Aversion to Sanctification?

Here is something I posted over a year ago, and in light of the most recent post on the subject, I thought it would be good to offer these thoughts again. I'm growing increasingly concerned that with the necessary distinction between faith and works that we must always maintain, we Lutherans are tempted to speak of good works and the life of sanctification in such a way as to either minimize it, or worse yet, neglect it. 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. I recall a conversation once with a person who should know better telling me that the exhortations to good works and lengthy discussions of sanctification we find in the New Testament are not a model at all for preaching, since Paul is not "preaching" but rather writing a letter. When I pointed out that all the historic Lutheran preachers never failed to speak about good works and sanctification, I was told that this no model for our preaching either and that in fact Luther does not properly distinguish between Law and Gospel in his sermons. This is not a good thing. Several years ago an article appeared that put matters well and sounded a very important word of warning and caution. It is by Professor Kurt E. Marquart of Concordia Theological Seminary in Fort Wayne, Indiana. I strongly encourage you to give it your most serious attention.

Antinomian Aversion to Sanctification?

An emerited brother writes that he is disturbed by a kind of preaching that avoids sanctification and "seemingly questions the Formula of Concord . . . about the Third Use of the Law." The odd thing is that this attitude, he writes, is found among would-be confessional pastors, even though it is really akin to the antinomianism of "Seminex"! He asks, "How can one read the Scriptures over and over and not see how much and how often our Lord (in the Gospels) and the Apostles (in the Epistles) call for Christian sanctification, crucifying the flesh, putting down the old man and putting on the new man, abounding in the work of the Lord, provoking to love and good works, being fruitful . . . ?"

I really have no idea where the anti-sanctification bias comes from. Perhaps it is a knee-jerk over-reaction to "Evangelicalism": since they stress practical guidance for daily living, we should not! Should we not rather give even more and better practical guidance, just because we distinguish clearly between Law and Gospel? Especially given our anti-sacramental environment, it is of course highly necessary to stress the holy means of grace in our preaching. But we must beware of creating a kind of clericalist caricature that gives the impression that the whole point of the Christian life is to be constantly taking in preaching, absolution and Holy Communion-while ordinary daily life and callings are just humdrum time-fillers in between! That would be like saying that we live to eat, rather than eating to live. The real point of our constant feeding by faith, on the Bread of Life, is that we might gain an ever-firmer hold of Heaven-and meanwhile become ever more useful on earth! We have, after all, been "created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them" (Eph. 2:10). Cars, too, are not made to be fueled and oiled forever at service-stations. Rather, they are serviced in order that they might yield useful mileage in getting us where we need to go. Real good works before God are not showy, sanctimonious pomp and circumstance, or liturgical falderal in church, but, for example, "when a poor servant girl takes care of a little child or faithfully does what she is told" (Large Catechism, Ten Commandments, par. 314, Kolb-Wengert, pg. 428).

The royal priesthood of believers needs to recover their sense of joy and high privilege in their daily service to God (1 Pet. 2:9). The "living sacrifice" of bodies, according to their various callings, is the Christian's "reasonable service" or God-pleasing worship, to which St. Paul exhorts the Romans "by the mercies of God" (Rom. 12:1), which he had set out so forcefully in the preceding eleven chapters! Or, as St. James puts it: "Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world" (1:27). Liberal churches tend to stress the one, and conservatives one the other, but the Lord would have us do both!

Antinomianism appeals particularly to the Lutheran flesh. But it cannot claim the great Reformer as patron. On the contrary, he writes:

"That is what my Antinomians, too, are doing today, who are preaching beautifully and (as I cannot but think) with real sincerity about Christ's grace, about the forgiveness of sin and whatever else can be said about the doctrine of redemption. But they flee s if t were the very devil the consequence that they should tell the people about the third article, of sanctification, that is, of new life in Christ. They think one should not frighten or trouble the people, but rather always preach comfortingly about grace and the forgiveness of sins in Christ, and under no circumstance use these or similar words, "Listen! You want to be a Christian and at the same time remain an adulterer, a whoremonger, a drunken swine, arrogant, covetous, a usurer, envious, vindictive, malicious, etc.!" Instead they say, "Listen! Though you are an adultery, a wordmonger, a miser, or other kind of sinner, if you but believe, you are saved, and you need not fear the law. Christ has fulfilled it all! . . . They may be fine Easter preachers, but they are very poor Pentecost preachers, for they do not preach... "about the sanctification by the Holy Spirit," but solely about the redemption of Jesus Christ, although Christ (whom they extol so highly, and rightly so) is Christ, that is, He has purchased redemption from sin and death so that the Holy Spirit might transform us out of the old Adam into new men . . . Christ did not earn only gratia, grace, for us, but also donum, "the gift of the Holy Spirit," so that we might have not only forgiveness of, but also cessation of, sin. Now he who does not abstain fro sin, but persists in his evil life, must have a different Christ, that of the Antinomians; the real Christ is not there, even if all the angels would cry, "Christ! Christ!" He must be damned with this, his new Christ (On the Council and the Church, Luther's Works, 41:113-114).

