Two of the complaints that have arisen in response to the recent posts on preaching the law "Are you an Antinomian," "Luther in the Antinomian Disputations," "Some thoughts on Law & Gospel Preaching," and "Good example of exhortation," is that to preach the law in a manner so as to exhort to good works, especially after having preached the gospel, is to forget that 1) we are simultaneously sinner and saint (the simul), and 2) the law always accuses. I'd like to look at these briefly and ponder their merit.
We know from the Scriptures and the Confessions that the new man in Christ delights in the law of the Lord. It accuses him not. For in Christ, who is the fulfillment of the law, the new man also has fulfilled the law of God perfectly and completely (FCSD V and VI).
We know also from the Scriptures and the Confessions that the old man must be put to death by daily contrition and repentance. He is a recalcitrant donkey who needs to be prodded, pushed, and pulled, even threatened to do what is good and right. The law then accuses because the old man still clings to the flesh (FCSD V and VI).
I think we who have been hashing this out, sharpening one another as iron sharpens iron, agree on both these statements. What we have been seemingly disagreeing about is whether it is proper to end a sermon with a use of the law as exhortation to good. The above posts have argued that yes we should. Others have disagreed (You can read this in the comments). The reason one must not preach the law as exhortation to good after you have freed them with the gospel is that it binds those who are free or worse heaps more chains on those who are already bound. This is so because you must remember the simul because the law always accuses. So the argument, as I've understood it, is that if you preach the law as exhortation to good you at the end of a sermon you have forgotten the simul because the law always accuses and thus have bound those who are free.
Now it seems to me that it is not those who encourage exhortation who have forgotten the simul, but those who reject it. Here is why.
The new man delights in the law of the Lord. He meditates on it day and night. He hears it with joy and a glad heart.
The old man chafes under the law, as well he should. For it accuses him constantly. There is no reformation of the old man. He can not be made better. He needs to be killed. He needs to be drowned. He must die. But the old man is a good swimmer. And he continues to cling in the flesh. So he must be continually killed. He must continually be made with the bit and bridle of the law to be prodded, pushed, and pulled, even threatened to do what is good and right. And that is the law's job, not the job of the gospel.
The gospel frees men from their sin so that a new man might arise in them to live before God in righteousness and purity forever. The gospel frees men from their sin so that they might hear the law of God as it was intended to be heard, so that they will rejoice in it. That is to say, to preach exhortation to the Christian at the end of a sermon, takes into account both natures in him, the new man and the old man alike. It preaches what the new man will rejoice in, and it preaches what must force and kill the old man who will use even the most precious gospel as license to do what he ought not to do.
Refraining from this preaching of the law, the preaching of exhortation to good, forgets the simul in that it fails to recognize either that the old man in the Christian will stop at nothing to use freedom for sinful advantage or that he is in someway no longer present and needs to be killed. If the old man is further bound, if more links are added to the chains that weigh him down in the water to kill him, then that is exactly what he needs. And the new man hears the Lords commands with joy. He can't be bound. For he has already fulfilled it in Christ.
So do not be afraid to preach exhortation to good. The law will do what the law does for the Christian, the old and new man alike, by the power of the Spirit attached to the Word.
Very perceptive and helpful.
ReplyDeleteGood words. Thanks, Fr. Braaten.
ReplyDeleteWait a minute. This whole discussion has been about TIMING? You're discussing whether the sermon can END with law/exhortation?
ReplyDeleteShouldn't the discussion be about balance? Shouldn't the discussion be about whether the law that's preached KILLS or whether it's pat-myself-on-the-back kind of law? Shouldn't the discussion be about whether the gospel predominates? Shouldn't the discussion allow for the fact that the pastor may be tending to sheep whose weaknesses he knows (whether the sinful nature wants to use gospel-freedom for sinful advantage, or whether the sinful nature wants to use the law to puff up the self's works)?
I don't care diddly whether the pastor ends the sermon with law or gospel. He hears confession; he hears the questions that arise in Bible class. He knows what the congregation needs. He knows when ending with exhortation might crush people; if so, then he can exhort but also give comfort.
