Law and Gospel and the Means of Grace

Confessional Lutheran Dogmatics #VIII

by David P. Scaer

Genres: Theology

238 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 2008

About the author

Dr. David Scaer is a professor of Systematic Theology and New Testament and holder of the David P. Scaer Chair of Biblical and Systematic Theology at Concordia Theological Seminary, Fort Wayne, IN. At the seminary since 1966 he serves as editor of the Concordia Theological Quarterly (1969-1994; 1999- ) and was academic dean (1984-1989). He is currently chairman of his department. Dr. Scaer has written extensively and his articles have appeared in Christianity Today, Lutheran Forum, Logia, Forum Letter, the Lutheran Witness, Modern Reformation, Cresset, the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Grace Theological Journal and Issues in Christian Education. His Christology (1990) was the first volume to appear in the Confessional Lutheran Dogmatics, and is in its fourth printing. A second volume in this series, Baptism, has been published by the Lutheran Academy. For the same series he is also authoring the volumes of Law and Gospel and the Sacraments. Twice he was awarded the prestigious John W. Behnken Post-Doctoral Fellowship Award by AAL for study in Europe (1969,1986).

A parish pastor serving congregations in Gillespie, Illinois and Rockville, Connecticut, he also taught for ten years as a part time instructor in religion at the University of Illinois (Champaign) (1966-1976). He is a member of the Society of Biblical Literature, the Institute for Biblical Research, the Alliance of Confessional Evangelicals and the Christianity Today Institute, for which periodical he also serves as a research scholar. Dr Scaer was a member of the composing committee for "Evangelical Affirmations 1989" and a contributor of essays published for the May meeting (1990). He is listed as a contributing editor for Logia and Modern Reformation. His Latin Ecclesiastical Glossary , a dictionary of Latin terms for Lutheran seminary students, is regularly used with Pieper's Christian Dogmatics. Professor Scaer's interest in New Testament studies is shown in his James: The Apostle of Faith (Concordia Publishing House) which demonstrated this epistle's close connection to the preaching of Jesus and its basic unity with the Pauline epistles. His interest for some time has been in the area of Gospels and their order and interdependency.

His Sermon on the Mount was published by Concordia Publishing House. He has written in the area of the Lutheran Confessions and co-edited a volume in honor of the 450th anniversary of the Small Catechism, Luther's Catechisms - 450 Years (1979) and contributed to a volume honoring the 400th anniversary of the Book of Concord, Getting into the Story of Concord (1977). His articles have appeared in the Concordia Theological Quarterly, the Concordia Journal, Christianity Today, Affirm, Lutheran Witness, Lutheran Forum, Theology Today and Philosophy and Theology. He is a contributor to Contemporary Theology, The Baker's Dictionary of Christian Ethics, and The Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible. Among his other books are What Do You Think of Jesus?, The Apostolic Scriptures, and The Lutheran World Federation Today. Along with eighteen other recognized theologians, he is a contributor to Doing Theology in Today's World, a festschrift in honor Kenneth Kantzer, one time editor of Christianity Today. His contribution is entitled "How do Lutheran Theologians Approach the 'Doing of Theology Today.' " He has written two essays analyzing the theology of Dr. Francis Pieper. The first appeared in Baker's Handbook of Evangelical Theologians and the second in The Pieper Lectures: The Office of the Ministry, published by the Concordia Historical Institute.

He has served as the organizer of the annual on-campus Symposium on the Lutheran Confessions since 1978. His essays have also appeared in festschrifts for Professor Kurt Marquart, Dr. Charles Manske, Dr. Glen Zweck and Bishop Jobst Schoene. In 1999 his "The Doctrine of the Sacraments in the Theology of Johann Gerhard," appeared in Protestant Scholasticism.: Essays in Reassessm

Reviews

[John Stebbe · Rating 3 out of 5]

I'm a 51-year-old Presbyterian who spent the first 25 years of his life as an LCMS Lutheran. An LCMS pastor in Michigan read my review of Dr. Kolb's book "Bound Choice" on Amazon, and made some comments directed at me. He was very gracious, and invited me to dialog with him about these issues. So we have traded several e-mails. He finally recommended a book by LCMS CTS Ft. Wayne prof. David Scaer, "Law And Gospel And The Means Of Grace." So I bought that from CPH, and recently finished it (although I will confess I did not read every single word).

