Dumb Things Lutherans Say



"You can't stop yourself from breaking the _______ commandment, so you might as well______."

You can fill in the blank.

"You can't stop yourself from breaking the 6th commandment, so you might as well watch movie with sexually explicit content."

"You can't stop yourself from breaking the 5th commandment, so you might as well just drink and drive."

I have never actually heard anyone say these exact words, but I have heard and read similar arguments used by different Lutherans as rationalizations for other behaviors.  The thinking is that if I am a sinner through-and-through (which you are) then the commandments cease to have any real value in terms of guidance.  If I cannot stop myself from breaking the commandments then I should just ignore them altogether.

This is folly, especially since it confuses the three different functions of the Law of God.

Lutherans have traditionally and popularly divided the workings of God's Law into three distinct functions.

  1. There is a civil function where the threats of punishment keep me from doing things which might endanger society at large.  
  2. There is a theological function where the Law holds up the standard that God has set for humanity where I am found weighed, measured, and lacking. 
  3.  And there is the teaching function where the Christian, freed from sin, delights in the Law of God and desires to learn to please God and serve his neighbor with good works done in faith.


The fact that you cannot stop yourself from breaking a commandment (any commandment for that matter) falls under the second [theological] function of the Law.  When we look at the commandment we see that we are complete and utter failures at keeping them.  I should repent, plead completely guilty before God, and throw myself upon the mercy of Jesus Christ earned at the cross.

But this tells me nothing about how I should now act as a forgiven sinner.  I am forgive of my sin for the sake of Christ, but I still need to learn from the commandment how to act as a child of God.

According to the first function, some actions have worse consequences than others.  No, I cannot keep myself from breaking the 6th commandment, but I can stop myself from ruining my marriage.  I can avoid situations where I am placed under unnecessary temptation.  I can warn others who might be traveling down that path.

According to the third function I would gladly avoid anything that even smelled faintly of evil.

We cannot use the fact the we are all 100% sinful as a guide for our lives as human beings.  The standard of the 10 Commandments serves as a curb and guide for our lives before and after we come to faith in Christ.  Being a sinner, and being forgiven, is then not an excuse for more sin.

Lutherans have to keep their distinctions in check.  It is a tall order, a difficult task.  It is, however, the calling of a true theologian.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Reflections on the Fall of a Pastor

Image
Tullian Tchividjian, the well known pastor of Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church, has resigned his position.  According to his own statement both he and his wife committed adultery.  This disqualifies him from the pastoral office.  He has willingly acknowledged his affair and peacefully stepped aside. It is a sad day when a pastor must resign his call for any reason, but especially for living an immoral life.  Tchividjian's case gives a great deal of pause for Lutherans in particular since he was highly influenced by Luther's writings and those of contemporary Lutheran scholars such as Robert Kolb.  Tullian, in recent years, has sought to clarify the proper distinction of Law and Gospel in his own preaching as well as to spread that teaching to a wider audience. As Lutherans we have a high view of God's Word in general and of the Gospel in particular.  When a Lutheran pastor falls into temptation does he really need to resign?  Can he not simply be forgiven and reinstate
Read more

One Thing Ken Ham Didn't Say, but Should Have

Tonight came the debate between Ken Ham (creationist) and Bill Nye (evolutionist).  All things considered I thought it was a good debate, a debate from which the people who plan out presidential debates could learn a great many things. There was one point toward the end where the moderator, who also did a fine job of remaining neutral, asked the two men questions gathered from the audience.  One question in particular caught my attention.  It was directed at Ken Ham. He was asked if there were any evidence that could be given that would convince him that the Biblical account of creation was false.  I do not recall his exact answer, but effectively he said "no".  No evidence could shake him in his conviction that God created the world in 6 days. As a Christian, as a 6-day creationist, I was disappointed in this.  Mr Ham did not have the questions beforehand.  He did not have the advantage of hindsight (which I have now).  So I don't want to be too hard on him.  But t
Read more

Why the Resurrection is the Only Answer that Matters

There seem to be some people who are confused as to why the resurrection of Jesus can make or break the argument for a young earth.  On the surface this is not obvious. Why do Christians care how many days it took to create the earth?  I don't.  It could have taken God half a second.  I could have taken Him 40 trillion years.  Why do Christians (myself included) put stock in the fact that Genesis 1 states that it took 6 days? Because Jesus Christ says that the Law and the Prophets (Genesis included) point to Him.  He endorses the Old Testament on several occasions, including a quote of Genesis 2 when discussing marriage and divorce. Because Jesus Christ rose from the dead, a clear indication that the claims He made about Himself were true, including His endorsements of the Old Testament.  Jesus rose from the dead showing His followers that He really was the Son of God. If Jesus did not rise from the dead we are, as Paul says, to be pitied above all people.  The resurrection
Read more