Within the "confessional camp" in our synod, there seem to be two viewpoints on what sanctification is and how it's accomplished. This became starkly apparent to me at the symposium at the Ft Wayne seminary in January 2005.
I have been told repeatedly that of course we don't believe that our good works will earn us heaven, but nevertheless we'd better try to do good works. If we don't try, if we don't work at it, some say, we're taking our salvation for granted. (This trying to be good is not presented as if it were "merely" the drowning of the sinful nature -- the struggle against sin -- but rather is presented as attempting to pump up and energize the new man of faith.)
It seems to me, though, that when I try, the "trying" is good for neither me nor my neighbor. For me, the trying sends me into navel-gazing. For me, the trying leads me to focus on my piety, and to find my comfort in my piety. (In other words, to make a god of my piety, my goodness.) This is definitely not good for me.
As for my neighbor, my trying is not good for him either. My bottom-line is NOT how I'm doing on good works. But if someone's bottom-line were the good works emanating from the Christian, then where would those good works come from? I have been amazed to see more good works ooze outta my life if'n I'm not "trying." I have found that repeatedly being convicted of sin, confessing it, being absolved, and pretty much giving up on the trrrying is more "effective" in bringing about a right attitude and good works in my life.
There are loads of Bible passages telling us what we should do. That is good; I love those passages. But I have found that I can look at those passages in only two ways:
1) Jesus did it right, and
2) I don't do it right; Lord, have mercy on me.
Some people want me to add a third:
3) Try to do it and be right. Or at least be better.
But I can't. I just can't. If I add that, I change Hebrews 12:2 to "Come, let me fix my eyes on myself, the perfector of the faith which was authored by Jesus." Now, I'm not saying that this is the way everybody responds; I'm saying this is how I respond. I don't know about other people. But I know it's dangerous for me; I am much more inclined to sin by being a pharisee than I am tempted to sin by being a hedonist.
Some pastors preach the law to smash self-righteousness, and then forgive the wretched sinners who have despaired of their own goodness. Other pastors say that's not enough, that Christians must be encouraged to try to be better people. They say that not teaching people to try is the same thing as saying that it's okay to continue in sin, the same as actually being opposed to sanctification.
But it's not the same thing.
Raspberries and blackberries don't try to grow fruit. Assuming that the gardener is pruning and watering and fertilizing, the plants do indeed bear fruit on auto-pilot.
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Susan, the problem with what you are saying is that the New Testament is replete with clear texts that do speak directly to the Christian and urge, exhort and encourage him to strive to do good works, and to lead holy lives. Does the law always accuse? Of course it does. That's perfectly ok. Does the law *only * accuse? No.
ReplyDeleteIf you are looking at Scripture and seeing only: Jesus did it or I don't do it then you are not interpreting Scripture correctly, for there is a third use of the law and in that way the H.S. is teaching you what you are to be doing and strive to be doing, in Christ.
You are misunderstanding the third point if you believe anyone is telling you, "Try to do it and be right or at least be better, on your own power, but in Christ you are, as we confess in the Small Catechism, to be leading a holy life in accord with the Word of God, praising and thanking God precisely as we serve and obey Him, etc. etc.
According to what you've written, I do not believe you are faithfully reflecting either the teaching of Holy Scripture or the Lutheran Confessions. You are effectively denying the third use of the law and equating sanctification with justification. It just does not square with either the New Testament or the Confessions.
Susan,
ReplyDeleteI think I agree with your points. I usually find that the person with whom I am having this discussion doesn't understand good works and vocation.
In response to Pastor McCain's comment, 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? I can agree with your interpretation of the third use of the law in that regard, but otherwise, I see the attempt to do good works as another requirement for salvation, not a result of the sanctification I receive as a result of Christ dwelling within me and working through me in my vocation.
This is a difficult concept for me sometimes, and lately I seem to struggle with it daily.
Melanie
Hello Paul,
ReplyDeleteI don’t blog much (I’m a slow reader and typist), but I have followed this ‘Third Function of the Law’ discussion here and other places.
I have seen you say this or something similar in various venues: Does the law always accuse? Of course it does. That's perfectly ok. Does the law *only * accuse? No. Could you elaborate on this?
If the law does not only accuse, then what else does the law do?
Gary Gehlbach
And so... Pr McCain demonstrates that there is, indeed, a viewpoint on sanctification which is vastly different from the one I presented.
ReplyDeletePr M, it sounds like you're saying that sanctification is a synergistic work (Jesus 'n' me) and not a monergistic work. Have I understood you correctly?
And it sounds like you're saying that a person cannot do good works without trying to do them. Have I understood that correctly?
I'm also hearing you say that if I'm running short on good works, the solution is that I need to be given the "third use of the law." In other words, more law will bring about good works in my life. Have I understood that correctly?
I just typed out a very long response to the various questions here, and tried to post it, but it all "poof" went away!
ReplyDeleteQuickly though: No, I am not saying somebody should go outside of their vocation to do good works, but that is not to say there is not everything in our vocation that we are given to do, including bearing witness to our faith, etc.
Susan, I've never remotely suggested the Law is the power for good works.
Gary, I think I would like to respond to you simply by referring you to FC SD VI, where it talks about how the Law is used by the Holy Spirit, not *only* to accuse, but also to instruct and guide, the truly believing.
