dullness, in that they make no effort to see truth which, in itself, could not be plainer. As Paul said of the Jews in 2 Cor. 4: ‘The veil remains on their heart’ (2 Cor. 3.15); and again, ‘If our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost, whose heart the god of this world hath blinded’ (2 Cor. 4.3-4). They are like men who cover their eyes, or go from daylight into darkness, and hide there, and then blame the sun, or the darkness of the day, for their inability to see. So let wretched men abjure that blasphemous perversity which would blame the darkness of their own hearts on to the plain Scriptures of God!

When you quote Paul’s statement, ‘his judgments are incomprehensible,’ you seem to take the pronoun ‘his’ to refer to Scripture; whereas the judgments which Paul there affirms to be incomprehensible are not those of Scripture, but those of God. And Isaiah 40 does not say: ‘who has known the mind of Scripture?’ but: ‘who has known the mind of the Lord?’ (Paul, indeed, asserts that Christians do know the mind of the Lord; but only with reference to those things that are given to us by God, as he there says in i Cor. 2 (v. 12)). You see, then, how sleepily you examined those passages, and how apt is your citation of them—as apt as are almost all your citations for ‘free-will’! So, too, the examples of obscurity which you allege in that rather sarcastic passage are quite irrelevant—the distinction of persons in the Godhead, the union of the Divine and human natures of Christ, and the unpardonable sin. Here, you say, are problems which have never been solved. If you mean this of the enquiries which the Sophists pursue when they discuss these subjects, what has the inoffensive Scripture done to you, that you should blame such criminal misuse of it on to its own purity? Scripture makes the straightforward affirmation that the Trinity, the Incarnation and the unpardonable sin are facts. There is nothing obscure or ambiguous about that. You imagine that Scripture tells us how they are what they are; but it does not, nor need we know. It is here that the Sophists discuss their dreams; keep your criticism and condemnation for them, but acquit the Scriptures! If, on the other hand, you mean it of the facts themselves, I say again: blame, not the Scriptures, but the Arians and those to whom the Gospel is hid,who, by reason of the working of Satan, their god, cannot see the plainest proofs of the Trinity in the Godhead and of the humanity of Christ.

In a word: The perspicuity of Scripture is twofold, just as there is a double lack of light. The first is external, and relates to the ministry of the Word; the second concerns the knowledge of the heart. If you speak of internal perspicuity, the truth is that nobody who has not the Spirit of God sees a jot of what is in the Scriptures. 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. They do not believe in God, nor do they believe that they are God’s creatures, nor anything else- as Ps. 13 puts it, “The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God’ (Ps. 14:1).* The Spirit is needed for the understanding of all Scripture and every part of Scripture. If, on the the other hand, you speak of external perspicuity, the position is that nothing whatsoever is left obscure or ambiguous, but all that is in the Scripture is through the Word brought forth into the clearest light and proclaimed to the whole world.

Source: Martin Luther, The Bondage of the Will (Translated by J.I. Packer & O.R. Johnston) (Grand Rapids: Fleming H. Revell, 1957), pp. 71-74.

FIN
* Elsewhere, Luther writes that “the knowledge of predestination [here, Luther points to pagan notions of fate] and of God’s prescience has been left in the world no less certainly than the notion of the Godhead itself. But those who wished to seem wise argued themselves out of it till their hearts grew dark and they became fools, as Rom. 1 says (vv. 21-2), and denied, or pretended not to know, things which the poets and the common people, and even their own consciences held as being most familiar, most certain, most true.” (83, italics mine, Packer ed.)
 
Leave a comment

Posted by on December 9, 2018 in Uncategorized

 

Meditations for Radical Lutherans on Luther’s Antinomian Disputations (part 3 of 6)

Make that a question: “What the law requires is freedom from the law.” — Leif Grane

 

Part 1, 2, 3…

+++

Ladder theologies and the postmodern “bound conscience” (Part 3)

First, again, a quote from Martin Luther, from the “First Disputation Against the Antinomians”:

Against thesis 4. [“The first part of repentance, sorrow, is caused solely by the law. The second part, the good intention, cannot be caused by the law.”]

By God’s grace alone repentance is worked in us. Therefore no part of repentance can be ascribed to the law. I prove the antecedent from Jeremiah 31(:18): “Turn to me and I will be turned” etc. Likewise, Ps. 51(:10): “Create a clean heart in me, O God.”

Response:

We do not deny that it is God who works repentance in us. Our theses certainly confess this openly. Nonetheless it is improper to say, God’s grace works repentance in us. For grace is properly the fulfillment of the law, the forgiveness of sins, righteousness and life in Christ. Yet actually the following proves that God works repentance in us: Many hear the law, and still they are not moved by its threats and terrors because they do not feel the force of the law. This is why I do not convert anyone by virtue of my preaching, unless God is there and cooperates with his Spirit.

Does this mean that the law is not to be preached because God moves and converts the heart only out of mercy? This consequence is ridiculous. For the same reason I could say, the gospel is not to be preached because few hear it, and even fewer believe it. Yet God wants us to teach the law. Wherever we do this, he will see to it that he certainly converts those by it unto repentance who are converted by it, whomever and whenever he wills. Thus we also ought to preach the Gospel which is a teaching common to all; yet “not all have faith” (2 Thess. 3:2).

Thus the law pertains to all, yet not all have repentance. Yet those who have it, have it by means of the law. Yet the prophet speaks about true repentance that lasts the entire life. He says (more or less): “Humble me and lead me to true repentance that I might loathe perverted and impious doctrine, but especially that most holy one of the hypocrites who do not understand the law, and much less are able to teach it to others, but bristle with its righteous­ness and their own wisdom” (cf. Is. 5:21). Yet a disciple is not better than his teacher (Matt. 10:24). Therefore, they too certainly convert their disciples, but to idolatry and perdition.

