It was Luther who again proclaimed to the world that the Law and the Gospel are as widely distinct as they possibly can be, separated from each other more than opposites ("inter se Zongissime distincta et plus quam contradictoria separata sunt"). St. L., IX, 447. This must not be regarded as an extreme and "misunderstandable" statement (Thomasius, Dogmengeschichte, II, 425); for it is a reaffirmation of the truth which Scripture itself teaches.
When we compare the two doctrines according to their contents, we find that they absolutely contradict each other. The Law demands perfect obedience of man in every way and condemns all who are disobedient, while the Gospel demands nothing, but freely offers to all sinners grace, life, and salvation for Christ's sake. The same sinners whom the Law consigns to everlasting damnation the Gospel, for Jesus' sake, assigns to everlasting glory in heaven, Rom. 5, 18-21. The Law requires works, Luke 10,28; the Gospel declares that the sinner "is justified by faith, without the deeds of the Law," Rom. 3, 28.
St. Paul strikingly contrasts the Law and the Gospel when he writes: "There is no difference; for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus," Rom. 3, 22-24. According to these words the Law condemns, while the Gospel justifies. (Cp. also Gal. 3, 10-14.)
The same difference between the Law and the Gospel becomes evident when we consider their promises, which, too, are absolutely contradictory. The promises of the Law are conditional (promissiones conditionales) ~· those of the Gospel are promises of pure grace (promissiones gratuitae). That is to say, the Law promises life to the sinner provided he obeys it perfectly, Gal. 3, 12; Luke 10, 28; but the Gospel promises him life and salvation "without the deeds of the Law," "without works," "freely," "by grace" (particulae exclusivae), so that indeed "the ungodly are justified," Rom. 4, 5. In other words, the Law justifies persons who are in themselves just, Gal. 3, 21, while the Gospel justifies persons who in themselves are unjust, Rom. 4, 5.
The so-called Gospel imperative (imperativus evangelicus, Acts 16, 31) is "concentrated Gospel." When St. Paul commanded the keeper of the prison at Philippi: "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved," he preached faith into his heart. So also the "command" of 1 John 3, 23 is not a legal command, but a most gracious invitation, expressed in the strongest manner, to accept the Gospel offer of forgiveness. The faith demanded by the Gospel is described in Scripture as the very opposite of any human achievement, Eph. 2, 8. 9.
From this it is evident that the conditions of the Law, Luke 10, 28, are real conditions, demanding absolute fulfilment of the imposed obligations, Gal. 3, 12, while those of the Gospel (Rom. 10, 9: ''If thou shalt believe, thou shalt be saved") merely indicate the means by which God applies to the sinner life and salvation (modus applicationis). The statement "If thou shalt believe, thou shalt be saved" means only this: Without any works or worthiness on thy part thou art saved alone by faith in the Lord Jesus, whom God has raised from the dead. Rom. 3, 23-28.
Since, then, the Law and the Gospel, considered according to their contents and promises, are absolute contradictions (plus quam contradictoria), we must clearly distinguish between the two spheres to which each belongs in the economy of salvation. That is the only correct way of removing the "insuperable difficulty" which confronts us as we view these two contradictoria according to their Scriptural presentation.
The Law must indeed be preached in its full rigor and severity, and nothing dare be taken away from it, Matt. 5, 17. 18; Gal. 3, 10; Rom. 1, 18; 3, 9-19; but it must be proclaimed for no other purpose than to bring the sinner to a clear knowledge of his sin and condemnation, Rom. 3, 20. That is the proper sphere of the Law, as Scripture plainly shows, 2 Cor. 3, 9: "the ministration of condemnation." It is a message of wrath and as such "our schoolmaster unto Christ that we might be justified by faith," Gal. 3, 24:.
However, when the Law has accomplished its purpose and the contrite sinner cries out in fear: "What must I do to be saved?" Acts 16, 30, then the proclamation of the Law must cease and that of the Gospel must set in, Acts 16, 31; for, while it is the function of the Law to terrify the secure sinner, it is the function of the Gospel to comfort the contrite sinner with the grace of God in Christ Jesus, John 3, 16; Rom. 10, 4. This sharp distinction between the two spheres of the Law and the Gospel is always observed in Scripture, 2 Sam. 12, 13; Acts 2, 37-39; 1 Cor. 5, 1-5; 2 Cor. 2, 6-8.
