“Anyway, we’d ask, “What about us”. The pastoral answers were either silence or loose “I don’t knows”, or some form of “we probably need to be more about ‘proving our faith’, boldness, etc…”. The sermons over time completely moved away from the Cross, as in Gospel for you, to just “how bold everyone over there was and how much they were suffering and how much we needed to DO/imitate that”. Over time, including very much myself, one doubted completely that God had indeed saved one’s own soul. I got to the point of telling my wife on numerous occasions that I’d love to just dye for the faith if it would give me assurance, ironic isn’t it, but that I wasn’t sure it would.”

I have tried to explain this to my wife as to why I attend a LCMS church on occassion. The pure Gospel is freeing. When I hear the Gospel proclaimed at the Lutheran Church I am on fire to help my neighbor. Just the opposite happens when the focus at our other church is on me to do more because it is an obligation of being a Christian. I then feel guilty and wonder like Larry and others, am I truly saved. I tend to go back to the thought of am I helping my neighbor enough without the Gospel proclaimed regularly. I feel like a small fish attempting to swim up stream in the rapids of evanglical America. Sometimes it is easier and less tiring to go with the current, however the Gospel always gives me strength. It seems simple to proclaim the Gospel first and let the works follow.

A while back you gave permission to post the content of this blog on a forum. This has sparked a lot of interest from the evangelicals on that forum and has been very informative for them.

I gave a couple of them information on your program and they said they will be listening. One of whom is planning on “working up enough nerve to call you.” I told her you are very gracious and would love to answer questions.

Thank you again for letting me use your material in this fashion. God bless you for your generosity.

again, how different this conversation is!

It’s truly odd knowledge you present as light and darkness in the world. It is not being taught or defined with clarity as it is here. In the “something being passed off as Christ’s Christianity” church world, it simply isn’t being taught. It seems to be at odds with seminary training in present day gatherings of disciples/learners of Christ and void of a proper understanding of the proper distinction between Law and Gospel; theologians of glory and of the Cross seminaries.

Your blog and your message is so outdated and yet relevant it causes me pauses as I learn these distinctions!

This oddity is like something a lifeguard said to me one time. I happen to be walking on a beautiful beach on a warm afternoon. There were a lot of people sunbathing and some enjoying the surf. There were guard posts evenly placed up and down the beach with lifeguards onduty.

I looked out into the surf and saw a man in trouble and struggling against the rip current.

At first I was paralyzed, frozen in time but after a moment I realized I could do something immediately to help save this guy. I jumped into action taking off my shoes and emptying my pockets. I yelled at a sunbather to get the attention of a life guard and headed into the surf to rescue the struggling man.

I got to him and helped him out.

As we got to the shore the lifeguard came right to us.

After assessing the man’s condition and mine, he said this:

I’D HAVE DONE THAT DIFFERENTLY. I WOULD HAVE WAITED A BIT LONGER UNTIL THERE WAS NO MORE STRUGGLE LEFT IN HIM. It’s easier to rescue a drowned person or one without a fight than one who is struggling to survive!

One of the most critical issues that Luther saw, and consequently Lutheran churches have preserved better than ANY, almost ONLY, that I’ve both seen and experienced concerning the point blank crucial CRUX of the Gospel lies in two seemingly nothing but powerful prepositions. “To and “for” connected to “you” in particular. The Gospel really is not the Gospel until the to/for you comes with it.

When I first converted to Christianity in 1997 from atheism I heard on the radio a preacher, I don’t have a clue concerning his denominational affiliation, placard Christ before my eyes in a way I’ve never heard before. But crucial to that was that he said over those air waves without discrimination that Christ died for us, for you. Until a few months ago I’d never made the connection why that was Gospel and I always savored my memory of it, and consequently struggled with doubts without it afterward under many different sermons and teachings – whether it was in the words “for/to you” given from the Gospel Word or the sacraments themselves. But THAT is what makes all of these Gospel or not at the end of the day.

NOTE: None of these folks intended harm to me, the principle is what I’m thinking through. The struggle began of course the very next evening when I visited with our home town family SB pastor at our house about being baptized. Satan did not waste a second. I prayed the prayer of salvation “just to be sure” at the end of our meeting. I recall with clarion clarity thinking during that prayer, as doubt began to arise, “I hope I’m doing it right”. I mean the doubt cast was that subtle and that quick. I begun to forget the message I just heard 24 hours earlier “to/for you…Christ”. Then a deacon visited and the same thing happened, prayed the prayer again. It was as if we had to “be REAL sure”. But all that self appointed “be REAL sure” mostly for those observing me and needing to get baptism right, did anything but assure me, doubt upon doubt began to pile up. And the more we/I did it, prayed the prayer, jumped through the hoops, the more doubt I had. Then that Sunday I had to “walk the aisle” and at the head of the pulpit floor I had to, you guessed it, pray the prayer AGAIN. Do you see the building up of works here and the more doubts come in by the doing them. This time the pastor added to the misery by praying with me and his prayer was not “Grace to/for you”, but a form of begging God to work in me. Then there was the issue of baptism that comes along inherently with “believers only” baptism which removes the crucial “to/for you” in it. And the Lord’s Supper is glossed over with it being a memory only meal and certainly no grace via it is given.

