Law & Gospel a 'recovered' doctrine?

[Tigger45]

Now I'm a proponent of law and Gospel for the clarity and peace it gives me from scripture. But I'm not aware nor can I find historical church writings concerning this doctrine. The LCMS pastor on the YouTube video I've posted makes this claim right from the start of his sermon but doesn't give references. Any help would be appreciated.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Now I'm a proponent of law and Gospel for the clarity and peace it gives me from scripture. But I'm not aware nor can I find historical church writings concerning this doctrine. The LCMS pastor on the YouTube video I've posted makes this claim right from the start of his sermon but doesn't give references. Any help would be appreciated.

I would be more inclined to speak of it not as a "recovered doctrine", it's more about articulating something more clearly. For example the doctrine of Christ's Eternal Generation as expressed at Nicea came about for the purpose of giving response to and addressing the errors of the period. The purpose of the Law-Gospel dialectic is to ensure we do not cross the line into error. Christian theological formation has frequently, throughout history, been "done" in this way--error demands response and address.

No one needed to say what was said expressly the way it was said at Nicea until then, because Arianism didn't exist until then. The language of the Confessions is, likewise, necessitated by the errors of the time. Or at least that is how I would put it.

-CryptoLutheran