Luther said to Erasmus in his response, Bondage of the Will, concerning the fear of some form of societal and individual moral r
eform, “Who, you say, will take pains to correct his life? I answer: No man will and no man can, for God cares nothing for your correctors without the Spirit, since they are hypocrites. But the elect and the godly will be corrected by the Holy Spirit, while the rest perish uncorrected.”
Some interesting highlights in history seem to show that this is the greatest temptation of the church as a whole and Christians individually in changing the message of the Gospel to another gospel. This temptation is greater even than a sword to the neck.
As opposed to the theology of the Cross, all theologies of glory wet the finger and stick it in the air of time and space to measure for a doctrines ability to bring about change (for the good, a good fruit or works producer so to speak). This comes in many forms for example, “numbers and church growth, moral improvements both individual and societal, etc…”. Even Melancthon fell for this in the end and almost overthrew what Luther left after his death. History seems to repeat this. Example, a 50,000 foot survey of the Thirty Year War from 1618-1648 seems to indicate that what brought about pietism in the Lutheran bodies themselves was the view that “if this is what the doctrine of Luther brings about, forensic justification unconditionally, something is wrong with the message and Spener is the rest of the story. Can such an assessment be called Christian at all, when it is a rather pagan “finger wetting in the air”. It seems that under the stress of great persecution, the worries of this world, this faith dwindled and died in this moment in this specific situation. Yet, both Luther and Calvin in as much as they agreed on the pure forensic nature of the Gospel basically said, ‘let all hell break loose and the world go up into one conflagration, we cannot ever allow the Word of God to be changed on this.’
Repeatedly this seems to be the greatest of temptation for both the church as a whole and Christians in general. If some visible peace or change is not measurable, but in fact the opposite appears everywhere, then the Gospel cannot be the gospel, goes the thinking of the theology of glory, and something needs be added to the message to ‘get it right’ and produce the desired change. Yet, in fact shortly after Pentecost when the Gospel was highest all hell broke out in the Roman Empire. Not to forget to mention before Pentecost that all hell broke out pretty much every where and every time Jesus opened His mouth, culminating at the Cross itself (the heartbeat of the Gospel). The Roman Emperors, by the way, blamed the Christians, which is to say the 200 proof Gospel for the fall of society in their time. Again, Stephen, when preaching a 200 proof totally unconditional Gospel, and what arose around him? Peace and love? Hardly, stones to the head as the fruit police and inspectors and good works merit- mongers gnashed their teeth at him. Not all that different than the Lutheran pietist, Anabaptist and other enthusiasts of the time of the 30 Year War, and not all that different from the message changing – fruit inspectors of our day and age. After all if the forensic unconditional message isn’t producing the desired affect surely we must change its forensic/unconditional explosion, should we not, goes the rational Aristotelian thinking. This was the great temptation of the Puritans, Wesley, Conservative and Liberal Christians alike today.
Luther’s response to Erasmus is proved all the more and comes back to haunt us: “Who, you say, will take pains to correct his life? I answer: No man will and no man can, for God cares nothing for your correctors without the Spirit, since they are hypocrites. But the elect and the godly will be corrected by the Holy Spirit, while the rest perish uncorrected.”
If the Gospel doesn’t work in any given time or place, either corporately to a society, to a church or group of churches or individually does that give license to change its unconditional message? Does this ever give us right to so, “Free grace yes, but…”. The ‘but’ is always the “tuck tail and run” sign of the fear of the persecution against the Gospel proclamation. I’ve felt and tucked my tail and ran more times than I care to remember.
Here is the GREAT temptation of the “seed sewn amongst the weeds and the cares of this world” that falls away. Here we are greatly tempted to tuck our tails and run for it is always easy to get a good, “Amen”, in affirming the “yea but…”. Indeed if no man comes to faith by the 200 proof Gospel as far as we can tell our entire lives does that give us license to say, “hath God really said”, by altering the message? Is not a pastor called to preach the Gospel even if everybody walks out of the church forever?
We like to say, “bear your/our cross”, when we mean fruit and law, which is no cross at all but self appointed good works and fruits that are actually quite easy to perform in our own strength. However, we really don’t like that Cross very much when we have a cross laid upon us by the Word that is a Gospel Cross linked to Calvary itself? We are like the first thief all too often, “Jesus if you are the Son of God, get us down off of these crosses”. Or likewise, “Jesus if you are really God and have power get me to producing some fruit so I can get down off of this cross and not be so nakedly dependant upon you.”
Does such EVER allow us to change the Gospel’s utter unconditional forensic message the least bit in order to ‘firm up the fruit production’? I ask a question that expects, obviously a resounding “no” answer. Is it not the greatest sin of all to call God a liar and use men who are liars to prove the point?
Larry Hughes
Filed under: Glory vs. the Cross, Luther, The Gospel | 86 Comments »
The Old Adam Lives! 