So, I think I'll just respond with a helpful quotation from Francis Pieper's "Dogmatics" that might shed some light.
our sanctification in this life will remain imperfect, sometimes showing a minus, sometimes a plus, but never reaching perfection. Scripture [Vol. 3, Page 31] admonishes us to grow, increase, abound, in sanctification, Eph. 4:15; in every good work, 2 Cor. 9:8; in the work of the Lord, 1 Cor. 15:58; in the knowledge of God, in all patience and long-suffering, Col. 1:11; in the love of the brethren and of all men, 1 Thess. 3:12; in the knowledge of what is excellent, Phil. 1:10; in doing what pleases God, 1 Thess. 4:1; and couples these admonitions to grow in holiness with the admonition to keep on putting off the old man, Eph. 4:22. It is clear that the sanctification of even the most earnest Christians remains imperfect in this life.44 The σάρξ remains in Christians throughout this life, Rom. 7:14–24; Heb. 12:1, 45 and for this reason their sanctification remains imperfect throughout this life. Paul describes the situation in these words: “So, then, with the mind” (the new man) “I myself serve the Law of God, but with the flesh” (the old man) “the law of sin,” Rom. 7:25.46 The dogmaticians express it thus: Iustitia fidei sive imputata perfecta sive consummata est, iustitia vitae sive inhaerens imperfecta, inchoata, non consummata. (Baier-Walther, III, 312.)47
Perfectionism, which teaches that complete sanctification is attainable in this life,48 cannot dwell in the Christian heart, which daily [Vol. 3, Page 32] asks for the forgiveness of sin. Rome goes so far as to teach that certain individuals merit more holiness than they need for themselves, the surplus going to those who need it.49 Scripture denounces perfectionism as a lie. 1 John 1:8, 10: “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us …. If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us.” See also Prov. 20:9; Job 14:4; Eccl. 7:20; Rom. 7:18–24; Matt. 6:12. 1 John 3:9: “Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for His seed remaineth in him”—the favorite prooftext for perfectionism—describes the Christian according to the new man who maintains the dominion over the old man. The Apostle distinguishes between “committing sin” (ἁμαρτίαν ποιει̂ν, 1 John 3:9) and “having sin” (ἁμαρτιαν ἔχειν, 1 John 1:8). Christians do not “commit sin,” that is, they do not permit sin to rule over them, to give it free reign; they “have sin,” but in the power of the new man, the offspring of God, they control sin. Speaking of the same matter, Rom. 6:14 declares: “Sin shall have no dominion over you; for ye are not under the Law, but under grace.”[Vol. 3, Page 33]
The fact that sanctification in this life will always be imperfect must not be put forward as an excuse for the neglect of sanctification. On the contrary, it is God’s will and the will of the Christian that he strive after perfection;50 he wants to be fruitful, not only in some, but in all good works.51 It is characteristic of the true Christian life and the will of the new man that he refrain from every sin. The Christian is eager to serve God in all good works. “I delight in the Law of God after the inward man,” Rom. 7:22. And when Scripture calls Christians “perfect” also with regard to their life (“Let us, therefore, as many as be perfect,” Phil. 3:15), it takes “perfection” in the sense of “striving after perfection,” Phil. 3:13–14: “Forgetting these things that are behind and reaching forth unto those things that are before, I press toward the mark.”52
The Christian who does not strive to serve God alone is perilously close to losing his Christianity. “Ye cannot serve God and mammon,” Matt. 6:24; “So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be My disciple,” Luke 14:33 (the entire passage, Luke 14:25–35, belongs here). Unsparing self-denial marks the Christian life. “If any man will come after Me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow Me,” Matt. 16:24. The way to heaven leads through “the strait gate” and the “narrow way,” Matt. 7:13–14. Only he can go this way who is willing to cut off his hand and foot and pluck out his eye, Matt. 18:8–9. The Apostle Paul describes the Christian as one who exercises self-control in all things, πάντα ἐγκρατεύεται, 1 Cor. 9:25, and points to himself as an example: “I keep under” (ὑπωπιάζω—buffet, maul) “my body and bring it into subjection, lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway,” 1 Cor. 9:27.53[Vol. 3, Page 34]
Francis Pieper, Christian Dogmatics, electronic ed., 0 (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1999, c1950, c1951, c1953).
Pr McCain wrote --
ReplyDelete>>Susan, I've never remotely suggested the Law is the power for good works.<<
But you do bemoan a general "lack of good works" (or "aversion to sanctification") and you do suggest that more "preaching of the third use" would be helpful in remedying the situation.
The other two questions were:
Is sanctification a synergistic or monergistic activity? and
Is it possible for people to do good works without trying to do them?
As for your comment disappearing into cyberspace earlier this evening -- my apologies for that. Something funky was happening with my blog. Whenever we tried to pull it up here, we got a blank blue page. So I tried switching over (finally) to the new blogger, and that seemed to fix the problem. The time I was making the switch was about the same time you posted. So maybe your efforts at communication got caught in a flux in the time-space blogger continuum. Sorry about that!
Susan, respectfully, I've come to the conclusion that you simply do not want to even try to understand what I'm saying, but simply instead to condemn it and reject it. I can't see much point in a conversation when you have already reached conclusions based on your own assumptions about what I'm saying, or not saying. You need to read what I'm writing, not what you are thinking.
ReplyDeleteYou can read the Pieper quote on my blog site and tell me what's wrong with it.
You simply are not properly reflecting the teaching of Holy Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions with your comments about not trying to do good works and be better. That simply is not a Biblical thought.
It's sad to see this deep confusion about the difference between sanctification and justification. I am honestly beginning to wonder if what we have going on here is not a de facto denial of the third use of the law.
I think I may have just figured out why we are talking past each other Susan.
ReplyDeleteYou seem to think that I'm saying that trying to do good works is somehow different from, apart from, separate from, or distinguished from what setting our eyes on Jesus is all about, then you are not hearing me, or understanding me.
You quote Hebrews 12:2. Great verse! But you need to keep it with verse 1: "Let us lay aside every weight and the sin that doth so easly beset us, and let us run with patience the raise that is set before us."
If in fact we are striving to do good works in any way that is distinct from keeping our eyes on Jesus and because of that very fact we are striving, then yes, that's wrong. That's legalism. That's Christian perfectionism.
But the very point of our striving, as Luther says, "to thank and praise, serve and obey" is because our eyes are set, and kept, on Jesus, only on Him, only by Him, only through Him, and as a consequence, yes, we do work hard to serve Him.
