Monday, January 15, 2007

Is Sanctification Synergistic?

Probably every Catholic, Lutheran, and Calvinist homeschooler has had the experience of being told that he isn't really saved. Many of our friends in the homeschool group believe that converion is a synergistic activity: it's something that God and I do together. If my children and I have not made a decision for Jesus, prayed the Believer's Prayer, and invited Him into our lives, we obviously have no use for conversion. We obviously are not saved. We haven't "done" the thing we need to do to participate in our conversion.

We know that's wrong, though. Even though we reject that we are participating in our conversion, we are still nevertheless converted. We cherish what God has done for us in our conversion. Our conversion is immensely important to us.

Some Lutherans believe sanctification and good works are "synergistic" activities: that is, I cooperate with God. Other Lutherans believe that sanctification and good works are monergistic activities: something God works in us though His sacraments, through the call to repentance (that is, real and smiting law), and through the forgiveness of sin (that is, the bestowal of the Gospel).

If a Lutheran believes that sanctification is a monergistic activity, he may be told that he has no use for sanctification. But it isn't true. He still values sanctification. He is still being sanctified. He may disagree with another Lutheran about how that sanctification is being wrought in his life. But that doesn't mean he's averse to sanctification.

7 comments:

  1. Susan, I don't know any faithful Lutheran who would say that Sanctification is "synergism" and that anything we do is not entirely the result of the work of Christ in us through word and sacraments.

    You are, again, I believe, setting up a straw man.

    I really wish you would read very carefully our Lutheran Confessions, which are so remarkably helpful on these very issues.

    When you asked me previously to say if sanctification is "synergism" or "monergism" I answered by saying that if you insist on using the term "synergism" in the discussion, not helpful in my view, then one can say that Sanctification is "syneristically monergistic" or "monergistically synergistic."

    Our Confessions teach very clearly that in fact Sanctification does involve our doing and willing, precisely because of God's doing. In Sanctification we can and should speak this way, but in justification such talk is entirely excluded.

    Here is what the Solid Declaration says:

    "As soon as the Holy Spirit has begun His work of regeneration and renewal in us through the Word and holy Sacraments, we can and should cooperate through His power, although still in great weakness. This cooperation does not come from our fleshly natural powers, but from the new powers and gifts that the Holy Spirit has begun in us in conversion. St. Paul clearly and eagerly encourage that 'working together with Him, then, we appeal to ou nt to receive the grace of God in vain.'" (FC SD VI.65-66; Concordia, p. 532).

    That's why I told you previously that it is not correct for you to say that when you read your Bible you should never say, "I'm going to try to do this in my life, by God's grace and blessing" but only to say, "I can't do this. I'm glad Jesus did."

    Another problem in your comments which do not properly distinguish things is that you do not seem to recognize that conversion does change us. It is not the change in us that justifies us, but we are changed as a result of our regeneration.

    So our Confessions say:

    "There is a great difference between baptized and unbaptized people. According to the teaching of St. Paul in Gal. 3:27, "For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ," and are made truly regenerate. They now have a freed will. As Christ says, they have been made free again [John 8:36]. Therefore, they are able not only to hear the Word, but also to agree with it and accept it, though in great weakness." (FC SD VI.67; Concordia, p. 532).

    I think you would really appreciate reading through carefully the Formula as it talks about Free Will, Good Works, etc.

    God bless as you do.

    Paul

    ReplyDelete
  2. If good works are monergistic, that the Holy Spirit is accomplishing works THROUGH us, then what is the point in offering rewards to those who do His works?

    I'm not saying that I should be motivated by a "treat mentality" because God gives different types of rewards, here on Earth and in Heaven, and I am also promised hard times....but it is clearly promised that there are rewards for good works, and if I am merely a conduit for the Holy Spirit and do not participate at all, then rewards seem clearly unnecessary.

    ReplyDelete
  3. By the way, in those quotes from the Confessions...the word "cooperation" is, in the Latin edition, "cooperatio" which is, in Greek, synergos, from which we derive the word "synergism." I would prefer not to use the word "synergism" in this discussion since it has become such a "red flag" term that may raise more questions than it answers, but the word "cooperation" is precisely the same word as the Greek word "synergism."

    ReplyDelete
  4. >>Our Confessions teach very clearly that in fact Sanctification does involve our doing and willing, precisely because of God's doing.<<

    From the Formula --
    >>"As soon as the Holy Spirit has begun His work of regeneration and renewal in us through the Word and holy Sacraments, we can and should cooperate through His power, although still in great weakness.<<


    First, the point of the post was that, just because people differ on HOW sanctification is worked in the Christian, this does not mean that some of those people are against good works and opposed to holiness.

