Yesterday, I was remembering a discussion with my father-confessor and his father-confessor, regarding one of "grandpa-confessor's" sermons. Because of recent discussions, I wanted to take a peek at which one of Walther's Law/Gospel theses fit the situation. So I quickly skimmed the first couple of pages of the book, and Thesis 23 caught my eye. I got distracted from my initial quest. Upon exploration, I noticed the following quotes.
From Walther's Law and Gospel:
The Word of God is not rightly divided ... when an endeavor is made, by means of the commands of the Law rather than by the admonitions of the Gospel, to urge the regenerate to do good.
And some quotes from the lecture in support of the thesis:
Page 381: The attempt to make men godly by means of the Law and to induce even those who are already believers in Christ to do good by holding up the Law and issuing commands to them, is a very gross confounding of Law and Gospel.
Page 382: Concerning the new covenant, ... [God] is not going to issue any commandments, but is going to write the Law directly into their mind and give them a new and pure heart, so that they shall not need to be plagued with the Law, with enforcements and urgings: Thou shalt do this! Thou shalt do that! because that will not help matters at all.
Page 384: This is an experience which you may have had personally. After a long season of sluggishness and lukewarmness, during which you began to hate yourself because you saw no way to change your condition, you happen to hear a real Gospel sermon, and you leave the church a changed man and rejoice in the fact that you may believe and are a child of God. You suddenly become aware of the fact that it is not difficult to walk in the way of God's commandments; you seem to walk in it of your own accord. [Almost sounds like Walther is saying that walking in the way of God's commands happens on spiritual auto-pilot.]
Page 386: To make people godly, [the rationalists] preach ethics with great earnestness.... [The papists] preach ethics continually ....
Page 387-8: This confounding of Law and Gospel occurs ... also in the orthodox Church... when ministers become aware that all their Gospel-preaching is useless because gross sins of the flesh still occur among their hearers.... The preacher may come to the conclusion that he has preached too much Gospel.... But he is mistaken.... The reason why congregations are corrupt is invariably this, that its ministers have not sufficiently preached the Gospel to the people.
I suppose it might not be helpful to toss quotes out there. After all, quotes "sound" different when they're taken out of context, and when the terms within the quotes are understood differently by different hearers. I've had conversations with homeschool friends where we can toss Bible verses back and forth at each other, and have not come to agreement. I've had theological debates with friends where Church-Father quotes are tossed around, or where we quote the Confessions back and forth at each other. I've seen "quote wars" where Luther appears to be contradicting himself. So I'm quite skeptical as to the benefit of putting quotes out there. Nevertheless, I thought these were rather interesting in light of recent conversations.
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Ah! Walther agrees with me. That is smart of him!
ReplyDelete;-)
Here is what Professor Marquart had to say on the issue of sanctification. I believe Dr. Marquart knew more about Walther's Law and Gopsel than you, or I Susan. I will be interested to read your specific reaction to what I consider to be a very accurate expression of concern about the state of preaching about sanctification in our circles today.
ReplyDeleteAntinomian Aversion to Sanctification?
An emerited brother writes that he is disturbed by a kind of preaching that avoids sanctification and "seemingly questions the Formula of Concord . . . about the Third Use of the Law." The odd thing is that this attitude, he writes, is found among would-be confessional pastors, even though it is really akin to the antinomianism of "Seminex"! He asks, "How can one read the Scriptures over and over and not see how much and how often our Lord (in the Gospels) and the Apostles (in the Epistles) call for Christian sanctification, crucifying the flesh, putting down the old man and putting on the new man, abounding in the work of the Lord, provoking to love and good works, being fruitful . . . ?"
