# LCMS Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1977_S94
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

94 ESSAY AND BIBLE STUDY

two days—the distinction between Law and Gospel. The
milk of the Word, says Luther, is the Gospel. The Gospel
is the source of all spiritual growth. It alone motivates
growth in grace, in faith, in the sanctified life. It is the
Gospel which alone enables us both to will and to do the
good pleasure of our heavenly Father. However, when
Peter exhorts us to yearn for the pure milk of the Word,
he has moved into the realm of the Law. That we are able
to and in fact do yearn for the pure milk of the Word is a
result of the Gospel.

This distinction between the Law and the Gospel has
great significance for determining the role which concern
for pure doctrine should play in the church. On the one
hand, rightly dividing the Word of God in this area keeps
us from thinking that it is concern for the purity of the
Word which makes us right with God. To think this way
would be to replace the Gospel with Law. Our salvation
is not based on anything which we do, not even the
heeding of the apostolic admonition to long for the pure
Word. The example of the Pharisees during Jesus’ day
should ever stand as a warning to us thatitis possible to
profess a profuse concern for the purity of doctrine and
yet lose sight of the doctrine of the Gospel itself. It is not
by means of our watchfulness that the Word of God not
be corrupted by impurities that we are born anew toa
living hope. This is accomplished solely by the power of
the Spirit working through Word and sacrament.

At the same time the proper distinction between Law
and Gospel keeps us from falling into the error of
thinking that since the Gospel is the power of God unto
salvation, it is its own defense and we can therefore
ignore the apostolic injunction to yearn for the pure
Word. When Peter encourages us to long for the pure
milk of the Word, he is indicating that care should be
taken lest the slightest impurity be mixed up with it. The
Greek word adolos means literally “unadulterated.”
This was the technical word used to describe corn that
was entirely free from chaff or other potentially harmful
materials. St. Peter, by inserting the word “pure” before
“milk of the Word,” was showing his awareness that
ever since Satan tempted Eve in the Garden of Eden
with the question, “Did God say, You shall not eat of any
tree of the garden?” (Gen. 3:1), the misrepresentation of
the Word is a reality of which we must be aware and
against which we must be on guard.

Peter’s exhortation that his readers “yearn for the
pure milk of the Word” is a familiar theme throughout
the entire Scriptures. As Dr. Paul M. Bretscher stated in
the doctrinal essay presented to the 1959 synodical
convention in San Francisco: “God is concerned about
His doctrine, His revelation, chiefly because of the
competition His doctrine meets at the hands of those
who teach false and pernicious doctrine” (1959
Proceedings, p.16). Dr. Bretscher points out in this essay
how the Holy Scriptures teach that all true doctrine
comes from God and that God Himself is most jealous of
His doctrine. Through His chosen prophets in the Old
Testament God repeatedly speaks out against false
prophets and their false teachings. In the New Testa-
ment we see Jesus showing concern for pure doctrine. He
explicitly warned against false prophets who would
come in sheep’s clothing. He told His disciples not to be

Vice-Presidents

deceived by false Christs and false prophets who,
appearing at the end of time, would deceive, if this were
possible, even the very elect.

As we review developments in the early church, we
see evidence that Jesus’ warnings against false doctrine
found almost immediate application. The apostles
repeatedly found their preaching undermined by false
teachers. Paul marvels that the Galatians have so
quickly followed after those who “distort the gospel of
Christ” (Gal. 1:7). He exhorts the Colossians not to let
anyone take them “captive through philosophy and
empty deception, according to the tradition of men (Col.
2:8), and he warns the Corinthians against “false
apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as
apostles of Christ” (2 Cor. 11:13). He solemnly charged
Timothy to preach the Word in season and out of season,
“for the time will come when they will not endure sound
doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will
... turn away their ears from the truth and will turn
aside to myths” (2 Tim. 4:1-4).

We can thank God that down through history there
have been faithful servants of the Word who have
heeded the warnings of Scripture and out of love for their
Lord and His Gospel have “yearned for the pure milk of
the Word.”

An arch on the campus of Concordia Seminary in St.
Louis is dedicated to Athanasius, the defender of the
doctrine of the deity of Christ. We remember with
thankfulness the blessings God has bestowed upon us in
the Lutheran Church through Martin Luther, who spent
his career contending for the Scriptural doctrine of
justification by faith. We think of the Lutheran con-
fessors. No fewer than nine times do they explicitly refer
to “pure doctrine,” “the pure Word,” and “pure
teaching” in the 11-page preface to the Book of Concord.
The Scriptural command to guard against and to correct
false doctrine was not an optional matter for them as
they expressly attribute their diligence that false and
misleading doctrines be checked to their awareness of
“the office which God has committed to us and which we
bear” (Tappert, p. 4). Atthe same time they recognize the
deadly results of false doctrine in that it impedes “the
course of the holy Gospel” (p. 4). Repeatedly they express
the desire “that a pure declaration of the truth might be
transmitted to our posterity” (p. 7). Their concern for