Are God's Commandments Burdensome?

1 John 5:3—“For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome.”

In a recent post, Tullian Tchividjian addressed this verse, due to its seeming contradiction to other statements in Scripture which make it apparent that the Law is indeed burdensome (Acts 15:2, Gal. 3:10, James 2:10, Deut. 27:26). How can it be said that the Law is not burdensome when the Law requires perfect obedience, which no one can render? Tchividjian gave the following answer:

"The answer, though incredibly profound, is actually quite simple. Though the commandments are indeed burdensome, that burden has been laid on the shoulders of another. Jesus Christ, who demands that we be perfect, achieves perfection in our place. Jesus Christ, the culmination of the Old Testament story, fulfills the Old Testament laws. That same weight that threatens to break our backs actually did crush our savior. The weights that we bear every day are simply aftershocks of our human attempts to save ourselves. The weights we feel are a phantom; they’ve already been taken to the cross, carried up the Via Dolorosa on Christ’s back. We are free. We are, in Christ, unburdened."

According to Tchividjian, the commandments of God are not burdensome because Jesus bore their punishment on himself. On the Meet the Puritans blog, Danny Hyde responded to Tchividjian’s post, arguing that this though the theology in Tullian’s argument is valid, it is misapplied to this text. Hyde writes:

The right doctrine—Christ’s vicarious obedience and suffering justifies us from the burdensome curse of the law.

The wrong text—the newborn child of God’s has a newfound joy in sanctification.

Hyde purports that the text does not speak about Jesus’s fulfillment of the Law, or about his vicarious atonement, but about the joy and delight believers have in God’s commandments. He then cites Calvin who says regarding this text:

"the law is said to be easy, as far as we are endued with heavenly power, and overcome the lusts of the flesh. For however the flesh may resist, yet the faithful find that there is no real enjoyment except in following God. It must further be observed, that John does not speak of the law only, which contains nothing but commands, but connects with it the paternal indulgence of God, by which the rigor of the law is mitigated. As, then, we know that we are graciously forgiven by the Lord, when our works do not come up to the law, this renders us far more prompt to obey, according to what we find in Psalm 130:4, “With thee is propitiation, that thou mayest be feared."

Hyde then writes that Tchividjian completely misunderstands the text, and that his interpretation would render the text:

"Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God, and since Jesus loves the Father he loves whoever has been born of him. By this we know that Jesus love[s] the children of God,when because we he love[d] God and obey[ed] his commandments. For this is the love of God, that he kept his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome to us because Jesus took their burden."

Hyde’s argument fails on a couple levels. First, he falsely argues that obedience to the Law does indeed become easy for the believer apart from the reality of Christ’s fulfillment of it. While it is indeed true that the Christian is being renewed day by day (2 Cor. 4:16), and that the Law begins to be fulfilled in us through love (Rom. 8:4), the Law continues to accuse the Christian (Rom. 7:14-25). If the Law requires perfect obedience, and the Christian remains a sinner, then the Law itself never becomes easy for the Christian to obey. Both the non-Christian and the Christian are unable to perfectly fulfill the Law of God. Only Christ has obeyed God perfectly. To argue otherwise is to pit this text against other Scriptural realities.

The second problem is that while Hyde contends that there is no basis contextually to assume that the atonement and righteousness of Christ are in the background here, John begins his entire argument with precisely this in mind. Before John gets into his argument about the necessity of the love of God, the love of neighbor, and right doctrine, he states: “If we say we have no sin (present tense), we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (John 1:8-9). Before expounding upon God’s commandments for the Christian, John makes it abundantly clear that perfectionism is an impossibility, and that continual forgiveness is an essential aspect of the Christian life. This forgiveness then is in the background of the rest of John’s argument. John does not have to explicitly state “Jesus fulfilled the Law perfectly on your behalf,” for that to be a reality which stands behind this text. It is the work of Christ which is the basis for the forgiveness propounded by John which serves as an important introduction to the rest of his argument.