All have the gospel, but not all have faith. All have the law, but not all have the force and experience of the law. Thus, I repent when God strikes me with the law and the gospel. We cannot tell the time and hour. He who wills to convert me knows it. He speaks about the entire life. (SDEA 53)

+++

Luther wrote that Christ dwells in the Christian conscience as the groom in the wedding chamber, and, in the context of the doctrine of justification, goes so far as to say that it is also lord and judge over all works! Steve Paulson writes that “conscience is never a solitary or individual matter but is God’s relation to you as his creature through words” (24, A Brief Introduction to Martin Luther, 2017).

This sounds pretty good. That said, here the critical question arises: does the presence of Christ in the conscience negate the need for the eternal law of God? Luther’s own view would clearly be at odds with this (see here and here). One often gets the impression that in the Radical Lutheran view, “the criterion of the law… is the self,” as another contemporary Lutheran theologian has put it.[i]

It depends. “When the conscience is under attack, one must abandon the law completely.” — John Pless.

 

It is important to note that when Luther says in the Antinomian Disputations “whatever shows sin, wrath and death exercises the office of the law,” and that “reveal[ing] sin is nothing else – nor can it be anything else – than to be the law or the effect and power of the law in the most proper sense” (quoted by Hopman in his paper “Luther’s Antinomian Disputations and lex aeterna,” 154), what he does not say is just as important, namely: “whatever produces sorrow exercises the office of the law.”

Indeed, the matter of a good consciences and bad consciences, seared ones[ii] and hardened ones – intextricably related to the written law which correlates with the law written on man’s heart – should certainly be foremost in our mind here.[iii]

Yes, relevant.

 

In an age where many of those claiming the mantle of Luther exalt the importance of respect for the “bound conscience,” the following extensive quotation from the Reformer’s lectures on I Timothy about a “seared conscience” is particularly relevant.

Here, Luther talks about persons creating laws not given by God and binding men’s consciences by them:

“This “seared conscience” has caused much debate. Almost all interpreters pass it by. We shall explain, to the extent that the matter itself and the nature of other statements allow. It is not the natural conscience. “They fear where there is nothing to fear” (Ps. 53:5). We have the same idea in Matt. 15. It is the nature of all hypocrites and false prophets to create a conscience where there is none, and to cause conscience to disappear where it does exist. There is no fear of God before them, etc. That is, they do not have a god who is God. “In vain do they worship Me (Matt. 15:9).” In the Hebrew, this is fear. Consequently, the fear of God is located much more in the conscience than on the outside. From the conscience comes every doctrine, according to the way in which the conscience is influenced. It lives according to what it teaches. Thus it has a god who is not God. Thus it errs both in doctrine and in worship. The erring conscience is seared. That is, it is seared by cauterization. Just as men or sheep are branded, so those consciences are branded by a false idea of doctrine. With fear they create a conscience where there is no conscience. Paul, then, is speaking about conscience according to the words he has proclaimed. These are the “doctrines of demons.” Every doctrine creates a conscience; so this should be a false conscience and false idea about God. A monk imagines God sitting in heaven to look at his works and righteousness. In this situation he must live according to this rule and perform these works. If he does not, he commits a mortal sin. There he causes an erring conscience. That is, a conscience is brought in by force. This is not natural. The metaphor pleases me very much. It pleases me that he should call it a “seared” conscience, as if it had been branded by a hot iron. He does not say that the conscience has been cut off but that it has been branded to testify of the efficacy and power of that doctrine, as if he were saying: “Fire is burning the flesh.” Thus these men should have a righteousness of faith with greater enthusiasm, concern, diligence, and ardor, as if it were branded on them. He wants to say, then, that the martyrs of the devil suffer more than those of God. That conscience endures because of great exertion. At the same time he indicates that the erring conscience is born of great exertion; much trouble and toil is involved, so that people must burn themselves over it, as it were. They are drawn away from faith to works, which pull them in different directions day and night. This agrees with the sense of Scripture: “They fear where there is nothing to fear.” “They fear me (Matt. 15:8).” Also, “You will serve other gods.” This is real searing. Everywhere it is called trouble and toil. Here are two special evils: first, the false conscience and, second, the restless conscience. The false conscience comes from sin where there is no sin, and with great toil. This is to work in vain” (italics and bold, mine)[iv]

Luther, getting “subjective”?: “I am speaking about true knowledge, in which the wrath of God against sin is perceived and a true taste of death is sensed….” (AE 26:148)

 

In this passage, we see what happens to the natural conscience when it is corrupted by the false teachings of men who restructure it. This results in a conscience which is “seared,” that is, one that functions in an improper and confused matter. Ultimately, Luther writes elsewhere[v] how the effects of a seared conscience leads to the individual accepting a portrait of Christ created by the devil.

Whether the misleading picture of Christ is seemingly closer or further from the one clearly revealed in the Scriptures, the result is now the same: one must climb and climb to please a God of law and not grace.

Who, according to Luther, are susceptible to creating “ladder theologies”?

Not those who, with the Gospel ringing in their ears, uphold the law of God in its truth and purity.

Not those who believe that the law is rooted in God’s very own eternal goodness and righteousness.

Not those who believe that preachers should aim to guide the consciences of their flock – even after absolving them with the word of the Gospel![vi]

Why uphold this if it doesn’t conform to what the greatest heir of Luther, Gerhard Forde, teaches? Why will it not eventually get pitched?

 

On the contrary, it is those who outright reject God’s law (as in the case of those in the ELCA who promote the doctrine of the bound conscience), or, more commonly, those who use it selectively and/or downplay/dilute its eternal nature: “[The “Sophist” scholastic theologians] imagined that sin is that which is against human traditions, only rarely that which is against the moral law.” For Luther, both the eternal law and gospel “belong to all” and must be continually taught (SDEA 115 ; for more, read all the blue here).

And here, as regards our own context, what Luther said to his Antinomian opponent Agricola, can be extrapolated to address much of today’s contemporary church, captive as they are to the devil’s lies: “These true disciples of Satan seem to think that the law is something temporal that has ceased under Christ, like circumcision” (SDEA 141).

Just “Milo-esque” and infantile bomb-throwing that doesn’t deserve your serious intellectual and spiritual engagement?

 

Is it possible that those who are deceived into replacing the law of God are the most eager to live by, to be justified by, the traditions – the laws – of strong and confident men–or even women–whose consciences are not held captive to the word of God?