I really have no idea where the anti-sanctification bias comes from. Perhaps it is a knee-jerk over-reaction to "Evangelicalism": since they stress practical guidance for daily living, we should not! Should we not rather give even more and better practical guidance, just because we distinguish clearly between Law and Gospel? Especially given our anti-sacramental environment, it is of course highly necessary to stress the holy means of grace in our preaching. But we must beware of creating a kind of clericalist caricature that gives the impression that the whole point of the Christian life is to be constantly taking in preaching, absolution and Holy Communion-while ordinary daily life and callings are just humdrum time-fillers in between! That would be like saying that we live to eat, rather than eating to live. The real point of our constant feeding by faith, on the Bread of Life, is that we might gain an ever-firmer hold of Heaven-and meanwhile become ever more useful on earth! We have, after all, been "created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them" (Eph. 2:10). Cars, too, are not made to be fueled and oiled forever at service-stations. Rather, they are serviced in order that they might yield useful mileage in getting us where we need to go. Real good works before God are not showy, sanctimonious pomp and circumstance, or liturgical falderal in church, but, for example, "when a poor servant girl takes care of a little child or faithfully does what she is told" (Large Catechism, Ten Commandments, par. 314, Kolb-Wengert, pg. 428).
The royal priesthood of believers needs to recover their sense of joy and high privilege in their daily service to God (1 Pet. 2:9). The "living sacrifice" of bodies, according to their various callings, is the Christian's "reasonable service" or God-pleasing worship, to which St. Paul exhorts the Romans "by the mercies of God" (Rom. 12:1), which he had set out so forcefully in the preceding eleven chapters! Or, as St. James puts it: "Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world" (1:27). Liberal churches tend to stress the one, and conservatives one the other, but the Lord would have us do both!
Antinomianism appeals particularly to the Lutheran flesh. But it cannot claim the great Reformer as patron. On the contrary, he writes:
"That is what my Antinomians, too, are doing today, who are preaching beautifully and (as I cannot but think) with real sincerity about Christ's grace, about the forgiveness of sin and whatever else can be said about the doctrine of redemption. But they flee s if t were the very devil the consequence that they should tell the people about the third article, of sanctification, that is, of new life in Christ. They think one should not frighten or trouble the people, but rather always preach comfortingly about grace and the forgiveness of sins in Christ, and under no circumstance use these or similar words, "Listen! You want to be a Christian and at the same time remain an adulterer, a whoremonger, a drunken swine, arrogant, covetous, a usurer, envious, vindictive, malicious, etc.!" Instead they say, "Listen! Though you are an adultery, a wordmonger, a miser, or other kind of sinner, if you but believe, you are saved, and you need not fear the law. Christ has fulfilled it all! . . . They may be fine Easter preachers, but they are very poor Pentecost preachers, for they do not preach... "about the sanctification by the Holy Spirit," but solely about the redemption of Jesus Christ, although Christ (whom they extol so highly, and rightly so) is Christ, that is, He has purchased redemption from sin and death so that the Holy Spirit might transform us out of the old Adam into new men . . . Christ did not earn only gratia, grace, for us, but also donum, "the gift of the Holy Spirit," so that we might have not only forgiveness of, but also cessation of, sin. Now he who does not abstain fro sin, but persists in his evil life, must have a different Christ, that of the Antinomians; the real Christ is not there, even if all the angels would cry, "Christ! Christ!" He must be damned with this, his new Christ (On the Council and the Church, Luther's Works, 41:113-114).
Where are the "practical and clear sermons," which according to the Apology "hold an audience" (XXIV, 50, p. 267). Apology XV, 42-44 (p. 229) explains:
"The chief worship of God is to preach the Gospel...in our churches all the sermons deal with topics like these: repentance, fear of God, faith in Christ, the righteousness of faith, prayer . . . the cross, respect for the magistrates and all civil orders, the distinction between the kingdom of Christ (the spiritual kingdom) and political affairs, marriage, the education and instruction of children, chastity, and all the works of love."