We laymen don't care about the timing so much as we care about the pastor's purpose. We come to recognize when the pastor is preaching the gospel only as a means to serve the law; also, we can tell when the pastor preaches the law so that it serves the gospel. That's far more important than WHEN in the sermon he speaks different aspects of God's word.
Dear Susan,
DeleteI think that much of what this conversation has ended up being about was not what it was intended to be about by those who initiated it, but rather rabbit tracks down which the conversation was forced by the persistent protests of others, which have also been unfortunate in many other ways, and not only in terms of this discussion ...
And I think that these same persistent protests have to a large extent hindered the conversation from going into some of the questions you raise, such as the balance of Law and Gospel in preaching, and exactly how to maintain or even measure a such balance (whether by counting words or seconds spent on each, or by weighing the significance and clarity of statements), or the Pastor's judgement, guided by the Spirit in accordance with the promise of Christ, as to what are the current and immediate spiritual needs in the congregations.
And o, how I wish that what you say laymen care about would be what ALL laymen cared about.
And o how I wish that what you say laymen care about would be what some of our leaders would have taught our laymen to care about - instead of teaching them to sit with mental checklists, counting words or minutes or the chronological order of respectively Law and Gospel statements (as defined solely by personal preference), or seconds of eye contact, or seconds of looking down at the script, or number of ILLUSTRATIONS (again, defined solely by anybody's personal preference).
I'm pretty sure Susan Gehlbach knows very well that "this whole issue" is not about timing.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete”We know also from the Scriptures and the Confessions that the old man must be put to death by daily contrition and repentance.”
ReplyDeleteWe may know this from the Confessions, but not from Scripture. Luther, who made this statement in the Small Catechism explaining Baptism, writes that this is found in Romans 6. I challenge anyone to find anything even close to this in Romans 6. St. Paul speaks of one death- our Lord’s and ours, and one resurrection- our Lord’s and ours in Baptism.
“The Old Man” also known as “The Old Adam” is portrayed as a separate being from the real us. If it were so, there would be no “simul” - certainly not at whatever point during the day we had succeeded in putting to death the “old Man”. He does seem lively, because on the next day he is there again, ready to be put to death once more. The truth is that we are regenerated human beings who are “simul iustus et peccator.” There are not two separate beings living in us, one good one evil. If we put to death any part of us, we put to death the entire being. The good news of the Gospel is that this entire imperfect human being is considered “iustus” and beloved by our gracious Father, because of the life, sacrifice, and death of our Lord.
None of this is to deny the struggle of the Christian against sin and the flesh. But this is not the purpose of the Christian life. The purpose of our lives is, that being freed from the power of sin and death and from the condemnation of the Law, we who “have the mind of Christ” can become like Him who “had this mind in Him” and “took on the form of a servant” so that we may feed, clothe, give drink to, and visit the least of His brethren. Gal. 5:22 By contrast, the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, and self-control. There is no law against such things.”
Peace and Joy!
George A. Marquart
George, are you a Lutheran?
DeleteGeorge,
DeleteLuther is not saying that the old man must be killed over and over, as if we are reconverted over and over. I think he says, as does Scripture, that without faith we are just peccator - no justus. Faith is continual contrition and repentance and trust in God's forgiveness.
Dave, Luther says, “What does such baptizing with water signify?--Answer. It signifies that the old Adam in us should, by daily contrition and repentance, be drowned and die with all sins and evil lusts, and, again, a new man daily come forth and arise; who shall live before God in righteousness and purity forever.” He is saying precisely that the old man must be killed over and over again. As to what he means by that, whether we have to be reconverted over and over again, your guess is as good as mine. But if we deny what he says clearly, what is the point of guessing about what is unclear?
