Cyberbrethren: A Lutheran Blog

Sanctification and You

The old evil foe of an aversion to sanctification continues to rear its ugly head in Lutheran circles, sad to say. Most recently I was in conversation with some folks who flatly asserted that Christians have no need of the Law since they are now guided by Love through the Gospel.

While this sounds quite reasonable and true, upon closer inspection we realize that in making such an assertion what the result is, is that the Gospel becomes Law.

Even as we reject legalism in the Church and put forward, firmly, the all sufficient sacrifice of Christ on the Cross for us, and His continuing power of salvation for us and therefore in us, we dare not forget that we are called to lives of good works, in Him, for Him and through Him: justification and sanctification. Lutheranism teaches both. We are to talk about the good works we are to be doing, and no, this is not merely/only by way of condemning sin. The Scriptures are replete with St. Paul describing the nature and consequences of the new life in Christ. A blog site put up this wonderful twist on the Rick Warren "Purpose Driven Life" book, which finally leaves the Christian not comforted, but only thrown back on his own resources. On the blog where this picture appeared, I provided a number of quotes from the Small Catechism that go along perfectly with a clear exposition of the Gospel. And here they are.

Christ lived, and lives, for us. We live in Him, and for him.

He gives us all His good gifts "all...out of pure, fatherly, divine goodness and mercy, without any merit or worthiness in me." What is our response? "For all which I owe it to Him to thank, praise, serve, and obey Him."

Christ lived a purpose driven life for me, and for you. Why?

"In order that I may be wholly His own, and live under Him in His kingdom, and serve Him in everlasting righteousness, innocence, and blessedness."

And because of what Christ did . . .

"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."

Consequently, as the Word is taught purely among us...

"We as the children of God also lead holy lives in accordance with it" and in this way hallow God's name.

This life is one of progress, not perfection. We strive to serve our Lord, according to His grace and mercy. There are some who say that we should not get into details in explaining and describing what it means to serve and obey God, or what that life is that we live in His kingdom, or what precisely it means to live holy lives in accordance with God's Word. But such a viewpoint has no justification, no pun intended, in light of God's Word and our Lutheran Confessions.

Doctrine/Mission Revisited

I've had a number of interesting responses to the Doctrine/Mission post, and I'd thought I'd share one particularly thought-provoking one. Your thoughts?

In secular philosophy, separating doctrine/practice or doctrine/mission is known as a certain logical fallacy called, 'The Analytic/Synthetic Dichotomy'.  When such dissonance arises, conflict arises and the wheels come off... usually resulting in demise of whomever suffers from it. On the other hand, Sasse points out that nature demands consistency and cognitive dissonance is not long tolerated.  Hence, doctrine will eventually morph to accommodate the practice; otherwise, the crack-up occurs.  You'll find this an element in the Abilene Paradox. Scripture doctrine is not simply noetic, an ordered set of Biblical precepts – static, intransitive, but dianoetic impelling action – dynamic, transitive.  The more inner focus on doctrine the more external mission oriented we become! [Granted, one can become bogged down in Pharisaical niggling, but that's a straw man most of the time.]  Hence, mission serves as feedback to the doctrine… by their works you shall know them. In fact, one could assert the fellowship of sacred things, that is Word & Sacrament, is midwife to creation ex nihilo.  Promulgated doctrine impels actions establishing the foundation upon which the Holy Spirit may bestow faith . . . creating something that never existed before. If the practice is bad, the doctrine is materially bad, regardless what’s formally on the books.

.

Antidote to An Aversion to Sanctification

The aversion to sanctification that has taken hold in some circles these days finds a healthy antidote in the good, solid teachings of the Reformation and Martin Luther. The boastful claim that one is "weak on sanctification" has no business being found among Lutherans who wish to be, and remain, faithful to Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions. here is no place for "humor" like this with the holy things of God. The way to demonstrate orthodoxy is not by behaving impiously; a point apparently lost on some, unfortunately.

"It is most surprising to me that anyone can claim that I reject the law or the Ten Commandments, since there is available, in more than one edition, my exposition of the Ten Commandments, which furthermore are daily preached and practiced in our churches. (I am not even mentioning the Confession and the Apology and our other books). Furthermore, the commandments are sung in two versions, as well as painted, printed, carved, and recited by the children morning, noon, and night. I know of no manner in which we do not use them, unless it be that we unfortunately do not practice and paint them with our deeds and our life as we should. I myself, as old and as learned as I am, recite the commandments daily word for word like a child. So ff anyone perchance gained some other impression from my writings and yet saw and perceived that I stressed the catechism so greatly, he might in all fairness have addressed me and said, “Dear Dr. Luther, how is it that you emphasize the Ten Commandments so much, though your teaching is that they are to be discarded?” That is what they should have done, and not worked secretly behind my back and waited for my death, after which they could make of me what they would. Ah well, let them be forgiven who cease doing this."

Martin Luther, vol. 47, Luther's Works, Vol. 47  : The Christian in Society IV, ed. Jaroslav Jan Pelikan, Hilton C. Oswald and Helmut T. Lehmann, Luther's Works, 47:109 (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1999, c1971).

Luther on Good Works

"Because you have taken hold of Christ by faith, through whom you are righteous, you should now go and love God and your neighbor. Call upon God, give thanks to Him, preach Him, praise Him, confess Him. Do good to your neighbor, and serve him; do your duty. These are truly good works, which flow from this faith and joy conceived in the heart because we have the forgiveness of sins freely through Christ."

Martin Luther, Luther's Works, 26: 133

Pet Peeves: Here are some of mine, what are yours?

For fun, let's have a conversation about peeves. I define a "pet peeve" as something that irritates the daylights out of you, even though you know the irritation might border on the near irrational.

