The distinctions that must be observed in this question.
The distinctions that must be observed in this question.
§ 108. Therefore in our explanation of this question we use the following distinctions. (1) “The Gospel” is taken either universally and generally to mean all the teaching of the New Testament; or it is taken properly, specifically, and particularly, according as it is set against the Law as contradistinct and means the promise of the free forgiveness of sins. This happens especially when the word of the curse and of grace, the ministry of death and of life, the ministry of terror and of consolation, Moses and Christ are set against each other. Thus when the Gospel is called the preaching of repentance, the word “Gospel” is taken for the whole corpus of the doctrine that is to be set forth in the New Testament, because names are given from the better part [denominatione facta a potiori]. The same thing occurs with the word תֹורָה which usually denotes “the Law” but sometimes is taken to mean the entire “teaching” [of God’s Word] in a more lax usage.
(2) The word “repentance” is also taken in two senses. It is taken generally for the entire conversion of man to God, which has two essential parts: contrition and faith (Luke 13:3; Acts 20:21). Therefore when the Gospel is called “the preaching of repentance,” the word “repentance” must be understood generally and in reference to the entire conversion of man to God, which with respect to its first part, faith, is attributed correctly to the Gospel while contrition stems from the Law.
(3) “Preaching repentance” is also understood in two ways. Specifically and in the nonproper sense of the word it means only to accuse sins, to show the wrath of God against sins, to reveal that people are cursed because of their sins, etc. Properly, “preaching repentance” means to stir up people, to drive them, to excite them by warning and exhortation to repent, that is, that they acknowledge their sins, grieve seriously over them, flee in faith to Christ for refuge, and by newness of life produce fruits worthy of repentance. Now if “preaching repentance” is understood in the first sense, it should be assigned to the Law, for from it certainly comes “the knowledge of sin” (Rom. 3:20), and to it is attributed the fact that it “works wrath” (Rom. 4:15), that it is “the power of sin” (1 Cor. 15:56). Thus it is the proper function of the Law to reveal, accuse, and condemn sin, and “whatever reproves sin, declares the wrath and punishment of God, and terrifies consciences pertains to the Law,” according to the rule of blessed Luther (commentary on Genesis 22, p. 303,6 and [also] taught in many places elsewhere).7 Since it is the proper function of the Gospel to absolve from sins, or to declare the forgiveness of sins, consequently whatever offers freedom from the curse of the Law, offers the grace of God, the forgiveness of sins, etc., and whatever lifts up crushed minds with an effective consolation pertains to the Gospel in the proper sense, whether it is set forth in the Old or in the New Testament. But if the preaching of repentance is understood in the second way, then the preaching of repentance is assigned not only to the Law but also to the Gospel, but in due order and respect. Contrition comes from the Law; faith, from the Gospel. It is faith that makes repentance salutary, so that it is a work of life.