DeleteOf course without faith we are just “peccator”. But that not what Luther is dealing with here. Faith is not the result of sanctification; faith is a gift of God given, as a rule, in Baptism. No, Faith is not continual contrition and repentance and trust in God's forgiveness. Is that what was counted to Abraham as righteousness? Faith is not continual contrition, faith is not continual repentance, faith is continual trust in God, but not only in His forgiveness. Faith is the gift of God to us that acknowledges that, Colossians 1: 13, “He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, 14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.” Contrition and repentance are fine works indeed, but when our Lord taught us to pray, He did not say that the petition about our trespasses is the most important one. If anything, it is “Hallowed be Thy Name.”
Peace and Joy!
George A. Marquart
George, you may have missed my question.
DeleteAre you a Lutheran?
George,
DeleteYou bring up some good points. I really never thought about it that way, but I'm going to think about it.
Thanks,
Dave
George,
DeleteI know that Luther did not mean that the Holy Spirit leaves us each day and we must gain Him back through contrition and repentance. He does not mean that the old man needs to be "re-killed" every day. He means that the old man needs to stay killed throughout our days. The key, I think, is the simul part. The Holy Spirit and faith must remain continually else the old man will live and rule in us again.
Faith that is not repentance is no faith. How can you have faith in Colossians 1: 13 if you do not believe you have sinned?
Rev. McCain,
DeleteDo you have any thoughts on this? They would be much appreciated.
Dave
Dave, no, not really. I am still trying to figure out where George is coming from. Is he even a Lutheran? I know his brother was.
DeleteDave, thank you for your gracious response. This whole sequence began because I objected to the statement, ”We know also from the Scriptures and the Confessions that the old man must be put to death by daily contrition and repentance.” The Holy Spirit leaving us each day and then returning was never an issue. If the old man stays killed throughout our days, then why does he need to be drowned daily? Indeed, then we would be semper iustus, non peccator.
DeleteIndeed the Holy Spirit and faith must remain to the end of our days on this earth. But both came to us without any merit and worthiness on our part as pure gifts. The Good Shepherd does not leave us alone because of our sin, but He continually searches for those who are lost. It is a strictly human idea that sin causes God to leave us. He came to take away our sin, which He did quite effectively. He came to save sinners. Therefore now, we can say with those wonderful words by St. Paul, Romans 5:1, “Therefore, being justified by faith we have peace with God …”
You write, “Faith that is not repentance is no faith.” Faith is a gift of God, not our own doing. Contrition is the way one who has faith responds to God’s grace, because the person recognizes the enormity of God’s gift and his own unworthiness. When the writer of Hebrews tells the story of all of the Patriarchs who lived by faith and were therefore declared righteous, repentance or contrition are not mentioned.
Finally, you write, “How can you have faith in Colossians 1: 13 if you do not believe you have sinned?” Please, point out to me even a single instance where I wrote that I have not sinned. If I believe in “the kingdom of his beloved Son, 14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins”, how can I possibly believe in redemption and the forgiveness of sins if I don’t believe I have any sins? I believe that our Lord “took away” my sins together with the sins of the world. I believe that my Lord forgave me every sin I committed before I ever once expressed repentance and contrition. I indeed confess my sins daily in contrition and repentance, but I don’t do this with the expectation that these sins will now be forgiven, but with the certainty that God forgives all my sins. I would not hazard a guess, but I suspect the sins any of us confess are a miniscule percentage of the sins we actually commit every day.
Peace and Joy!
George A. Marquart
George, are you a Lutheran?
DeleteGeorge,
DeleteIf the old man stays killed, it is because he is continually drowned by the water of baptism.
I receive real, full, and new forgiveness every time I ask.
I was just informed that George is an ELCA Lutheran. What a tragedy!
DeletePaul, your past rudeness caused me to decide some time ago that I would not respond to your barbs. Now you can add false witness as another reason.