"Grant, we beseech Thee, Almighty God, unto Thy Church Thy Holy Spirit, and the wisdom which cometh down from above, that Thy Word, as becometh it, may not be bound, but have free course and be preached to the joy and edifying of Christ's holy people, that I steadfast faith we may serve Thee, and in the confession of Thy Name abide unto the end: through Jesus Christ, Thy Son, our Lord. Amen."
Kurt Marquart
Concordia Theological Quarterly
July/October 2003
Pages 379-381
Posted by cyberbrethren in Christian Life
I don't think anyone is arguing against the fact that "autopilot" only refers to the inner man: But in his conclusion Lange also says "a preacher who uses the indicative mood to describe the new creation in Christ must not assume that he has thereby preached the 'Third Use' in isolation from the other uses of the Law. For even the sweetness of this description curses and condemns the Christian according to his old Adam that does not measure up....the hortatroy subjunctive is even less likely to guide without accusing. Regardless of the intent and demeanor of the preacher, a string of "let us" phrases will always coerce the Christian according to the old Adam to do that which is against his will."
ReplyDeleteGerhard Maag has a very interesting paper in Logia in which he states,
"The Formula has no interest in a consistent employment of metaphors for this use of the law for Christians, for here [SD VI-20,21] the law in its third use is characterized as mirror again, but now more in keeping with our usual understanding of the law as showing sin. The law must be held before believers that they may see in it the failing and shortcomings of their works of the Spirit, and that they may be moved again to remorse and a longing for the mercy of God. In this sense the law is a rule or guide, namely, a universal prescription, divine ordinance, and heavenly precept for Christian life, not some hapless native sheepishly making suggestions as to where one ought to go and how one ought to get there, to extend the 'guide' metaphor."...
"Within our circles the law as curb and mirror is presented as antagonistic to man, while the law in its third use becomes the friend, the believer's buddy."
He concludes, "Therefore, when the Christian preacher sets out the boundaries beyond which God's people ought not to go without their having abandoned the faith; when he uncovers in the conduct of his hearers what is contrary to the commandments of God; when he warns them against self-chosen piety, when he exhorts to a life in accord with the written word of God; when he rebukes, reproves, admonishes, even threatens by the preaching of the law; and when he describes from the Holy Scriptures what the life of a child of God in Christ will be like, in all that he is applying the law in in its third use, for he is applying it to the people of God."
Howdy there, Aaron. First, I want to ask if I should bring a couple of vanilla beans to church tomorrow morning. I love 'em, and hate the price, and am just thrilled with what I got from the herb wholesaler this week. If Lori feels the same way about wanting vanilla, let me share a couple with you, okay? Let me know.
ReplyDeleteOkay, now to the non-housewifey stuff... I don't see a conflict with the Walther quotes here and the Chemnitz quote you posted. Chemnitz is speaking against the antinomians. If you want to understand Chemnitz here in a particular way (a way that I'm not understanding him), I guess you could see a conflict between Walther and Chemnitz. But I don't think they're disagreeing, and I don't think we have to "see Walther through the lens of Chemnitz" to "reconcile" these two sets of quotes.
Ah, Aaron, I could write you a big long note explaining why Chemnitz and Walther in these quotes are agreeing, but it would take forever. I spent yesterday getting a good start on the tax forms, but ignored the housework and now I need to catch up. If we talked in real life, it would be a lot easier to explain than trying to do it in writing. Wanna bring the family and come over and play?
THANK YOU for pointing out Pr Lange's article on Using the Third Use. It is exactly what I've been trying to say. Pr Lange lays it out thoroughly, more clearly, more academically (without getting too too high-minded) than I could ever do. The only thing that gave me a liiiiitle bit of a qualm was the statement that "the proclaimed law lacks an eternal aspect." That one bothered me a tad bit (too "antinomian" for my tastes -- LOL!) When I went back to look up the reference just a moment ago as I'm typing here, I noticed there was a footnote. It was from Scaer, and he agreed with me. (LOL!) But I think, for the whole rest of Pr Lange's essay, I was in comlete agreement.