Here are some of mine:

1) Rude drivers.
2) People who drive under the speed limit in the fast lane.
3) Being late [oh, how I hate to be late!].
4) Lack of common courtesy, such as "please" and "thank you."
5) Meetings for the sake of having a meeting.
6) Having my little morning rituals thrown askew.
7) Interruptions when I'm really concentrating.
8) People who treat other people rudely.
9) Bad coffee, which means, most coffee brewed at any church event or location.
10) Poor customer service.
11) Bad service in a restaurant.
12) Arrogance.
13) Confusing the proper use of "I" and "me." Drives me nuts.
14) People who correct people who misuse "I" and "me."
15) Comb overs. If it's gone, it's gone. Stop pretending! You are not fooling anyone.
16) When I'm too lazy to get out of bed early and get exercising.
17) Laziness in others.
18) People who delegate up.
19) People who are always looking to make excuses and blame others.
20) People who fail to give credit to others.
21) The fact that I do not read as much as I want to.
22) Hymns played without any rest between verses to breath.
23) Hymns played like they are all funeral dirges.
24) Organs played too loudly in church.
25) Shoes that are not clean and shined, mine included.
26) Women who dress in a slutty fashion (sorry to be rude about it).
27) Anytime I behave like a horse's rump toward anyone.
28) Having a messy/disorganized desk and/or office.

What are some of your pet peeves?

Does the Gospel Excuse Sin?

As readers of this blog site know, a topic that has had my attention for quite some time is the problem of an aversion to sanctification that has taken hold in certain quarters in Confessional Lutheranism. It is a subset of Gospel reductionism, and a sad legacy of those years in our Synod when there was active and open denial of the third use of the law. Under that influence there developed unfortunate views of Christian sanctification. Also there are those who appear to think that the best antidote to legalism is a certain kind of antinomianism. I've noticed for many years that there are those who go so far as to think that since Pietism is a problem, a demonstration of impiety is the solution: coarse language, crude humor, making fun of people, drinking to excess, etc.

It is a sort of pendulum move. If there are Christians who lose sight of Christ and the Gospel in their quest to be about good works, there is this odd notion that the way to counteract that is attempting to reduce the entire Christian experience and life to a rather formulaic, rote articulation of the doctrine of justification and denunciation of works righteousness. The proper distinction between Law and Gospel has come to be understood to mean that a sermon should not speak about the Christian's life transformed by the Gospel. I've been told by several Lutheran pastors that any sermon that ends with any mention of works thereby fails to distinguish between Law and Gospel. I find no evidence for this position in the Scriptures, the Lutheran Confessions, or any of our Lutheran orthodox fathers, including Luther, down to our own time with Walther. It is a legacy of more recent Lutheran speculation, not historic Lutheranism.

As a result of all this, it is no wonder that there are Lutheran Christians who regard the Gospel as not much more than a way to be "let off the hook" for personal responsibility for moral, virtuous Christian behavior. I've had more than one conversation with a pastor who has indicated that this is cropping up increasingly in pastoral ministry. A person comes expressing a sense of remorse for a situation but is not capable of recognizing their own culpability for the situation and their contribution to the situation in their lack of commitment to virtue and morality as a Christian living out their lives in grateful obedience to God. They come seeking forgiveness, or perhaps, to be made to feel better, with some sort of pastoral, "Oh, that's ok. You are only human. Don't worry, you are forgiven" when they have no intention to stop the sinful behavior. Simply put, Christ did not shed His blood on the cross to give you "freedom" to live like a pig, unconcerned about good works and living your life to glorify God. Some have even taken to promoting shirts that say "Weak on sanctification." That is as offensive to me as a shirt that would proclaim, "Weak on justification."

The Gospel sets us free from sin, not free to sin. The Gospel liberates us from captivity from sin, but does not excuse a libertine life. The Gospel forgives sin, it does not excuse it. We are justified by Christ's perfect righteousness, but unrighteousness is never justified.

Some might say, "There McCain goes again. Another rant about good works. Who does he think he is?" Who am I? 'm a sinner who daily sins, much, and is in need of forgiveness. I'm a man who loses my temper, who becomes impatient, who says things I wish I would not say, who thinks things I wish I would not think, who does thing I wish I would not do, that I don't even want to do. Who am I? A sinner. Like you. That's why daily I pray, "Forgive us our trespasses." But I do not  want to reach a point where I try to let myself off the hook and say, "Oh, don't worry about the sins in your life. Don't be concerned. Don't try to stop sinning and don't try to live the life to which I'm called in Christ." I hope I'm never not concerned. I hope and pray I'm never not troubled by my sin. For if and when that time comes, I know that the Gospel will not be as sweet and of such joy.

Time and again I encounter an attitude born of an improper lack of teaching about the life of good works to which we are called in Christ. I've run into more than a few earnest Lutheran Christians who actually believe that it is permissible for them to indulge themselves in drunkenness and coarse, crude, vulgar language, enjoying pornographic rap lyrics, and the most vile of movies. Where does this idea come from? Certainly not from the Scriptures, nor the Lutheran Confessions. We Lutherans love the Bible when it talks about justification and forgiveness, but do we love it as much when it speaks specifically to us, as Christians, about the consequences of the new life in Christ? Note the two passages that follow. These are not being written to unregenerate pagans but to those who have been born anew in Christ.

Therefore be imitators of God as dear children. And walk in love, as Christ also has loved us and given Himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling aroma. But fornication and all uncleanness or covetousness, let it not even be named among you, as is fitting for saints; neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks. (Ephesians 5:1-4)

But now you yourselves are to put off all these: anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy language out of your mouth. (Colossians 3:8)

In Christ, we do strive to obey God and glorify Him with our behavior. Notice: in Christ we do this. We in Christ and Christ in us. We are not concerned about good works to win or merit or earn God's love and favor, but to glorify Him, to thank Him, to praise Him, to serve Him, to obey Him, for the pleasure of it, for the joy of it, for the fact that we are new creations in Christ. 

Update: Thanks to Brian who offered a comment to this post. I went over to his blog site and there discovered a couple quotes by LCMS theologian Gilbert Meilaender that are expressing concerns similar to mine. I've never read Meilaender much at all, to be honest, but it was intriguing to me to read him expressing things I'm wrestling with. I am not at all persuaded that the problem is the Law/Gospel dialectic itself, but very poor applications and understandings of it. Here is what Meilaender has written:

“I want to examine critically a certain understanding of Lutheranism, which (whether our language in that of paradox, of the law-gospel distinction, of the law always accusing, of dialect, or of freedom from the law and critique of any third use of the law) eventually arrives at a kind of practical antinomianism — which is, alas, all too readily accompanied by a strident moralism — but which, were it consistent, would have no reason to pray that our hearts may be set to obey God’s commandments.” (p. 253)

And:

“Not without good reason … has Niels Henrik Gregersen argued that “Luther’s dialect of law and gospel should not be elevated into a theological principle that structures the interpretation of Christian faith from beginning to end.” When that is done, Gregersen notes, we end with a theology that “cannot express the extent to which the New Testament constantly instructs the believer to act according to his or her belief: ‘Let the same mind be in you that was in Jesus Christ.’” We need to better than this dialectical Lutheranism. We need a theology that does not invite us to forget that “the grace of God has appeared for the salvation of all men, training us to renounce irreligion and worldly passions, and to live sober, upright, and godly lives in this world, awaiting our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, who gave himself up for us to redeem us from all iniquity and to purify for himself a people of his own who are zealous for good deeds” (Titus 2:11-14), We need a theology that does not invite us to act as if the incarnation, cross, and empty tomb have done nothing new and transforming in history.” (page 263-264)

Source:
From Hearts Set to Obey, chapter 14 of  I Am the Lord Your God: Christian Reflections on the Ten Commandments, edited by Carl Braaten and Christopher Seitz (Eerdmans, 2005).