To further expound upon this text, let us look at the rest of the context, which explains exactly what John is referring to here:

"Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God, and everyone who loves the Father loves whoever has been born of him. By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and obey his commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome. For everyone who has been born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that has overcome the world—our faith. Who is it that overcomes the world except the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?" (1 John 5:1-5)

John does argue that the Christian will love God and will begin to obey his commandments. The commandments, in context, consist in the love of God and “overcoming the world.” What is important to note is that John then points believers back to their faith. God’s commandments are not burdensome—why? Because we have overcome the world. How have we overcome the world? Faith. Believing the Jesus Christ is the Son of God. The commandments of God are not burdensome because we have faith in the Gospel. And what exactly is that Gospel that we have faith in? The life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins. Faith means that the commandments are not burdensome precisely because Jesus has satisfied God’s judgment upon the human race. Through faith, one is forgiven. If one is then forgiven, the Law no longer becomes a burden. The commandments are not burdensome, because the penalty has been paid and our failures and shortcomings are forgiven. We now can follow God’s commandments without any fear of condemnation. It is only because our imperfections and sins are covered by the blood of Christ that the Law then becomes the joy of the Christian.

Ultimately, the picture of obedience that this text paints is not one of continual beating of the flesh, constant struggle, rigorous discipline, etc. but of joyful obedience through faith in the Gospel. This really fits much better with Luther’s view of good works, wherein the believer joyfully serves one’s neighbor without fear of condemnation, than that of the Puritanical tradition with the like of John Owen and Jonathan Edwards. Having spent time under the preaching and teaching of those in the Puritan tradition, I can say with confidence that such preaching makes the commandments far more burdensome than John contends in this passage. 

The Distinction Between Law and Gospel Part 5

On today's program I finished my response to John Frame's article on the distinction between Law and Gospel. 

Here is the program

The Distinction Between Law and Gospel Part 4

On today's program, I continued to critique John Frame's article on the Lutheran distinction between Law and Gospel. On this show, I addressed the positive use of the Law in the life of the believer. I talked about the necessity of the third use of the Law, and why that does not contradict a strict distinction between God's two words of command and promise. I also briefly discussed the New Perspective on Paul at the end of the program.

Here is the program.

The Distinction Between Law and Gospel

I have been behind on updating this blog, since I now use JustandSinner.com as my primary blog. There are a few updates to give for those who have not kept up with the site. I released a series of three podcasts in response to John Frame's critique of the traditional Lutheran Law and Gospel distinction.

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

I also recently released C.F.W. Walther's The Proper Distinction Between Law and Gospel as volume 7 in the American Lutheran Classics series. It can be found here. 

Antinomianism Part 2

On today's program I continued the discussion from last week on antinomianism. I discussed antinomian tendencies within contemporary Lutheranism in reference to my recent post on the issue. I went through the quotes I provided and demonstrated how to correctly speak of this issue in a balanced manner. 

Here is the program.

How Lutherans View the Mosaic Law

Today's program was an eclectic one. I answered listener questions on a variety of topics. First, I answered a question regarding divine monergism and Luther's work The Bondage of the Will. I then spent the majority of the program discussing the validity of the Mosaic Law for Christians today. I discussed the threefold distinction of the Law and the connection between natural law and the Ten Commandments. Finally I got into a discussion about soteriology in the church fathers, dealing specifically with penance and legalism in the North African Church.

Here is the program

St. Ambrose on Law and Gospel

The following are quotes from St. Ambrose's treatise On Jacob and the Happy Life. This can be found in vol. 65 of CUA Press's The Fathers of the Church series.

"For the man who has been redeemed as a slave has his freedom, and as for the man who has been called as a free man, it is good for him to know that he is a slave of Christ, under whom servitude is safe and freedom secure...For in truth we are all freedmen of Christ, but no one is a free man; we have all been procreated in servitude...Don't you know that the guilt of Adam and Eve sold you into servitude? Don't you know that Christ did not buy you, but bought you back?" (Jacob and the Happy Life Book One, 3.12)

"What do you possess, moreover, that the Lord has not given you? He gave the law; He added His grace. The law denounced sin but in a hazardous situation could not entirely restrain it. For I became aware of sin that I did not know; I became aware that concupiscence was sin, and from the opportunity afforded by this knowledge the wages of sin have piled up. Sin, which before seemed dead by reason of my ignorance, gained a new life in me; but I died under the wound of sin, because the very knowledge of guilt that would help me, so it seemed, did me harm--I knew sin, but could not avoid it. For the knowledge revealed the sin, and, through the good which was that proclamation, it multiplied the malevolence of sin itself. And so I committed sin beyond measure, because it was multiplied by the proclamation of the commandment; guilt grows when it is revealed and precautions are not taken against it. How then is the commandment good, which for me is death? And how is it not death for me? For through the commandment's revealing the good which it symbolizes, sin has worked death in me. Indeed, it is certain that death came to me as long as I knew the sin that I did, just as the Lord Himself says, 'If I had not come and spoken to them, they would have no sin.'"(Jacob and the Happy Life Book One, 4.13)

