Seeing only sin

Dietrich Bonhoeffer bluntly states that:

the Lord will judge us each according to our works without partiality. For each person's works will become apparent, and to each the Lord will give "recompense for what has been done in the body, whether good or evil" (2 Cor 5:10; Rom 2:6ff; Matt 16:27). Whatever has not already received its judgment here on earth will not remain hidden on judgment day, but must come to light.

(p. 277, Discipleship)

The editor's footnotes also quote the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats (Matthew 25:31-46) as further support.

[But a] surprising point arises from the fact that in Jesus' story the sheep think they are goats and the goats are sure they are sheep. "When did we see you naked, and not clothe you?" the latter boast. To these goats, who insist on following the law (and think they get perfect marks in so doing), the king replies, "You missed one! As often as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me." Try living by the law, and you will be toast. On the contrary, the poor befuddled sheep [...] cannot seem to see their gifts and works at all. "When did we see you naked, etc., and clothe you?" The king answers, "I remember one time." Rather like those poor split-brained disciples of the Sermon on the Mount, whose right hand did not know what the left was doing, these people's good works sneak up on them and remain hidden from to them (but not necessarily to others) their whole life long. The only thing Christians truly sense is their desperate need for a Savior, the Good Shepherd, who seeks the lost.

(italics original, p. 93, Timothy Wengert, A Formula for Parish Practice)

Dietrich Bonhoeffer doesn't disagree. We should not respond to the doctrine of judgement by works by looking at our achievements and trusting in them.

The saints themselves are unaware of the fruit of sanctification they bear. The left hand does not know what the right hand is doing. If they become curious to know something in this matter, if they decide to engage in self-contemplation, then they would have already torn themselves away from the root and their time of bearing fruit would have passed [...] In their own lives, only the saints see strife, hardship, weakness and sin. And the more maturity they gain in the state of sanctification, the more they recognize themselves as being overcome, as those who are dying according to the flesh.

(p. 266f, Discipleship)

As I once heard Dick Lucas preach on Romans 8: the Spirit witnesses to our adoption by making us aware of the constant presence of the battle with our old nature.

But don't you know people just like that? I do. People who cheerfully give and give, but have no awareness of the good works they are doing. They're just being normal in their own eyes, or perhaps not even doing enough. But sometimes other people see how exceptional the giving is, and give thanks for them.

The temporary nature of the law-gospel antithesis

"the antithesis between law and gospel is not an end in itself. It is not a theological ultimate. Rather, that antithesis enters not by virtue of creation but as the consequence of sin, and the gospel functions for its overcoming. The gospel is to the end of removing an absolute law-gospel antithesis in the life of the believer. How so? Briefly, apart from the gospel and outside of Christ the law is my enemy and condemns me. Why? Because God is my enemy and condemns me. But with the gospel and in Christ, united to him by faith, the law is no longer my enemy but my friend. Why? Because now God is no longer my enemy but my friend, and the law, his will, the law in its moral core, as reflective of his character and of concerns eternally inherent in his own person and so of what pleases him, is now my friendly guide for life in fellowship with God"

(italics original, p. 103, Richard Gaffin, By Faith, Not by Sight: Paul and the Order of Salvation)

I like that, although I don't fully agree. I think that he is right that the purpose of the second use of the law is to drive us to the gospel, which enables us to return to the law and use it in its third use. But for the Christian who is both the old man and the new man, we need to use it both as enemy and friend.

Compare Timothy Wengert commenting on Article six of the Formula of Concord:

faith in Christ truly makes all things new, even our relation to the law and works. To be sure, there are "works of the law" (par. 5). There are threats and coercion: "Do this or else!" The unbeliever and our own flesh must be forced [...]

But think how our of place this coercion sounds in the language of love (par. 6). If the beloved says, "Kiss me!" what kind of answer is "Do I have to?"

[...] To be sure the law remains the law (par. 7). The Ten Commandments contain enough for us to do to last a lifetime. However, when the law hits the old creature - whether in the unrepentant or in the flesh of the believer - it can only threaten and coerce. But when the believer, as God's new creature of faith, hears the law, all threats drop away, and there remains a willingness that comes not from ourselves (we cannot make ourselves willing), but from God. Then we hear only the voice of the beloved, and there is no coercion, only faith and love.

(p.99, A Formula for Parish Practice)

Online Timothy Wengert Resources

[I'll try and keep this updated as I find more, but please let me know if you know of anything I don't].

Timothy Wengert is Ministerium of Pennsylvania Professor, Reformation History at the Lutheran Theological Seminary at Philadelphia.