The Blessing of Holy Baptism

One of our readers sent in this moving account of a recent experience he had. I post it with his permission, but at his request, without his name.

You may already be aware that I am a physician in family practice with obstetrics.  Yesterday morning at 4:30, I got a frantic call from the labor room telling me that a patient of mine was there.  She was only 22 weeks (about 4 1/2 months) along, but she was having hard contractions and was completely dilated.  I rushed to the hospital and, to my dismay, confirmed that the nurse's assessment had been correct.
    I explained to the mother that delivery was imminent and, at this early stage, the chance of survival for the baby was zero.  I offered a brief, silent prayer, and then asked the only question that really mattered: did she want the baby baptized?  She said yes, because she thought the baby's father (who had not yet arrived from work at the moment) would want that.  When he arrived, I asked him the same question and he confirmed that yes, they did want the baby baptized.
    At about 6:30, the mother delivered a little boy.  Shortly thereafter, the chaplain arrived and baptized the baby.  The baby's mother held him, wrapped in blankets, in her arms as the chaplain poured water out of a Styrofoam cup and he received “the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit.”  About two hours later, he died.
    It was, to say the least, profoundly moving.  Interestingly, my understanding is that the parents do not even have a church home (although I would guess that at least the father must have some kind of church background if he wanted the baby baptized).  Even those who do not spend a great deal of time contemplating the blessings of the sacrament will cling to the comfort it gives when no other comfort is available.  And it is, indeed, extremely comforting to know that this very little lamb rests in the arms of the Good Shepherd.  With All Saints' Day just around the corner, it is a great joy to know that this little saint (oh, how I wish I could share his name!) also rejoices "with angels and archangels and all the company of heaven."

A Tale of Two Congregations

Is it fair to come to any conclusions, at all, about the following two congregational statistical charts, as available from The LCMS web site. I intentionally am not mentioning the congregations' names or locations. I'm just wondering what, if anything, it would be fair to conclude by looking at these two graphs. Top number is communicant membership, bottom number is average Sunday worship attendance.

One must, I believe, ask some serious question, such as, why does the district continue to keep these congregations on the roster and why the Synod continues to permit young men fresh out out of the seminary to be sent into what are truly miserable situations with highly dysfunctional congregations that are just sputtering along and that have become not much more than family cliques.

I can think of nothing that will sap the joy out of an eager, committed young pastor than being tossed into these situations where the historic trend is downward. I feel very sorry for the pastor who is presently assigned to be pastor of these two congregations, at the same time! He has been in both parishes for around four years, as his first assignment out of seminary, after studying not only for the basic seminary degree, but an advanced degree as well. I see this taking a toll on him personally and spiritually. This is just not right.

And another one:

Preaching Easter and Pentecost

I remain very puzzled by a trend in some circles that would have us never preach/teach from the pulpit about our lives of renewal in Christ and about the good works to which we are to be about as a result of our justification and redemption. This is a novelty in Lutheranism and does not square with our historic Lutheran confession and practice. Here, for example, is a powerful comment from Martin Luther about this problem.

They are excellent preachers of the Easter truth, but miserable preachers of the truth of Pentecost. For there is nothing in their preaching concerning sanctification of the Holy Ghost and about being quickened into a new life. They preach only about the redemption of Christ. It is proper to extol Christ in our preaching; but Christ is the Christ and has acquired redemption from sin and death for this very purpose that the Holy Spirit should change our Old Adam into a new man, that we are to be dead unto sin and live unto righteousness, as Paul teaches Rom. 6:2 ff., and that we are to begin this change and increase in this new life here and consummate it hereafter. For Christ has gained for us not only grace (gratiam), but also the gift (donum) of the Holy Ghost, so that we obtain from Him not only forgiveness of sin, but also the ceasing from sin.”

Martin Luther, On The Councils and the Churches, quoted by Dr. C.F.W. Walther, The Proper Distinction Between Law and Gospel  : 39 Evening Lectures, p. 121