"In this danger the one remedy is that the grace of God should free the man whom the law could not." (4.16)



"Yet for me it is not death, for I readily flee to Christ, through whom we are freed from every danger of death. Therefore the second proposition has also been settled, because the commandment of the law is not death for me, even though it works death. For we are troubled by reason of frailty, but we escape by reason of Christ." (4.16)

"The Lord Jesus comes to fix our passions to His cross and to forgive our sins. In His death we have been justified, so that the whole world might be made clean by His blood. Indeed, in His death we have been baptized. If, then, sins are forgiven us in His death, let the passions of our sins die in His death, let them be held fast by the nails of His cross. If we have died in His death, why are we called back again to worldly things as if we were alive to them? What have we to do with elements of the world, with desires, with luxury and wanton behavior? We have died to these in Christ. But if we have died in Christ, we have arisen in Christ; therefore let us dwell with Christ, let us seek with Christ the things that are above, not those that are earthly and corruptible. Christ, rising from the dead, left the old man fixed to the cross, but He raised up the new man." (5.17)

"We have died in the flesh, we have been renewed in the spirit. Let us walk in the spirit, because we have received the spirit of Christ. If then Christ is in us, let our flesh be dead by reason of sin, but let our spirit live by reason of justification." (5.17)

"The law did not prevail because it did not mortify the flesh; it passed by like a shadow, because it did not enlighten; it shaded us from the Sun of Justice, because it piled up offenses--therefore it was a hindrance." (5.17)

"We did not keep it; why was the other added to it, when the flesh could not have gained justification in the works of the other? A bond was acquired, not a release; there was added the recognition of sin, but not the forgiveness of it. We all sinned; we were able to present an excuse by way of ignorance--everyone's mouth has been blocked up." (6.20)

"Nevertheless, the law was of help to me. I began to confess what I used to deny, I began to know my sin and not to cover over my injustice. I began to proclaim my injustice to the Lord against myself, and you forgave the iniquities of my heart. But this too is of help to me, that we are not justified by works of the law. Thus I do not have the wherewithal to boast of myself, and so I will glory in Christ. I will not glory because I have been redeemed. I will not glory because I am free of sins, but because sins have been forgiven me. I will not glory because I am profitable or because anyone is profitable to me, but because Christ is an advocate in my behalf with the Father, because the blood of Christ has been poured out in my behalf. My guilt became for me the price of redemption, through which Christ came to me. On account of me, Christ tasted death." (6.21)

"You have died to sin, O man; thus the law is not a hindrance any more. You rise again through grace, and so the law was of help to me because it won grace. You have received also the pledge of the love of Christ, because Christ, who has died for you, is an advocate for you and is saving up the reward gained by His blood. He has reconciled the sinner to the Father." (6.21)

This Week's Podcast: Covenant Theology and Romans 9

On today's program, I answered a couple of listener questions. First I talked about the use of the term "consubstantiation" and why Lutherans don't use it, and then I answered a question about covenant theology and the Lutheran law/gospel hermeneutic. I then continued our discussion of predestination, looking at Romans 8 and 9. Listen here.

Lutherans don't believe in the third use of the Law?

On the recent Christ the Center podcast, the subject of Lutheranism again came up. This time the subject at hand is that of the third use of the Law. Rev. Nick Batzig rightly showed that the discussions of the three uses of the Law came from Melancthon and were subsequently popularized by Calvin. However, Rev. Batzig made the comment that the Lutheran tradition largely denies the third use of the Law. Is this true?

In recent Lutheran history, there has been a large debate surrounding the issue of a third use of the Law. Gerhard Forde, the chief proponent of so-called "radical Lutheranism" argued that there is no such thing as a "Natural Law" or a third use of the Law. The third use of the Law is not to be found in Luther's theology, but is an unfortunate departure following Melancthon's lead.