DeleteGeorge
Some of the confusion here appears to be from semantics and stretching analogies. By daily drowning of the old Adam, Luther is referring to continually killing him, not killing him at discrete intervals. The old Adam in us does not stay dead after our baptism, or there would be no simul. By this statement, Luther means that Justification was realized at our baptism, but is continually realized throughout our life as well. Yes, we were forgiven once and for all, for all of our sins, but we still continually need the means of grace. Daily killing the old Adam means the daily struggle of life as justified and sinner. Daily struggle means continual struggle, not that it happens once a day. Note that the killing of the old Adam comes from the means of Grace, and is a gift of God, not from ourselves.
DeleteIt is clear from his comments, that George holds a quatanus subscription to the BOC, making him most likely ELCA, but I see no reason why we can't engage in civil discourse with our non-confessional friends. Indeed, I hope we all discuss and explain the truths of scripture with non-LCMS folks.
DeleteGeorge, so what Pastor William Weedon told me is untrue? You are not an ELCA Lutheran?
DeleteI have heard now from Pastor Weedon who informed me that he was mistaken, George is not back in a LCMS congregation.
DeleteI apologize to Mr. Marquart for posting incorrect information.
If I may be so bold...
ReplyDeleteHave you ever been confused about the subject of the "third use of the law"?
Listen in on this conversation about what the Lutheran Church teaches about it:
http://www.podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/issuesetc.org/podcast/14321217133.mp3
Dr.Luther says: "Therefore it is as necessary that faithful preachers urge good works as that they urge the doctrine of faith. For Satan is enraged by both and bitterly resists them. Nevertheless, faith must be implanted first; for without it one cannot understand what a good work is and what is pleasing to God." -1535 Galatians lectures, LW 27:53.
I think most of us understand that proper distinction between Law and Gospel is necessary, but how to do that has always been difficult, indeed any one who can do that should be called a doctor of theology. Some of these comments and the post focus on proving that works should be preached, but I don't think that is the issue. I think the order is the issue. Many laymen have had it ingrained in them by pastors that the sermon must end with the Gospel and Walther's VII thesis is often cited, "[T]he Word of God is not rightly divided when the Gospel is preached first and then the Law"
ReplyDeleteOops, I forgot to mention that Walter continues by saying, "The second perversion of the true sequence occurs when sanctification of life is preached before justification". Ironically, the advocates I mentioned above forget to add in that part as well.
DeleteMark, bingo.
DeleteFirst, they do not read Walther well, or rightly, by quoting him selectively.
Second, they should but only familiarize themselves with his sermons to see that they do not understand him correctly.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteRather than just put the Luther quotes here, I have taken them down and am going to put them into a brief blog post, because I think they succinctly get at the heart of the recent discussion.
ReplyDeletePastor Surburg,
ReplyDeleteI think it is great that you post these. But, I don't understand who you are opposing. Unless there are posts that I'm not privy to, I don't see anyone saying that pastors should not preach the 3rd use (with the exception of George, but he doesn't seem to agree much with Luther so I doubt it would make any difference to him).
I know a lot of people are evidently having a hard time believing us (by us, I mean Mark, myself, Jason): but we are not opposing any person or group of persons beyond ourselves - our practice, or rather failure to put that theology we would all agree to in words into practice. While seeking to correct our own practice other folks have chimed in to say things like "the Law only condemns" and "a pastor who ends a sermon with the Law leaves his people in their sins." So, it seems that our weak practice was not isolated. Luther's comments serve as correctives.
Delete+HRC
I must say, I am really puzzled by some of the responses to these conversations about how whether or not Pastors should and how they can best make sure that their parishioners are aware that God actually demands actual obedience, not only of heathens, but also of His Christians.
DeleteI am really puzzled as to where it comes from, this apparent absolute assurance that this conversation is intended only as an attack and insult against a particular person or particular persons.
I am puzzled about the apparent assurance that all who take part in this conversation are part of a well organised malicious conspiracy - except for those against those whom this conversation is, apparently, a conspiracy - whoever they might be.
I still do not know who this person would be, or these persons - or how anybody else would know - or how that person or these persons would be supposed to know, so as to be hurt and harmed by the attacks and the insults, as is apparently the purpose for which this whole discussion has been engineered by the conspirators - which would apparently be all who have participated - except some - somehow ...