Below are comments of mine on Dr. Scaer's book.

The book refers to the Reformed faith quite a few times. I am going to quote a few relevant passages, and then comment.

p. 14 Scaer reflects on the LCMS struggles in the 1960s and 70s. Some Lutherans, influenced by Bultmann and others, were saying, “Yes, the Law and Gospel are central to our theology. This means that we need no longer worry about whether the Bible is an accurate book of history. As long as we believe the Law and Gospel, that is enough.” Scaer responds, “This, of course, was an illusion. Without the reality of incarnation, atonement, and resurrection, gospel becomes a meaningless theological abstraction, even when the law and the gospel are carefully distinguished and forgiveness preached.” I am very thankful that the LCMS has people like Dr. Scaer, who were and are not afraid to state the obvious: If we cannot be sure of the historical reliability of the Scriptures, then the game is up. “If Christ be not raised, your faith is futile, you are still in your sins.”

p. 18 “Like the Reformed approach, Pietism makes certain rules and regulations about life and worship the final word God gives to His people.”
Well, shouldn’t our life and worship be regulated by God’s Word? Scaer himself earlier says that “ . . . it is vital for the church that the liturgy remains in place . . .” (p. 12) And I don’t see any conflict here. Scaer rightly wants traditional Lutheran liturgy to be used in worship. Is that not a rule he would like to see applied? And this rule applies to those who have already believed the Gospel? Rather than the “final word,” I see no reason why we cannot see rules for Christians alongside belief in the Gospel as simultaneous, not necessarily seeing one or the other as the final word, as long as we understand that it is the Gospel which brings salvation.

On a side note, I wish my own congregation took liturgy more seriously. Our traditional service does have a confession of sin, and a pronouncement of God’s forgiveness at the beginning of the service. But at our contemporary service, we just sing and then read the Scriptures, then pray, and listen to the sermon. No confession, no absolution. It’s not right. Again, thanks to Dr. Scaer and his kin for seeing the importance of liturgy and calling us back to it.

p. 22 “With its doctrine of double predestination, historic Calvinism resolves the tension between the law and the gospel in favor of the law. The classic Reformed faith holds that God is under no internal compulsion to make atonement for all, especially for those predestined to damnation. Law, which reveals God’s disgust with sin, is the only real universal revelation which God intends for all. His being is understood primarily as moral perfection and not love. . . . (Lutherans respond that) A gospel intended for some and not for all would hardly be gospel.”

Double predestination is indeed part of the Reformed faith, but it needs to be properly understood. Many outside the Reformed faith imagine that Reformed people believe that God selects one group to receive the gift of salvation, and with the other group, God actively turns them away from the Gospel. In reality, God does select one group for salvation (as Lutherans affirm), but with regard to the other group, God allows them to continue in their sinful desires, finally resulting in damnation. In my opinion, the Lutheran idea of ‘single predestination’ does not differ from ‘double predestination.’ If you affirm predestination to eternal life, you also must admit to the idea that God, in His sovereignty and omniscience, is not unaware of those who will continue in their unregenerate condition. He knows that they will not inherit eternal life. He damns them for their sin. He knew ahead of time that these people would not be saved, but chose to create them anyway.

Let me hasten to add that this is not my favorite doctrine. I don’t want to be seen as a cheerleader for the idea that God damns people for their sin, and these people do not have it within them to turn from their sin. I think that efforts to avoid this idea have at their root the desire to protect God’s virtue. We don’t want to believe in a God who would do such a thing. But even if we convince ourselves that God predestines some to be saved, but is somehow not at all responsible for the fate of the damned, we cannot escape other questions which seem to put God in a negative light, such as, “If God knew that Bill was going to reject the faith, why did He create him?” Such questions we will always have with us, no matter what theological system we come to rest on. For questions like these, I think it wise to wait, with Luther, for the light of glory, in which light we will finally understand God’s perfect justice.