The issue really comes down to one question, "what do the Confessions teach?" Lutheranism is not defined by the teachings of Luther. We do not idolize any individual theologian and accept his opinion as de facto truth. The Lutheran movement is a Confessional movement, proclaiming its teaching through the consensus of the Church. This consensus is contained in the Confessional documents contained in the Book of Concord. The Small and Large Catechisms for example are not adopted as Confessions simply because Luther wrote them; rather, they are Confessional documents because the church agrees that they accurately summarize the teachings of Holy Scripture.

The Forde type of theology does not simply propose a new view of the third use of the Law, but a radical restructuring of the sources of Lutheran teaching. Much of the movement places a functional priority of the teachings of Luther over the teachings of the Church. Thus Forde and those following his lead are not to be defined as representative of the Lutheran tradition, but as a new theological tradition altogether.

If you are wondering where the Confessions teach the third use of the Law, look at the Formula of Concord Article VI where the subject is treated, and the third use is rigorously defended.

This does not mean that Reformed and Lutheran perspectives on the Law are identical. The Reformed, following Calvin's lead, have prioritized the third use over the other two. However, the Lutheran tradition has Confessed that the primary use of the Law is always to slay the old Adam, showing the Christian his inadequacy before God. This is because the Law always accuses (lex semper accusat). Even when the Law is used as our guide, showing us what good works we should perform, we are still confronted with the truth that we don't live up to what God commands. We don't love God with our whole heart, and we don't love our neighbors as ourselves. It is only through this honest confession that we can begin to use the Law as our guide.

Why should Christians Perform Good Works? A Reply to Tulian Tchividjian

In Tullian Tchividjian's new book "Jesus+Nothing=Everything", one of the central claims made is that the only motivation for doing good works is thankfulness for the gospel. According to Tchividjian, having any other motivation for good works is equivalent to Pharisaism. I hear these kinds of statements a lot from the supposed "Lutheran leaning" Reformed crowd. However, much like the two kingdom theology of this group, I find that this approach to good works is far from the Lutheran tradition. Martin Chemnitz, in his Loci Theologici, outlines several reasons why the Christian should perform good works. They are as follows:

I. Good Works as they apply to God Himself
1. It is the command of God
2. It is the will of God
3. If God is our father, we should be obedient sons
4. Christ redeemed us that he might purify us
5. Good works are the fruit of the Spirit
6. We glorify God through our works
7. That we might become imitators of God
8. That we might walk worthily of God

II. Causes which apply to the Renegerate
1. Because they have been born again, and are new creatures
2. Because they are sons of light
3. That they might witness to the genuineness of faith
4. That they may be assured that they don't have dead faith
5. So that faith might not be lost
6. So that we may avoid the punishments of God in this life
7. We should have zeal for doing good

III. The impelling and final causes of Good Works as over against our neighbors
1. That our neighbor might be helped and served
2. That others may be invited to godliness by our example
3. That we give no one a cause for offense
4. That by blessing we may shut the mouths of our adversaries

All of these can be found in greater detail with scriptural proofs in Loci Theologici Vol. III, 1183-1184.

All of our good works should be performed with the gospel of Christ in view, and never without the recognition of our utter dependence on the grace of God. However, the language that is often used that thankfulness for the gospel is the sole motivation for good works is unhelpful. It does not exhaust the Biblical testimony or the teaching of the Lutheran tradition.

Puritan Confusion of Law and Gospel

For those in the so-called "new Calvinism" camp, the puritans are often considered the apex of Reformed Christianity. I personally, even while I was a Reformed Christian, never liked the puritans all that much. I never really even appreciated the writings of Jonathan Edwards (despite the fact that I live right near the church he preached at), as he was far too introspective. Though I do appreciate his philosophical acumen. A recent review of Tullian Tchividjian's book "Jesus + Nothing = Everything" on the podcast Reformed Media Review highlights some of the reasons which I do not have an affinity with the Puritans. Puritan scholar Mark Jones at one point stated the issue rather clearly,

"The Protestant Scholastics and Puritans viewed the gospel not simply as Christ for us... but the gospel for them actually commanded as well as promised. And Samuel Rutherford actually says that the gospel commands with an even stronger force than the law because of the great indicative behind the commands."

Though many in the Reformed camp try to highlight similarities between the Lutheran and Reformed perspectives on law and gospel, this demonstrates where we often have parted ways. Yes, there are some who hold to a more strict distinction between law and gospel (though limited atonement really negates Luther's distinction), but there is no consensus in Reformed theology on the issue either historically, or in modern discussions.