The Spiritual Growth of the Christian

"There is time when a person's body ceases to grow. This is not so in spiritual things. If a person has become a Christian, a new spiritual being (or, as our text says, a new "inner being" - Eph. 3:13-17), is created in him by faith and the growth of this being never ceases until death. In Christianity, there is no standing still. Whoever does not go forward, goes backward. The life of a Christian is not marked by being, but by growing. The goal toward which he strives is so high that he can never say he has reached it and can rest from his efforts. Even Saint Paul says, "Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect, but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me His own" (Phi. 3:12). Of what does the strengthening "in your inner being," the spiritual growth of the Christian consist? Paul shows us in today's text when he says, "That Christ may dwell in your heart through faith" (Eph. 3:17). An ever growing and stronger faith, through which Christ dwells in our hearts, is above all else, necessary for the strengthening of the inner being. A person becomes a Christian through faith. Once he vividly recognizes that he is a sinner, it is obvious to him that he cannot stand before God with his own righteousness and cannot atone for his sins himself. . . . Paul says he often prayed to God that He would make the Ephesians stronger. By this he meant that Christ might dwell in their hearts by faith and that they might be "rooted and grounded in love" (Eph. 3:17). We see here that, through love, Christianity becomes akin to a firmly rooted tree and a house on a solid foundation. Should this really be attributed to love? According to Holy Scripture, isn't it faith alone that makes one just? Isn't it faith alone that gives life, light, comfort and power? Isn't it, then, faith alone that rightly roots and grounds the Christian? This is of course true, but Scriptures says that faith without works is dead, a mere empty picture of faith. True, living faith is active through love. Therefore, as there is warmth and light in the presence of fire, there are love and good works in the person whose heart has been warmed by the sun of faith. As the tree is recognized by its fruit, faith is recognized in love. The person who is weak or lacking in love cannot be a strong firm Christian. He may call himself a Christian, but where is the proof that he stands firm in the faith? Therefore, in the hour of death, woe to the Christian who boasts of faith but did not show any love. It will probably be difficult for him to show that he comforted himself with Christ and id not doubt because, although faith alone avails before God, we owe love to our neighbor and need love ourselves so we are strong. The individual who wants to become inwardly strong must always become more zealous in love. He must also extend the scope of his love. . . A Christian must also become purer and more unselfish in his love. He must not ask, "What's in it for me?" He must not do good for the sake of the thanks he hopes to receive, the reward he expects, or the praise that might result. His left hand must not know what his right hand is doing. He must learn to endure ingratitude and not allow his love to grow cold on account of it. He must keep a heart full of love toward those who offend and provoke him-even those who have done flagrant wrong to him, hated him, and persecuted him. He must always become more tender, holy, and godly in his love. He must have patience with his neighbor's weakness, sins and defects. He must also not be ashamed of the greatest sinner, but have mercy on him. . . . He must, finally, arrive at the point where he strives to let his entire life be a life of service to his neighbor, being ready to give up his possessions and even his life for his brothers. Oh, it is well for such Christians! They have become "through faith, rooted and grounded in love."

CFW Walther
God Grant It
pp. 745ff

Three Reasons We Are To Be Concerned About Doing Good Works

The way to avoid giving people the impression that they are saved by works is most certainly not to avoid talking to Christians about the good works they are to be doing. There are some who believe that when they condemn sins and point out where people are failing to live in perfect accord with God's Law they are thereby also covering the topic of how, and why, Christians are to be doing good works. But this is not the way the doctrine of sanctification if presented in Scripture, the Lutheran Confessions or in our orthodox Lutheran teachers.

Things have become so cloudy for some on this point that I was told by a pious Christian woman that she can never read her Bible, read about a virtue commended, and say to herself, "I am, by God's grace, going to try to do this." She said that in saying that she would be taking her eyes of Christ.

In the Braunschweig-Wolfenbüttel Church Order, in the doctrinal statement (corpus doctrinae) that accompanies it, Martin Chemnitz makes these points about how properly to teach good works, which I found very helpful. I've provided links for the Bible passages so you can read them as you go along.

"Luther used to present this doctrine in a fine way in three points:

First, good works should be done for the sake of God's will, because to do them is his command and will (John 15:1); because He is our Father, that we show ourselves to be as obedient children toward Him, 1 Pet. 1:13f; 1 Jn 3:1, that we be God's disciples, Eph. 5:1; 1 Pet. 2:21; 1 Jn 2:6, as he loves us and has forgiven us, Col. 3:13; 1 John 4:9, because Christ has given himself to us, in order that we not serve sin, but walk in the new life, Rom. 6:1; Titus 2:11; 1 Peter 1:3 and 2; Eph. 2:15-17; 2 Cor. 5:9ff, and in summary, that God be praised through our good works, Mat. 5:16; Phil. 1:11, 1 Pet. 4:11

Second, we are to do good works for the sake of our neighbor that he thereby be helped and served in his need, 1 John 3:1ff, that we give no one offense, 2 Cor. 6:3; Phil. 2:14, and the doctrine not be ridiculed, 1 Tim. 6:1; Titus 2:5, rather the mouth of the gainsayers be stopped, 1 Pet. 2:15 and 3:16, Titus 2:3, and that others may be won through our good conduct, Mat. 5:16; 1 Peter 3:1.

Third, we are to do good works, for the sake of our own need, so that through them we may have a certain testimony that our faith is true, and that we are truly righteous and saved by faith, 1 John 4:7; 2 Pet. 1:8-11; Gal. 5:22; Phil. 1:9f;, that we not perchance deceive ourselves with a false and dead faith, 1 John 2:4 and 3:7-10; 1 Tim. 5; 2 Pet. 1:8f; Js. 2:8, so that faith, the Holy Spirit, righteousness and salvation not again be lost, if we live according to the flesh, 1 Tim. 1:19; 5:8 and 6:10; 1 Pet. 2:11; 2 Pet. 1:4 and 2:18; Rom. 8:6-8; Col. 3:5; Eph. 4:22; 1 Thess. 4:4, rather that faith be exercised and the calling made sure, Gal. 5:6; 2 Pet. 1:3, also for this reason, because God threatens severe punishment temporally and eternally for sin against conscience and promises forgiveness of sins and blessedness, they do otherwise, however, really have rich and glorious reward in this and in the future life, not on account of the worthiness of the works, but rather on account of grace, 1 Tim. 4:8; Gal. 6; Eph. 6; 2 Tim. 4, Mat. 5:2; 6:33; 10:33; 25:21; Mark 10:14; Luke 14:11, etc."

Source:
Kirchen-Ordnung, wie es mit Lehr und Ceremonien des Fürstenthums-Braunschweig [Church Order, As to Doctrine and Ceremonies, of the Duchy of Braunschweig]. 1569.

The Church Order of Braunschweig-Wolfenbüttel
by Martin Chemnitz

Printed in Wolfenbüttel by Conrad Horn, 1569
Translated by M. Harrison and A. Smith, 2006
Unpublished.

Why, exactly, is this funny? UPDATE

I posted a link to a YouTube video, called "Virgilicious," created by students at Concordia University in Mequon. It features students dancing and prancing around, in the campus church in the chancel, at, and in front of, an altar, etc. to a rap song being sung by a guy dressed in vestments, wearing a crucifix, and engaged in various liturgical acts, such as making the sign of the cross and kissing an icon, and praying at the altar, and standing in the pulpit, even engaging in suggestive behavior with a young woman. The young people in the video were shown writhing on the floor around him, and at the communion rail while he used incense. It was, I'm told, supposed to be funny, a spoof, not intended to be shown to anyone else, a private joke, so I'm told. I saw no humor in it, only disrespect, irreverence and sacrilege.

University officials have sent me an "official statement" about the video. I've posted it following these comments. Based on what the university official communicated to me, I am fully confident that pastoral care of the students will result in genuine repentance and healing forgiveness for this kind of sinful behavior.