Scaer: “The classic Reformed faith holds that God is under no internal compulsion to make atonement for all, especially for those predestined to damnation.” Yes, but don’t we all (Lutherans, Reformed) believe that? God is under no internal compulsion to offer the Gospel to anyone, be they elect or not. God makes atonement as a free gift. If He were compelled to do it, it would no longer be a gift, but an obligation on His part.

Scaer: “Law, which reveals God’s disgust with sin, is the only real universal revelation which God intends for all.” That is Scaer’s view of Reformed teaching, which he opposes. But is there no truth here? Many people in this world live their lives never hearing the Gospel. They only know the Law (Romans 1:18-32). For them, the Law is God’s last word, and indeed His only word.


“His being is understood primarily as moral perfection and not love. . . .” Again, Scaer’s assessment of Reformed thought. I would not phrase it that way, however, yes, God is love, but He is also Holy, Holy, Holy (Isaiah 6:3).

(Lutherans respond that) “A gospel intended for some and not for all would hardly be gospel.” If it’s intended for all, why does God see fit to allow some not to hear it?

p. 23 “Christ has atoned for all sins.” Some people pay for their sins in hell. But how can this be, if Christ has atoned for them? I heard R. C. Sproul discuss this once on his radio show, and he asserted that if Christ has paid the price for all sins, and if some people pay for their sins in hell, then some sins have to be paid for twice. Why should Christ pay for sins which will be paid for again in hell?

p. 25 “’Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.’ This command to believe creates the faith which it demands.” This sounds a lot like the Reformed idea of irresistible grace.

p. 26 “. . . for them (Calvin and Wesley) the inner tension of being sinner and saint is promptly resolved in the Christian experience of being saved. Both Reformed and Wesleyan (Arminian) theologians take issue with Luther’s view that even after conversion the Christian remains a sinner.”
This is all news to me. I have never heard from any Reformed pastor or theologian that I am not a sinner anymore, now that I am a Christian. Quite the opposite. I am aware that certain Wesleyan groups do teach “Christian Perfection,” but I have never heard that in Reformed circles. As a matter of fact, I regularly listen to Michael Horton’s podcast “The White Horse Inn,” where he and LCMS professor Rod Rosenbladt are almost always on the same page, when it comes to issues surrounding the Reformation, including the idea that Christians still struggle with sin, even after conversion. Dr. Scaer’s comments seem to be coming out of the blue here.

p. 29 “. . . (the Reformed believer’s) only certainty that he is among the elect . . . is based on the testimonium internum Spiritus Sancti, which is really nothing more than his own feelings.” Nothing more than my own feelings? That’s how I know I’m saved? Again, news to me. Yes, I do believe Romans 8:16 in this regard (is that to be disparaged?), but I also believe 1 John 5:13: “I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life.” I know that I am saved, because I believe in Jesus. And as a bonus, God does give me an internal witness to this, as found in Romans 8:16.

p. 30 “Marcion, Origen, and even Calvin knew . . .” Dr. Scaer, you very casually seem to number Calvin with heretics. Is this your view of him?

p. 34 “Law as it was part of the creation contained no prohibitions or threats . . .” Really? Genesis 2:16-17: 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."

Same comment for p. 81: “In this new reality the law has lost its prohibitions or threats and resembles how Adam and Eve knew it in Paradise.” But our first parents DID have a prohibition and a threat. “Don’t eat that, or you will die.”

p. 92 “For Pieper, by Christ’s atonement all mankind and not just some are righteous in God’s sight. For the Reformed only the elect are.” A brief clarification: Better to say that for the Reformed, only the regenerate are. You can be elect and not yet regenerate. But more important, if all mankind are righteous in God’s sight (as Scaer approvingly quotes Pieper), then why are not all saved?

p. 96 “For Barth the gospel could operate with or without the history of Jesus of Nazareth.” Scaer rightly criticizes Barth on this score. Thank you, Dr. Scaer, for reminding your readers that Barth, as highly respected as he is as a scholar and theologian in many circles, should not be allowed to gain a hearing in Christian churches if he was not willing to affirm the idea that Biblical events really did happen in real history. If Christ is not raised, . . .

p. 107: “In the church’s administration of the means of grace God maintains His freedom and determines who will believe, so there are no mechanical or magical formulas whose results in every case can be assured.”