These kinds of statements simply don't hold water Biblically.

Look how the Mosaic law is described by Peter at the council of Jerusalem,
"Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?" (Acts 15:10)

Look at how the gospel is described by Jesus,
"For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light." (Matthew 11:30)

Does the gospel command with a stronger force than the law? I think the texts speak for themselves.

Reformed Theology and False Faith

I have been meaning to address the issue of "false faith" in Reformed theology for some time, but the subject is so immense that I fear that a blog post will not do it justice. This subject seems to come up more than any other (besides baptism) when talking with Reformed Christians. So here is my attempt to at least begin the dialogue.

In Reformed theology, one cannot be truly regenerate and fall away from the faith. However, most of us have known seemingly devoted Christians who have at some point in their life walked away from Christ. So how does our experience make sense of the teaching of perseverance? One must conclude either one of two things.
1. That these people truly were saved and did fall away, hence the Reformed teaching is wrong.
2. These people were never saved in the first place. Some have "false faith", think that they are believers but fall away from the faith. Others have true faith and persevere to the end. This is the conclusion of Reformed theology.

So how does one know if they are truly regenerate or not? For a Lutheran, one can look to his or her baptism, the sacraments, and the proclamation of forgiveness in absolution. These are objective means by which God continually creates new life and brings forgiveness. They are not mere "signs" of God's favor toward us (as has been taught by Reformed theologians because of Augustine's unfortunate use of the term) but are themselves acts of grace confronting our sin.

For the Reformed theologian, one assesses his regeneration by the nature of his changed dispositions. This is not the case with all Reformed theology (look for example at the Lutheran-influenced theologians at Westminster West) but is predominant in revivalist American Reformed Christianity. In this system, one must continually test his election by looking for signs of the Spirit's work in one's heart.

The defense for this idea usually comes from the book of 1 John. John lays out a series of tests which one must compare himself/herself to. If one passes these tests, assurance of salvation is granted. One must have a love of God, a love of one's neighbor, and a love of God's commandments. Even so, aren't there some who have fallen away who seem to have a love for God, neighbor, and the commandments? Surely, these people believed themselves to be saved and had some signs of new life. This is the problem Jonathan Edwards faced in the great awakening. So many conversions were happening. How was one to determine the true from the false? In his book the Religions Affections, Edwards goes beyond these outward signs and asks the reader to examine his/her heart. Are your affections changed? Do you really hate sin? Do you love God for God's sake?

If you have read my recent article in the Issues etc. Journal, then you are aware that these questions plagued me for some time. The constant question on my mind was "how do I know if I am elect?" Rather than pointing to the objective work of Christ, God's presence in the sacraments, or the proclaimed word, I was often pointed inward. After reading Edwards and listening to preachers like Paul Washer, there was one conclusion I could come to: If these men are right, there is no way I am saved. In fact, if these men are right, I don't think anyone is saved. The fact is, the standards are so high that no one who has not yet been glorified can meet them.

The problem stems from the Reformed view of election. When election becomes the primary soteriological motif, the question of salvation becomes "how do I know if I am elect?" One cannot point to the objective work of Christ, because it was only done for the elect. Thus, before I can have assurance that Christ died for me, I must look to my works as evidence of the Spirit. Once I have this assurance, I can look to the cross. Whether or not it is intended, I am ultimately pointed to my works. One is then trapped in the Augustinian plague which denies assurance to anyone. Though I know this is not the intent of most Calvinists, when election becomes so central, and the cross is put in a secondary position, this is inevitable.

How do you know if you are elect? Look to God's electing act now. God is creating new life in you through the word and sacraments. He claimed you at your baptism. He continues to claim you through the Eucharist. When Paul speaks to the Ephesians of their election in Christ, he does not stop to make sure that everyone in his audience has tested their faith for genuineness. He does not say "God chose some of us in him" or "God chose us in him if you have enough fruit". Paul proclaims indiscriminately that God chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world! This is because Paul understood that God's electing act was worked out through baptism, and the gathering of the church.

But what about 1 John, Matthew 7, and the other passages which speak of the necessity of works? Here there is a legitimate place for distinguishing between "true faith" and "false faith". The distinction is simple, and much less complicated that it is made out to be. False faith is simply faith without repentance. It is proclaiming the gospel without the law. Some proto-gnostics at the end of the first century began teaching that the body was useless, thus whatever one did with the flesh (sexual immorality, etc.) was of no concern. This is what John seems to be battling in his epistles. True faith in Christ is accompanied by sorrow over sin.

