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!

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

No, Yes, and Yes, respectively.