Randy,
I don’t think I misunderstood you. You said, “I, too, used to “thwack” people upside the head with God’s Word.” By your use of the word “too” you did more than imply that Mrs. Nanna was, like you, being legalistic. As I pointed out, that was inaccurate.
I praise God that he rescued your from the GRBC with its dispensationalism and its fundamentalism. I pray that God will continue to deliver His people from the errors that their current respective faith communities entertain.
You said Randy,
“Still, now having said that, while legalism is ultimate a “Law+Grace=saved,” the end effect can be the same if a Christian believes that in order to be a “good Christian” or a “real Christian” then you really need to do “X,y,Z.” That is a very dangerous place to go and we need to be careful when we head there.”
I’m not sure what you’re getting at here. I do know that throughout the Scriptures the Apostle Paul warns people against behavior that is inconsistent w/ confessing Christ. The Apostle Paul doesn’t seem to shy away from saying that we may not go on sinning that grace may abound.
As a contrary example to your statement the Apostle Paul seems to suggest that the Galatians can’t be good Christians if they deny being saved by faith alone. Another contrary example to your statement would be when the Apostle tells the Corinthians that they are not being very good Christians when they take one another to court, or when they allow the one caught in incest to remain a member of their Church. But perhaps I’m misunderstanding your concern?
Actually, Luther, in his writings was more predestinarian than Calvin ever was. And I agree w/ you that Lutherans don’t mind contradictions. That is why they have a mystery box to throw them in.
I think Anna’s post in which we are responding to is not the legalistic admonition that you fear it is. Thanks for your concern for her though. It is always good to be reminded that we need to tell people of God’s grace.
Perhaps it was the approach sounded so much like my fundamentalist past:
A good Christian won’t go to movies!
A REAL Christian would never touch a drink!
That person isn’t saved because they…(participate in activity ABC..).
Now enter the “A good Christian really shouldn’t say the pledge” and immediately my “legalism finder” goes “AH_HA! DANGER! DANGER!” Mayhaps too quickly, but there are some things in one’s past that make you jump and this is one of them for me. 🙂
I used to be “beat them all with the Law and if they REALLY want to be a good Christian then they will fall in line…” and then my wife called my legalism on the carpet…and God led me to Wittenberg. Go figure?
Grace and Peace,
Randy
Lay Minister
Christ Lutheran
Simul Iustus Et Peccator
But Randy you’re doing the very same thing that you’re accusing Anna of doing. You’re saying, “A good Christian really shouldn’t appeal to God’s word to hold people accountable.” That is as legalistic as what you are finding in Anna. Really, then, the question reduces down to which items are items that are proclaimed by Scripture to be unwise for a Christian to be involved in. As our loyalties are first and foremost to Christ I think a good case can be made that Christians shouldn’t be pledging allegiance to a State that is committed to attacking the foundations of the Christian faith.
Somewhere around here I have written an article that argues that all people are fundamentalists. The question is never, “Will I be a Fundamentalist,” but rather the question is, “What are the fundamentals that will characterize me.”
The problem w/ your past isn’t that they said a “good Christian won’t go to movies,” or a “good Christian will never touch a drink,” or that a “good Christian doesn’t dance,” the problem with your past is that they drew the lines in the wrong places. The problem isn’t with the idea of lines. The problem is in drawing them places where Scripture doesn’t.
Scripture clearly teaches “Thou Shalt Not Have Any Other God’s Before Me.” Many people forget that line when they pledge allegiance to a State that is seeking to be the God of America.
Thanks for the conversation,
Bret
Actually, I guess it’s more the tone and the approach that was my concern.
Too often Christians use only the Law and then forget (or don’t) give the Gospel even to the saved. In Lutheran circles, if you hand out Law, then to be truly Christian, you must also hand out Gospel or you’re simply giving legalism. Rod Rosenbladt says it best when he notes that too often while Lutherans are “Law-Gospel” that other Christians tend to be “Law-Gospel-Law” and the end result is that people are left bruised and hurt because they are trying to live the Christian life without the Grace of God by simply “trying harder.”
Again, that is my primary concern here: That we are healers, not just those who point out that there is disease.
On a side note, to say that when you pledge allegiance to a country that such is idolatry does seem a wee bit…over the top. You pledged allegiance to your wife, didn’t you? Was that idolatry? I suppose in some cases it could be. Granted we can get into to the whole “use of vows” thing, but this is truly an area of Adiaphora and of degrees.
But, the good news is that we don’t have to be perfect (we can’t be) or have “perfect theology” on our own, but that God through his means of Grace works in us. He is awesome.