    Now, there are those who say "Shall we sin that grace may abound? Certainly!" Those are people who are (insofar as they believe that lie) opposed to holiness, and they need to be nailed to the wall for the sake of their souls. But those who are finding that they "progress in sanctification" more by lively and eager participation in the sacraments than by "trying to be good," are not opposed to holiness at all. They've just found that the typically-advised route to holiness doesn't work as well as we've been led to believe, and may even lead to pietism.




    Second, this "cooperation" -- what does it look like? Does it look like the "cooperation" that moves me to church on Sunday morning, that incites me to pray, that immerses me in God's word throughout the day as we sing hymns or teach children the meal prayers or read Bible stories? Is this the "cooperation" that sends me running to the confessional with sorrow over sin that I have thought or committed, or that causes me to go up to the altar rail desiring to eat Jesus' body? OR is this "cooperation" what we usually run across in American Christendom, where we buck up and try to do all sorts of good things for Jesus, where our eyes are on the good works and what we're doing and what reward we will receive for it?

    An example: What is it that makes me obey the 2nd commandment? Is it God's Holy Spirit which gives me power to obey the rule that I must honor His name and not cuss? Or if, by the pastor's preaching, I am convicted on account of my insufficient prayers & praises & thanksgivings, and if, by the pastor's preaching, my heart is comforted by the love of God for a sinner who does not treat His name as I ought, won't that "being in love with Jesus" [don't anybody tell Klem Preus I used that phrase!] simply result in behavior (yes, behavior!) more in accord with the 2nd commandment than my "attempts" to "obey a rule"?

    Another example: Why do we have family devotions? Is it because the 3rd commandment is one of God's laws? Does a pastor preach that Jesus has saved us, and therefore we love Him and want to obey Him, and so He'll give us the power to keep this particular rule that is one aspect of the 3rd commandment? Or is it a little different from that? A sizable part of Pastor's sermon on New Year's Eve was about a New Year's resolution to pray regularly and read the Bible stories included in the weekly prayer-guide. But the sermon wasn't about Rules and Obedience. The law was preached; even for those of us who regularly have devotions privately and with the family, it was quite clear that we do not desire to hear God's word like we ought. The gospel was preached: God is faithful to give to us abundantly (temporal gifts and forgiveness) even when we don't make time to hear His word or talk to Him. We were invited to be more faithful in using the devotion-guide Pastor prepares for us. We were reminded that there is no life apart from His word, and that Jesus' word is the only thing that ultimately matters, and He gives it to us in chapel services and at Mass and in our private prayers and in Bible class, and so we run to that Word for our only sustenance. Family devotions are yet another opportunity to hear His words of love and comfort, and to bring that law and gospel into our children's lives so that they too can know & love Him more. There was a LOT in that sermon about the 3rd commandment. But there was nothing -- NOTHING -- that even hinted at "now that God has saved you, and now that He is helping you keep the law, this is one of the things you should do to be a good Christian."

    Another example:
    Pr Alms recently quoted Luther about good works when he was preaching on the wedding at Cana. Luther's comments touched on the question Melanie asked
    back on Friday: "am I supposed to make a concerted effort to work outside of my vocations to do good works, or just operate within my vocation the best I can?" When there is talk of "preaching third use," I never hear pastors claiming that they need to get into the pulpit and spend more time telling their hearers that they should feed their children dinner or pay the kids' piano teacher promptly or show up at work on time. After all, those are things we "just do." But those things are the good works that we are called to do according to our station in life.

    Another example: the devotional book of Johann Gerhard's "Meditations on Divine Mercy." There's plenty of stuff in those prayers about desiring to do good works and praying for God's help to do them. But the focus is always on Christ. The prayers are undergirded with the admission that we cannot do what we should, that we rest in Christ's forgiveness, and that everything we do is because of God's working. Gerhard's book by no means ignores sanctification and good works. But it never leaves you with the feeling that you're doing the "cooperating" because you have God's "help" as you are "trying to be good."

    Now, maybe the things I've mentioned above are indeed precisely the kind of "third use preaching" Pr McCain is talking about. If so, then we're on the same page after all. The only problem is that the word "cooperation" has a certain baggage with it, whether we want it to or not. If we need to use the word, it's going to take lots and lots of explaining to ensure (and constantly remind) the hearers that it doesn't mean among us what the word usually means in American Christendom or American society in general.

