7. The deniers of the distinction between the law and the gospel.
The distinction between the law and the gospel is canceled by:
1. The Romanists. The Tridentinum demands with great firmness that the Law be blended into the Gospel. It curses the doctrine "as if the Gospel were only a mere and
1005) Cf. II, 662; III, 116, note 467.
291 > Law and Gospel. [English ed. ~ 247-248.]
unconditional promise of eternal life, without the condition of keeping the commandments".1006) Rome needs the mixture of law and gospel in order not to allow the certainty of grace and salvation, which would destroy the kingdom of the pope, to arise.
2. the Calvinists. Because the Calvinists teach particular grace and the immediate effect of grace, they must instruct the consciences struck by the law to base the gracious disposition of God, instead of the means of grace, on gratia infusa, on inner transformation, that is, on sanctification and good works. Calvinism is so little a protection against the "ergism" (salvation by works) of Rome, that is, against the transformation of the Gospel into law, that it necessarily includes this transformation every time.1007) Because the direct effect of the spirit assumed by Calvinism does not exist at all, the alleged effect of the spirit must be replaced by its own product. This is why Calvinists set up definitions of the gospel that are actually law and agree with the definitions of all other works teachers. Namely, they describe the gospel as a mere "plan of salvation" or an explanation of the conditions by the performance of which man becomes a partaker of divine grace. Alexander Hodge answers the question, "What is included in the external call?": "1. A declaration of the plan of salvation. 2. A declaration of duty on the part of the sinner to repent and believe. 3. A declaration of the motives which ought to influence the sinner's mind, such as fear or hope, remorse or gratitude! 4. A promise of acceptance in the case of all those who comply with the conditions." 1008) To Calvinists, the gospel is everything else but the proclamation and presentation of the forgiveness of sins acquired by Christ. Likewise, Charles Hodge says of the "universal call", "Being a proclamation of the terms on which God is willing to save sinners, and an exhibition of the duty of fallen men in relation to that plan, it of necessity binds all those who are in the condition which the plan coritemplates. It is in this respect analogous to the moral law." 1009) As an aside, from this Calvinist view
1006) Sess. VI, can. 20.
1007) Against Seeberg, Dogmengesch. II, 304. 300.
1008) Outlmes, p. 333 sq.<w:t xml:space="preserve">1009) Systemat. Theol., II, 642.
292 > Law and Gospel. [English ed. ~ 248-249]
of the gospel is also understood in which sense even strict Calvinists occasionally speak of a "general offer of the gospel".1010) They may speak thus in contradiction with their doctrine of particular grace, inasmuch as they understand by gospel not the proclamation of the forgiveness of sins available to all and singular persons of the human world through Christ, but the proclamation of a principle or the announcement of a number of duties and conditions, which at first do not apply to persons at all, but only acquire a relation to persons when they have submitted to the duties and fulfilled the conditions imposed.
3. The Synergists. Because the synergists allow the promise of grace of the gospel to refer only to those men who, in distinction from others, conduct themselves properly, namely, set themselves right personally, conduct themselves rightly towards grace, refrain from willful cessation, make the possible faith real, etc., they thus abolish the distinction between law and gospel. To them also the gospel is conditioned by human performance. Therefore, they do not understand the gospel as an amnesty decree extending to all persons of the human world, but as an announcement of a plan of salvation or a principle which has the content that God wants to be merciful to those men who accomplish personal self-establishment, the right behavior, etc.. In other words, the synergists include a variously named human achievement in the gospel from the outset as a condition. They mean with Theodor Zahn that the gospel from the outset does not apply to all, but "always only to some men, namely to those who are willing to fulfill the set condition" ("personal conduct")1011) The synergists falsify both the law and the gospel, since neither the law nor the gospel admits any difference among men in their relationship before God. The Law
1010) So also Charles Hodge, op. cit., p. 648: "If anv one holds any view of the decrees of God, or of the satisfaction of Christ, or of any other Scriptural doctrine, which hampers him in making this general offer of the Gospel, he may be sure that his views or his logical processes are wrong."
1011) Cf. above, p. 238 f.
293 > Law and Gospel. [English ed. ~ 249-250]
condemns all without distinction, and the gospel promises grace to all without distinction. Rom. 3:23-24: "There is no difference here (διαοτολή); they are all (πάντες) sinners … And are justified without merit by his grace through the redemption that came by Jesus Christ."