A great discussion of Law-Gospel-Law is in Rosenbladt’s “The Gospel for those broken by the church” at http://www.newreformationpress.com/soco/the-gospel-for-those-broken-by-the-church-mp3.html
Again, point out sin, but never forget to point out that Grace is there and Jesus IS the answer.
Blessings and Peace,
Randy
One last thought on the pledge:
Check out the Biblical doctrine of the two kingdoms. It is expressed quite well at http://www.lcms.org/graphics/assets/media/CTCR/chandst.pdf
OK. I’m done.
May God by His Word continue His good work in you,
Blessings,
Randy
People had a problem with the tone of Jesus and the prophets as well.
In my estimation here the issue is reduces to understanding our audience. If our audience is bruised and wounded from the “Law” then by all means the Gospel must be extended. However, it may be the case that we live in the age of Isaiah where people keep on hearing but do not understand and where people keep on seeing, but do not perceive.
When the Reformation exploded on to the scene, Randy, people had had generations of Law. They were ready for the Gospel pronunciations that characterized the Magisterial Reformers. However, we now live in an age where we have had generations of antinomianism in the Church. The message to the Church in our age may be the message we find in Revelation 3 and the Seven Churches … Repent or your Candlestick will be removed.
We aren’t Lutherans in these waters. There is a difference between Reformed and Lutheran although currently there are some Reformed types on the West Coast who are trying to fudge that difference.
I agree that people must be justified and regenerated before they are sanctified. However, we are living in a time in the West where antinomianism, gnosticism, pietism, and quietism have invaded the Church. (And let’s not even talk about the heresies of Subjective Charismania and Dispensationalism.) Living in that kind of ecclesiastical climate requires the faithful to clearly articulate what the Christian life looks like. Now, I agree that we must do so winsomely, carrying large dollops of grace so that when people see that their lifestyle doesn’t match their confession we can assure them that if God’s people confess their sins he is faithful and just to forgive them their sins and cleanse them from all unrighteousness. We must also, forever be emphasizing that the reason we conform our lives to Christ is gratitude because we have been freely and irretrievably saved by the performance of Christ for us. However, we must say that God saved us to be a Holy people to be a witness to the nations.
On this score, I would say that Scripture seems to teach that when we speak to God’s people we speak not “Law – Gospel” nor “Law, Gospel, Law,” but rather “Gospel – Law.” Consider Ex. 20. God reminds them of His graciousness to them (I am the Lord thy God who brought thee out of the land of Israel — The House of Bondage). Then after pronouncing all that He had freely done for them (Gospel) then He gives Law (Decalogue). When speaking to the faithful this makes sense since this model emphasizes God’s graciousness and the appropriate response of gratitude (esteeming God’s Law). I quite agree that when speaking to non-Christians that the model should be “Law – Gospel.” I don’t agree that every Law presentation must end with the Gospel. If I’m giving Law to people who are pelting me with rotten vegetables because of the message it is clearly evident that the Law has not yet done its work and so the Gospel needs not be set forth as pearls among swine.
We are healers to those who acknowledge and accept they are sick. If they will not acknowledge or accept that they are sick there is no healing to be offered to them. In such a case all that can be offered is the constant diagnosis that they are sick.
LOL …
Scripture teaches the notion of leaving and cleaving to a wife. It does not say anything but leaving and cleaving to a nation who hates Christ. Pledging Allegiance to a nation that slaughters 1.3 million unborn human being every year is to give allegiance to an Idol.
I did pledge allegiance to my wife but if she broke covenant and became a Christ hater then I would be committing Idolatry if I allowed my pledge to her to mute my allegiance to Christ.
But, the good news is that we don’t have to be perfect (we can’t be) or have “perfect theology” on our own, but that God through his means of Grace works in us. He is awesome.
I know the Lutheran “Law — Gospel” paradigm. I know of Lutheran tendencies toward antinomianism. I know the dangers of “Law, Gospel, Law.”
Have you ever read C. F. W. Walther’s, “Proper Distinction Between Law and Gospel”? I have. I think it is a wonderful book, but you must know where your audience is before your employ a hermeneutical paradigm. People who hate God’s law — people who hate the idea that God is Holy are a people who will reject the Gospel. What need will they have of a Gospel when they are not convinced that God stands opposed to them or that they are under God’s wrath. You want to apply the poultice of the Gospel to people who refuse the notion that they are ill.
Again, I thoroughly agree with this UNLESS people refuse to accept that they have a need for an answer since they do not agree that they have a sin problem.
Finally, I know the doctrine of “Two Kingdoms” and do believe that the doctrine of Two Kingdoms can be profitable but not as it rests in a Lutheran paradigm.
I’m not Lutheran.
Thanks for the conversation Randy,