That they would first seek their approval (and rewards) and not God’s?

Of course it is! This would be the most normal thing in the world. Hell if I am going to be God’s slave. They flee from what they perceive as the unreasonable expectations and control (oppression, coercion… punishment!) of the True God.

Even as the gods they create and cling to will in fact be exemplified by those things more and more (as the creators of them become what they fear!). That is, before their weak idols inevitably fail and they fall back on other less fashionable and more traditional, and “proven” gods…

“Luther states that it is paganism (the faith ‘of the Turks and Jews’) to imagine that God is gracious to men ‘without cost’—without the Vicarious Satisfaction…. Men have asserted that God can forgive sins by His almighty power and therefore satisfaction to be rendered by Christ is superfluous…”
–Francis Pieper, 2:347, 351

 

One does not need to think that Radical Lutheran men like Paulson and Hopman have necessarily fallen into Wengert’s and the ELCA’s error in their own lives to nevertheless be gravely concerned that their theological approach is much more “hi-jackable” than the one which Luther espouses.

“Denial of the third use of the law does not in each case translate into a redefinition of God as one who no longer requires the death of Jesus as atonement for sin. But it does allow it. And denial of the eternal, unchanging nature of the moral law of God (FC SD II 50) demands it.” — David Scaer, p. 18

 

Simply put, for the Radical Lutheran, the law of God cannot be said to be the eternal will of God.

Our next installment will explore this further, zeroing in and exploring, for example, Nicholas Hopman’s claim that the Holy Spirit is “the opposite of the law” (166, “Luther’s Antinomian Disputations and lex aeterna”).

FIN

 

Notes:

[i] Malysz, Piotr J. “Sin: between law and gospel.” Lutheran Quarterly 28:2 (Summer 2014): 158. If it really is unavoidably the case that “the criterion of the law… is the self,” what, ultimately, is used to stop sinful man from re-intepreting God’s law to his liking, and hence, Christ and His church?

[ii] We can start talking like this and see no problems with it: “We may say about an unmarried couple living together that they are ‘living in sin’. A reflective Lutheran should not talk that way because, from a Lutheran point of view, we are all living in sin, whether we are married, single, sexually active, or celibate. Our sexual situation or orientation or practices do not make us more or less sinful.  Any relationship may be self-serving, harmful, abusive, careless, and hateful. We are certainly not rid of all that simply because we have enjoyed a church wedding” (44). Tom Christenson, The Gift and Task of Lutheran Higher Education (2004) Perhaps we might even feel guilty if we still are tempted to entertain more traditional understandings of morality and sin.

[iii] And perhaps, in the Antinomian Disputations themselves, we can see Luther countering these kinds of problems the sinner has with both law and gospel strategies. See his intriguing argument about using rhetoric to move hardened hearts on pp. 105-107  in the 24th argument.

A strategy using the gospel would be shocking hardened sinners – i.e. those with hardened consciences – with words like “Who did Jesus die for?… How many sins did He pay for?… Which of your sins did Jesus forget to pay for?”, etc. (and not only with words, but by going out of one’s way to treat all persons with gentleness, kindness, respect, and the compassion that Christ felt in His guts).

And another strategy, this time using the law – and one that is perhaps surprising to many contemporary confessional Lutheran ears! – would be: “[t]he law does not want you to despair of God… it wills that you despair of yourself, but expect good from God…” (SDEA 367, 369). That this message will cause despair without Gospel truth is not the point: the point is that no one, not even on the basis of God’s law instead of the Gospel, can ever say that God means to abandon them.

[iv] Lectures on 1 Timothy (1528), AE 28:310.

[v] Lectures on Galatians (1535), AE 26:38.

I highly recommend reading my pastor’s paper on this topic as you will learn about…:

  • Timothy Wengert’s “simply tragic” (I’d use a different word) failure to acknowledge existing scholarship that had been done on Martin Luther and the conscience by highly noted scholars (I add, this is a good way to kill your conscience about conscience).
  • How for Luther, “the burdening of the conscience with man-made laws or traditions, and the burdening of the conscience by the Law of God in view of sin, are two vastly different things.”
  • How this conscience burdened by God’s Law is an “evil conscience,” “plagued by guilt and despair in the face of the knowledge of God’s judgment upon a specific sin.”
  • How an evil conscience can become hardened: “man can and does fight against his conscience and eventually, may even be able to subdue it so that it goes into a type of dormancy.”
  • How Luther found these things not only in the Bible, but in the character of Orestes in Virgil’s Aeneid: the Erinyes, or Furies, of Alecto (“unceasing”), Megaera (“grudging”), and Tisiphone (“avenging murder,” hounding the guilty for their sin). If hell is not feared, future pain and suffering certainly is.
  • How Luther broke with the scholastic concept of the human conscience which said that it, in part, was a “native capacity to choose to do good,” and instead spoke about the matter in accordance with the Apostle Paul.
  • Luther: “[the conscience’s] purpose is not to do, but to pass judgment on what has been done and what should be done, and this judgment makes us stand accused or saved in God’s sight.”
  • How a natural conscience, which has a knowledge of God and His Law, can become a seared conscience, i.e. one that functions improperly, where it cannot “accurately judge the actions of the individual.”
  • In other words, it becomes “artificial, false, unreasonable, not natural, not true, causing a fear of God, that is worship, where God is not to be feared or worshiped.”
  • For a good conscience, “an unfortunate event (which would terrify the evil conscience, bringing to mind former sins, and bringing to light future judgment) is considered not to have happened by chance, ‘but in accord with the good will of God.’”
  • In sum “[h]ow Timothy Wengert applied the concept of ‘bound conscience’ to those who claim to be Christian but who would live in homosexual relationships is not to be found in the writings of Martin Luther” (to say the least!).