4. All deniers of the satisfactio vicana. The scriptural doctrine of the vicarious satisfaction of Christ is based — to speak in modern terms — on a "twofold certainty" in God. First, the "certainty" that God is inviolable holiness and righteousness, according to which he demands from men the keeping of his law given to men and is angry with the transgressors. Then the "certainty" that there is a wonderful love in God, according to which God gave his Son to the world and reconciled the world with himself through his actions and suffering. Hence the matter stands in such a way that all who deny the vicarious satisfaction of Christ dismiss both the law and the gospel, and therefore also the difference between the two. What Frank says specifically against Ritschl is true of all deniers of satisfactio vicaria: "It is all designed and tailored to exclude the hated doctrine of the atonement of the law" (?) "and hereby the doctrine of 'law and gospel.'" 1012) This is also true of Ihmels and of Frank himself, insofar as both tamper with the vicarious satisfaction of Christ.1013)
5. The representatives of the "higher unity" of law and gospel. Since theology has given up letting the Scriptures be the source and norm of Christian doctrine, it has had the habit of making the so-called "unified conception", the "harmony without contradiction", etc. of the individual parts of Christian doctrine the criterion of truth. This kind of doctrine has also been applied to the doctrines of the Law and the Gospel. In more recent times, there is talk of a "higher unity" which theology must seek between the Law and the Gospel. The opinion is that there cannot be a contradiction between law and gospel with regard to their content, but only a gradual difference. Both are intended to
1012) Dogmatic Studies, p. 129.
1013) Cf. on Ihmels II, 435 ff., Uber Frank II, 419 and on modern theology in general the section: "More detailed description of modern theories of reconciliation", II, 429 ff.
294 > Law and Gospel. [English ed. ~ 250]
demand moral performance from man. Only the works demanded by the gospel are different in quantity and quality. The gospel is understood as a modified law. At least the later Luther no longer saw and held on to this higher unity between law and gospel. Zwingli, on the other hand, unlike Luther, recognized the complete essential equality of the law and the gospel.1014) To this it must be said: One could, however, speak in a proper sense of a "higher unity" between law and gospel, namely in the sense that both are God's word, or, more concretely expressed, that it is one and the same God who demands and accuses in the law and in the gospel drops all demands and therefore also does not accuse, but only absolves. Luther and other ancient theologians speak thus: Lex est Deus accusans et damnans; evangelium est Deus absolvens et iustificans. [Google] But this "higher unity," according to which both are Word of God and in both one and the same God acts with men, is precisely to be rejected. This conception of God and God's action is described as lacking the "unity of the concept", as "piecemeal", "two-layered", whereby a rational being, as man is, cannot calm down. Hence the endeavor to bring law and gospel under a unified higher concept in such a way that not only the promise of the law, but also the promise of the gospel is allowed to be conditioned by human action, right conduct, personal self-establishment, etc. But in this way, as we have seen, not only the promise of the law, but also the promise of the gospel is conditioned by human action, right conduct, personal self-establishment, and so on. But in this way, as we saw, the gospel is transformed into law,
1014) Thus Schenkel, Wesen des Protestantismus 1, 173 ff. In Frank, op. cit., p. 115. With respect to Zwingli, however, it is true that he makes law out of the gospel. This is also said by Seeberg, Dogmengesch. II, 299: "Zwingli does not feel that the law is the expression of another worldview; imperceptibly the gospel becomes the nüven gesatz (I, 311)." That the acceptance of particular grace and of the immediate action of the Spirit consequently dismisses the gospel has been demonstrated above. Luther rightly judged that the enthusiasts "under Christ's name teach their dreams, under the name of the doctrine only laws and ceremonies. Thus they are and always remain the same as they were, that is, monks, laborers, teachers of doctrines and ceremonies, except that they devise new names and works." (St. L. IX, 414.) The fact that Zwingli and Calvin also contain a lot of gospel comes from the fact that they stood under the powerful influence of Luther's Reformation. But the gospel does not fit into the system peculiar to Zwingli and Calvin, whose essential components are particular grace and the immediate effect of the Spirit.