There is nothing wrong with talking about trying to do good works in this context, but you seem to want to split the two things from one another.
The Bible simply does not, and we don't have to either.
>>you simply do not want to even try to understand what I'm saying,<<
ReplyDeleteDear Paul, I thought about what you said -- about not understanding. For example, the post that you sent this morning: I agree with the Hebr 12:1 passage. I agree that we do good works. I agree that we drown the old Adam. So much of what you write (or quote, like from Pieper) I agree with. And yet, I admit that a lot of what you say makes me leery because the way you say it sounds just like my fundamentalist and evangelical friends.
What is telling for me, though, are the comments on Weedon's blog this week. I agreed with Weedon. I disagreed with part of what you wrote. And yet, the two of you say you agree with each other. Seeing as how you know each other :-) I figure you're right about being in agreement. Why then does my heart respond to Weedon with a "you betcha" and respond to you with a "whoa! hold it buster"? All I can figure is that it comes down to the WAY you each say it. In Weedon's comments, my eyes are turned to Jesus, and I hear about good works flowing from faith. The focus is on Jesus and what He gives, without neglecting talk of good works. From you, I hear that I need to pay more attention to my good works; I need to look at myself more. Maybe that's not what you intend to get across, but somehow that's how it's coming off.
Paul, I think it all boils down to whether good works are a happy and unavoidable side-effect of being a Christian, or whether good works are the point of the Christian life. I'm sure we agree on that, but the way you've been talking about the issue for the last year makes it SOUND instead like you think good works are the point of Christianity. Maybe you think the problem is with those who are not hearing you correctly. But think of it this way: if hoards and gobs and bunches of people have been abused by the popular (but misguided) American focus on Christianity being primarily about good morals, then those who speak to us (who've been abused by that theology) might want to take special care not to sound like the abusers. Even if what you're saying is right. Even if how you're saying it is right. Even if we hearers shoooould understand. When you use "their" lingo, it puts up a roadblock to our hearing you properly.
>>We do not need to neglect the third use of the law in order to make sure its chief use is kept clear: to accuse of us sin. The problem is not sanctification, it is sanctification set free from Christ.<<
I'm still stuck on the idea that a pastor can preach the "third use" of the law without at the same time accusing. [Twice the Apology states, "The law only accuses.] When the law is preached it accuses and, at the same time, shows the Christian what a holy life looks like. The Holy Spirit uses the the Law preached to do that, regardless of whether the pastor is saying "I'm going to accuse them now" and "I'm going to instruct them in godly living now." Of course, there seems to be a severe shortage of real Law being preached. I assume we agree on that. The law is so often watered down, or generalized, so as to have no teeth, no specificity, no ability to actually kill the old Adam in us. If the "law" that you're complaining about is a generalized "you guys are really bad and tick off God," then I most heartily agree with you that the Holy Spirit is not going to be using that to guide the Christian into good works, becaaaause that's not really Law. It quickly becomes a theological platitude.
That said, I do believe that sanctification is a monergistic work of God. "The Holy Spirit has called me by the Gospel, enlightened me with His gifts, sanctified and kept me in the true faith." And 1 Thess 5, "The God of peace sanctify you wholly,..."
You mentioned that the problem is actually "sanctification set free from Christ" and not sanctification itself. Amen to that, brother! Y'know how the Deists said that God made the world, set it into motion, and then went to Tahiti and left us to bop along in this creation for ourselves? I think there's almost a Deism among a lot of American Christians with regard to sanctification. "God gets you started in the Christian life. He gives you the power to be good. Now, there ya go, kiddoes. Get to being good. After all, He gave you the power to do it. He'll even come back now and then, y'know, when you've made a mistaken, and He'll forgive you for it, and then send you on your way again. Now hop to! Get going on that holy life!" And then God goes to Tahiti and lets you live out your sanctified life with the oomph He gave you as a starter.
Good grief!!! That's just barfy. That's not what it's about. And I am quite convinced that you don't think that's what it's about! But Paul, sometimes you're using the language and phraseology of those who DO think that. And I suspect that is why you've been in so many discussions with your fellow Lutherans over the last year or two on this subject.
I reject the idea that "God gives me the power to live a holy life" and then leaves me to go about doing so, so that I can ante up the good works to please Him. [I'm NOT saying that Pr McCain is promoting this wrong idea; I'm quite sure he's as against it as I am. But there are plenty of people who do believe that stuff, and their teaching is what I reject.] My sanctification is Christ living in me. My sanctification is the Holy Spirit drawing me ever more into Christ's body, smashing my sinful nature, raising me to new life through His word of absolution and the Holy Supper and faithful preaching. My sanctification is Christ in me. When there is that kind of union between Christ and the sinner, there cannot help but be good works flowing from the Christian. When the Christian lets his old Adam reign, he does not need instruction in being good so much as he needs that old Adam to be killed again. And when the specific law is preached against his sinful self, when the absolution is proclaimed to raise the New Man to life again, that law also FUNCTIONS to guide the Christian into holy living.
Like I said earlier, I think that Christians often do good works without being aware of it. The good works are a natural FRUIT of the Christian life. When I hear admonitions that we must "trrrry" to be good, it sounds like there will be no good works unless we try, unless we strive, unless we start paying more attention to our good works. But Paul, maybe by the term "trying" and "striving" you might be meaning something different from what I'm meaning. "You should volunteer at the soup kitchen" and "you should give money to this particular mission outpost" is a whole lot different from "worrying is a sin" and "those Friday night parties where you get drunk and/or high is something you should flee." When you call for "practical instruction and guidance on the Christian life," some of us object because we realize that those words encourage many pastors to preach moralism. But when that "practical instruction and guidance" is about calling people to repentance for specific sin, then we're thinking, "Yeah! Go to it, preacher-man! We need our sinful selves slain! Rescue our New Man by killing that enemy which is my old Adam!"
And I intended to be brief....
Oops.