I would also hope the university might be led to say something just a bit more than that they are "saddened" and "disappointed" about "poor judgment exhibited" by the video. One would hope that a Lutheran university will speak clear words of rejection and condemnation of this kind of sacrilegious behavior. One can hope that another, more meaningful, statement will be forthcoming soon. 

The incident raises for us any number of important questions and issues. Have we lost all sense of the holy and the sacred? We need, collectively, to ask ourselves why any of us would chuckle over watching a person use sacred space and objects of worship and devotion as "humor." To me it is indicative of just how far we have all been desensitized to the sacred by the constant secularism that bombards us. It seems to me that if we expect others to take seriously the historic liturgy of the Lutheran Church, then we need to take it seriously ourselves.

Of course the students involved should be forgiven, but rather than defend their actions and dismiss the profoundly offensive nature of what they did, and try to explain it away, let's use this occasion as a chance to ask ourselves, "What's wrong with us that we could even think of doing something like this?" It is not "pietistic" or "legalistic" to call this what it is: sinful and irreverent. Just because some right-wing Baptist minister with an axe to grind takes advantage of the situation, and just because a fourth year student "blew the whistle" on this situation in such a wholly inappropriate way, we must not allow the real issue to be covered over and dismissed.

But if, as some are attempting to claim, this video was as inconsequential a situation as the student paper on the campus is trying to portray it, then let the video be put back up on YouTube, and let us all view it and come to our own conclusions. The May 8 issue of the paper contains the editor's assertion: "The video is intrinsically harmless. While it is not exactly the kind of thing we would show our donors and perspective students, the video is an illustration of how students who are serious about worship can have fun." I say let the video be posted for all to see, if in fact, it is as harmless and innocent.

My respectful and earnest suggestion is that people stop defending, excusing or trying to minimize it and just say, "It was terribly, terribly wrong. There is no excuse for it. We are sorry. We've learned a good lesson from this and nothing like this will ever happen again." That's the better way to go here. And then maybe more conversations can be taken up about how or why anything like this happened to begin with.

OFFICIAL STATEMENT
University officials are saddened by the poor judgment exhibited by a number of students in the making of a video posted on YouTube. We are truly disappointed with, and disapprove of, the content of this video. An inquiry into the production and dissemination of this video has been set into motion by the President’s office in connection with the Department of Theology and the office of the Vice President of Student Life. Decisions regarding discipline, counseling, etc. are pending the outcome of this inquiry.

More Thoughts on Speaking the Gospel Boldly and Clearly

I do not believe it is unreasonable, unkind, or inappropriate to expect a Christian pastor to speak clearly about Christ and the hope we have in Him at an event with thousands of grieving people. I believe failure to articulate the Gospel, boldly, at a time like this is simply without excuse and no matter what was on the man's heart, it is what was not on his lips that is the issue. It is more than reasonable and appropriate to expect pastors to stand and deliver Jesus: boldly, clearly, passionately, without hesitation and with no vague platitutudes or "code speak." Failure to do so is not to be dismissed, overlooked or ignored, no matter what the situation. A grave crisis is all the more reason to proclaim without equivocation or hesitation the One Who has conquered sin, death and the grave. Moments of national crisis bring out from the very depth of a person's heart and soul what he most passionately believes, what is of highest priority to him, and what is the very ground of one's being. And therein lies the problem in a situation where the Gospel is not spoken with absolute clarity, and with a church that would simply "shrug off" such failures to articulate the Gospel. It is only compounding the tragedy of an already tragic situation. We are forced to ask, "Do we actually believe that the Gospel is the power of God for salvation?" Or have we replaced the Gospel with therapeutic jargon and elevated human emotion above the truth of God's Holy Word? Have we put fear of offending human feelings above the offense of the scandal of particularity that is the Gospel itself? Have we reached a point that we believe the Gospel is merely for those who already believe it, or know it? It is time to stop making excuses and start analyzing root causes for such failures to confess the Gospel with such clarity that there is no mistaking it or ignoring it or overlooking it.

Preaching Good Works

Reflecting on the conversations that this blog site and others have engaged in on the subject of whether or not, or to what extent, or how, preachers are to preach to Christians about good works, I ran across this sermon by Martin Luther, a sermon that is not at all atypical of Luther's preaching, nor the preaching of those who came after Luther, down to the 20th century. What do you think? Did Luther get it right, or wrong? I've read posts from several Lutheran pastors who assert that the preacher must not spend time in his sermon talking about the Christian's life of good works, and must certainly never mention good works after he has preached the Gospel in His sermon. I can find no evidence in Scripture, the Lutheran Confessions or historic Lutheran preaching to support this position. I've put the sermon in the extended entry.

Surrounded by a Great Cloud

You wouldn't ordinarily want to do anything in a cloud. Ever drive through thick fog? It's not fun. I spent nearly five years driving every day to the seminary and back home again in Defiance, Ohio where my wife taught in a Lutheran school. If you are familiar with Northwest Ohio you know that it was once a large swatch of swamp land and then was settled, swamps drained, and fertile farmland was the result. But one legacy of the swampy days is fog so thick in the Fall and Spring that schools in the area would frequently have fog delays in the morning. But we drove on anyway. At times the fog was so thick you literally could not see more than two feet in front of the car. So we drove slowly. Driving in a cloud is not something most would do, if they don't have to. But the Bible tells us we are in fact spending our whole Christian life, running, with a "great cloud" around us all the time.

Hebrews 12:1 urges us to run with endurance the race that is set before us. It is as if we are in a huge stadium and we are running with the crowds all around cheering us on. Those crowds -- the great cloud of witnesses -- are the men and women of Christian faith who have gone before us. Which raises the question about saints and the dead in Christ. Are we to pray to them for help as we run our race? Absolutely not. There is not a single command, promise or example in all of Sacred Scripture to justify prayer to the dead. I was reading a blog site recently and sadly noticed a person claim that anyone who denies prayer to the dead is thereby denying the doctrine of the Resurrection. That is nonsense, of course.

What then is the solution to such error? Do we simply ignore the dead in Christ, the saints of all the ages? No. We remember them, but we do not pray to them. Jesus has taught us to pray, and so we say, "Our father, who art in heaven." We pray to the Lord, we remember His saints. Why? I like to think of it this way.