[vi] Hence, we read, in the introduction to the Epitome on the Third Use of the Law in the Formula of Concord: “Since the Law was given to men for three reasons: first, that thereby outward discipline might be maintained against wild, disobedient men [and that wild and intractable men might be restrained, as though by certain bars]; secondly, that men thereby may be led to the knowledge of their sins; thirdly, that after they are regenerate and [much of] the flesh notwithstanding cleaves to them, they might on this account have a fixed rule according to which they are to regulate and direct their whole life, a dissension has occurred between some few theologians concerning the third use of the Law, namely, whether it is to be urged or not upon regenerate Christians. The one side has said, Yea; the other, Nay.”

Clearly, they are not talking about whether or not such a use of the law – with regenerate Christians – should be used by the Holy Spirit.

 

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on December 6, 2018 in Uncategorized

 

Meditations for Radical Lutherans on Luther’s Antinomian Disputations (part 2 of 6)

“A free will is that which wills nothing of its own, but submits only to the will of God.” — Luther (quote not from that work)

Part 1, 2…

+++

Happily Obedient in the Garden (Part 2)

First, to begin this post, a meditation from Martin Luther, from the “First Disputation Against the Antinomians”:

First Argument

Against the entire disputation.

We are not obliged to do the impossible. The law is impossible. Therefore we are not obliged to do it.

Now brace yourself like a man.

 

Response:

It is said improperly, that is, not rightly and not fittingly, that we are obliged to do what is impossible by the law. When Adam was first cre­ated, the law was for him not only something possible, but even something enjoyable. He rendered the obedience the law required with all his will and with gladness of heart, and did so perfectly. Yet what now, after the fall, is impossible, is so not by fault of the law, but by our fault. It is not the fault of the one binding, but of the one sinning, hence this statement, The law urges us to do what is impossible, needs to be understood fittingly, for if you want to preserve the strict sense of the words, it sounds as if God himself is being accused of burdening us with the impossible law. Yet it is sin and Satan, who made the possible and enjoyable law impossible and terrifying, who are to be accused.

Christ, however, by willingly submitting himself to the law and enduring all its curses, earned for those who believe in him the Spirit, being driven by whom they also in this life begin to fulfill the law; and in the life to come the most joyful and perfect obedience will be within them, so that they will do in body and soul as now do the angels (SDEA 47, 49, bold mine).

+++

One of the things that Radical Lutherans warn about is how we as human beings inevitably look to trust in our own righteousness, creating a “ladder theology” or “law story”.

In other words, human beings – and Christians to! – feel like He is obligated to reward them with heaven for what they understand to be their good behavior. They would make God accountable to them. In other words: follow the laws of the universe (perhaps that even God must be subject to!), and reap the rewards!

Ladder theologies everywhere!

 

Certainly, the Radical Lutherans are right to have this concern. The old Lutheran theologians called this the “opinio legis,” or the “opinion of the law”. Nevertheless, Radical Lutherans Steve Paulson and Nicholas Hopman, in their article “The Hated God,” go so far to write:

“Heresies always fall into an obsessive rut that pulls Christ’s story back into the framework of the law and draws a line between Jesus the man and God. People want to tell the gospel as if it were a law story… Preachers work overtime to make Christ’s story in Scripture fit their own legal tale and spare their hearers any death…”

Sinners don’t just want to help, they say, but want to save themselves: “The temptation of the law is to assume that its presence infers the possibility of doing it, and more importantly, that its purpose from the beginning was salvation from sin” (12).

Acknowledging that there those who claim Christ who believe this, or are at least often tempted to believe this (see Gal. 3:10-14 here), two questions should nevertheless be asked: 1) Did God from the beginning give human beings commands – law – as a means of being saved from sin? ; and 2) Didn’t Luther, per the quote above from the Antinomian Disputations, believe that originally, in Eden, Adam and Eve could do the law?

The answers are “no” and “yes,” respectively. Key for Luther is that the law in Eden may have contained a threat but this by no means meant that Adam and Eve felt threatened. In fact, he gives exactly the contrary impression: Adam and Eve felt no threat whatsoever from this law, command… teaching of God!

And now, then, we come to the critical question: are, for example, all Lutherans who talk about “preaching sanctification” and administering the “third use of the law” (i.e. preaching the law with the intent to guide the Christian) necessarily doing what Paulson and Hopman describes above?

After all, Paulson and Hopman imply as much when they say:

“The fundamental concern of a legal myth is to motivate hearers to take a journey that corresponds or collaborates with God (along with the various ‘co’s’ like covenant, contract, or ‘the Great Com-mision’ that all assume cooperation between divine and human for salvation). In this way, law is taken as God’s gift to provide direction in life (reciprocation). Grace is empowerment to fulfill law’s movement, which is what sinners want most from the story: what can we do to help?” (11)[i]

Or, on the contrary, could anything be further from the truth? In fact, is it possible that the opposite could be the case? That it is the Radical Lutherans who, in promoting a “theology of the cross” which deviates from Luther’s own, open up the door themselves to a “ladder theology” and/or “law story” by which we can be saved?

I know that sounds radical (no pun intended), but hear me out here. One of the main problems with the Radical Lutheran approach to the issue is that, ironically, it simply is not “existential” enough! And this can be said both as regards their description of the Christian life and their understanding of human nature in general.

How well do you know you? “Our nature is such that we always desire new things. We are not content with the doctrine that has been handed down and received. And because the devil knows that our nature is like this, he attacks it with his snares and introduces his light.” — Luther, AE 33, 229

 

As regards the Christian life, after all, they do not talk like Luther:

“Yet Christ,” [these antinomians] say, “has removed your sin. Why are you sad?” This is why they continue to do what they do in an utterly secure manner. They translate the merit of the passion of Christ and of the remission of sins into luxuriousness….

Christ fulfilled the law, but it needs to be added: “Later see to it that you lead a holy, pious, and irreproachable life, as it is fit­ting for a Christian. This is what you have heard so far: Be forgiven. But lest you complain that you are utterly forsaken, I will give you my Holy Spirit, who makes you a soldier; he will even produce mighty and unspeakable cries against sin in your heart, so that you thus finally do what you wish.” But am I not unable? “Pray that I may hear you, and I will make you able…” (SDEA 303, 305, italics mine)[ii]

Luther knows that he can speak like this because those who have been saved delight in following God’s commands. He does not say it so honest and sincere people can work hard to climb the ladder of salvation, having only the possibility of being saved.