Oh my goodness! I did it! I managed to put a hyperlink in a comment. It worked! Wow! I'm so proud of myself. I never could figure it out before, and I did today. Yee haw! (Sorry, this is off the topic, but I'm just so tickled that I figured it out!)
ReplyDeleteCongratulations on your "hyperlink" discovery. I always feel like I know just enough about how to use all this stuff to get myself into trouble and mess up my whole blog site.
ReplyDeleteRe. your post.
Susan, interesting thoughts all. Would you mind though responding to my post and telling me what you think about Francis Pieper's quote?
Howdy, there, Pr M. Just finished cleaning up from dinner, setting the bread to rise, teaching civics to my victims (errrr, "students"), and getting a few loads of laundry done. Gotta scoot out to go to work (as if what I've been doing all day ISN'T work???) and I'll respond to the Pieper quote when I get home. I thought I had, but apparently I was too wordy and not pointed enough.
ReplyDeleteI gotta admit, though, that I was a little bit amused that you're asking me for the second time to respond to the Pieper quote. If you can ask me a second time ;-) may I ask you a third time to respond to a couple of very short, brief-to-answer questions?
Is sanctification a synergistic or monergistic activity?
Is it possible for Christians to do good works without being aware of it, and thus without "trying" to do them?
Talk to you when I get home later...
Raspberries and blackberries don't try to grow fruit. Assuming that the gardener is pruning and watering and fertilizing, the plants do indeed bear fruit on auto-pilot.
ReplyDeleteBut here is what occurs to me....there is a lot in that "assumption" that is just skipped over. Because Christ is the vine, we are the branches, and the kind and quality of the fruit that is grown, as well as the health of the plant is DEPENDENT on the fertilizer, the pruning, the shaping, the soil, the climate....the very things that you are leaving to a simple "assuming that"
God does these things. The Word and Sacrament are and do these things, as does catechesis, confession and absolution, the preaching of the Word, the guidance of the shepherd, the friendship of those who are brethren,etc. The Holy Spirit uses these things or we wouldn't need churches, shepherds, or the Means of Grace.
I agree with you that good works flow from faith, and cannot help flow from faith. But what kind of sticks out at me sometimes when these discussions come up is almost that "if they flow, they should flow easily and unhindered." They don't always, because the purpose of the works that God gives us is for His glory, and sin, the devil, and my sinful self still do their darndest to get in the way of that.
Perfectionism was mentioned, and I guess what hits me, is that at times, there is a reverse side to perfectionism....I can't do it and I don't want to talk about it, if I can't do it perfectly. I tend to be that kind of perfectionist. Sometimes, it sounds like that is the approach that is taken when the discussion comes up, too. "I don't want to think about 3rd use of the law, because I know I can't do it perfectly and I don't want to be condemned in that either...or vulnerable to the judgement of others." I don't know if that is accurate. This medium is not completely reliable in conveying true meaning or inflection, or unhindered discussion.
Luther wrote in Smalcald III, Article XIII
...by faith, we get a new and clean heart that God will and does account us altogether righteous and holy for the sake of Christ, our mediator. Although the sin in our flesh has not been completely removed or eradicated, he will not count or consider it.
"Good works follow such faith, renewal and forgiveness. Whatever is still sinful or imperfect in these works will not be reckoned as sin or defect for the sake of the same Christ. The whole man, in respect both of his person and of his works, shall be accounted and shall be righteous and holy through the pure grace and mercy which have been poured out upon us so abundantly in Christ. Accordingly, we cannot boast of the great merit in our works if they are considered apart from God's grace and mercy, but as it is written, "Let him who boasts, boast of the Lord (I Cor. 1:31). " That is to say, all is well if we boast that we have a gracious God. To this, we must add that if good works do not follow, our faith is false, and not true."
In response to perfectionism, here is the response to that. Whatever we do is imperfect, but because of faith, we are reckoned righteous, apart from the works, but the works are ours to be done.
I know that when I am consciously doing something that would be considered a "good work" I like you, come back to myself. It always amazes me that when I serve on Altar Guild, and I am in the church alone late at night, and it is dark, that I still bow when I approach the chancel, the thought occurs "look at me. I'm doing this and I don't have to." As if I am not in the House of God, and I am not serving Him, and as if He is not there. I focus on me...and then I am ashamed. Yet, the work that I do in preparing the bread and the wine still blesses the congregation so that it is there to be blessed and mingle with Christ's very body and blood. And that is just a minor example. But I'm forgiven for that part, and it still is a blessing.
God renews us with His Holy Spirit, and as the Apology states, we are made new and receive new impulses to do good.
"Good works should be done because God has commanded them and in order to exercise our faith, to give testimony, and to render thanks (me: it sounds like we have to think about these things to me). For these reasons, good works must necessarily be done. They take place in a flesh that is partly unregenerate and hinders what the Holy Spirit movitates." Apology IV
The Bible and the confessions speak of good works as labors, as sometimes difficult, but to be undertaken. Our salvation does not depend on them, but we are to do them because we are saved for the above reasons. I don't know how many we think consciously about, but there are certain ones that we do.
Sometimes it seems like when you want to not talk about 3rd use, it is because you feel condemned that you do not do everything the way you want to do it, and that sends you rushing back to the cross. That is how it should be, but it is no reason to not talk about it. I actually find comfort in the 3rd use, because there is the assurance that I am not going to do it perfectly, but I am still serving God when I do the tasks that He has given me through His Holy Spirit. And at times, trying to be good, to serve my brethren (not necessarily through a program or a ministry) is dang hard, even with the Holy Spirit's urging and strengthening, smashing, and putting to death the Old Adam (he often doesn't want to die!)
Third use does not leave me feeling condemned because it is a guide. I already know I am a sinner. I know Christ has died for my sins. Now I want to serve Him, and I want to know what to do, and I want Him to give me strength to do it. When I don't want to, its back to repentance, forgiveness, and gratitude. I know my works aren't going to be perfect, but I have the assurance that God will use them. I think that is a joy, not a condemnation. If it is a condemnation, maybe it is Satan whispering in my ear, or my sinful flesh, and I need to keep returning to the cross.