Then a few years later I came upon the TULIP. It sounded like a good strong cure for Arminianism and zealous I was for it. But after about two years of that I was ready to hang myself because now ‘how can I know I’m elect’. Most of the reformed stuff I was hearing would, like Arminianism, fundamentally still leave that bit of distance for YOU to gap. It did not rankly make me decide like arminianism in its teaching, that’s denied out right, but no “for/to you” was there. A little none killing law remains and THIS IS DEADLY in the wrong way. It was always, “may the Lord, will the Lord”, forms of trying to move God somehow. That crucial “to/for you” was still missing. But it is very notable that Paul and the apostles always opened and closed their letters to the church, “Grace and peace TO you FROM God the Father and Jesus Christ His son.” It’s a powerful benediction that gives the Gospel, gives Christ. These men KNEW their callings to actually promiscuously GIVE TO the people FOR the people FROM God the GIFT of God. No hedging words of “may/will/if”. No words from me that in essence are “reaching up to try to grab” not knowing if you have grabbed salvation enough, rightly or strongly. They distributed God’s GIFT without prejudice, like the casting of the Seed among the many grounds.

I don’t know how the original Greek captures the English prepositions of “to and for”, but in the English these are the most crucial tiny words in the entire sentence. It’s the difference between two religions and two messages. It must be presented in the Word of Gospel, in the Baptism of Gospel and in the Bread and Wine of Gospel. Else the teaching is manifestly and utterly false. The Gospel must be to and for you at all points or it is no Gospel at all. If Jesus died and it is not “to or for” you, then you’ve not received the Gospel. If you are baptized and it is not “to or for” you, and not of faith, it gives no Gospel. If Christ is not given in the supper as Grace “to or for” in the bread and the wine, it gives no Gospel. IF you have to WORK, LABOR, TOIL, EXERT, WRESTLE, STRIVE, MOVE, ATTEMPT, ACT, BELABOR, STRUGGLE, GIVE LABOR in ANY sense be it of the Gospel Word, Baptism or the Lord’s Supper you can in no way receive the Gospel and this is because you’ve been given a little law light not a truly killing LAW. Law light will in fact kill you in the damning sense. And as such the Gospel will ALWAYS be a “foot” away from you and hence infinitely away from you.

Here’s where the blessed preaching of the harshness and severity of the Law must kill utterly, the compassion and kindness of Divine wrath, in order to TRULY receive as a child or dead man this MUST come about. If you leave a man spiritually “still trying” no matter how or what is left to ‘bridge that last foot with’, he/she can in NO WAY receive the Gospel. It is utterly impossible as long as this lives in a man, be he a brand new convert or a Christian all his life! Grace will be forever at just enough length away from him that he will die just in sight of it. He will hear of the rumor of Grace, he will be told of the odor of the Gospel’s fragrance, he will be given description of the taste of the sweetness of the Gospel, he will be told of the secure warmth of the Gospel, and he will be given a portrayal of its beauty – ever hearing about it but never once having the news reach his ear for him, never actually smelling its fragrance, never actually tasting its honey, never actually warmed by its loving heat, never actually beholding its beauty. He will remain a man in a wasteland without hope, left in despair and gloom until finally he dies.

There is a difference in “talker abouters” of grace who perhaps themselves have never really tasted or forgotten it, and a man who HAS tasted its sweetness and doesn’t just describe its sweetness but actually opens your mouth and pours in this precious honey.

Larry – ky

As you note many times and in fact have set forth in this blog numerous times the idea or concept of interpreting scriptures in one of two ways. Not just the concept or doctrine of Law and Gospel but one who is LIVING by Law or LIVING by Gospel. That’s a powerful concept. Is this similar or rooted in Luther’s Theology of Glory Vs. Theology of Cross? And I mean this; it was an “epiphany” of sorts to me just a few weeks back rereading through Luther’s HD that he was NOT describing a doctrine per se in that one “can ascribe” to it, but rather, the thrust of what he was doing was speaking of how each of these persons OPERATE, ToG or ToC. That is the operation, or we might say living or walking, of the ToG or ToC. This seems to be, to me, what you are getting at in LIVING under the Law or LIVING under the Gospel. It’s more a descriptive of the way “ONE IS” rather than another “doctrine” to be ascribed to.