And when it comes to Radical Lutherans and the simple matter of human nature, take, for example, this very matter of obedience and submission. Simply put, the idea of delighting in a command is not foreign to human nature. You gotta serve somebody and you will, very often delighting in that fact (even if you realize you are a perpetually miserable “serial server”).

And – contrary to the claims of postmodernists – this phenomena of delighting in loving obedience and submission is not necessarily something that demands to be questioned, interrogated, and deconstructed (note the fourth point in this post as well).[iii]

Do you, generally speaking, want to will nothing of your own — but to follow commands from Your Humble and Simple King!? Or is He just not impressive or attractive enough for you, your lusts, your pride? Who is really secure and free?

 

Think about those things for now, and be sure to tune in again in future posts where we will discuss how it is those who downplay the importance of God’s law – including its eternal nature – who are most susceptible to the problem of “ladder theologies” and “law stories”.

That issue will be explored in the meditations to come.

FIN

 

Notes:

[i] This certainly does sound a lot like the theology/philosophy that the popular Jordan Peterson advocates.

[ii] Hopman sometimes goes in the opposite direction, giving the impression that we really ought to shy away from talking about the Christian’s active faith at all. He states, for instance, things like “[t]he law (First Commandment) demands faith, which is the presence of the living God, who is not the dead Decalogue (law) written on stone tablets (2 Cor. 3:7)” (167, italics mine)

[iii] And the deeper fact of the matter is that postmodernists themselves are selective about the particular power structures they see fit to critique.

 
2 Comments

Posted by on December 3, 2018 in Uncategorized

 

Meditations for Radical Lutherans on Luther’s Antinomian Disputations (part 1 of 6)

An incomplete and inadequate take of Luther’s “theology of the cross”? (for a recent appraisal see here).

+++

Is Radical Lutheranism the Answer? (Part 1)

Note: Most of the series which follows will be found on my own blog theology like a child. I hope you’ll join me there for all the subsequent parts.

You like Gerhard Forde? You want to embrace the “Radical Lutheran” label? I think I get it. Really, I do.

At one point in my life, I also thought that Gerhard Forde was a terrific theologian — perhaps just the kind of voice contemporary Lutherans (more: all contemporary Christians!) needed to be paying attention to.

Who else, after all, was talking about the Bondage of the Will – which the great church reformer Martin Luther had said was one of his two most important works – in a really serious way?

  • Who else had paid close attention to the theses that Martin Luther had written vs the “antinomians” (those against the law) – no doubt, given his Roman Catholic opponents’ accusations versus him, one of Luther’s more intriguing works!? (yes, I know, Forde’s loyal friend, another ELCA theologian Jim Nestingen, had done this as well)
  • Who else fixated on the cross of Christ like they, and actually took the time to carefully unpack what Luther meant in the Heidelburg Disputation by “theology of the cross” (vis a vis the “theology of glory”)?
  • Who else dealt with the reality, in its depths – of the very real presence of sin remaining in the Christian – and gave us the only answer that we continually needed to stay Christian and grow as Christians!
  • Who else seemed to actually care about reading Luther, and the scholarship coming out on Martin Luther – even the recent stuff in Germany?
  • Who else but Gerhard Forde – the kind of spiritual giant we needed to show us God’s radical law and radical grace… that there might be real life for the world!

I don’t think the above anymore. In fact, I now think that I was taken for a ride. Truth be told, even at the time when I was apt to embrace much of what Forde wrote, I always did have some lingering reservations….

 

Let me start by telling you a short story from my previous life in seminary…

Way back in 2000, I dropped out of the conservative Lutheran seminary I was attending, largely because I was not sure if I could adhere to the 1580 Book of Concord (I was seriously considering women’s ordination and other things at the time).[i] One of the most vivid memories of my brief time there though was when I was reading through the book of Romans near the end of my second year. Coming to chapter 8, I was absolutely shocked by what I read there in verses 3 and 4:

For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

After two years imbibing the content of contemporary confessional Lutheran seminaries, I had fully expected to read “in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in Him,” that is, Jesus Christ – for our justification! But now, after having been thoroughly indoctrinated into modern Lutheranism — a Lutheranism I now recognize had been quite influenced by men like Gerhard Forde — I actually had a hard time wrapping my head around the idea that Paul could write like this! (no, I am not saying that Radical Lutherans do not have their own way of making sense of this passage, just that I had not seen the passage addressed in the core things I had read).

Written by a dummy for dummies (also, if you have not checked out my summary breaking down Luther’s Antinomian Disputations from last year, I hope you might!)

 

Fast-forward to about four years later, and I was blessed to have a pastor whose friend, Pastor Holger Sonntag, had begun to translate Martin Luther’s Antinomian Disputations, which discussed and debated the theses verses the antinomians mentioned above.

Strange as it may sound to the ears of many, it came as a relief to me as I read that early manuscript in 2004. There I saw Luther not only heartily acknowledging the existence of Romans 8:3-4, but bringing those verses alive in a way which clearly fit with other emphases in Lutheran theology! He seemed to understand the depths of the Christian life in a way that had escaped me. My prayer is that as you check out this series I’ve written, the Antinomian Disputations of Martin Luther will speak to you in a similar way.

In the course of the posts which follow, I will put these writings of Luther into conversation with some of the writings of contemporary Lutheran theologians like Jim Nestingen, Steve Paulson, and Nicholas Hopman. I spend the most time with Hopman, who is Steve Paulson’s student (who in turn was Gerhard Forde’s student) and who would qualify and identity as a “Radical Lutheran”.

In other words, Hopman clearly believes that Gerhard Forde, an author of an essay by the same name, is an excellent and faithful guide for Christians. Following in Forde’s train, Hopman attempts to pass on this message – which he believes is also faithful to Martin Luther’s.