I just do not see it. It makes no sense to me whatsoever.
.
And I am puzzled by this new principle of pastoral ethics that has suddenly developed, that bright and theologically skillful Pastors who have thoughts to share about preaching are not allowed to publicise their thoughts on the internet, for the benefit of brother pastors such as myself, because of the danger that a layman might choose to seek out a website where Pastors discuss such things that, and might choose to read what is posted there, and choose to continue reading, and to continue, and to continue, and might, at the end of the exercise, find that he or she has not benefited from having chosen to take the time and make the effort to do so. And therefore, only those who are familiar with these bright minds on a personal level so as to talk on the phone on a regular basis are allowed to learn about the thoughts. Or Pastors in their own circuits. Pastors such as myself, who do not know any of these bright minds personally, whom they are highly unlikely to call up on the phone to share their thoughts, and who would not know whom to call, and when, and regarding what, we must be kept unaware of the theological thinking been done.
I assume that this would mean that Pastors are not allowed to write articles on such topics for theological periodicals, either or to write books on preaching - for just as is the case with such discussions on the internet, there is no guarantee that a layman might not get his hands on a copy of a such publication - and then we would have the same devastating disaster again - in whichever way that would be a devastating disaster.
I fail to fathom the philosophy.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteDave, what really dismays me about this and similar blogs is that, instead of addressing the issues, people spread false witness, innuendo, and think that putting a label on a person is a legitimate form of debate. Although I do not know who is and who is not an ordained minister, I suspect all claim to be Christian. I can ascribe ignorance of logic to a poor education, but the rest?
DeletePlease show me where I opposed the idea that pastors should preach the Third Use of the Law.
The disagreements I have with Luther are a miniscule portion of all of the writings of that great servant of God. I thank God that He raised this man to bring back the Gospel to the Church. I cannot tell you what a liberating experience it was for me when, deeply troubled in my youth, I read “Von der Freiheit eines Christenmenschen”. When I make public my disagreement with him, it is because those who think him right in those places where I think he is wrong, do harm to the Church and obscure the Gospel. It is possible that I am wrong in my disagreements, but please convince me with substantive arguments. There are some who think that labeling me a “quatenus” confessor ends the matter. I am reminded of Ivan the Terrible who, when asked what arguments he would use against the Papal Nuncio, said, “I will tell him that we cross ourselves with two fingers, and it is obvious that they are heretics because they cross themselves with three.”
It may be that this is a reductio ad absurdum but I assume that you disagree with what Luther wrote in “Über die Juden und ihre Lügen”? The way to determine what is true and what is not is to see if it agrees with Scripture or not. That applies to every word Luther wrote. I am convinced that in the vast majority of the cases Luther and Scripture agree. But how can we deny infallibility to the Pope but grant it to another man or a set of other books?
Peace and Joy!
George A. Marquart
Here is Mark Surburg's excellent blog post on these issues:
ReplyDeletehttp://surburg.blogspot.com/2013/12/marks-thoughts-what-wrong-with-luther.html?spref=fb
George,
ReplyDeleteHey there. We've had some discussions in the past. One in particular took place at Gene Veith's blog following Dr. Veith's praise of Steve Paulson's book, Lutheran theology.
We went back and forth there and I asked you if I could make a post of our conversation. I did, and later on, Pastor McCain re-posted what I wrote on his blog. Here is part 1: http://infanttheology.wordpress.com/2012/04/02/dangerous-children-to-the-world-or-to-the-word/ and here is part II: http://infanttheology.wordpress.com/2012/05/01/dangerous-children-to-the-world-or-to-the-word-part-2/
This conversation really helped me to understand your thinking - and get a sense of where it can lead. Please take a look at them (I hope you will find my selective quoting fair). So much of what you are saying sounds good, but can we lose faith in Christ and be damned? And if so, how does this happen? I think the Scriptures are pretty clear.