Pr L's conclusion begins: "Careful attention to the terminology and distinctions of Article VI demonstrates that the 'Third Use' was not set forth as a particular way for the preacher to wield the law." He says it is not the preacher's to use, but the Holy Spirit's to use. Pr L also points out (end of section 2) that it is more Calvinist than Lutheran to say that the Law can be preached to revv-up a Christian to good works; it is Lutheran to preach the Law, recognizing that it will kill and slay, while at the same time showing the believer what a Christian life should look like. Pr L also points out that the antinomian error [that is, NO law once a person has been converted] is no worse than the error that says the law "can be separated into different messages which are preached to different people at different times" [that is, so-called "second use" and "third use"].
One thing leaves me baffled, Aaron. You mentioned "support my and Rev McCain's point." So it sounds like you agree with Pr M. But he's been making the point that the pastor CAN (and should) "preach third use." Yet you pointed me in the direction of Pr Lange's article, which bluntly says that a pastor cannot and ought not "preach third use." So now I'm wondering what you think of Pr L's article.
Susan, I would like to know your specific reactions to the Marquart article. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteOh, Paul. This is the second time in a week where you've said "please respond to the article I referenced." Paul, you are not my pastor, and I don't owe you an explanation. I am willingly and freely engaging in this conversation with you. But you need to understand that I work a 100-hr/week job, and online theological discussion is not something I can do "at work" like some of you guys can do.
ReplyDeleteBesides that, you yourself quoted the Large Catechism: "real good works are ... when a poor servant girl takes care of a little child or faithfully does what she is told." So, given that this is a discussion of sanctification and good works, please recognize that the good works God has set before me involve wielding a mop, kneading bread, grading math assignments, chopping onions, and showing up at my job on time. Those things will take priority over my sitting at the computer to respond to you. You've got your own soapbox where you can bring up this issue if you'd like. But if you're going to be participating in discussion here, please don't push me to respond on your timetable.
I might also point out that you've been asking me to respond to articles, but you often choose not to respond to questions I ask, or things that I quote. That's okay; you don't have to. But please realize that, like you, I may wish to concentrate on a different aspect of the conversation.
And now, to get back to the topic at hand....
Paul, as I said before, it doesn't make sense to throw out epithets like "anti-sanctification" simply because somebody doesn't think that "preaching third use" is the way to get to sanctification.
ReplyDeleteI also think you prove my point about the uselessness of quotes. When I quote somebody for whom you have high regard, and you disagree with the quotes, you didn't address the quotes. You just told me that I'm not really understanding the quotes, and that Pr Marquart knew Walther better.
I said earlier that what this all comes down to is the basic viewpoint of whether the Law is given to serve the Gospel, or whether the Gospel is given to serve the Law. Dr Marquart wrote, "The real point of our constant feeding by faith, on the Bread of Life, is that we might gain an ever-firmer hold of Heaven -- and meanwhile become ever more useful on earth!" I'm not sure how to diagram that sentence. I know the subject/verb is "real point is." But is the predicate nominative "stronger faith" (with "good works" being a mere side comment about what happens in a Christian's life because of his faith)? Or is it a compound predicate nominative, saying that the "real point is stronger faith AND good works"? If it's the second, then Marquart is saying that the point of the Gospel is to serve the Law. IF that's what he's saying (and I'm not sure that it is), then I disagree. But I can tell you that throwing quotes back and forth, or quibbling over this point or that, will NOT ever bring a resolution to this disagreement, until the conversants come to agree (or acknowledge that they are in disagreement) on that basic premise. Is the Law given to serve the Gospel? Or is the Gospel given to serve the Law?
Susan, you pulled some quotes from Walther's Law and Gospel, ironically, after lecturing me vigorously about the dangers of quotes and taking them out of context and how they can mean whatever wants them to mean, or that they only mean what you "hear" them to mean depeding on who is saying them. You said all this when I quoted the chief dogmatician of the Missouri Synod in such a way that your points were refuted and contradicted by those quotes, to which you never responded, other than in a rather strange postmodern way.