As I reflected on an issue of a former church of ours it seem to fit the concept EVEN when an other wise good thing was being used, in our case the persecuted church over seas. I’ve shared this with you before under a different thought. Suffering and persecution at our church had kind of moved over into a “doctrine” needing to be done, rather than a description of the way things are in ToG Vs. ToC. Over time we so foisted forth the suffering church overseas and no Christ crucified in every single thing we did (even making the Lord’s Supper a MAJOR guilt trip) that the very common question asked among us, which was quite natural, even among the pastors/elders, “What about us” (meaning American Churches generally and our congregation specifically and me in particular)? I don’t think this is where we meant to go but it did. This came up frequently in conversations and SS classes. And many were thinking it even if they didn’t open their mouths, as I later found out. It was sort of the “elephant in the room” nobody talked too much about. The question was what about us who do not suffer the persecution of the sword. Behind the “what about us” was the dreadfully fearful terror of, “are we really truly Christians or saved since we don’t suffer so?” This will sound odd to Lutherans raised in a highly sacramental realm, or even some Reformed where the sacraments are at least Gospel/means of grace in which assurance is directed objectively by the Sacraments and the objective Gospel. But in even a Calvinistic SBC grace is rarely so objective in Word or Sacrament. Most missing in my experience in that denomination is the crucial “to/for” you, its always held a foot away from you.

Anyway, we’d ask, “What about us”. The pastoral answers were either silence or loose “I don’t knows”, or some form of “we probably need to be more about ‘proving our faith’, boldness, etc…”. The sermons over time completely moved away from the Cross, as in Gospel for you, to just “how bold everyone over there was and how much they were suffering and how much we needed to DO/imitate that”. Over time, including very much myself, one doubted completely that God had indeed saved one’s own soul. I got to the point of telling my wife on numerous occasions that I’d love to just dye for the faith if it would give me assurance, ironic isn’t it, but that I wasn’t sure it would.

It was an unhealthy and wrong view of suffering and persecution and being taught. IT was not to take away from those so truly suffering, but the way it was being used that was the problem as I reflect back. It fundamentally, ironically by the suffering of others, grew into yet another theology of glory. It became a doctrine TO FOLLOW rather than a description of. Mostly because only ToC was considered and ToG was not understood. Thus, the suffering, ToC of the persecuted church became for some of us another ToG. It is, the ToG, clear now as I reflect backward upon it in the basic fearful questions we asked: 1. “What about us” (measuring by the creation, works and events to find the eternal workings of God). 2. The answers of “We need to do_______” to ostensibly attain this reward of persecution whereby assurance could be had (the real blessing connected to the cursed suffering). Basically doing the works necessary to receive the favor of God, in this case in the form of a negative, persecution, to arrive at the REAL object of desire, a much desired positive, assurance of salvation and hence mercy is for sale in an odd way. Almost a version of beating you back with a whip like a monk but a bit more complicated.

As I look back the real suffering was the devil’s persecution to the souls of the church members casting doubts upon our souls as to salvation, ironically, BECAUSE we were not persecuted by the Sword. But is not this the devil’s design always whether the persecution DOES come from the Sword unto the first death, of the body, whereby the second death is feared (the death Christ died for us) because by measuring the creation, works and events surrounding one (the open sword type of persecution) one concludes, “God has abandoned me.” Whereby despair and unbelief ensue unless the Gospel arrives again. OR, likewise, some form of inward persecution, spiritual battle, that could in essence take an other wise normal outward thing going on, open sword persecution, and say to you in an accusatory way, “Why not you”. So that you will assess God has abandoned you by something you’re not doing enough of to get the persecution of the Sword and then assurance. Whereby, again, despair and unbelief ensue unless the Gospel arrives again. In this one the devil does not attack the body to drive to one to assess by experience or creation or works that “God has abandoned me”, but the mind and soul inwardly, ironically with, “why has not God given me sword persecution”.

It seems that ToG ALWAYS seems to take its ‘dip stick’ and measure ‘what’s going on inwardly and/or outwardly and attempt to assess the will of God behind the veil of Creation whereby a man “gets busy working” to gain reward SOMEWHERE in the chain of things, sometimes directly as in “word of faith movements” but sometimes as a secondary thing (assurance) derived from a primary thing (open persecution). Where as ToC seems to just simply call it like it is, and stayed fixed upon the Cross alone IN SPITE of what’s going on around me yea or nea, good, bad or indifferent.

There seems to be a danger in seeing Luther’s ToG/ToC as another doctrine to in essence affirm and follow, versus understanding it as “the way the two operate/live” as a description. And I see what you are saying by saying the one LIVING under the Law versus LIVING under the Gospel as a CRUCIAL understanding of Law and Gospel. Because one could AFFIRM Law and Gospel, yet BE LIVING under the Law. We did, we affirmed GRACE ALONE robustly, yet slowly the church was LIVING under Law in a very insidious way, not so easily detected and it manifested itself in our questions and definitely in my terrors of assurance during that time.

Blessings,

Larry KY