I appreciate Pastor Curtis' and Braaten's and Surburg's approach here: to point the finger at themselves. That is all well and good. That said, I do not think there is anything wrong with pointing at others as well, particularly men like Forde and Paulson - men like these have been influencing many LCMS men off and on throughout the 20th century.
The fact of the matter is that someone very dear to me - who is a very theolgically-minded ELCA man - recently was raving to me about Paulson's book, telling me how good it was. It was quite marked up. This man also has no trouble with committed same sex relationships and other things many of us would find offensive and unbiblical. Needless to say, that produces some cognitive dissonance (didn't professors Kolb and Pless endorse this book?)
Why might that be? What might there be about person's being able to read men like Forde and Paulson and come away thinking that these kinds of things could possibly be acceptable? What kind of view of God's law - and the danger that we walk in all the way - do people get from that book? Honest question.
I will try to check in here again, but probably not until after Christmas and later...
+Nathan
Dear Nathan, thank you for remembering me and for your kind words. Being of advanced age, I rely more on the memory of my computer than that of my brain. The computer remembers the details of our conversation; I remember that it took place in a spirit of mutual respect, so that, even though we did not reach agreement at the end, I never felt that there was any personal animosity generated in that exchange – quite the opposite.
DeleteI have read both parts of your posting and find that you have quoted me quite fairly.
You write, “So much of what you are saying sounds good, but can we lose faith in Christ and be damned? And if so, how does this happen? I think the Scriptures are pretty clear.” To the extent possible, I do not express personal opinions, but what Scripture clearly teaches. To the extent that I write about the Gospel, what I write sounds good. In as much as we live in an imperfect world, we can lose faith in Christ and be damned. But I am not sure that Scripture is all that clear about how that happens. I will confess that there are things I have done in my life that Scripture and the Confessions teach lead to eternal death. I am troubled when I read 1 Corinthians 6, “9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” I am even more troubled when St. Paul continues, “11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God,” because, whichever of these sins I am guilty of, I committed after I was washed and sanctified. So should I give up and say, “It does not matter what I do any more, I am doomed for eternity”? By the grace of God, I am comforted by the words of our Lord, Mark 3: 28 "Truly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter…”, as well as those wonderful words of Luther in the explanation to the Third Article of the Creed, “I believe that I cannot by my own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ, my Lord, or come to Him; but the Holy Ghost has called me by the Gospel, enlightened me with His gifts, sanctified and kept me in the true faith; even as He calls, gathers, enlightens, and sanctifies the whole Christian Church on earth, and keeps it with Jesus Christ in the one true faith; in which Christian Church He forgives daily and richly all sins to me and all believers, and at the last day will raise up me and all the dead, and will give to me and to all believers in Christ everlasting life. This is most certainly true.” It’s the “keeping” and “forgiving” that provide the comfort. Also, what St. Paul says later in the same Epistle, 1 Cor. 12: 3 Therefore I want you to understand that no one speaking by the Spirit of God ever says "Let Jesus be cursed!" and no one can say "Jesus is Lord" except by the Holy Spirit.” So I affirm that “Jesus is Lord” and with Luther, “I have been baptized.”
That is not to ignore that the Mark passage continues, “29 but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin". I am reminded of the fact that 90% of those Germans who committed atrocities against Jews, homosexuals, gypsies and others were baptized. Nevertheless, it is not ours to judge. Ours is to ”teach them to obey everything that I have commanded you.” That is what the Church failed to do both in Germany and in Russia.
I am sure I am wearing out the patience of the owners of this blog.
Peace and Joy!
George A. Marquart
Some thoughts related to this topic: http://surburg.blogspot.com/2013/12/marks-thoughts-what-wrong-with-luther.html
ReplyDeleteGeorge,
ReplyDeleteSorry it took me so long to get back here. I think most all of what you wrote sounds good. And in the context in which you say "it is not ours to judge" I agree. My only point would be that in other contexts, the church, in many ways, does and must make judgments of all kinds, based on the Scriptures in accordance with the Spirit.
We Lutherans often do seem eager, it seems to me, to abandon this agency which we can't deny.
+Nathan