ReplyDeleteSo, your Walther quotes. All well and good. They neither prove or disaprove anything you've said on this topic.
Then, I post a brief article by Kurt Marquart on your blog site and ask you to comment on it and you proceed then to lecture me about how busy you are and don't have time to comment on it, then turn around and lecture me on the insufficiency of quotes as you comment on the Marquart quote.
And then you conclude with a wholly irrelevant remark and question. Does the Law serve the Gospel? Of course it does. Nobody has ever suggested it does not.
Simply put, Susan, you are dreadfully confused on this whole business of sanctification.
I'll return to where this started. You informed us all that you can never read your Bible and say to yourself, "I'm going to try to do this in my life." I challenged on that and you never did respond. Anyone who truly does fail to say to himself/herself, "By the grace of God I will strive to do what God' Word says" simply is ignoring the Word of God. This is precisely what the Word of God urges us to say, and to do.
You mean well, Susan, but your understanding of sanctification and its place in the life of the believer is simply not in sync with either the Scriptures or the Confessions.
You keep setting up straw men and knocking them down, but you are missing the point quite dramatically. It's rather sad to see.
But since you are now telling me that because you work 100 hour weeks, I understand that you really do not have the time required to give these very serious issue the attention they deserve, and because you do not, perhaps you would do well to stop presenting yourself as some kind of an expert on these issues, when, clearly you are far from that.
I believe that the reason you find it so hard to respond well to Marquart's article is that it shakes you to your very core on these issues and, as the law always does, accuses of you of the very serious nature of your misundertanding of these issues, but thanks be to God, the law is in service to the Gospel, and that is truly good news, for you, me and everyone.
I know of more than one pastor who may preach perfectly "correct" sermons on theories about Law and Gospel and preach them in such a remarkably formulaic way that people are quite literally simply driven from church in search of sermons that actually deliver Law and Gospel in meaningful and relevant ways, which, as the Confesions say, do attract people to Church. More's the pity.
Susan,
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with your choice of thesis XXIII from Walther, as it does address the issue of preaching sanctification, directly and distinctly. It is too bad that some folk just get on their hobby horse and seem to ride it, ignoring not only the fulness of the matter, but anything that might qualify or temper the effect of their arguments. I am getting tired of hearing folk say how much they agree about the Gospel, about the fact that IT IS THE HOLY SPIRIT who uses the law according to his purposes and then turn around and say that the preacher must do this.
Lange's paper, makes an express point of saying that we are called to proclaim Law and Gospel, and the HOLY SPIRIT will use it as he sees fit. As a matter of fact, one of the things that absolutely mystifies me is the idea that when the second use is preached (again, a silly notion, as if that is all it will be because that is what I intended...NOT..., I am an instrument, not the effective means), and a person comes to repentance, that this will somehow mysteriously come to rest at this point, and go no further. (until the pastor preaches the 3rd use.) Repentance will not proceed to amending our sinful life (something which is consequent to repentance and faith, and which the Gospel produces, and which Gospel, the sinner is directed to). This completely mystifies me, how Lutheran preachers can actually come to say that the preaching the law is not enough, but that somehow we need to make sure he does his job.
Walther, in thesis XXIII states that pastors who are frustrated by the lack of good works/sanctification, in their congregations, and who then decide that the answer to this problem is with the law, instructive or accusatory, are nothing more than jailers, who will lead their parishioners, not to anything good, least of all sanctification, but to hatred for God. Walther quotes Luther on this at the end of the thesis, who basically makes the case based on his comments on two separate passages.
