Grace, grace, grace, brace, brace, blace, blase about sin...

I'm struck by the willingness of some Lutherans on this blog to impudently claim grace in the face of potential violations of Old Testament commands. It seems grace covers every failure, even failure to think seriously about the Law. This is not Lutheranism in its original sense, but however far devolved from the teaching of Luther, it does represent modern Lutheran practice and a dangerous trap for the Reformed community as a whole.

What place is there for fear of the Lord in modern Lutheran thought? Is it merely Old Testament legalism, withered to nothing after the Cross?

Perhaps it's time for these revelers-in-grace to heed the actions of the New Testament, post-Resurrection, Covenant-of-Grace, Spirit-filled apostles who held themselves compelled to heed even the non-normative, prophetic passages of the Old Testament....

One of the most remarkable verses in Acts is found in Acts 1:21 where Peter, after speaking of Judas, tells the assembled disciples "it is necessary" that an apostle be chosen to replace Judas simply because David had so prophesied in the book of Psalms.

Acts 1:20-23 20 "For it is written in the book of Psalms, 'Let his homestead be made desolate, And let no one dwell in it'; and, 'Let another man take his office.' 21 "Therefore it is necessary that of the men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us-- 22 beginning with the baptism of John until the day that He was taken up from us--one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection." 23 So they put forward two men, Joseph called Barsabbas (who was also called Justus), and Matthias.

It "is necessary" that the disciples choose a successor to Judas, necessary because Scripture ordains it. And in rigorously seeking to heed the Old Testament they are following the well-worn footsteps of their Master. Time after time Jesus acted so that "the Scriptures might be fulfilled"--even in areas of non-normative prophecy, not to mention Scripture's normative commands.

Yet many modern Lutherans think grace covers every failure to take the Old Testament seriously, even the plainest commands of the Decalogue.

Perhaps it's time for modern Lutherans to listen again to their namesake on the fear of the Lord, a man far better acquainted with the salutary effects of such fear than they...

But the people of Sodom are like crags and very hard rocks. In their case brimstone, lightning from heaven, and thunder are needed. Those foolish and lying prophets who maintain that the Law should not be taught in the church and that, in general, no one should be rebuked too severely or burdened in his conscience are not aware of this.

If this is true, however, why does the Lord want the example of Sodom preserved in His very church and taught by Abraham? Moreover, in view of the fact that He adds "in order that they may fear the Lord," do not those who want only the promises to be taught exclude the doctrine of the fear of the Lord entirely from the church? Hence the fanatical spirits who confound the entire system of heavenly doctrine in a pernicious manner must be shunned.

But this doctrine of the Law is profitable not only for teaching the fear of the Lord; but, as the Lord adds, it also produces this fruit, that those who are frightened in this way by the judgment and wrath of God practice justice and discernment.

If you divide all Scripture, it contains two topics: promises and threats or benefits and punishments. And, as Bernard states, hearts that are neither softened by kindnesses nor improved by blows are properly called hard. Thus the works of God are also twofold. Works of mercy are those which Paul mentions in Acts 14:17: "He gives rain from heaven, fruitfulness," etc. He does works of wrath when He also sends a plague, war, and famine in order to frighten and humble the obdurate. Thus in Christ salvation is promised to all who are baptized and believe. On the other hand, judgment and eternal death are threatened to those who do not believe in Christ.

In these circumstances how can or should the preaching of the Law be excluded from the church? Do you not at the same time exclude the fear of God and the majority of the works of God? God certainly does not perform these in order that they may remain hidden, but He wants us to see them and in this way to be led to fear Him. If there were no perils of fire and water, no sudden death and similar evils, I myself would surely not say anything about them and would speak only of God's kindness and of His benefits. But experience teaches otherwise.

Hence to declare that the Law should not be taught in the church is characteristic of men who do not know Christ and are blinded by their pride and wickedness. Previously Moses has set forth many examples of God's graciousness: when God promised Abraham the Blessed Seed, when He honored him with an outstanding victory, and when He came to him as a guest and ate bread at his home. These events are related by Moses, and nothing else is added to them; but in this passage there is added the command to preach: "He will relate them," says God, "to his children"; that is: "I want the destruction of Sodom by fire preached in the church." What is the reason for this? Because the church is never altogether pure; the greater part is always wicked, as the parable of the seed teaches (Matt. 13:3 ff). In fact, the true saints themselves, who are righteous through faith in the Son of God, have the sinful flesh, which must be mortified by constant chastening, as Paul says (1 Cor. 11:31): "If we would judge ourselves, we would not be chastened by the Lord." Therefore keep this passage in mind. It is adequate by itself to refute the antinomians.

Luther, M. (1999, c1961). Vol. 3: Luther's works, vol. 3 : Lectures on Genesis: Chapters 15-20 (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald & H. T. Lehmann, Ed.). Luther's Works. Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House.