When a person is a new creation, there is a lot of their old life that has been thrown out, and often, they don't know where to go or what to do. Most Christians will tell you, they need to learn how to pray, to not be afraid to do the good works that the Spirit is urging them to do, to read their Bibles, to learn their liturgy, to continue in catechesis and fellowship with fellow Christians who believe the same. They also have heard the 1st use and 2nd use side of the law that tell them not to do things and why they need Christ. The 3rd use tells them why its good to live according to God's law, not to merit salvation, but because He commanded it out of love --in concrete ways that don't do what the other uses do...the 3rd use encourages, it is not supposed to condemn. And we have the assurance that we are already saved. Luther knew this and he preached and wrote about it and encouraged other clergy to do so also...but to make sure the gospel is heard was the key emphasis.
Except for the fact that I believe that if the text of the pericope allows, there is room to advise, encourage, and foster growth in the sermon along with fervently applying the gospel, I think for we view it the same way, but our personalities get in the way of our expressions (?).
I respect you and Pastor McCain for taking this discussion on...it is not an easy one.
Is sanctification synergistic or monergistic?
ReplyDeleteYes, it is monergistically synergistic, in Christ alone. If you wish to use those terms.
Can a Christian do works without realizing it, or "trying"? Sure.
You did not respond to the Pieper quote at all Susan, so I'll look forward to reading your reaction to that quote.
"Rebellious" -- I appreciated your comments. Your use of the Apology IV is very wise. I've noticed in many of these discussions a lot of philosophizing and playing around with therems and theories, but not as much quoting of Scripture and Confessions as would be helpful.
You said it very well, particularly this comment:
I know Christ has died for my sins. Now I want to serve Him, and I want to know what to do, and I want Him to give me strength to do it. When I don't want to, its back to repentance, forgiveness, and gratitude. I know my works aren't going to be perfect, but I have the assurance that God will use them. I think that is a joy, not a condemnation. If it is a condemnation, maybe it is Satan whispering in my ear, or my sinful flesh, and I need to keep returning to the cross.
>>Would you mind though responding to my post and telling me what you think about Francis Pieper's quote?<<
ReplyDeleteThrough Moses, God gave the Law to His people. It was good. It was for their benefit. However, by the time Jesus was preaching in Judea, the Pharisees had co-opted the Law and changed it into something else. The Pharisees thought those passages were about how to behave. Jesus seemed to think those passages in Moses were about the Messiah and what God was doing to provide atonement and save His people. They were reading the same Bible, looking at the same passages, occasionally throwing quotes back and forth at each other. But the foundational viewpoint was different. And they killed Jesus because they thought He was overturning the law that He was actually there to fulfill. Same thing happens today: true prophets who forgive sins sometimes get told they are belittling the law’s demands.
That Pieper quote could be taken in a number of ways. It could be used as a hammer to beat up the Christian who feels the weight of his sin. That passage could be used to show him that, even though he can’t be perfect, he just better keep trrrying to be perfect. That passage could turn a person’s focus away from Jesus to his own efforts and his own striving and his own goodness.
On the other hand, that Pieper quote could be understood beautifully and correctly as a description of what the Christian life looks like.
That quote doesn’t stand in isolation. How it is "heard" depends on the context in which it is used. The quote will sound one way if it is surrounded by Christological preaching, surrounded by serious calls to repentance, surrounded by abundant proclamation of the forgiveness of sins. The quote will sound entirely different if it is just one more speech in a moralistic environment.
The Pieper passage you quoted is sorta like "Go and sin no more." Is that a rule? Is that a command? Is that a suggestion? Is that an invitation? Or is that a creative word that gives what it proclaims? I think it depends on the context and on how the speaker is intending to use the words. It also depends on the state of the person hearing the words. Just because the words are right doesn’t mean they can’t be used wrongly.
>>there is a lot in that "assumption" that is just skipped over. Because Christ is the vine, we are the branches, and the kind and quality of the fruit that is grown, as well as the health of the plant is DEPENDENT on the fertilizer, the pruning, the shaping, the soil, the climate....<<
ReplyDeleteLora, that "assumption" is precisely what I've been told is "not enough." Yes yes yes -- I agree with you about the importance of the pruning and the fertilizer and the soil, etc. But that care of the plant is about what nourishes faith (in other words, the Supper and the absolution -- exactly the things you described). I have been told, however, that those things aren't "enough" and that we need to be told what to do.
Lora, I am not in any way opposed to speaking about good works, or teaching people to pray and know the liturgy, or memorize Bible passages, etc. I know it's easy to build a straw man and say that those who are opposed to "preaching third use" are opposed to good works themselves. But it's not about being opposed to good works. It's not about being averse to sanctification. It's about whether the focus is on good works or on Jesus.
Susan, do you agree with Pieper or not? I'm don't know from your answer whether you do or not.
ReplyDeleteYour latest comments helped me understand that the problem with your understanding of sanctification is that you are setting up false alternatives and assuming it is impossible to focus on Christ and properly therefore understand how, and why, Christians are to be concerned about works.
You are the one building the straw man in this discussion, so tear it down and start over.
Do I agree with Pieper? It depends on who's quoting him and why. Like I said, even true statements can be twisted to mean something different. When my pastor says things like the Pieper quote, I know that it's in its proper place and cherish it. But when the Pieper quote is used to back up moralistic preaching, then I disagree with it.
ReplyDeleteI'm not having a problem understand how and why Christians are concerned about works. That's really quite clear in my mind. What I'm having trouble understanding is how people can say "We have to spend more time talking about works" and insist that that isn't taking the focus off Christ.