So when a baby is baptized, God does not always work salvation in the child? That’s contrary to what I learned growing up Lutheran.

p. 107: “Without the Word and the Sacraments God does not work salvation.” So those people in this world who have not heard the Gospel will be condemned to hell. But as Scaer says, the Law is not God’s last word to anyone. But for some people, gravely, it appears that the law is indeed God’s last (and even only) word.

p. 111: “The mystery of why some believe and others do not remains unresolved in Lutheran theology.” What is so mysterious? Here is the Small Catechism: "I believe that I cannot by my own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ, my Lord, or come to Him; but the Holy Ghost has called me by the Gospel, enlightened me with His gifts, sanctified and kept me in the true faith. . .” I am saved because the Holy Ghost has called me, and kept me in the true faith. This is where Lutheran thinking is hard for me to understand. God keeps us in the true faith. If it were up to us, we would reject the faith, so alien to our depraved natures. Luther says as much in BOTW, section 164:
As to myself, I openly confess, that I should not wish "Free-will" to be granted me, even if it could be so, nor anything else to be left in my own hands, whereby I might endeavour something towards my own salvation. And that, not merely because in so many opposing dangers, and so many assaulting devils, I could not stand and HOLD IT FAST (caps mine), (in which state no man could be saved, seeing that one devil is stronger than all men;) but because, even though there were no dangers, no conflicts, no devils, I should be compelled to labour under a continual uncertainty, and to beat the air only. Nor would my conscience, even if I should live and work to all eternity, ever come to a settled certainty, how much it ought to do in order to satisfy God. For whatever work should be done, there would still remain a scrupling, whether or not it pleased God, or whether He required any thing more; as is proved in the experience of all justiciaries, and as I myself learned to my bitter cost, through so many years of my own experience.

But now, since God has put my salvation out of the way of my will, and has taken it under His own, and has promised to save me, not according to my working or manner of life, but according to His own grace and mercy, I rest fully assured and persuaded that He is faithful, and will not lie, and moreover great and powerful, so that no devils, no adversities can destroy Him, or pluck me out of His hand.

But Lutherans say that “it can be rejected when first heard or at any step in the development of faith.” (p. 111) But how, when it is God that keeps me in the true faith? Am I in charge of keeping myself saved, or is God? Luther says, “God has put my salvation out of the way of my will.” Amen!

p. 150: “Election . . . can be effective apart from the proclamation of the Gospel.” Every Reformed author that I am familiar with affirms that God ordains the ends and the means of our salvation. If God has elected you to salvation, He will provide the means for you to hear the Gospel so that you will respond to it. And so Romans 10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? So this statement from Scaer is a caricature of Reformed faith.

p. 184 Lutherans affirm that Catholics have a ‘real’ sacrament in the Supper, in spite differences in ‘articulation.’ This is hard for me to understand. The Mass is a re-sacrifice of Christ, the one who said, “It is finished.” Surely this is anathema to any believer who acknowledges the finished work on the Cross. I think that difference is too profound for any true Christian to see any value in the Mass.

p. 189 “Lutherans and Roman Catholics understand grace and the role of faith in receiving the sacraments differently.” On the contrary, Catholics (at least the ones who wrote Trent, and the Catechism) don’t appear to understand Biblical grace at all. The muddled, confused mixture of works and grace which comprise Catholic theology is another Gospel. Here is their Catechism:
(RC Catechism 2010)

"Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life."