Where are the "practical and clear sermons," which according to the Apology "hold an audience" (XXIV, 50, p. 267). Apology XV, 42-44 (p. 229) explains:

"The chief worship of God is to preach the Gospel...in our churches all the sermons deal with topics like these: repentance, fear of God, faith in Christ, the righteousness of faith, prayer . . . the cross, respect for the magistrates and all civil orders, the distinction between the kingdom of Christ (the spiritual kingdom) and political affairs, marriage, the education and instruction of children, chastity, and all the works of love."

"Grant, we beseech Thee, Almighty God, unto Thy Church Thy Holy Spirit, and the wisdom which cometh down from above, that Thy Word, as becometh it, may not be bound, but have free course and be preached to the joy and edifying of Christ's holy people, that I steadfast faith we may serve Thee, and in the confession of Thy Name abide unto the end: through Jesus Christ, Thy Son, our Lord. Amen."

 

Kurt Marquart

Concordia Theological Quarterly

July/October 2003
Pages 379-381

Comments

[spicedparrot]

These are important points. However, I think it is important to realize that our natural inclinations are more towards law and a theology of glory rather than towards Gospel and theology of the cross. As one who came out of evangelicalism and the continental reformed tradition I've seen how its actually "easier" to emphasize the 3rd use of the law instead of the Gospel. I think the error in most churches - and with any sinner - is to emphasize legalism, not antinomianism.

McCain: Yes this is all true. Marquart cautions us to be aware that our reaction to Evangelicalism must not move us to improperly teach and preach sanctification.

Finally, while not autopilot its important to remember that even our sanctification is entirely to God's credit- not ours. Without the spirit we wouldn't even be able to begin to express the gratitude that comes from our status in Christ. Really, isn't this what Paul is getting at in Romans 6. The imperative of verse 11 (which is still Gospel based) doesn't come until after the indicatives of the preceding 10 verses. And even then it is bracketed by God's promise in verse 14.

McCain: Yes, of course. This is not at issue in this discussion.

After all, although we cooperate in some fashion, the Triune God still deserves the credit for our sanctification. That part of our salvation is no more meritorious than our justification or glorification.

McCain: Yes, but again, this is not the point of this discussion.

I suppose in a nutshell - it goes back to realizing that scripture is law AND gospel and one must preach the whole counsel of God. Then let's let the Holy Spirit do his work in pointing us to the source of our justification and sanctification - Christ.

[BrianBucklew]

It is clear as Professor Marquart quoted from Luther, that we are not to side with Antinomianism. An aversion to discussion on sanctification IS an improper distinction of Law and Gospel. Luther is clear from Professor Marquart's quote that we are not to comfort unrepentant drunkards, adulterers that try to comfort themselves with the Gospel: "Listen! You want to be a Christian and at the same time remain an adulterer, a whoremonger, a drunken swine, arrogant, covetous, a usurer, envious, vindictive, malicious, etc.!" However, the question that comes is that can we ever expect that the Law in its 3 uses or functions, functions solely in only one of the 3? In other words, is there ever a time when the Law ONLY functions in its 3rd use? Or is it that when the Law is used in its 3rd use it is almost always also functioning in its first use as well? For example, when the Law is used to exhort believers unto good works, can and does it not also function in its first use? Being a former 'non-Lutheran-evangelical', the difference I see in Lutherans discussing sanctification (in the narrow sense) is they tend to speak more of 'vocation'. This is a huge difference. Luther speaks about Christian sanctification in our vocations. Evangelicalism speaks of sanctification in a formulated, pompous, and showy way. When a believer is exhorted unto sanctification in his or her vocation, this is not showy, pompous, or formulated, but can seem rather mundane. So when we are talking about speaking more on sanctification as Lutherans, and the 3rd use of the Law, and not shying away from such exhortation, are we not speaking about Luther's doctrine of vocation as well?

[BrianBucklew]

It is clear as Professor Marquart quoted from Luther, that we are not to side with Antinomianism. An aversion to discussion on sanctification IS an improper distinction of Law and Gospel. Luther is clear from Professor Marquart's quote that we are not to comfort unrepentant drunkards, adulterers that try to comfort themselves with the Gospel: "Listen! You want to be a Christian and at the same time remain an adulterer, a whoremonger, a drunken swine, arrogant, covetous, a usurer, envious, vindictive, malicious, etc.!" However, the question that comes is that can we ever expect that the Law in its 3 uses or functions, functions solely in only one of the 3? In other words, is there ever a time when the Law ONLY functions in its 3rd use? Or is it that when the Law is used in its 3rd use it is almost always also functioning in its first use as well? For example, when the Law is used to exhort believers unto good works, can and does it not also function in its first use? Being a former 'non-Lutheran-evangelical', the difference I see in Lutherans discussing sanctification (in the narrow sense) is they tend to speak more of 'vocation'. This is a huge difference. Luther speaks about Christian sanctification in our vocations. Evangelicalism speaks of sanctification in a formulated, pompous, and showy way. When a believer is exhorted unto sanctification in his or her vocation, this is not showy, pompous, or formulated, but can seem rather mundane. So when we are talking about speaking more on sanctification as Lutherans, and the 3rd use of the Law, and not shying away from such exhortation, are we not speaking about Luther's doctrine of vocation as well?

[Michael P. Walther]

Thanks for the article.

I've encountered a handful a good Lutherans who have been misled by this error.

We cannot further the Gospel by forgetting the Law but by distinguishing the two and giving each their proper place.

McCain: Dear Pastor Walther, you sound like another Pastor Walther. Blessings!