Luther writes: "The Law has its goal, just how far it must go and how much it must accomplish, namely, 'unto Christ,' to terrify the impenitent with God's wrath and disfavor. In the same manner also the Gospel has its work and function, namely, to preach forgiveness of sins to the troubled conscience. . . . Now, where conscience is rightly awakened, duly feels its sins, and is in agony of death, ... there it is high time to know how to separate the Law from the Gospel and to put each in its place." St. L., IX, 798 ff.1
Generally speaking, then, the Law belongs to the sphere of sin and the Gospel to that of grace; the first is the message of repentance (contrition), the second that of remission of sins, Luke 24, 47. Both must be taught in their Scriptural purity and truth; the rigor and severity of the Law must not be diminished, nor must the sweetness and winsomeness of the Gospel be modified, for only in that way can the divine message of sin and grace enter the sinner's heart and transform it.
The Law and the Gospel differ from each other also with respect to their principia cognoscendi. While the Law is written in the hearts of men, Rom. 2, 14. 15, and may thus, in part at least, be known even without the revealed knowledge of Scripture, the Gospel is the "hidden wisdom of God," made known to man by special revelation, 1 Cor. 2, 7-12; Rom. 16, 25, so that not a single person can know it unless it is revealed to him, Mark 16, 15; Rom. 10, 14. 15. 17. This is demonstrated and proved by the fact that all man-made religions are "religions of the Law," or of good works, while the Christian religion, which is taken from the Bible as its only source, is a "religion of faith." Moreover, all men who are addicted to the natural religion of good works reject the religion of faith as foolishness, 1 Cor. 1, 23; 2, 14, until through the Gospel the Holy Spirit has removed from them the opinio legis, 2 Cor. 3, 15. 16.
In the course of the Antinomian controversy the question was debated whether the sin of unbelief must be reproved from the Law (Gnesio-Lutherans) or from the Gospel (Philippists). The answer of the Gnesio-Lutherans was adopted and embodied in the Formula of Concord (cp. Arts. V and VI). The Philippists were perhaps misled by the consideration that, since the divine Law is ignorant of Christ and of faith in Him, it cannot reprove the sin of unbelief. But the question is readily settled if we bear in mind the specific spheres and functions of the Law and the Gospel; for while the Law always judges, condemns, and reproves, the Gospel, in its proper sense, never judges, condemns, and reproves. It is therefore against the very nature of the Gospel to reprove.
The statement "The Gospel reproves sin" (Melanchthon) can be defended only if the term Gospel is used in its wider sense, as denoting the entire doctrine of Christ. However, that the Gospel in its strict sense does not reprove either the sin of unbelief or any other sin is obvious from the fact that, if the Gospel would be properly a message of reproof and condemnation, salvation would be absolutely impossible; for in that case there would be no message of salvation in which sinners, who by nature are all unbelievers, might trust. The Gospel saves, Rom. 1, 16, just because it has only a saving and not a reproving or condemning function. Unintentionally, yet actually, the Philippists changed the Gospel into Law by ascribing to it in its proper sense a reproving office.
The Formula of Concord concedes that the Gospel (or rather the Gospel facts, namely, Christ's suffering and death) may indeed be used to depict the great wrath of God on account of man's sin, just as Christ Himself so used it, Luke 23, 31. Yet when the Gospel is employed in this manner, it performs not its own and proper office (proprium suum officium), but a foreign office (alienum opus). Our Confession (Thor. Decl., V, 12) says: "Yea, what more forcible, more terrible declaration and preaching of God's wrath against sin is there than just the suffering and death of Christ, His Son? But as long as all this preaches God's wrath and terrifies men, it is not yet the preaching of the Gospel nor Christ's own preaching, but that of Moses and the Law against the impenitent. For the Gospel and Christ were never ordained and given for the purpose of terrifying and condemning, but of comforting and cheering those who are terrified and timid." The last truth here stressed must never be left out of mind; for the Gospel in its proper sense never reveals sin or terrifies the sinner, but always shows divine grace and consoles the alarmed sinner.
In concluding this chapter, we may call attention to the fact that the Law and the Gospel are only different aspects of God Himself in His relation to the sinner. The Law shows God as He condemns the sinner on account of his sin (Deus propter peccata damna.ns), while the Gospel describes Him as freely forgiving and justifying the sinner for Christ's sake (Deus propter Christum absolvens et iustificans). This fact the Christian theologian must always bear in mind when he determines the spheres and functions of the Law and the Gospel.
2. FEATURES THAT ARE COMMON TO BOTH THE LAW AND THE GOSPEL.
If we compare the two doctrines with each other, we find that they have several important elements in common.
4. THE CLOSE CONNECTION BETWEEN THE LAW AND THE GOSPEL.
While the Law and the Gospel are radically distinct from each other so far as their content is concerned, they nevertheless must be closely conjoined in their practical application.