Getting to know our forefathers and foremothers in the faith is like sitting down and looking through a big family album tucked away in an attic. You get to know members of your family you never knew you had, or never knew anything about. When we look at family albums we learn a lot about our family and about ourselves. We remember and thank God for all His blessings and the things our family members did. We remember and learn about the good things and bad things in their lives. And as we learn more about them we think of the ways we can emulate them and put some of their virtues and strengths into practice in our lives. That’s what the saints are like for us. We do not pray to them. We do not venerate them. We learn from their lives and we thank God for the grace He gave them. Even as we want to know about our earthly families, all the more should we want to get to know our family in Christ, all our brothers and sisters, fathers and mothers, in the faith, who have gone before us, that great cloud of witnesses that even now is cheering us on as we run with perseverance the race marked out for us. After all, we are going to join them some day, so we may as well get to know as many of them now as we can, in anticipation of a joyful reunion in heaven.

A New Twist on the Sanctification Issue

Well, as I continue to hear from folks on the issue of sanctification, the latest disturbing thing I've run into is that some are suggesting that since Christians are in Christ they really need not give any thought at all to striving to live according to the Ten Commandments since Christ was good for them. Some are saying that for a pastor to talk about how Christians live according to the Commandments in the sermon is inappropriate, particularly after he has preached the Gospel. The most disturbing comment I've read of late is the suggestion that a good way to drive home the Gospel's amazingly good news is to tell people, "Even if you get worse, you can still count on going to heaven, because of Christ." What a dangerous thing to say or suggest.

All this kind of talk flies directly in the face of the Lutheran Confessions, which properly explain the Holy Scriptures. Here is what Martin Luther had to say about some of these things in the Smalcald Articles:

42] On the other hand, if certain sectarists would arise, some of whom are perhaps already extant, and in the time of the insurrection [of the peasants] came to my own view, holding that all those who had once received the Spirit or the forgiveness of sins, or had become believers, even though they should afterwards sin, would still remain in the faith, and such sin would not harm them, and [hence] crying thus: "Do whatever you please; if you believe, it all amounts to nothing; faith blots out all sins," etc.—they say, besides, that if any one sins after he has received faith and the Spirit, he never truly had the Spirit and faith: I have had before me [seen and heard] many such insane men, and I fear that in some such a devil is still remaining [hiding and dwelling]. 43] It is, accordingly, necessary to know and to teach that when holy men, still having and feeling original sin, also daily repenting of and striving with it, happen to fall into manifest sins, as David into adultery, murder, and blasphemy, that then faith and the Holy Ghost has departed from them [they cast out faith and the Holy Ghost]. For the Holy Ghost does not permit sin to have dominion, to gain the upper hand so as to be accomplished, but represses and restrains it so that it must not do what it wishes. But if it does what it wishes, the Holy Ghost and faith are [certainly] not present. For St. John says, 1 John 3, 9: Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin, ... and he cannot sin. And yet it is also the truth when the same St. John says, 1, 8: If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.

Smalcald Articles, Part III, Article III, lines 42-45

Fresh Gospel?

A friend recently pointed me to an assertion made by a person who claims that the best way for a preacher to really impress on people the nature of the Gospel as total grace and complete gift is by telling them something like this:

Even if, and especially if, you not only don't get better but even grow worse, you will get to go to heaven for Christ's sake.

I wonder what Bible people are reading that might lead them to make such false comments like this. Jesus Christ said to the woman whom he had forgiven, "Go, and sin no more." And Saint Paul asks, "What then shall we say? Shall we sin more so grace may abound? May it never be!"

Combatting the error of pop-theology in American protestantism is not served by falling into errors like this. It is disturbing to see people who, sadly, hardly know what they are talking about, saying such absurd things like this. Tragic. It's no wonder we have some who claim the name Lutheran running about assuming they can behave like swine and still claim to be Christian. And what a fearful thing to but consider that those who live in accord with this false theology will enter an eternity of unending punishment in hell. Woe to the faithless shepherds who would lead Christ's sheep astray with such false teaching.

Two Questions

Thanks to Pastor Mangold for posting this comment. I thought it was worth a separate post.

1.  I don't believe it can be much simpler than the First Petition of the Lord's Prayer and its meaning.  How can we "teach God's Word in its truth and purity" and then teach our people to "lead God pleasing lives" if we cannot preach sanctification?

2. I certainly do not believe that St. Paul had a problem proclaiming the Gospel and then diving right into his great "therefores."  If Paul can say "Christ died for your sins, therefore you will respond by . . . " why can't we do the same?

Good questions indeed.

Two Presentations on the Third Use of the Law

A friend just recently pointed me to the papers that Dr. Kurt Marquart and Dr. David Scaer delivered in 2005 at the symposium on the Lutheran Confessions. Here are the papers.

Download marquart3rduse.pdf

Download scaer3rduse.pdf

Is there is a significant difference between the two papers? I do not see that. I view these papers as complimentary. Marquart's concern is with a certain view that holds one should not speak about doing good works in our sermon but merely use the Law according to its "second use" and not concern ourselves with sanctification (in its narrow sense), but let that just take care of itself. Scaer's concern is not to let conversations about good works float free of Christ and the Gospel but to realize that it is all in Christ, and as a result of Christ, but he too sees great value in the third use of the law, and points out that when we fail to confess the third use of the law we are risking the kind of Gospel reductionism that plagued The LCMS during the Seminex crisis.

Interestingly, both men praise Dr. Scott Murray's excellent book on this subject.

