For example, there is a tendency among confessional Lutherans today to get confused about free will and free choice. You might even catch a confessional Lutheran saying that "we don't have free will." But if "we" are baptized, we must certainly do! In fact, even unbaptized people have free will (voluntas) because by definition the will is free. It is the choice (arbitrium) of fallen man that is servile. And if you are baptized, even your choice is now free, though, of course, in great weakness. Here's Gerhard:
(II) Neither does the question concern the state of the reborn and renewed person: as to how the powers of free choice have been established in him, for we confess that the person who has been reborn and renewed through the Holy Spirit has free will toward spiritual good, in fact, a will freed from slavery to sin by the power of the Holy Spirit. Yet in this life this freedom is far from the perfect freedom of the life to come, as shall be explained in greater detail a little later.
+HRC
What accounts for this tendency among confessional Lutherans? What truth would you say such a Lutheran is mis- or overstating when he says that "we don't have free will"?
ReplyDeleteTwo things, I think, one good and one bad.
DeleteThe good: I think it happens as carry over from living in a context where the main form of cultural Christianity is Billy Graham-style "make your decision for Christ." We spend so much time expressing the truth that human beings *don't* have free choice in matters of salvation *before* regeneration, that men are dead in trespasses and sins, that this language ends up carrying over into how we talk about free choice in every context.
The bad: to say that "we," that is, baptized Christians, don't have free will and free choice helps out with the sad tendency in modern Lutheranism to advocate for a sort of antinomianism. "We don't have free will, we are bound in our sins, we can never make improvements in our sanctification, I just can't help doing this or that sin."
Antinomianism has been a faction of Lutheranism from the beginning - see Luther's response to it in the Smalcald Articles III.3.42-45
+HRC
Thank you! Would that every pastor read this and take it to heart.
ReplyDeleteI like Fr. Petersen's reference to free will in this article that he wrote.
ReplyDeletehttp://redeemer-fortwayne.org/nuggets.php?nugid=260
Thanks for the link. As always, Fr. Petersen's nuggets are golden.
DeleteThis is a fascinating post! Could it be that this is, in part, what feeds into the spiritual apathy that seems to run rampant in congregations (lack of church attendance, lack of cheerful giving, lack of use of private confession, irregular reception of holy communion, lack of Bible study attendance)? In short, even though we are new creatures in Christ through Holy Baptism, we are apathetic toward the good spiritual things needed to maintain us in this faith.
ReplyDeleteI recently posted somewhere else that the sin of pride is a kissing cousin with the sin of apathy. Pride was the sin of Adam and Eve, as they rose up and did something they were commanded by God not to do. Apathy, on the other hand, is the lack of doing good in the baptismal faith. If someone is told they have no free will and free choice after baptismal regeneration, then what is the use of participating in the good spiritual life called Christianity?
Indeed, I think all of these problems regarding the living of an active Christian life, sanctification, our talk of free will/choice, etc. stem from constantly having to fight against pop-Christianity's false teaching on works leading to salvation. This has made us allergic to talking about good works, growth in sanctification, etc.
DeleteA good corrective is to commit to reading through Luther's sermons for a year. The man who wrote De Servo Arbitrio was no stranger to strong exhortation and preaching growth in sanctification.
+HRC
Luther's "On the Freedom of a Christian" and surrounding material is filled with such talk. "For it is not from works that we are free through faith in Christ, but from opinions concerning works. . . Good works neither can nor ought be absent, just as we cannot exist without food and drink and every work of this mortal body. Yet our righteousness is not founded upon them, but in faith. Still works are not on that account to be despised or omitted." Where I struggle is in preaching as such. How does the conscience receive the third use of the Law? If as second, it seems to have missed the mark.
DeleteI think this is something we just have to be aware of. The law always accuses - even when we intend it as third use. But that is OK. We can always circle back to the Gospel. But the solution is definitely not doing away with the preaching of the 3rd use.
Delete+HRC
I find my heart strangely warmed by HR's comments.
ReplyDeleteWhy would St. Paul spend so much time exhorting the brethren of the various churches (and us today) to do this or that good thing if we did not have free will to either heed or not heed such exhortation? I find his emendation not to "receive the grace of God in vain" to be especially demonstrative of Fr. Curtis's point. As God's new creatures in Christ Jesus, there are good works prepared beforehand for us to do. Perhaps some read this and think that the good works flow from us without any intention or exertion on our part. I know I've heard variations on this theme -- whether unintended or not, I don't know.