“Merit for ourselves?” This is not just a difference of nuance between two Christian denominations. Catholic theology is another gospel.

p. 191 Scaer upbraids those who would replace the terms Father, Son and Holy Spirit with Creator, Redeemer, Sactifier. Right on, Dr. Scaer. God retains the right to name himself.

p. 195 “ . . . the Reformed doctrine that the Spirit works directly in the lives of Christians.” So the Spirit does not do this? And is it one or the other? Can the Spirit work through the Sacraments and the preached Word, as well as working directly in the lives of Christians? Romans 8:16 would seem to fit here.

p. 212 Reformed theology holds that matter is inferior to the invisible world, Scaer says. It does? Is that in the Westminster Standards? I am not trying to be flippant. On what does Scaer base this? This is a new idea to me.

p. 213 (The Reformed faith) . . . “offers a religion of the Spirit, in which sacraments are given a secondary or even unnecessary role. Such Christianity is not the Christianity of the New Testament. In spite of its claims, it is not the true religion of the Spirit.”

These words are powerful. “Not the Christianity of the New Testament.” So what is it, then? Is Reformed theology not Christian, because we have a different view of the Sacraments? Are Presbyterians to be regarded in the same light as Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses? Perhaps Dr. Scaer did not mean for his words to be understood this way. I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt here. But his words at face value do seem to be say as much.

In conclusion, this book is a well-written defense of the Lutheran view of the Sacraments. I am sure that LCMS ministers will benefit greatly from his insights. As much as I disagree at points, I am thankful that Dr. Scaer stands up for things such as the need to view the Bible as accurate history, the need for valid liturgy during worship, and God’s right to name himself.

[Todd · Rating 5 out of 5]

One would think that a book on Law and Gospel and Means of Grace would be a serious snoozer. Nothing could be farther from the truth! David Scaer is always engaging, and this book is no exception. In fact, I might even go so far as to say that this is my favorite writing of his. It's a tossup.

What Scaer does in the book (a part of the Confessional Lutheran Dogmatics series) is analyze these two topics from the perspective of the Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions. He handles everything from the Law/Gospel controversy in the 1960s/70s to Agricola in the 16th century, to how Calvin and Luther understood Law & Gospel differently.

This last topic is perhaps the strongest portion of the book. Scaer makes the link from Christology to Law & Gospel to the means of grace, and weaves it beautifully. He helps us to understand that the Lutheran differences with Rome and Geneva are not just window dressing, but really come down to a different understanding of the nature of God Himself, and how He interacts with us in the world.

This really is a must read for Lutherans and non-Lutherans alike.

-Rev. Todd Peperkorn, STM

[Joseph Grable · Rating 5 out of 5]

Truly so sad that this book is over

“If theology did not use the word Christology exclusively of Christ’s person and work, Christology could conceivably be the title of this present volume as well. These topics are two sides of one coin. What Christ did for us by His coming in the flesh, dying, and resurrection is realized in the church through the preaching of the law and the gospel, which is encapsulated in the means of grace”.

[Sandra Rhein · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was a challenging read for me. Some day I should reread it. It is helpful in defining and comparing the errors of Calvin, Zwingli, Arminius. It's still difficult for me to keep this all straight.

The last chapter on the philosophical and historical roots of Reformed thought clarified the fundamental errors in modern Evangelicals; something I run into all the time.

[David Bickel · Rating 5 out of 5]

Rather than limiting the law to its first uses, Prof. David Scaer christologically explains the third use of the law in terms of God's command creating what it says.

He resolves the conflict between objective justification and the reinstatement of the law for the unbeliever in favor of the former.

Here are some excerpts:

* "Jesus' commands to love God and neighbor belong to the third use of the law and not to the first use, which governs man's external behavior in the world, or to the second use, in which God accuses him" (page 72).
* The teaching that Matthew 5:48 is "an admonition for moral perfection" might be called into question by Luke 6:36 (pages 81-82, note 47).
* "The third use of the law is the description of the reality of Christ's life taking form and shape the life of the Christian. In grammatical terms, the imperative of command becomes the indicative, describing what already exists... Paradoxically the Christian has no internal evidence or feeling within himself that he is fulfilling the law" (page 83).
* "Any definition of the third use of the law in terms of progress toward moral perfection must be dismissed, as it would hardly be different from how the Pharisees understood and used the law" (page 84).

[Philippe Deblois · Rating 5 out of 5]

What an awesome book. This is essential reading for a proper understanding of Law and Gospel and the Means of Grace. Scaer is engaging and clearly defines Scriptural doctrine in opposition to false teaching.