If you look inside yourself for assurance, you are going to be continually disappointed. Even the regenerate heart is not completely cleansed from sin. Instead, look to Christ, the author and finisher of our faith. Look at his completed salvation, and participate in Him through the Eucharist and his proclaimed word.

Lex Semper Accusat: A Response to TurretinFan

I was recently pointed to the blog of TurretinFan, the anonymous blogger of Aomin fame, for his recent attacks on proponents of two kingdom theology. There was a bit of a back and forth between himself and R. Scott Clark of Westminster Seminary California. In a recent post, he even claimed that "Escondido Theology" (the theology of Michael Horton, R. Scott Clark, David VanDrunen, Darryl Hart, and others) was a cause for conversions to Roman Catholicism.

What is the problem with these theologians? Well, apparently they are too Lutheran. Regardless of whether or not TurretinFan's interpretation of historic Reformed orthodoxy is correct on the issue of two kingdoms (which for some reason always has the word "radical" attached to it), TurretinFan has been attacking at least the historic Lutheran doctrine which he apparently does not understand. I know that TurretinFan is capable of reading, understanding, and refuting arguments well. I have seen him do so on several occasions. However, when it comes to Lutheranism, TurretinFan has not done his homework. A recent post has made this apparent.

In this post titled "Lex Semper Accusat? Does the Law Always Accuse?", TurretinFan claims that the statement that "the Law always accuses" is "theologically inaccurate." The first argument made by TurretinFan is that Christ was not accused by the law, but fulfilled the law. Disregarding the fact that Christ certainly did fall under the accusation of the law (isn't this the purpose of the cross?), one must ask: did the Lutheran fathers use this statement in such a way as to ignore the fact that Christ did not break the law?
Of course not! The statement Lex Semper Accusat is used in a very specific context. This statement appears in the Lutheran Confessional documents in the Apology of the Augsburg Confession several times. Here is one such example of its use:

"The Law worketh wrath. He does not say that by the Law men merit the remission of sins. For the Law always accuses and terrifies consciences. Therefore it does not justify, because conscience terrified by the Law of God flees from the judgement of God. Therefore they err who trust that by the Law, by their own works, they merit the remission of sins."- Apology IX.38.

Clearly, Melancthon is speaking in the context of fallen man and his justification before God. His statement has no reference to Christ, prelapsarian Adam, a Christian in the glorified state, or any such exception. Using TurretinFan's logic, one would have to call Paul's statement theologically incorrect that "all have sinned" because of the sinlessness of Christ. This however, is beyond the scope of the authors intended meaning.

The second point that TurretinFan makes is that the Law cannot always accuse because it has other functions.
But is this really the point that this statement is making? Do we Lutherans believe in one use of the Law--an accusatory one? Again, I say: of course not! Our Confessions are as explicit as can be on this issue.

"Since the law was given to men for three reasons: first, that thereby outward discipline might be maintained against wild, disobedient men...secondly, that men may be led to the knowledge of their sins; thirdly, that after they are regenerate...they might on this account have a fixed rule according to which they are to regulate and direct their whole life"-Epitome of the Formula of Concord VI:1

So then what does the statement mean? It means that even when the Law is functioning in its other two manners, it is still accusing. When the Christian is looking to the Law as a moral guide for his good works, he still sees the inadequacy of his good deeds and is reminded of the all-sufficiency of his savior. This does not neglect the fact that the Christian does fulfill the Law to an extent, and truly does begin to love the Law as his guide. It is simply saying that he is still simul iustus et peccator.

TurretinFan's "refutation" of the slogan lex semper accusat is based on a misunderstanding of the statement, as well as ignorance of Confessional Lutheran theology. I certainly welcome challenges to Lutheran doctrine, but challenges which are well informed.

Luther on the third use of the law

For those who deny that Luther had any "third use of the law" look at this text from his sermon on Matthew 22:34-46 from 1533:

"We dare not neglect the catechism's teaching of the God-given Ten Commandments as an insignificant doctrine, but must diligently use it in teaching people how they must live this earthly life. Of course, showing them how to be saved takes an entire different doctrine than the Ten Commandments, namely the doctrine of Christ, which our Lord presents a little later. But you must use the Ten Commandments to teach people how they must live in this life."