Susan,
ReplyDeleteAnother point to consider in all of this discussion is that every preaching of the 2nd use to a Christian, is a preaching of sanctification, ultimately. For when a Christian, ie, one who is living in a state of grace, slips into sin, eg, as they live, the law continues to further expose the depth of sin in their daily life (thought, word and deed), they repent (and here we see it truly in the sense of sorrow, change of mind/direction (as Siegbert Becker writes somewhere--that is, he defines repentance as a 180 degree turn, in which the sinner no longers sees advantage in sin and sees Jesus as their all in all), and seeks/desires to stop this behavior and please God. Where this does not take place, where the heart does not desire to give up/stop sinning, then there is no true faith. (ie, this is no faith, but a lie, false, impossible, that the confessors note in the FC IV.) This is also why Walther warns preachers, who again, are frustrated by the lack of sanctification/good works in their congregations that the MAIN TRAIT of the Christian is not some level of behavior, but to will to do what good, right etc.
Aaron wrote --
ReplyDelete>>Lange says, "For instance, the law can be preached as imperative or prohibition, as exhortation to holy living or as a positive description of the new creation to name just a few."
But in your "Trying to Be Good" post, you seem to suggest that the preacher should, in essence, violate Lange's principle in reverse, by insisting on preaching only the Second Use.<<
What I've been saying all along is that the pastor preaches the law, and it will (without his trying to make it be one use or the other) have the effect of both accusing and instructing.
>>questioning the preacher's task of preaching the Law as it appears in Scripture<<
I haven't questioned that (though some choose to hear me as if I were). I am saying that I agree completely with what Pr Lange wrote in that article, particularly where he wraps it up and makes it clear in his conclusion.
Susan...aside from all the other issues we've gone 'round and 'round about, I'm still very concerned with your claim that you can not read the Bible and ever say, "I'm going to try to do this, by the grace of God." You have said that you can only read the Bible and say to yourself, "I don't do that." and "Thank God Christ does that for me."
ReplyDeleteWell, this is surely not the position Martin Luther took.
I urge you to reconsider this false position you are taking.
Hear then Luther:
If I have had time and opportunity to go through the Lord’s Prayer, I do the same with the Ten Commandments. I take one part after another and free myself as much as possible from distractions in order to pray. I divide each commandment into four parts, thereby fashioning a garland of four strands. That is, I think of each commandment as, first, instruction, which is really what it is intended to be, and consider what the Lord God demands of me so earnestly. Second, I turn it into a thanksgiving; third, a confession; and fourth, a prayer. I do so in thoughts or words such as these:
“I am the Lord your God, etc. You shall have no other gods before me,” etc. Here I earnestly consider that God expects and teaches me to trust him sincerely in all things and that it is his most earnest purpose to be my God. I must think of him in this way at the risk of losing eternal salvation. My heart must not build upon anything else or trust in any other thing, be it wealth, prestige, wisdom, might, piety, or anything else. Second, I give thanks for his infinite compassion by which he has come to me in such a fatherly way and, unasked, unbidden, and unmerited, has offered to be my God, to care for me, and to be my comfort, guardian, help, and strength in every time of need. We poor mortals have sought so many gods and would have to seek them still if he did not enable us to hear him openly tell us in our own language that he intends to be our God. How could we ever—in all eternity—thank him [Vol. 43, Page 201] enough! Third, I confess and acknowledge my great sin and ingratitude for having so shamefully despised such sublime teachings and such a precious gift throughout my whole life, and for having fearfully provoked his wrath by countless acts of idolatry. I repent of these and ask for his grace. Fourth, I pray and say: “O my God and Lord, help me by thy grace to learn and understand thy commandments more fully every day and to live by them in sincere confidence. Preserve my heart so that I shall never again become forgetful and ungrateful, that I may never seek after other gods or other consolation on earth or in any creature, but cling truly and solely to thee, my only God. Amen, dear Lord God and Father. Amen.”
Martin Luther, vol. 43, Luther's Works, Vol. 43 : Devotional Writings II, ed. Jaroslav Jan Pelikan, Hilton C. Oswald and Helmut T. Lehmann, Luther's Works, 43:200 (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1999, c1968).