Here is a "clip" from Dr. Marquart's paper, from his conclusion:

"I am not advocating that we as truly evangelical preachers should imitate Calvinism or so-called “Evangelicalism.”  The main use of the law is that which shows us our sin.  And the Gospel, not the Law in any of its uses, must predominate in our preaching.  Like humane physicians we must stress the diagnosis not for its own sake, but for the sake of the cure, and then concentrate on the glorious treasures of  the love of God, poured out upon us so superabundantly in His blessed Son!  It is our task to preach the love and joy of God into people’s hearts.  But then we must also guide them towards God-pleasing expressions of their responding love for God.  And in our non-sacramental age, in which all sorts of sacrament-substitutes flourish, such as alleged tongues and miracles, millennialist fantasies about Middle Eastern places and politics, “purpose-driven” psycho- babble, and the like, we must hold high the glory of the Gospel, which is “the power [dynamis] of God for salvation” (Rom. 1:16).   Our preaching needs to serve and communicate the three permanent witnesses on earth, the spirit (or the blessed Gospel words which are spirit and life, St. Jn. 6:63), the water of Holy Baptism, and the Blood of the New Testament, I John 5:8.  It is through these blessed Gospel-channels that the divine life of faith is transmitted to us sinners. This, however, does not imply indifference to sanctification.  Our Confessions stress its importance everywhere.  Indeed, they insist that sanctification, as the precious fruit of justifying faith, must grow and increase in us.   The Apology teaches “that we ought to begin to keep the law and then keep it more and more” (IV,124, p. 140).  Again:  “For we do not abolish the law, Paul says [Rom. 3:31], but we establish it, because when we receive the Holy Spirit by faith the fulfillment of the law necessarily follows, through which love, patience, chastity, and other fruits of the Spirit continually grow” (XX,15, p. 237).   Luther’s Large Catechism teaches that the Holy Spirit through the Word “creates and increases holiness, causing it daily to grow and become strong in the faith and in its  fruits.”  Also:  “holiness has begun and is growing daily.” Again:  “All this, then, is the office and work of the Holy Spirit, to begin and daily increase holiness on earth through these two means, the Christian church and the forgiveness of sins” (Creed, pp. 438, 439).  Further:  “Now, when we enter Christ’s kingdom, this corruption must daily decrease so that the longer we live the more gentle, patient, and meek we become, and the
more we break away from greed, hatred, envy, and pride” (Baptism, p. 465).  And the Formula  of Concord teaches that the Holy Spirit “cleanses human beings and daily makes them more upright an holier.”  Also:  the Spirit “creates and increases holiness, causing it daily to grow and become strong in the faith and in the fruits which the Spirit produces. . . He brings us into the Christian community, in which he sanctifies us and brings about in us a daily increase in faith and good works” (II, p. 551). 

Sometimes we are told that sanctification is best left to itself, that conscious attempts to please God lead to hypocrisy, and that if we just preach the Gospel, sanctification will happen automatically.  No, we are not automata.  We have a renewed will, which “is not idle in the daily practice of repentance but cooperates in all the works of the Holy Spirit that He accomplishes through us” (Formula of Concord, SD, II,88, p. 561).   If being branches in the True Vine (St. Jn. 15) means that like plants we have no conscious intentions, but simply produce fruit “automatically,”  then the same applies to the Vine Himself.  And that is as absurd as saying that since Christ is the Way and the Door, He is as indifferent as ways and doors are to who is passing over or through them!  This pseudo-biblical argument is exactly parallel to that of the old antinomians, who argued that Christians will do the right things “without any teaching, admonition, exhortation, or prodding of the law, . . . just as in and of themselves the sun, the moon, and all the stars follow unimpeded the regular course God gave them once and for all” (FC, SD,VI,6, p. 588). 

Clearly the New Testament exhortations to love and good works require conscious effort, not unthinking, automatic compliance with inner instincts!  Thus St. Paul begs the Roman Christians by the mercies of God (which he had expounded in the preceding 11 chapters) to present their bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, as their “reasonable worship” (Rom. 12:1).  And of himself he writes:  “Forgetting what is behind and straining toward what is  ahead, I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus” (Phil.3:13,14, NIV).  No automatism or somnabulism (sleep-walking) here!"

Zeal for Good Works

I've had some further thoughts about the subject of preaching about good works and what has been described by Professor Kurt Marquart as a disturbing "aversion to sanctification" that is at work in some of the preaching we hear these days. Some Lutherans are great on Hebrews 12:2, but act as if Hebrews 12:1 was not there. When and how did any of us begin to think that exhorting the regenerate to do good works in a sermon is somehow inappropriate, or must never come after the Gospel is preached, or is "covered" as we preach against sin? I've been pondering this and have some more thoughts.

Sanctification: Synergism or Monergism?

In my ongoing conversation with a friend about sanctification, we've come to another issue that is important in this discussion. My friend, again, in a well intentioned desire to speak faithfully about sanctification, has unfortunately set up another straw man. She has opined that "some Lutherans" regard sanctification as "synergistic" while other Lutherans view sanctification in terms of monergism because it is worked in us by God's grace alone by means of Word and Sacrament. Well, of course, no faithful Lutheran that I know of is running about suggesting, much less actually saying, that sanctification is "synergistic." I think where the confusion comes here is, again, a fundamental lack of knowledge of what our Confessions actually teach based on the Scriptures. Our conversation goes back to our discussion of how, or if, Lutherans in their preaching and teaching should spend time talking about the works we are set free in Christ to be doing. Her position is that time spent on talking about good works we can and should be doing is just less time talking about Christ. That's a false alternative though. Her view helps me understand why some Lutheran preaching these days is lacking in any conversation directed to the regenerate about their lives in Christ beyond saying to the regenerate, "You are sinful and fail to keep God's law and here is how you fail to keep it" instead of encouraging them to be what they have become in Christ by drawing them to the cruciform life as an expression of thanks and praise, calling them to continue on in the greatest epic journeys any human being is ever called to take, to take joy in the calling and station of life and to see the privilege of living under Christ in His kingdom and serving Him in everlasting righteousness, innocence and blessedness. Our Confessions wisely note that we need always to keep in mind that there is a difference between the unregenerate and the regenerate. Here is how I responded to her inquiry on this issues, and maybe you might find it interesting, perhaps helpful.

Talking about Sanctification and the Lutheran Blogosphere: Some Conclusions, Respectfully and Prayerfully Offered

I've been following closely, and contributing to, the ongoing discussion in the Lutheran blogosphere concerning sanctification. I've been rebuked by some of my brothers and sisters in Christ who have told me I've come across as being harsh and judgmental. For that I truly apologize. That was not my intention, of course, but in the concern I have over this issue I can well imagine my way of expressing myself has struck some as unkind, unloving, harsh and judgmental. I am sorry. I ask you to forgive me.

Let me now offer some thoughts, respectfully and prayerfully. I have come to several conclusions.

