December 20th, 2006 at 11:00 am
It’s going to be quite hard to answer some questions I have on this topic without flying over the interest of most of my readers, but I’m hearing a tension in the discussion of sanctification in the Lutheran blogosphere. Maybe this tension isn’t supposed to be resolved. I hope to ask questions in the way that doesn’t oversimplify or lead to a pat answer unless I miss something.
I also (unfortunately that I have to, I might add) add that I don’t have a secret agenda against any of the parties I may mention in this post, and I in fact have a lot of respect for all of them.
So now that I’ve whetted your appetite for a topic that may taste as nasty as a Slim Fast bar:
Pastor Paul McCain on his blog has posted a topic twice now, “Aversion to Sanctification“. In addition to including an essay from the sainted Dr. Kurt Marquart, McCain makes the point:
I read sermons and hear comments that give me the impression that some Lutherans think that good works are something that “just happen” on some sort of a spiritual auto-pilot. Concern over a person believing their works are meritorious has led us to neglect clearly talk about good works. It seems some have forgotten that in fact we do confess three uses of the law, not just a first or second use and that this is nothing at all inappropriate about talking about the third use of the law. Our Lutheran Confessions make this very clear. The Apostle, St. Paul, never ceases to urge good works on his listeners and readers.
Another blogger, “Kobra,” has been reading Gerhard Forde’s essay in Christian Spirituality: Five Views of Sanctification. He gave a Forde quote on IRC:
Now, living morally is indeed an important, wish and good thing. There is no need to knock it. But it should not be equated with sanctification, being made holy.
Is there a tension here (well, there goes my goal for pat answers)? Are the preaching of good works and the desire to follow the Law elements of sanctification?
I’m pretty solid on justification, simul justus et peccator, 100% sinner and 100% saint, declared righteous only by the work of Jesus Christ on the Cross. I thank God for that.
We Lutherans confess in the explanation of the Third Article to the Apostles’ Creed, Small Catechism:
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. (emphasis mine)
If on my own all my deeds are as filthy rags (I believe this, Isaiah 64:6), and we are exhorted by St. Paul not to continue in sin even though we have been baptized (Romans 6:1-14), do we not acknowledge that the Holy Spirit enables us to do good works, not to receive salvation which we didn’t earn, but for the benefit of our neighbors, especially those who have yet to believe?
I am free to do good works, but my mortal side needs instruction on what are good works. What instruction I may receive from my natural conscience is tainted with concupiscence. If this sanctification that we confess doesn’t make us able in Christ to do works that we can compare to objective Biblical teaching and find good, then perhaps my perspective is a little off. I will never fulfill the Law. If it wasn’t meant to be followed, though, then it wouldn’t have been given.
Then I wander into the Large Catechism, where I see this on the Third Article:
36] For there are, besides, many kinds of spirits mentioned in the Holy Scriptures, as, the spirit of man, heavenly spirits, and evil spirits. But the Spirit of God alone is called Holy Ghost, that is, He who has sanctified and still sanctifies us. For as the Father is called Creator, the Son Redeemer, so the Holy Ghost, from His work, must be called Sanctifier, or One that makes holy. 37] But how is such sanctifying done? Answer: Just as the Son obtains dominion, whereby He wins us, through His birth, death, resurrection, etc., so also the Holy Ghost effects our sanctification by the following parts, namely, by the communion of saints or the Christian Church, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting; that is, He first leads us into His holy congregation, and places us in the bosom of the Church, whereby He preaches to us and brings us to Christ.(skipping)
39] Therefore sanctifying is nothing else than bringing us to Christ to receive this good, to which we could not attain of ourselves.
So which is it? Is sanctification the instruction in doing good works so that we sin less, or is sanctification the reception of holy communion, the forgiveness of sins, etc.? Or is it both?
Thanks for your time.


(No Ratings Yet)

December 20th, 2006 at 11:49 am
I like Slim Fast bars.
December 20th, 2006 at 11:53 am
Answering your ultimate question:
Yes.
December 20th, 2006 at 11:55 am
Put it this way: are the good works good according to the 2nd use of the law, or are they good according to the 3rd use, or according to the Gospel?
No, Yes, and Yes, respectively.
December 20th, 2006 at 1:20 pm
I don’t know if I can agree, Pr. Chryst. Works are good according to the Law or they are not. The use of the law doesn’t have anything to do with it.