ReplyDeleteSo, we as Lutherans would affirm that good works are not necessary for salvation. But that's a far cry from good works being unnecessary, period. But then I wonder, does framing the matter in terms of "necessity" really clarify anything?
Well said, gentlemen. I believe this is a key and central issue in 21st century American Lutheranism. Just as Rome and the East continually fight the devil of works righteousness and all its works and all its ways, we Lutherans seem to bear the cross of being tormented by the demon Antinomianism in every generation.
ReplyDeleteI'm curious about something. Perhaps you collared fellows can help me sort it out...
ReplyDeleteThe following quotation comes from this piece, The Simul Distinction in Lutheran Pastoral Care:
For Lutheran pastoral care...the key to the proper application of the “simul” distinction is acknowledging that the sinner cannot be rehabilitated by the Law, or good works.. He can’t be coerced to do them by threats either. Death and resurrection is the mechanism by which God saves him. There’s no progress in holiness. There’s no ladder to climb. There’s no becoming less a sinner and more a saint. Every day the old man in Adam must die; the new man in Christ must rise. This is also key to understanding the proper function of the Law. It curbs, mirrors, and instructs the old man in Adam, the sinner. It does so to his death.
I don't know that I disagree with what Pr. Riley writes here. However, there's a sense that one gets towards the end of the quotation (which should of course be read in the context of the longer piece) that the curbing, mirroring, and instructing of the old man in Adam, the sinner, to his death is an exercise in futility -- after all, "[t]here's no progress in holiness." Or...is there?
Again, my question here is similar to the one I first asked: is this also an example of a truth being mis- or overstated?
It's hard to say everything all the time - there is nothing wrong with what Fr. Riley writes, but neither is it the whole story. There is no progress in holiness *in the context of justification*. But there is progress in holiness *in the context of sanctification*.
Delete+HRC
Jordan Cooper over at Just and Sinner has this to say:
ReplyDeleteA Message to Lutherans: Stop Being So Reactionary
"In some contemporary Lutheran circles I have often seen the same kind of overreaction, not to Romanism, but to Pietism. Because of the unfortunate subjective 'sanctification' focus to the neglect of the objectivity of the cross and God's declarative word of justification, some Lutherans have labelled any desire for holiness, and any preaching of the third use of the Law, as Pietistic."
I think the problem has always been that Philosophers and Lutherans mean two completely different things by "free will", both in terms of its essence, and in terms of its scope.
ReplyDeleteThe Philosopher means the will is free, as opposed to being pre-determined and therefore not a will at all. By that definition the Lutheran agrees and says, "Yes, the will of man is free. He actually wills to do what he does. He makes a free choice."
However, the Lutheran continues, "Nevertheless, his free choice is bound by the corruption of his nature. The only thing he actually wills and chooses to do, in regards to God, is evil." He has a will. It is a bound will. Yet the Philosopher would look at this bound will, and say that it is still free, that is, that it still wills to do what it does.
But the distinction is even more narrow, truly, for the Lutheran only confesses a bound will in regard to conversion, not in human activity in general, and that only, as Gerhard and Luther teach, only before conversion.
Further, it is a mistake to speak of "free will" in regards to things like the ability of man to love, or do good works, before conversion. The problem here is not one of free will, or lack thereof, but of ability. Man, before conversion, does not have the capacity to do good works, as properly defined. That does not mean that he lacks the free will to do them. In like manner, I lack the capacity of unassisted flight. Nevertheless, I do not lack the free will to fly.
So whenever you hear someone declaring that man has free will, consider that, unless they are talking about conversion, then you, as a Lutheran, probably agree with them. And even if they are talking about conversion, you may still agree with them if, as is often the case, they mean the existence of man's will, and not it's limitations.
Perhaps what Pr. Riley means is that the old man never gets any better. The flesh doesn't learn to love. The flesh needs to die because it profits nothing. But the new man, the Christian, grows in grace and knowledge. This new man never grows so that he would do anything but count all things but loss that he might gain Christ, not having his own righteousness of the law, but the righteousness of faith in Christ.
DeleteThe very term "progressive sanctification" is scary, even if some know how to teach it well, simply because it is so often used to distance the Christian from the daily dying to self that baptism signifies.
Very well said, Pr. Diers!
Delete