>>Hear then Luther:<<
ReplyDeleteI agree with that passage on prayer. (By the way, that quote has nothing to do with "preaching third use.")
It's ironic that you chose to quote Luther in a place where he mentions piety being a false god.
>>I urge you to reconsider this false position you are taking.<<
My "false position" is that I find my sanctity in the sacraments instead of my own behavioral efforts.
My "false position" is that fruit (like cherries and tomatoes and grapes and also a Christian's good works) grows on auto-pilot.
My "false position" is that pharisaism is just as dangerous as antinomianism, and that I recognize I personally am more enticed by pharisaism than antinomianism.
My "false position" is that I don't believe preaching more law (whether we call it "third use" or anything else) will make the hearers do more good works.
You urge me to reconsider these "false positions."
Furthermore you urge me to transgress the fourth and third commandments by heeding you instead of my very own pastors that God has put in charge of my soul.
I see.
No, Susan...your "false position" that I explictly mentioned, but you choose simply to ignore, is that you said you can never read the Scriptures and say to yourself, "I am going to try do that, by the grace of God" which is precisely what Dr. Luther is urging us to do when we meditate on Holy Scripture. Good grief, surely you can read and think more clearly than your last response indicates. I certainly hope so!
ReplyDeleteSusan, it's a shame you don't bother actually to read what somebody is actually saying.
So please drop the melodramatic baloney. If you do not wish to be challenged on what you blog about, then stop blogging.
Pastor McCain,
ReplyDeleteWith all due respect, I have been following your dialogue with Susan and your comments elsewhere and I still do not understand what it is you are saying pastors should preach. Can you give some examples of how you would preach third use of the law from the pulpit?
Melanie, one could point simply to what Paul says in Rom. 12 as a good example of how one in a sermon speaks to the regenerate about their calling in Christ to lives of holiness.
ReplyDeleteIf you would like to see how I preached a sermon on good works, here you go:
http://cyberbrethren.typepad.com/cyberbrethren/2006/12/created_for_goo.html
#1. I'm not going to drop my blog. It's one of my tools for staying in contact with family and friends.
ReplyDelete#2. If I had the time to invest, I could debate theology here. But dinner and kids' schoolwork is more important.
#3. My conscience will not permit me to allow errant views to stand here, unanswered. I cannot change what people believe, but there are bully-pulpits elsewhere for those who wish to take stands I disagree with.
#4. I have assumed all along that Pr McCain believes the same doctrine I believe. I have assumed that he is expressing it in an inadequate way -- a way that is agreeable to the pietists and legalists. But just because he is saying it that way does not necessarily mean he agrees with those errors.
Therefore,
Pr McCain will be allowed to continue discussion here if and only if he assures me that he is in agreement with Jonathan Lange's paper "Using the Third Use." If he acknowledges agreement with the conclusions of Pr Lange's paper, then I will know that he and I are on the same page, and that our differences are just a matter of semantics. If he disagrees with Pr Lange's paper, then I can't allow Pr McCain to continue to post here. Therefore, Melanie or anyone else who wishes to continue discussing this issue with him will need to find another venue for it.
Pr McCain wrote this morning --
ReplyDeleteAllow this comment suffice as my response to your "demand" that I in effect "subscribe" to Lange's paper. I have not read Jon's paper, and frankly, I am not interested in Jon's paper. I'm much more interested in what Scripture, the Lutheran Confessions, and the chief teachers of the churches of the Augsburg Confession has to say, than what Jon has to say.
Melanie -- I checked out Pr McCain's sermon on good works. It's really not too bad. A little weak on the law, and a little formulaic with regard to the gospel. But overall, definitely an above-average sermon. He gave the link above, written out, but here's a hyperlink to make it a little easier to get to if you wish to read it. Today, I also posted someone else's sermon on good works, in case you're interested in checking out a sermon that is clear about good works, yet that doesn't talk about "trying."