The way I understand 3rd use of the law and good works is that we do them because we are saved by Christ. By definition, the 3rd use is for believers who have been already saved, and because of this are led by the Holy Spirit and God's Word to do good works. The glory in these is supposed to be Christ's.
ReplyDeleteSo how does this take the focus off of Christ, and for whom?
Lora, very well said.
ReplyDeleteSusan, we had a great Bible class today with Jim Voelz and wouldn't you know it? Yup, the issue of good works came up and led to a very good discussion. I was actually sitting in the class reading through the Book of Concord, using the [wonderfully expanded and improved] index in "Concordia" and we talked about a great quote I found in the Formula. I'll type it out below.
Susan, your very good, right and salutary concern is that we do not take our eyes of Jesus, but you are assuming that talking about good works *is* taking our eyes of Jesus. I perceive your "solution" to the problem of sanctification cast adrift from Christ to be basically not talking about, urging, encouraging or otherwise, our folks to be doing good works and then talking about those things we have opportunity to do.
That is where you are making your mistake.
The way to keep works and faith, justification and sanctification, salvation by grace, or works, in proper perspective is not to simply not talk about works, along the lines of the third use of the law, but simply to teach it properly, as our Confessions do, and as Scripture does.
That wonderful quote from the Confessions is from FC SD IV: Good Works:
"In these last times it is certainly no less needful to encourage people to Christian discipline, to the way of right and godly living, and to do good works. We need to remind them of how necessary it is that they exercise themselves in good wors as a declaration of faith and gratitude to God. But works should not be mingled in the article of justification. For people may be just as damned by an Epicurean delusion about faith as they are by papistic and Pharisaic confidence in their own works and merits." (Concordia, pg. 484).
Susan, I agree with you 1000% about keeping our eyes on Jesus, but this doesn't mean we should not talk about the duty, privilege and opportunity of talking about the works that people, IN CHRIST, are to be about doing.
That's not "moralism" or "legalism" or "American evangelicalism." It is thoroughly Biblical and Lutheran.
Where things go wrong is when we speak as if we go about doing works under our own power, or that we somehow have to earn our salvation, and keeping earning it, by what we do. But in Christ, we have the joy of talking about those good works prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.
I would respectfully encourage you therefore to consider that, in Christ, by grace, you may in fact read Scripture and recognize there: 1) How you have failed to do, or not do, what there is revealed; 2) praise and thank God that in Christ He has fulfilled all things perfectly for you; 3) Consider how and where you in your life, as an act of gratitude to God [Heb. 13:15-16], and as a declaration of your faith [Matt. 5:16] do those things you are given opportunity to to do in your calling and station in life.
God bless as you do! Thanks for the discussion, very much.
Cordially, in Christ,
Paul
If
Rats, my quick fingers made a mess of a phrase above:
ReplyDeleteWrong version:
is not to simply not talk about works, along the lines of the third use of the law,
Right version:
is simply to talk about works, along the lines of the third use of the law
I've been following closely, and contributing to, the ongoing discussion in the Lutheran blogosphere concerning sanctification. I've been rebuked by some of my brothers and sisters in Christ who have told me I've come across as being harsh and judgmental. For that I truly apologize. That was not my intention, of course, but in the concern I have over this issue I can well imagine my way of expressing myself has struck some as unkind, unloving, harsh and judgmental. I am sorry. I ask you to forgive me. Let me now offer some thoughts, respectfully and prayerfully. I have come to several conclusions.
ReplyDeleteI've become convinced that part of the different opinions being expressed have to do with different concerns motivating them. Some folks are speaking out of a context of deep concern, rightfully so, with the Calvinist/Evangelical way of speaking about these issues, a way that is distressingly devoid of Jesus. [A concern I share and have spoken about at length on my blog site, much to the chagrin of Calvinsts who listen in who have excoriated me mercilessly for my claim that Calvinism's chief problem is that Jesus is not at the very heart and center of their theological system].
My "Houston, we have a problem" moment on these issues was a conversation I was having with some younger Lutherans who were quite able to repeat all the proper distinctions between faith and works, but then they proceeded, quite literally, I assure you, to indulge themselves in profanity and obscenity and when I cautioned them, they defended their behavior by appealing to the fact that they are forgiven in Christ and, "after all, everything we do is sinful since we can never do anything that is truly good." They proceeded to defend Christians "enjoying" the filthy, and obscene music lyrics of Eminem. I thought, "Hmmm...they can babble off the proper cliches about faith and justification, but somehow they have received the impression that they can continue in sin because they are covered by Christ's forgiveness. I realized right then that in our zeal to keep works and faith separate, we have been neglecting works. We've been telling people that they are so entirely and hopelessly sinful and nothing they do can please God that they have taken the opportunity to say, "OK, well then, we'll just continue to sin, and take our comfort in the fact that God loves and forgives us no matter what we do, or intend to do." Houston, we have a problem! Our Confessions caution precisely on this point that we dare not use the proper distinction between faith and works in such a way that people are confused to the point that they defend sinful behaviors. We read in the Solid Declaration, Article IV, that if we do not continue to teach that good works are really nothing to give much thought to, that, "Discipline and decency might be impaired by it, and a barbarous, loose, secure, Epicurean life be introduced and strengthened. A person should avoid what is harmful to his salvation with the greatest diligence." (Concordia, p. 552).
Therefore, perhaps folks can understand the context from which I've been speaking. And I understand the context some others have been speaking; namely, that there is great concern that we never speak of good works in such a way to encourage the view that justification and salvation and the Gospel, that is, the forgiveness of sins, is something that happens and then from there we move on to talk about doing good works leaving the Gospel behind. I understand that concern. I agree with that concern. I appreciate that concern. Please read that again. Truly, I do! Now, I ask that you take very seriously my very real concern, one based on very real situations in which some Lutheran Christians are hearing that we are saved by grace alone and have been led to believe that what they do truly doesn't matter and that they are free to sin! Some even latch on to the horribly misunderstood and misquoted Luther comment "Sin boldly" to defend drinking too much and using vulgarity in their speech as a matter of course.
