Is there any point in reading a book entitled Law and Gospel: Philip Melanchthon's Debate With John Agricola of Eisleben over Poenitentia which documents a debate between two Lutheran theologians in the 1520s? When I first bought it I was concerned that it was purely for my personal interest and had no relevance for serving God in the 21st century. However strikingly this debate has never ended although few seem to know its roots. A recent example would be the brouhaha within Young Life in the US (HT Justin Taylor). Christianity Today describes that following challenges the Young Life leadership have produced a statement requiring a certain presentation of the gospel:
YL's eight-page Non-Negotiables statement requires a sequence for gospel presentations that closely resembles Campus Crusade for Christ's Four Spiritual Laws. [...] evangelists should explain the reality and consequences of sin before presenting the crucifixion of Jesus Christ and his resurrection. Talks end with an invitation to believe, become a disciple of Jesus, and publicly proclaim one's faith.
YL seems to line up with Melanchthon in this fight. Melanchthon held that the Law should be preached to bring people into a realisation of their sin, and to make them fear God in his wrath against them. They should then confess their sin and accept forgiveness in Jesus' sacrifice. Love for God and righteousness would flow out of this.
Agricola believed the only use of the law was to increase the volume of sin and so show the power and horror of the sin. However it had no role in conversion or the Christian life. Where as 'Poenitentia' meant guilt and contrition for Melanchthon and was a necessary step before forgiveness could be received, for Agricola the highest form of 'Poenitentia' was not to do the sin again. Agricola could see no difference between the contrition of Melanchthon and that of Judas following his betrayal. Agricola believed that 'Poenitentia' was a result of the gospel and not a result of the law.
That is a brief summary but I feel the strength of Agricola's beliefs, although I can also see its dangers.
The danger with studying historical theology is that you start knowing who was your father in the faith, who came out on the winning side and who was dismissed as a heretic. Instead of listening to God's word you listen to the evangelical church fathers. However, it is also good to check yourself before backing the predetermined 'wrong' side. Melanchthon won the day in the 16th century. His influence can be seen from John Wesley's preaching to the 'Four Spiritual Laws'. However, it seems that Evangelicalism is drifting decisively towards Agricola for the first time in its history. Is this a good thing? I still haven't decided, but I am 100% sure that it has a massive difference to my witness to my friends which side I do decide to back.
No comments:
Post a Comment