Sanctification: Again

The topic of Sanctification continues to buzz about on the Lutheran blogosphere. Most recently, a friend expressed a thought that made me think about this again and helped me realize where some folks are going wrong on the subject of sanctification. She said that when she reads the Bible and comes across a passage talking about good works she can only read it in two ways: 1) I'm glad Jesus did that for me; 2) I sinned because I didn't do it. She said she can't bring herself to say, "I'm going to try to do that in my life." She then quoted Hebrews 12:2 which tells us to keep our eyes on Jesus and proposed that if she says to herself, "I'm going to try to do that" she will be taking her eyes off Jesus.

I can understand her concern, but I think she is not realizing that striving to do good works and trying to do them and doing all we can, by the grace God gives, is precisely because we are keeping our eyes fixed on Jesus! She did not quote verse 1 of Hebrews 12, "Let us run with perseverance the race set before us." It is not enough simply to keep telling everyone how miserably they are failing to do good works  in order to preserve justification, nor should we fuse justification and sanctification into the same thing. We do not need to neglect the third use of the law in order to make sure its chief use is kept clear: to accuse of us sin.  The problem is not sanctification, it is sanctification set free from Christ.

The way to address sanctification set free from Christ is not to stop talking about the Christian's opportunities and joyful duty to seek to do good works and then actually to talk about those good works. We do not adequately teach sanctification when all we say to people is: You are sinful. You can't ever do anything good. Look to Jesus. Amen." It is very clear that there is the great "therefore." Yes, we preach Romans 1-5, but we also preach Romans 6.

What we need to say is this: "Look to Jesus and in Him, run with perseverance the race set out before you. Look to Him and then run the race that He gives, and this is what that race is going to be like and this is how we are to be running it." Clear, practical instruction and guidance on the Christian life is not provided simply by telling everyone how sinful they are, but also by telling them about the cruciform shape of life hidden in Christ.

It's called "teaching" and I'm convinced that we are simply not doing that adequately. We are to be running, striving, and serving and obeying him, which is our duty, as the Small Catechism makes so perfectly, and plainly, clear. Daily we sin, much, this is most certainly true! Daily however the old man is to be drowned and die and the new man arise, and we continue running the race set out before us, with our eyes firmly fixed on Jesus. We can, and must, keep Law and Gospel properly distinguished, and make sure the Gospel predominates. Of course! But this is not accomplished by neglecting adequate preaching about the good works which have been prepared beforehand that we should walk in them (Ephesians 2).

Here is what one of our foremost Lutheran dogmaticians had to say on our life of sanctification. This is from Francis Pieper's Christian Dogmatics.

Our sanctification in this life will remain imperfect, sometimes showing a minus, sometimes a plus, but never reaching perfection. Scripture [Vol. 3, Page 31] admonishes us to grow, increase, abound, in sanctification, Eph. 4:15; in every good work, 2 Cor. 9:8; in the work of the Lord, 1 Cor. 15:58; in the knowledge of God, in all patience and long-suffering, Col. 1:11; in the love of the brethren and of all men, 1 Thess. 3:12; in the knowledge of what is excellent, Phil. 1:10; in doing what pleases God, 1 Thess. 4:1; and couples these admonitions to grow in holiness with the admonition to keep on putting off the old man, Eph. 4:22. It is clear that the sanctification of even the most earnest Christians remains imperfect in this life.44 The σάρξ remains in Christians throughout this life, Rom. 7:14–24; Heb. 12:1, 45 and for this reason their sanctification remains imperfect throughout this life. Paul describes the situation in these words: “So, then, with the mind” (the new man) “I myself serve the Law of God, but with the flesh” (the old man) “the law of sin,” Rom. 7:25.46 The dogmaticians express it thus: Iustitia fidei sive imputata perfecta sive consummata est, iustitia vitae sive inhaerens imperfecta, inchoata, non consummata. (Baier-Walther, III, 312.)47

Perfectionism, which teaches that complete sanctification is attainable in this life,48 cannot dwell in the Christian heart, which daily [Vol. 3, Page 32] asks for the forgiveness of sin. Rome goes so far as to teach that certain individuals merit more holiness than they need for themselves, the surplus going to those who need it.49 Scripture denounces perfectionism as a lie. 1 John 1:8, 10: “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us …. If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us.” See also Prov. 20:9; Job 14:4; Eccl. 7:20; Rom. 7:18–24; Matt. 6:12. 1 John 3:9: “Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for His seed remaineth in him”—the favorite prooftext for perfectionism—describes the Christian according to the new man who maintains the dominion over the old man. The Apostle distinguishes between “committing sin” (ἁμαρτίαν ποιει̂ν, 1 John 3:9) and “having sin” (ἁμαρτιαν ἔχειν, 1 John 1:8). Christians do not “commit sin,” that is, they do not permit sin to rule over them, to give it free reign; they “have sin,” but in the power of the new man, the offspring of God, they control sin. Speaking of the same matter, Rom. 6:14 declares: “Sin shall have no dominion over you; for ye are not under the Law, but under grace.”[Vol. 3, Page 33]

The fact that sanctification in this life will always be imperfect must not be put forward as an excuse for the neglect of sanctification. On the contrary, it is God’s will and the will of the Christian that he strive after perfection;50 he wants to be fruitful, not only in some, but in all good works.51 It is characteristic of the true Christian life and the will of the new man that he refrain from every sin. The Christian is eager to serve God in all good works. “I delight in the Law of God after the inward man,” Rom. 7:22. And when Scripture calls Christians “perfect” also with regard to their life (“Let us, therefore, as many as be perfect,” Phil. 3:15), it takes “perfection” in the sense of “striving after perfection,” Phil. 3:13–14: “Forgetting these things that are behind and reaching forth unto those things that are before, I press toward the mark.”52

The Christian who does not strive to serve God alone is perilously close to losing his Christianity. “Ye cannot serve God and mammon,” Matt. 6:24; “So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be My disciple,” Luke 14:33 (the entire passage, Luke 14:25–35, belongs here). Unsparing self-denial marks the Christian life. “If any man will come after Me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow Me,” Matt. 16:24. The way to heaven leads through “the strait gate” and the “narrow way,” Matt. 7:13–14. Only he can go this way who is willing to cut off his hand and foot and pluck out his eye, Matt. 18:8–9. The Apostle Paul describes the Christian as one who exercises self-control in all things, πάντα ἐγκρατεύεται, 1 Cor. 9:25, and points to himself as an example: “I keep under” (ὑπωπιάζω—buffet, maul) “my body and bring it into subjection, lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway,” 1 Cor. 9:27.53[Vol. 3, Page 34]