I must also respectfully point out that there are some faithful pastors out there who are mistaken as well on some of these issues. There are those who have suggested that in order to avoid the danger of mixing sanctification with justification, or leaving people thinking that their works are how they can be sure they are at peace with God, a pastor should not in his sermon ever conclude the sermon by talking about the works Christians are to do, for that is to end with "Law" and therefore throw people back on the conviction of their sin. I've also noticed in many Lutheran sermons on the blogosphere an acute absence of any conversation in sermons about good works, addressed to the regenerate, not simply telling people how they fail to keep God's law, but instructing them in how they are to live according to God's Law.
I've been told that this is not appropriate in sermons. I've been told that this is the proper realm of teaching, but not preaching. I've been informed by some that any such conversation only takes people's eyes off Jesus and puts it on themselves. I've been told by those who are honest and consistent that Martin Luther didn't preach correctly. Walther didn't preach correct. Sermons are not teaching, the are preaching. They are sacramental acts and therefore the sole purpose us to convict of sin and comfort with Christ and any talk of works is muddying the waters. This is left to Bible class. I'm told that only in our generation have we really understood what it is to preach in such a way as to extol the "presence of Jesus in the Divine Service." I've been told that Kurt Marquart was wrong when he wrote about a growing concern he had about what he termed an "aversion to sanctification" in our midst. And with all these comments and ideas, I respectfully disagree. There was a time when I actually did believe that Luther didn't "get it" and Walther didn't "get it" and the Church Fathers didn't "get it." I should have, at that point, reached up and felt around on my head for the long jackass ears that I would have found there. I've since realized that perhaps we are the ones who are missing something.
With respect and sincere love for the brethren, I must say that these newer positions on preaching and talking about the Christian's life of sanctification and good works are just wrong. They are not properly reflecting what our Confessions have to say on these things. They are well motivated and sincere, but they are wrong.
The problem is not works, it is how we talk about them. To the extent that we speak of good works apart from the grace of Christ that gives us the power and motivation to do them, of course, that is wrong. But, the solution to avoiding the pitfalls of Calvinism or Evangelicalism or legalism or moralism, or any other -ism is not to stop properly teaching and preaching about good works.
The other problem I notice is that folks are not adequately keeping clear the distinction between justification and sanctification, but trying to make them nearly synonymous. That causes difficulties as well in talking about these things. Someone once said that theology is the art of making proper distinctions. When those proper distinctions are not made, it makes it very hard, if not impossible, to speak or teach clearly on theological issues. I see some of this happening here as well. The way to avoid mixing sanctification and justification is not to stop properly teaching and preaching about the good works Christians do. That is the point. The Confessions make this point very clear:
Even though people who are converted and believe in Christ have the beginning of renewal, sanctification, love, virtue, and god works, these cannot and should not be drawn into, or mixed with, the article of justification before God. This is so the honor due to Christ may remain with Christ the Redeemer and tempted consciences may have a sure consolation, since our new obedience is incomplete and impure (FC SD III.35; Concordia, p. 542).
We can never, we must never, we should never, and may God grant it, may we never knowingly mix works into faith and ever give anyone the impression that it is by their working, their striving, their doing, their trying, their willing that they are sustained in grace and salvation. No, that is always by grace, through faith alone, in Christ alone, and on account of Christ alone. But, does this mean that preachers should not preach and teach about good works? Not only as they condemn sin, but as they urge and describe the new life in Christ? No.
What a refreshment it is once more to return to our Confessions and there read such powerfully clear and helpful comments about works. I ran across this one today that I found particularly useful, from the FC Epitome IV: Good Works:
"In these last times it is certainly no less needful to encourage people to Christian discipline, to the way of right and godly living, and to do good works. We need to remind them of how necessary it is that they exercise themselves in good works as a declaration of faith and gratitude to God. But works should not be mingled in the article of justification. People may be just as damned by an Epicurean delusion about faith as they are by papistic and Pharisaic confidence in their own works and merits." (Concordia, pg. 484).
And again, in the Solid Declaration, Article IV:
Christians should not be frightened away from good works, but should be admonished and urged to do them most diligently. (Concordia, p. 552).
I do not want to see Lutheran sermons turn into Evangelical pulpit-therapy sessions. I've seen that happen and it is revolting to me. "Jesus as afterthought" is not what I'm advocating here. I do not want to listen to sermons that give me thirty second of Gospel and twenty minutes of law and good work preaching. I'm not asking for that. I am asking, with respect, that we do not neglect proper preaching about sanctification and good works in our concern to avoid the pitfalls of Evangelicalism and legalism. May God grant it, for Jesus sake. Amen.
>>The way I understand 3rd use of the law and good works is that we do them because we are saved by Christ.<<
ReplyDeleteYup yup yup.
>>3rd use is for believers who have been already saved, and because of this are led by the Holy Spirit and God's Word to do good works.<<
Yup yup yup indeed.
>>The glory in these is supposed to be Christ's.<<
And it is, until/unless we start taking credit for it.
>>So how does this take the focus off of Christ,<<
When the preaching (from the pastor, or from the homeschool friend, or whomever) is about "you should do this and you should do that and you should do the other thing." When it's all about you and what you do. (Oh, of course, the Holy Spirit is going to help you along.) When the talk is primarily about what we should do, then the glory begins to be something of ours instead of something that is entirely of God. Lora, surely you've run into this in homeschool groups, or if you ever listened to Christian radio, or even when you're vacationing and visiting another church. The focus is on works, and Jesus is the one who helps you do them. I think the focus should be on Jesus, and the good works flow from that. It's not that it's one or the other, but about where the focus lies.
I hear a lot of moralism out there in the LCMS and among homeschool friends. I believe the Law was given by God to serve the preaching of the Gospel. "The law shows us our sin and how much we need a Savior." But a whole lot of people believe that the Gospel is given so as to provide us the motivation and the energy to obey the Law. That's the "focus" thing I'm talking about.