295 > Law and Gospel. [English ed. ~ 250-251]
and Luther and the Lutheran Confessions are not to be blamed, but to be praised, that they have not entered into this higher unity, but stick to the fact that law and gospel, taken in the actual sense, are, according to their content, perfect opposites, plus quam contradictoria, in that the Law only demands and condemns, but the Gospel demands nothing and therefore does not condemn either, but only promises and gives grace and salvation for Christ's sake, without any performance on the part of man. As for the "piecemeal" or "two-layered" character of our knowledge of God, if we take law and gospel as contradictoria according to their content, we again recall the scriptural ceterum censeo, that we men in this life have no other than "piecemeal" or fragmentary knowledge of God, έκ μέρους γινώσκομεν και έκ μέρους προφητεύομεν … άρτι γινώσκω εκ μέρους [“We know in part, and we prophesy in part. . . . Now I know in part.”].1015) We men — theologians included — do not know in this life what is in God. In other words, we do not have in this life a "unified view" of God's being, attributes, and doings. The unified view belongs to the "upper school" above. We are bound with our knowledge of God on this side to the revelation of God in His Word. This revelation, however, is — in condescension to our weakness — "piecemeal", namely according to qualities that are different for our knowledge. This finds its application to law and gospel. According to his righteousness, God assigns sinners to hell; according to his grace, he assigns the same sinners in the same condition to heaven. How both qualities or "determinations" unite in the one, indivisible God to the higher unity" is beyond our "cognitive" grasp. Scripture gives us no further information than that the gospel judgment of grace upon sinners condemned by the law is mediated with God (in Deo, apud Deum) through the redemption (άπολύτρωσις, redemption) that took place through Christ Jesus. Let us only beware that we do not let the promise of grace of the Gospel be conditioned by something in man (aliquid in homine), such as right conduct, personal self-setting, etc.! In this way we would gain a "higher unity" for law and gospel, namely the higher unity of human
1015) 1 Cor. 13:9, 12.
296 > Law and Gospel. [English ed. ~ 251-252]
performance, but we would thereby lose the differentia specifica of Christianity, the gospel, which alone can make souls saved. Here again, in the doctrines of law and gospel, we come up against the crux theologorum. According to Scripture, we must teach and believe "piecemeal" or "two-layered," that is, without rational mediation, that those who are saved are saved by God's grace alone, and those who are lost are lost by their guilt alone. We could easily establish the "higher unity" between these propositions by assuming, with the synergists, a lesser guilt and a "different", that is, better behavior on the part of the saved in comparison with the lost. But with this we would violate the Scriptures, which teach the same guilt and the same evil behavior on the part of the saved. Thus, in the doctrine of the Law and the Gospel, we must refrain from trying to establish the "higher unity" between the two by making the Gospel conditional on human performance as well.1016)
1016) The most powerful human writing, as on the doctrine of justification, so on the doctrine of law and gospel, is Luther's detailed commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians. Latin: Erl., curavit Irmischer, 3 vols.; German: St. L. IX, 9 ff. On the French and English translations, cf. Hoppe, St. L. IX, 2, note, and Walch, Bibliotheca Theol. IV, 696 sq. Luther's writings directed especially against antinomianism were listed under note 921. All of Luther's writings are characterized by the clear distinction between law and gospel, which is why Dr. Walther used to say that no writer makes so sure of God's grace as Luther. In the 17th century, the material pertaining to the doctrine of Law and Gospel is probably best and most abundantly gathered in Gerhard's loci, Locus de Lege and Locus de Evangelio. Within the Missouri Synod, the doctrine of the distinction of law and gospel has been continually treated in the publications, synodal reports, and special writings. We cite: Walther, "Law and Gospel," 1878. Same, "Law and Gospel," 1897 [1893 edition, 1901 edition Archive.org; done into English by W. H. T. Dau: The Proper Distinction Between Law and Gospel, 1929]. F. Bente, "Law and Gospel," 1917 [English translation of the Lehre und Wehre articles (LuW vol. 63, 241, 298, 349) that this book was based on has the same name: Law and Gospel: Repentance and Good Works here]. F. Pieper, "The Difference of Law and Gospel," Report of the Iowans Distr. 1880. Same, "The Practical Importance of the Right Divorce of Law and Gospel," Report of the Kansas Distr. 1892. G. Stöckhardt, "The Different Effects of Law and Gospel," L. u. W. 1887, 154 ff.
297 > Baptism. [English ed. ~ 253]