I contend that one of the main problems Radical Lutherans have is that they do not really take into account the robust view of man that their forbearer Martin Luther had.[ii] For Luther, it is very important that man was created with the capacity to do God’s law and enjoyed doing so. Reading Radical Lutherans though, not only is the “very good” nature of man in the garden – or at least the relevance of this fact – called into question (including by Forde himself)[iii], but one is also given the clear impression that Adam and Eve would have felt threatened by God’s law even in the Garden of Eden.[iv] While it is certainly true that Luther talks about God’s initial commandment given to our first parents as a threat, he also gives no indication that such a threat would have terrified or accused them, and in fact, gives the exact opposite impression.

What does this mean?: “[He] grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man” (see my pastor’s fantastic sermon on this here)

On the contrary, from the beginning, man was meant to fear, love, and trust in God above all things. And all in great joy! By fear, a “filial fear” and not “servile fear” is meant, for we, like Adam and Eve, are meant to have full certainly regarding the security and stability of our relationship with God –to know that, ultimately, we are at peace with Him. Period.

These are the fundamental – and wonderful – truths that underlie the other issues that are explored in the series of blog posts which follow.

In several of the posts which immediately follow, I will be including some quotations from Martin Luther’s Antinomian Disputations (in the very first series of disputations, held in 1537). These will be the jumping off points for the meditations in the posts.

Are you ready?

 

Below, for example, is the full set of theses from the first of the Antinomian Disputations. It is a bit heavy-going – and might sound a bit foreign to modern Christian ears – but I urge you to embrace the challenge and to check them out. I have highlighted in bold the ones I think receive a good amount of attention in this series:

Disputation of Dr. Martin Luther against Certain Antinomians

  1. According to the testimony of all, and in fact, repentance is sorrow on account of sin with the added intention of a better life.
  2. 2. Properly speaking, sorrow is nothing else—and cannot be anything else—than the touch or feeling of the law in the heart or the conscience.
  3. For many certainly hear the law, but because they do not experience the feeling or power of the law, they do not feel any sorrow on account of anything nor do they repent.
  4. The first part of repentance, sorrow, is caused solely by the law. The second part, the good intention, cannot be caused by the law.
  5. For a man terrified by sin cannot intend good out of his own powers, since not even the one at rest or in security can do this.
  6. Yet confused and engulfed by the power of sin he falls into despair and hatred of God, or descends to hell, as Scripture says.
  7. This is why the promise or the Gospel needs to be added to the law, which sets the conscience at peace and lifts it up, so that it may intend the good.
  8. Repentance solely caused by the law is one half or beginning of repen­tance, or is repentance synecdochically speaking, since it lacks the good intention.
  9. And if it stops there, then takes place the repentance of Cain, Saul, Judas, and all who distrust and despair of God’s mercy, that is, that of those who perish.
  10. From the fathers, the Sophists have received and taught as definition of repentance that it is sorrow and intention etc.
  11. Yet neither did they understand the parts of the definition, namely, sor­row, sin, intention, nor could they teach it.
  12. They imagined sorrow to be an act elicited by the power of the free will, which despises sin as often as it wills or does not will.
  13. In reality, this sorrow is suffering or affliction, which conscience willy-nilly is forced to suffer by the law as it touches and torments it.
  14. They imagined that sin is that which is against human traditions, only rarely that which is against the moral law.
  15. Original or post-baptismal sin they did not even consider to be sin, especially in the First Table.
  16. Against this chaff the law, this hammer of God—as Jeremiah says—that smashes rocks (Jer. 23:29), has confined all men under sin (Gal. 3:22).
  17. Good intention they thought to be the resolution chosen by human powers regarding the avoiding of sin in the future.
  18. In reality, according to the Gospel, it is an impetus of the Holy Spirit that immediately detests sin out of love, although meanwhile sin strongly rebels in the flesh.
  19. Their ignorance is not surprising, since they, having set aside Scripture, could not know what the law and what the Gospel is.
  20. For they were utterly immersed in precepts and mandates of men so that they based their judgment concerning holy and divine matters on dreams.
  21. Against these useless teachers of despair the Gospel begins to teach that repentance ought not to be just despair.
  22. But those who repent ought to entertain hope, and in this way, out of love of God, hate sin, which is really what a good intention means.
  23. Some, inconsiderate of the theme at hand or of the subject matter, wanted this to be said against God’s law.
  24. And they taught dangerously that the law of God is to be removed from the Church, which is blasphemy and a sacrilege.
  25. For the entire Scripture teaches that repentance must be initiated by the law, which is what the order of the matter itself and also experience shows.
  26. “All who forget God—it says—shall be turned into hell,” and: “Place, O Lord, a lawgiver over them that men may know etc.”
  27. “Fill their faces with shame, and they will seek your name, O Lord” (Ps. 83:16). And, “The sinner is caught in the works of his hands” (Ps. 9:16).
  28. The order of the matter is that death and sin are in nature before life and righteousness.
  29. For we are neither righteous nor alive, to be delivered to sin or death; but we are already sinners and dead on account of Adam, to be declared righteous and alive by Christ.
  30. This is why Adam—that is, sin and death—needs to be taught first; he is a type of the coming Christ (Rom. 5:21) who is to be taught afterwards.
  31. Sin, however, and death necessarily must be pointed out, not by the word of grace and comfort, but by the law.
  32. As experience shows, Adam first is convicted as transgressor of the law, then he is lifted up by the promised Seed of the woman etc. (cf. Gen. 3:11, 15).
  33. And David first is killed by the law through Nathan who says (2 Sam. 12:7): “You are the man etc.;” later he is saved by the Gospel that says (2 Sam. 12:13): “You shall not die etc.”
  34. Paul, thrown down by the law, first hears (Acts 9:4): “Why are you per­secuting me?” Then he is declared alive by the Gospel (Acts 9:6): “Rise etc.”
  35. And Christ himself says in Mark 1(:15): “Repent and believe the Gospel, for the kingdom of God is at hand.”
  36. Again (Luke 24:47): “repentance and remission of sins should be preached.”
  37. Thus also the Spirit first convicts the world of sin in order to teach faith in Christ, that is, the remission of sins (John 16:8).
  38. Paul, in his letter to the Romans, follows this method, when he first teaches that all are sinners, to be declared righteous by Christ.
  39. Luke likewise testifies in Acts that Paul taught Jews as well as Gentiles that no one can be declared righteous except by Christ. And the things that follow.