    As one of my fellas pointed out last night, the Formula says (SD II.66): "The converted man does good, as much and as long as God rules him through His Holy Spirit, guides him and leads him, but if God should withdraw His gracious hand, man could not remain in obedience to God for one moment. But if this were to be understood as though the converted man cooperates alongside the Holy Spirit, the way two horses draw a wagon together, such a view could by no means be conceded without detriment to the divine truth."

    THAT understanding of cooperation is what I object to. And it is out there a-plenty. And even where it's not the intent of the preacher to speak in that way, it is oh-so-easy for his hearers to understand him in that wrong way (because of our own sinful natures and because of the prevailing teachings of American Christendom), and thus he must take great care to avoid using words that could lead to such misunderstanding of "cooperation with the Holy Spirit."

    ReplyDelete
  5. Susan,

    Thanks for putting into words what I couldn't. I have a hard time seeing how I can do anything without the Holy Spirit working through me. And if He does this, then is anything MY work at all?

    I guess I see the use of the word cooperation in this way; the Holy Spirit works faith in me and gives me every gift to strenthen and grow that faith. In that way, all my works are in "cooperation" with Him. By not rejecting the Holy Spirit's work within me, I have cooperated and by the grace of God, I can then go on to do good works. Because of the faith that is in me, by the work of the Holy Spirit, I am motivated to do good works. Those good works are not necessarily anything other than cooperating in the opportunities God has put before me in my vocations. As Luther is quoted as saying, a good work for me as a mother can and does include the basic act of changing my child's diaper. It also includes the things you said, being a good citizen, a faithful wife, a loving, patient, and attentive mother, friend, child.

    I don't know if I have this right, but when I read what you say, Susan, I get it. What I hear the others saying is that I need to work to recognize that my behaviors match up to God's expectations and to reach out for every opportunity to do an obvious good work. Working in my daily vocations as mother, wife, daughter, friend, citizen, and church member are not enough. That scares me.

    Melanie

    ReplyDelete
  6. >>What I hear the others saying is that I need to work to recognize that my behaviors match up to God's expectations and to reach out for every opportunity to do an obvious good work. Working in my daily vocations as mother, wife, daughter, friend, citizen, and church member are not enough. That scares me.<<

    That's what I hear others saying too. I don't think that's what they're intending to say, but it's what I'm hearing.

    I think that orthodox Lutherans can speak in the way that I've been hearing in the last week and be right. The problem is that pietism and legalism can also express themselves with the same call for more preaching about good works. After all, every denomination that puts its focus on good works will tell you that God gives us the power to obey Him and do those good works. Of course, it's true that the Holy Spirit works in us to will and to do. It's true that Christians will be growing in sanctification. But because the pietists can use the same language about good works, you and I can't know what's behind those words if that's all we hear. I think that Lutherans, when talking about sanctification and good works, need to speak in ways that the pietists must reject, the legalists must cringe at, and the antinomians must run away from. If we can talk about sanctification and good works in ways to which they cannot assent, then we've probably got it right.

    There are two views of what Christianity is about. One believes that the Law is given to serve the Gospel. The other believes that the Gospel is given to serve the Law. The first sees forgiveness as the focal point of Christianity, but does not deny that there will also be obedience to the law. The second sees obedience as the focal point of Christianity, but does not deny the forgiveness of sins. We can talk about sanctification and be dead-on right, but if we're dead-on right while we're sounding just like the guys in the second group, then it's not okay. Likewise, if we're talking about sanctification (even if we're dead-on right) in such a way that the antinomians can agree, that's not okay either.

    I really don't think it sounds complicated to preach dead-on right, using words that neither the pietists nor the antinomians can agree with. That's the kind of sermon and Bible class I hear all the time. But, of course, maybe it looks a lot easier to do when you're the one who's listening instead of the one who's preaching.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "That's what I hear others saying too. I don't think that's what they're intending to say, but it's what I'm hearing."

    I agree with you. I don't think that is what is intended, either. But, like you, I've hung out with too many fundies and pietists to be agreeable to speaking in terms they can agree with.

    I have a great deal of respect for those who responded to your thoughts. I wish we could have this discussion in person, with a few Lutheran beverages to go along with it. :o)

    Thanks for continuing this discussion. It's a good one to have.

    Melanie

    ReplyDelete