The question, I suppose, is how are they good? They are never good in terms of making us worthy of salvation. They may be good in terms of being in accord with the will of God.
The uses of the Law are just that, uses. They are what the Law does when the Holy Spirit uses it on us.
It is not that we have three Laws. It is that the one Law is used by God in three ways.
December 20th, 2006 at 1:58 pm
Then let me expound:
According to the 2nd use of the law, none of our works are good. There is always sin. We always fall short. In this use of the law, everything we do is evil. There is no such thing as “good works”. Or would you argue that they are “good”, just not “good enough”?
BUT, according to the 3rd use of the law, I do believe works can be good. Of course not in earning salvation. Of course never perfectly. But good? Yes. Otherwise the use of the phrase “good works” (a la Ephesians 2:10, etc..) becomes meaningless. And I think it’s more than just civic righteousness, too, by the way.
However, mustn’t we connect this application of the law as being “through the lens of the Gospel”, by which all our works are considered good for the sake of Christ?
Pardon my previous oversimplification of the case. (Sometimes brevity clarifies, sometimes it obscures and sometimes I think it just leads to discussion).
But I do think that scripture speaks both ways about our works - being as “filthy rags” and also affirming that good works, in reality, CAN be done. I think that’s the tension/paradox that Dan is getting at.
December 20th, 2006 at 3:44 pm
First: Without faith it is impossible to please God, so no work is good without faith.
Second: The Holy Spirit creates faith by the Gospel. Christ then lives in me and being clothed with Christ, my works become good.
Third: Sanctification doesn’t mean that there is new or other work for you now that you have faith. Vocation comes in here. That which you are supposed to do, which you fail at doing correctly because you are “peccator,” is made a good work because you are “justus.”
Sanctification is the Gospel, or the process whereby the Gospel creates in me a clean heart. The Gospel is the only thing that can change or motivate a man. Therefore, the reception of Holy Communion, the reception of forgiveness, and the Gospel Proclaimed *accomplish* the instruction of a holy life.
Pr. Juhl is right. And succinct!
hth.
Scott
December 20th, 2006 at 3:51 pm
Well, Scott…
Not exactly. Works can be good apart from faith, they just can’t please God.
There are two kinds of righteousness. It’s not as if only righteousness before God counts and civil righteousness doesn’t.
Righteousness before God is given by Him through faith. It receives life and salvation.
Civil righteousness is before the world. It does not save us. But it is a good work.
December 22nd, 2006 at 3:34 pm
That the good works Christians do have civil benefit is an added bonus for the community. That the civil works of unbelievers have benefit for the Christian is God’s blessing in vocation.
I don’t think the Scriptures urge us to good works without faith. I don’t think they suggest that. Therefore, it is my opinion that “civil righteousness” is an accident brought about by vocation, both by Christians, and accidentally carried out by those who lack faith.
If “No one is good” the works must follow.
December 22nd, 2006 at 4:09 pm
So, Chaz. If we grant that those works are good in the civic sense, will you call the doing of them sanctification? Because the evil can do them. “If you being evil give good things to your children…” I wouldn’t call something sanctification if it can exist apart from the Gospel, even if I am willing to say that on the earthly plane the works are to be called good.
December 30th, 2006 at 10:32 am
Part of the challenge in this conversation is simply one of how we define words. My beloved professor Kurt Marquart was fond of saying, “You can say anything you want as long as you explain it correctly.” He was exaggerating, of course, to make a good point. Definition and understanding of terms is all important.
Sanctification is used sometimes in Scripture and Confessions in a manner identical to how we would use the term “justification” …. in other places it is used to describe that process by which, in this life, the old man/new man tension and struggle continues until we die.
Forde and those of his stripe were always uncomfortable with the third use of the law and effectively denied that it exists.
I’m sticking with Professor Marquart’s very wise and salutary words on “Aversion to Sanctification” since it does well state a problem in well-intended confessional Lutheran preaching.
Blessings!
January 6th, 2007 at 5:13 pm
Along these lines, read the excellent treatment by Reinhard Hutter, Bound to Be Free: Evangelical Catholic Engagements in Ecclesiology, Ethics, and Ecumenism. This is the best Lutheran treatment of what discipleship might mean for Lutherans particularly and all catholic Christians in general.
January 6th, 2007 at 10:24 pm
Pastor McDonald, thank you. I’ve just added it to my Amazon wish list.