FIN

 

Notes:

[i] Another thing I was considering was that the active obedience of Christ really had nothing to do with the atonement of Christ. Sure, it was important that the lamb be pure to be worthy to be slain, but that was the only point I saw in the active obedience. As I recall, when I studying Anselm on the atonement, I read works critical of him by scholars who had been influenced by Forde.

[ii] See my response to Hopman’s paper, “Luther’s Antinomian Disputations and lex aeterna,” in the summer 2016 issue of Lutheran Quarterly, here.

[iii] See Cooper, Lex Aeterna, pp. 119-120, where he discusses this based on Forde’s book “Theology is for Proclamation”.

[iv] In which case, the Eden story becomes just another “law story” Paulson and Hopman talk about!: “Because the world’s master narrative is the law, every story of the world – other than Christ’s – ends with a direct or implied threat….” More: “All legal tales have a threat buried in them.”  (“Hated God”, 9). For more on the “legal schem,” see also Paulson, Lutheran Theology, 2.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on November 29, 2018 in Uncategorized

 

How to Not Get Banned Permanently from That Really Big Lutheran Facebook Group

First, the following is not meant to be satirical in the least (which some might assume) but informative.

Second, for you folks who are reading this and are decidedly unfriendly to me, let me say this one more time:

Enough with the preliminaries. I admit that the primary reason for writing what follows is to give good reasons, publicly, for the actions I took which resulted in me being banned from a Lutheran Facebook group.

I have my honor, my reputation.

At the same time, it occurred to me that I could also offer a real service to my Facebook-loving Christian neighbor by writing this post – and that I probably should. They not only may have their strong desire to remain a part of this group, but their honor and reputation as well.

For many Christians, they find a great deal of value in Lutheran Facebook groups, and the great “give and take” that can happen there. This surely includes what might be the largest Lutheran Facebook group, Confessional Lutheran Fellowship.

As it gave me the ability to see posts from Lutheran luminaries such as Todd Wilken, Jack Kilcrease, Peter Malysz, Eric Phillips, and Matthew Garnett—as well as the welcome opportunity for me to hawk and discuss the ideas in my own posts—I thoroughly enjoyed being in that group but was suspended on Oct. 22nd.

First, I will give you concrete advice about how not to be suspended like I was. I make no promises that by following my advice you will avoid banning, but I think you will.

Second, for those who are interested, I will tell you exactly how I came to have some confidence about what advice to give (this also will serve as a way for me to provide an explanation for my own actions)…

First, my concrete advice for not getting banned from Confessional Lutheran Fellowship:

  1. If you are sent a notification from an admin which tells you the rules about keeping the business of the group within the group take it *very seriously*.
  2. And unless your violation is perfectly clear (maybe you even get a guilty conscience before you hear from them!) do not assume, like I did, that you know *why* you were sent the notification. *Humbly* ask for specifics about why you got that notification.
  3. If you are a part of the group and you are discussing issues considered controversial by some (presumably posting things about non-controversial topics being discussed is an exception to the rule), you should not speak publicly or even privately with non-group members, even in the most general terms, about the conversation that is going on in the group.
  4. Do not assume the statement “if anybody has an interest in the topic under discussion, they may join and participate directly” means you can try to create interest in joining the group, by, for example, telling people issues some consider controversial are being discussed.
  5. Besides the fact that it is presumably alright to discuss non-controversial things outside of the group, assume that a statement like “Don’t take any of our business outside the group in any way, shape, or form” occurring at the end of a list of rules should basically stand alone and be interpreted in the most literal way possible. Do not assume it is meant to be interpreted in light of what is said prior to it (where one might get the impression that details about what “any way, shape, or form” looks like are provided ; see the next part of this post for more details).
  6. This includes talking to your spouse even in the most general way about thing (well, matters some consider controversial at least) being discussed in the group. I mentioned this to one of the admins (after asking about sharing more specific content as well), and received no answer regarding these points so I can only assume that the admins believe the rules would not allow this as well.
  7. While you are less likely to get caught and punished if you do not write publicly [again: evidently only about matters some consider controversial] but simply share things verbally with family or close friends, this could happen (and, of course, before God, you will know that you are violating the rules of the group you have voluntarily joined).
  8. If you believed that you saw some kind of notification telling you that you had been suspended for something like a week (this is what I saw, and have a reliable and respected witness who can back me up), you should not assume that moderators will talk to you or think they have any responsibility to talk to you about this if you ask them about it. Assume, rather, that the weeklong time period is something that Facebook does automatically when members are suspended by closed groups. In other words, you should assume your suspension is permanent as, evidently, no one removed for a violation of rules like those mentioned above has been readmitted.
  9. If you have been banned, do not think that by immediately trying to make things right (that is what I tried to do, deleting the tweets and changing the Oct 23rd blog post I mention below) and by notifying the administrator(s) that you have done this that this will make a difference in your eventual re-instatement. You should not assume that the administrators will put the best construction on this kind of action. Instead of seeing this as a sincere and serious effort by you to follow rules you now understand (and yes, you might personally think are too strict, but that is neither here nor there, right?) they will likely think that you are lying about not previously understanding the rules and/or simply being pragmatic — not that you are a person of principle who respects rules and authority.
  10. Finally, discourage friends who are in the group and ask about your situation from trying to make a case for you (“it’s his first violation!”, etc.) or they will probably be banned as well. It is entirely possible that if your friend tries to do this, he/she will also fall under some kind of discipline, even falling under the same kind of ban without any rule violations at all! You should never assume that talking about “how you interpreted” or “understood” of the rules will be acceptable. Assume that the rules are perfectly clear, even if you understood them differently originally, and that speaking about different possible interpretations is superfluous. In short, you, simply, are wrong! Keep in mind these moderators have lives too and have to deal with almost 18,000 members! They can, in the end, run the group as they think best. It is probably best to lay low and wait for a couple months, and then just humbly ask if you can be let back in again, with no attempts to bring up what got you banned. Perhaps, in spite of no one being able to get back in so far, it is possible to get back in.