ReplyDeletePaul T. McCain said...
ReplyDeleteMelanie, one could point simply to what Paul says in Rom. 12 as a good example of how one in a sermon speaks to the regenerate about their calling in Christ to lives of holiness.
If you would like to see how I preached a sermon on good works, here you go:
http://cyberbrethren.typepad.com/cyberbrethren/2006/12/created_for_goo.html
What I find fascinating in Rev McCain's response to Susan and to Melanie is the ambiguity that exists when the question is asked, so what do you mean?
Paul's sermon is no *specific* preaching of sanctification/good works, but we are directed *generally* to the commandments, against making up works for ourselves, but then to the most general preaching of sanctification, that is, what life presents to us. Now, are these things wrong, bad etc? No, because Rev McCain is reflecting how the bible presents sanctification, especially in light of the fact that one is preaching to people who all have different neighbors, who require us to actually think "what does this mean" when we hear the law, in our own lives. Actually we are absolutely dependent on the Holy Spirit to teach us this as our confessions remind us, especially where they quote, 2 Cor 3 (cf FC ep V, 8).
In this sermon Rev McCain preaches no specific law or even a very strong sermon on sanctification...it is very, very general.
And so also, his reference to Romans 12 further illuminates his understanding of what this all means. Romans 12 is very general in its application of what it means to live a Christian life. It is also here where Walther, in Thesis XXIII, quotes Luther who states that Christians are to be "beseeched" to live the Christian life. The quotation from Walther's Law and Gospel is extraordinary. It absolutely rejects the notion that sanctification is properly preached by being more specific with the law. Those who think this way, according to Walther, are not Christian preachers, but jailers, who believe that the law, not "beseeching" the Christian "by the mercies of God", (read that the gospel must be at the heart and center of this preaching for Christian sanctification), will do some good.
I have a colleague who revels in preaching the Law, Sanctification as he calls it, but who has just complained to me that his congregation is a bunch of Pharisees. Oh, if he would just reread Walther and learn how to truly preach sanctification.
Some, in this discussion, Melanie, have so disconnected law and gospel, repentance and faith, justification and sanctification, and in particular are in fact denying the power of the Word/Gospel to do what we believe it will accomplish (yes, according to our small catechism, sanctification is and will always be this side of heaven, an article of faith), in the hearts and minds of people. Walther notes that when pastors abuse this, they will get results, and their flesh is temporarily pleased, but then, one day they will look out and as Walther says, they will have created with *their* preaching, a bunch of Pharisees.
One more thing about Rev McCain's sermon on good works. The main thing that is seriously lacking from the 3rd part of the sermon is any connection to the Gospel and in particular the means. Just to keep saying that we are God's workmanship does not get it, for it separates the means from the life. There should be a clear connection about what means God uses to sanctify us, to enable us to walk that path. The motivation that Paul uses is not gospel motivation, but law...we should, we ought, we want. Listen to the pronouns. They are true as far as they go, but as Walther reminds us in his first thesis, the law , the we should, ought, want, do not produce anything in our lives.
ReplyDeletePaul needs to come to understand the place of the gospel in preaching sanctification, for wrt this, this sermon is less than acceptable. It does proclaim the Gospel, but never makes the connection to the means of Grace, which is the ongoing reality of holiness and life in Christ..."He who abides in me, the same produces much fruit....take, eat...take drink...until I come....man does not live by bread alone but by every word....I beseech you brothers BY THE MERCIES OF GOD". In this regard, this sermon leaves the hearer, certainly justified, but with no power for a sanctified life.
Pious platitudes about gratitude and what we are supposed to do, even that it has dignity, importance etc, is not motivation for sanctification.
Isn't the real question here, "Does
ReplyDeletethe Law, whichever use, serve the Gospel or does the Gospel need help
to "get people to do things"?