But don't we need to talk about good works? Yes, but it can't be the focus. Every Christian denomination out there in America today says that good works is important. (Actually, when you get right down to it, even the non-Christian churches teach that good works are important.) In American Christianity, the point of religion is to guide you into good works, and they all say that Jesus will help you do them. None of 'em say that you're left to do it all on your own power.
But the truth is different. It tells what God does for us. It tells of His love for us. It tells how He took on flesh and came to suffer and die our death. Of course (!) those who believe this will be doing good works. But that's not the point of what they believe. They believe the truth of Christianity because they have come to believe that all their righteousness is filthy rags, and that Christ is their Savior. Their eyes are on Jesus, and good works will result from that. It can't be any other way.
That doesn't mean Christians don't sin. But the sin doesn't flow from faith. It flows from the misbelief that is the essence of our old Adam. Lora, you've said that people need to be instructed in good works, and you gave examples like people who are shackin' up with their honey. That person doesn't need instruction in good works; he needs to be called to repentance. The old Adam needs to be smashed and drowned; not given instruction in how to be good; the old Adam ain't gonna be good.
But when the sinner is called to repentance, when the Law is preached to show him his sin, that exact same word functions to let him know what a Christian life should look like. The pastor doesn't have to say, "Hey, you're a sinner," and then have the guy say, "Yeah, I guess you're right; I'm sorry," and then have the pastor say, "You know, you really gotta quit shacking up," and the guy say, "Oh, gosh, really? When you convicted me of my sin with regard to the shacking up, I didn't realize that that meant I shouldn't keep doing it." HUH? What's that? Of course, if somebody is convicted of his sin, if he believes the gospel, he's going to have a change of heart. The Holy Spirit will have taught him and instructed him (3rd function of the law) to know that the evil he committed (2nd function of the law) isn't a good thing to keep doing. But it's ONE law that is preached.
Pr McCain wrote --
ReplyDelete>>your very good, right and salutary concern is that we do not take our eyes of Jesus, but you are assuming that talking about good works *is* taking our eyes of Jesus. I perceive your "solution" to the problem of sanctification cast adrift from Christ to be basically not talking about, urging, encouraging or otherwise, our folks to be doing good works and then talking about those things we have opportunity to do.<<
Ah ha! I think I might (maybe? possibly?) see where the communication-disjoint is.
Talking about good works IS, in many Christian denominations today, EXACTLY about taking your eyes off Jesus and putting them on yourself. (And sadly enough, Lutherans are not exempt from this.)
That does NOT mean that talking about good works HAS to go in that direction!!!
Pr McCain suggested that my "solution" to this is to not talk about good works. That's not quite it. I think the solution is to call sinners to repentance. (And yes, that involves specific words about a broad range of specific sin. Not a general wishy-washy "y'all are sinners.") I think the solution is to forgive sinners with all the abundance of Christ's merciful gospel. There has to be talk of good works! But when we realize the admonition to good works will CONVICT us of sin as well as instruct us in what Christian life should be, then we won't be leaving sinners floundering in their inability to do all they should do. When pastors preach the law lawfully, when they do it with intent to kill the old Adam, we WILL KNOW what a Christian is supposed to do, how he's supposed to act, what is bad, and what is good. The law will function to convict AND to instruct.
But if the pastor recognizes this (that his 3rd-use "instruction" also leaves us recognizing our sinful failings) he will be sure to give us the Gospel-forgiveness necessary to bring our focus back to Jesus' forgiveness (the same Gospel which also serves to give us the motivation and the strength to begin carrying out those good works).
Does this make any sense at all?
Resepctfully, I've said all I want to say on the subject on this blog site. Thanks for the conversation.
ReplyDeleteLora has put her finger on the issue well. Susan, you've raised good points, but I still think you have things a bit confused, particularly your assertion that you can never say to yourself, "I'm going to try to do this, by God's grace" when you are reading the Bible. That just isn't Biblical or Confessional. I hope you correct yourself on this point.
Cordially, in Christ, Paul
Pr McCain wrote about --
ReplyDelete>>some younger Lutherans who were quite able to repeat all the proper distinctions between faith and works, but then they proceeded, quite literally, I assure you, to indulge themselves<<
YES! I've begun to see that too! Oh, Lord have mercy on us! I was horrified when I heard that they're saying, "Shall we sin that grace may abound? Of course! We want grace to abound!"
It turns a Christian's stomach! How can they SAY that when their sin caused the wounds that Christ endured on the cross? (It makes me want to punch somethin'.)
I must say, though, that I don't think more "preaching third use" is going to have an effect. What these kids need is to be shown that they are rejecting Christ and shunning His word which is their only hope. There is a definite need for their sin to be painfully exposed in the mirror of the law. Interestingly enough, I know one of the pastors of a kid who says we "sin that grace may abound." He's not a guy who "preaches 3rd-use," but the pastor IS a guy who definitely preaches the law. Y'know, those hedonists ("Epicureans," as the Formula apparently calls them) can't take that "2nd-use law" either. If hedonists are hearing the call to repentance, they must either repent or justify themselves. (Or distance themselves from the preaching of Law.) Telling them how to be good Christians isn't going to effect them. Their self-justification needs to be ripped out from under them.
Might I suggest, Paul, that we agree that preachers could fall into either error:
Some will want to avoid talk of good works so as not to fall into the errors of Evangelicalism.
Others will want to tone down "too much" talk of forgiveness, so as not to allow their hearers to use it as an excuse for self-indulgence.
But both errors are errors.
There must be some way of talking about this without SOUNDING LIKE one is falling off into the opposite ditch (even if one is not). Or is there??
>>who have told me I've come across as being harsh and judgmental.<<
Sorry, I disagree with them. I think you've definitely come off as passionate! I haven't always agreed with your conclusions. But harsh and judgmental? Nah!