+++

Some of you might want to stop here. For those of you who want to know the complete back story, or even care about the back story (that is really kind of you to care), it follows below.

And yes, I have erred on the side of being too detailed, just so I can unmistakably lay out all the facts. See the bold for the gist.

It all started when I posted part 9 of my 10-part series “What does the LC-MS document ‘When Homes are Heartless’ Mean?” on CLF on Oct. 17th (you can read the whole series here).

While previous parts of the series had gotten some attention from people in the CLF group, this one really took off, in part because of the particular people who showed up on the thread to comment on my post.

A highly animated conversation began at that point, and went on for a good 3 or 4 days. Near the beginning of the conversation (on day 2), I felt the need to tweet out the following, to make sure my position was clear:

 

That said, a few days into the conversation, upon learning more, I had had to re-evaluate my position and therefore did a blog post on Oct 23, *since updated,* notifying my readers that something was wrong about my old position that I needed to take back.

That blog post originally contained another tweet which I had put out a day earlier (Oct. 22nd), but I’ve since deleted (I explain why above [see #9] ; the Oct. 18th tweet also was deleted later when I remembered I had done it and that it might not have been acceptable). I forgot to take a screen shot of the Oct 22nd tweet before I deleted it, but I did get a screen shot of its content (minus the meme) in my Feedly blog reader (“This meme” refers to the meme pictured above):

 

In the update of that blog post, there is a new tweet embedded. It says the following:

 

A couple things here. First of all, in the second deleted tweet (Oct 22nd), it says “To find out why, please go here: https://t.co/dRRmbpQjem….”

Why had I suggested people join CLF, thereby enabling them to read my Facebook post there? Clearly, so they could read the whole conversation and also see a particular post that I had made in that conversation (this post was basically was an attempt on my part to sum up the core things from that discussion at that point [and to continue to defend my position and reputation]).

I had basically been told that I could not take the business of the group outside of the group, and so tried to adhere to that rule as I understood it while also making it clear that joining the group would enable persons to see why I now believed I needed to clarify my meme.

In the tweet that currently exists on the blog post, it says “Since I have been suspended from a Facebook group I’m a part of for unknowingly violating some rules…” I wish I would have worded this differently, although I stick with the substance of that statement. I wish I would have been clearer: I had been given rules by one of the administrators and I thought I was operating responsibly within them. In retrospect, I would have said I misinterpreted some rules…that would have been better.

To explain in more detail, on Oct 20th, three days after my posting part 9, I personally received via Facebook direct message this notification from an admin:

The thread in CLF is a good illustration about why the group has rules protecting it as a closed group, and hence a good time to have a reminder. Here is an extract:

– Do not share posts from within this group outside of the group without permission. The group is “closed,” and if anybody has an interest in the topic under discussion, they may join and participate directly.

This is a closed group, meaning – anyone can find the group – only members can see who’s in it – only members can see posts

This is defeated not only by screen shots from the group disseminated outside the group. Anything that discloses: – who’s in it, that someone is in it – what is posted defeats the nature of a closed group.

A closed group is not secret, but it is private. Don’t take any of our business outside the group in any way, shape, or form.

Now, in retrospect, I look at the notification and conclude that I was probably sent this because someone saw my Oct. 18th tweet and complained about it – and not only because some people at the time believed I was using quotes from past CLF conversations in the series (I wasn’t)[i] or that the conversation on CLF was getting a bit hot and featured lots of very important and potentially quotable content (what I assumed at the time when I got the notification).

If that is the case, it is no wonder that my tweet on Oct. 22 and blog post on Oct. 23, on the heels of the Oct. 18th tweet, seemed to be brazen defiance to some in charge of the group, and that I was suspended at that time.

+++

If you have made it this far, that is probably already more than enough for most readers. : ) For those who really want some more thoughts from me, they follow below:

I recognize that this post has all kinds of “meta” things going on with it. It probably means I will not be able to get on CLF again for sure, which, until a couple days ago, really made me sad. It probably means one of the admins will really not like me (given that is not already the case), which bums me out as well.

That said, I thought I should write this post. As with so many of the things surrounding this, I honestly don’t know for sure what the best course of action is now or would have been then. Not only more courage, but more wisdom on my part is surely needed.

I will admit that I really don’t think I did something that deserved my being banned indefinitely (the case as of now) or even suspended for a week (what I originally saw when I was able to reach the site for the last time). Nor do I know how I could have handled myself in a better way. I really thought I was within the spirit of the rules, but hindsight is 20-20. Perhaps I could have just said: “I was wrong about this meme. I can’t tell you more about why specifically or how I know this,” or something like that (but that seems really unsatisfactory to me).

Some might think, that in providing the above analysis and subsequent advice, that I am being naïve here (they aren’t really acting according to any real principles – they just wanted *you* gone!), not to mention being unmanly!

I doubt this on both counts (naivety again?!).

Others might say “Why do you want to be a part of a group with such strict rules?” My answer is because I like the group and find value in it, and had no problems like this for three years before this happened.

So maybe that should tell me something. About me… about the group… I am not entirely sure!

If you have helpful thoughts, please comment below.

+++

Even more extra thoughts for those thinking “What was wrong with the meme?”….

… if you have read this far only to be sorely disappointed that I still haven’t said exactly what was wrong with the meme, don’t worry. I will be saying more about that indirectly in subsequent posts I do on the topic of feminism in the church in general and the LC-MS in particular… I will try to intelligently, lovingly, and creatively work with the new knowledge I have obtained.

In the meantime, I am reading this and suggest you consider doing so too — even if you disagree with it, it surely deserves the ear and attention of those concerned about these issues.

Patience!

Thanks for supporting me by reading this, other blog posts, etc.

FIN

 

Notes:

[i] I wasn’t — my series of posts contained quotations without person’s names from another Facebook group that did not have such strict rules. While my custom is to ask people for permission to quote them in posts, I determined that it was very important for me to share the ideas of people in their own words for this series after the post I had done which prompted the series was attacked so vigorously.

 

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on November 26, 2018 in Uncategorized