Articles, Papers etc

• "Luther's Catechisms and the Lord's Supper", World and Word, Winter 1997
• "Graceful words: Justification", The Lutheran, December 2000
• "Luther and Melanchthon on Consecrated Communion Wine (Eisleben 1542-1543)", Lutheran Quarterly, Volume XV (Spring 2001)
• "Bearing Christ as Melanchthon’s Contribution to The Book of Concord", Lutheran Quarterly, Volume XV (Winter 2001)
• "'PEACE, PEACE ... CROSS, CROSS': Reflections on how Martin Luther relates the theology of the cross to suffering", Theology Today, July 2002
• "Authorization for Ministry and the Lutheran Confessions", The ELCA Conference of Bishops October 2003
• "The End of the Public Office of Ministry in the Lutheran Confessions", The ELCA Conference of Bishops October 2003
• "Trust the heavenly banquet", The Lutheran, November 2003
• "Martin Luther and the Ten Commandments in the Large Catechism", Currents in Theology and Mission, April, 2004
• "The Priesthood of All Believers and Other Pious Myths", Sessions of the Institute of Liturgical Studies 2005
• Sermon on 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18, November 2002
• Sermon on John 3:1-17, February 2005

Audio

• Lecture: Martin Luther on the Decalogue (MP3)
• Lecture: Reading the Bible with Martin Luther (Video)

Law and Gospel again

Sometimes I don't like the way law and Gospel can sometimes be used to chop the bible up into bits where some are law and some are Gospel. A nasty temptation when that is done is to ignore the law and only talk about those parts containing the Gospel (c.f. Hummel, Horace D. "Are Law and Gospel a Valid Hermeneutical Principle?" [online]Concordia Theological Quarterly 46 (1982) no. 2-3:181-207). I have commented before (here and here) that the same passage can in some ways be both law and Gospel. Wengert gives an example below:

the brokenness of election in Lutheranism - as foolish as it appears to human wisdom - already contains great comfort. We can thereby announce this electing promise to anyone and everyone ("God chooses you") and watch as that declaration acts as law and gospel in justifying the sinner. As law, God's choice destroys and puts an end to all our choices. As gospel, we can finally relax and let God's grace carry the day.

(p.190, A Formula for Parish Practice: Using the Formula of Concord in Congregations, by Timothy J. Wengert)

...BTW I'm not sure that I agree with all of the quote.

Questions 6 and 9

When people first hear about the depth of human sin, the bondage of the will, and the unconditional grace of God in Christ [...] they almost always ask one of two questions: question 6 or question 9 (from Rom 6 and 9). The concordists address question 6 in article 4: Is grace just license to do whatever we please? Or, in the words of Romans 6:1, "Should we continue in sin in order that grace may abound?" (Just don't tell the kids!) Question 9 is posed in Romans 9:3, What about "my kindred according to the flesh"?

(p.183, Wengert, Timothy J., A Formula for Parish Practice: Using the Formula of Concord in Congregations).

Law and Gospel

Here is the heart of the distinction between law and gospel-not a formal division of God's word into commands and promises, or between Old Testament and New, but the alien and proper work of God. This distinction formed the basis of Luther's revolutionary theology of the cross. God's word works death and life on us (that is, law and gospel), putting to death the old and bringing to life the new.

(my emphasis, '"PEACE, PEACE ... CROSS, CROSS": Reflections on how Martin Luther relates the theology of the cross to suffering' by Timothy J Wengert, Theology Today, Jul 2002)

It is difficult to get my head around the Lutheran teaching on Law and Gospel. I think these two sentences have been the most helpful in making it clear.

Theology of the Cross

This reflection on Martin Luther's theology of the cross begins with a deceptively simple question: Does a theology of the cross bless suffering? Final answer: No. This lack of equivocation arises, not only from knowledge of the historical record in general and Luther's writings in particular, but also from experience. Eleven months after receiving an invitation to address this topic for a Lutheran convocation of teaching theologians, my wife of twenty-six years was diagnosed with terminal cancer. If experience truly makes a theologian, then this experience makes unmistakably clear that a theology of the cross blesses nothing [...]

Does a theology of the cross bless suffering? Even after agreeing to speak of the theology of the cross, the sentence still does not make sense. Quite the reverse! It serves up the single greatest temptation to sin that any theologian faces: imagining that what he or she does-theology-actually accomplishes anything so grand. No theology of any kind ever blesses. God blesses; the Crucified One blesses. A theology of the cross can make no such claim. However often theologians agree that they are dealing with second-order discourse in theology, the temptation still lurks to make that discourse worth something before God. Indeed, if Genesis 3 has anything to say to this day and age, it is that human beings are always tempted to make themselves gods, knowing and deciding good and evil, bane and blessing.

'"PEACE, PEACE ... CROSS, CROSS": Reflections on how Martin Luther relates the theology of the cross to suffering' by Timothy J Wengert, Theology Today, Jul 2002

The most moving article I ever read in a theological journal. It cuts to the bone.

PS top tip, when reading articles on findarticles.com click the print icon for a much more readable version.