I've found that the pastors in my church that i've been going to since I was a child never really talk extensively about the idea of 'sanctification'. I've also noticed that when mentioning God working miracles in people's lives today (whether and out and out miracle or a more circumstantial one) they tend to lean on the side of not believing that those happen or just not talking about them or acknowledging them altogether.
Do other Lutheran churches talk about these things? Do yours? Is there a specific Lutheran stance on these subjects?
Okay. I've been in an LCMS church. We had a substitute pastor (he's retired but he still preaches when needed) because our two pastors are currently on a mission trip and he seemed a bit more open to talk about things our pastors don't normally speak of. Like on father's day he prayed for the single mothers who have to play both father and mother roles for their children (something NEVER mentioned in our church before) and prayed that absentee fathers have a change of heart and that God brings them back to their children to care for and support them (also something NEVER discussed in our church) and it meant so much to my mother who is one of those single moms.
I was just curious as to what is the norm not just with LCMS but with other lutheran churches and why it is the way it is.
Also, dumb question time: What is a "charismatic lutheran"??
That sounds normal. We have those sorts of prayers in the prayers of the people. Usually one of the elders leads those prayers.
A charismatic Lutheran is a Lutheran that is part of the Charismatic movement. Which could be part of the miracles and stuff like that you were talking about, sometimes speaking in tongues, emphasizing the Holy Spirit, personal religious experience, etc. It's a very small part of North American Lutheranism. Our vicar is sort of like that, he's from California, whereas our pastor grew up in the LCMS church and finds that a bit foreign.
I don't think Lutherans strictly speaking deny miracles but we emphasize that God doesn't promise us those kinds of things. We also emphasize the ordinary means of grace.
As an LCMS Lutheran, we tend to shy away from that sort of stuff. Like FireDragon said, it's not because God can't work miracles, but he didn't promise to, and we are certainly not supposed to put our faith in them. So instead we're taught to put our faith in the miracle of the resurrection and the miracle of wine and bread becoming God's Body and Blood on the Altar.
As for sanctification, it is something that we teach, but most pastors will teach it as secondary to justification (which makes sense, since the "breakthrough" of Luther, so to speak, was on justification). So there are some who shy away from teaching it at all (the so-called "soft antinomians" who supposedly don't like to preach the Law to exhort Christians to do good works after justification), but most don't have that concern. They just distinguish justification and sanctification.
In summary, Lutherans emphasize the Sacraments in pretty much all topics.
Miracles? Christ's body and blood!
Salvation? Baptism!
Sanctification? Literally being brought nearer to God and being set-apart (the meaning of "Holy" or "sanctified") by consuming the God-man's flesh and blood. Confessing our sins and hearing the Holy Absolution spoken to us as though from God himself, with the promise that we are forgiven and set free from the bondage of sin and have no need to sin anymore!
As to miracles...it varies. I think many believers chalk up every day happenstance or earth functions as miracles. These are some literal things I have heard described as miracles:
I got a good parking space at the mall
The sun rose today
I got over my cold in a week
My wife got pregnant (this one is a bit touchy as sometimes it is a miracle if someone has bodily issues with getting pregnant)
I found a good deal on beef at the market
The orange tree has so much fruit
I did good on my test (that I studied hard for)
There are genuine miracles in the world today, I absolutely believe that, but Jesus did not come to perform miracles, and miracles should not make one believe in Him either. We do not believe in a deity that is a genie here to grant wished and perform miracles. Even without one miracle while He was here or after He ascended the shedding of His blood and the fulfillment of prophesies about Him are enough.
It's important that we properly understand what we mean by "sanctification", because in popular American Christian culture sanctification is treated as, effectively, us becoming better and better and sinning less and less, and getting closer to God--namely sanctification is treated like we ourselves becoming more able to be righteous by our own efforts. In Lutheran thinking this fundamentally fails to understand the proper use(s) of the Law; the Law does indeed tell us what we ought to do, but the Law condemns us because we don't do what we ought to do. The Law says "do this" and it is not done. And so the Law is not able to actually make us just or righteous, and so the preaching of the Law is not efficacious to cause us to be righteous; the preaching of the Law is efficacious to condemn us. And that's what the Law does, it condemns us; not because God is out and about looking to smite us down, it's the consequence of us being sinners, the Law reveals to us what is good, just, and right and we don't do it--it is our own sin that condemns us under the Law. It is only the preaching of the Gospel that is efficacious in delivering to us true righteousness, because the righteousness it delivers to us is the righteousness of Jesus Christ, imputed to us by God's grace, apart from ourselves. This alien righteousness is imputed to us, and by which we are justified, made righteous, and this is God's work, what God has done and what God does--not what we have done or what we do.
Many frequently will agree with the above, but then act like Justification is merely a first step, and then what is to happen is that we move on, progress, and then go on to walk in our own righteousness (perhaps with a bit of help from God, but still it's our own walk and righteousness); but that is a false sanctification. Right sanctification does not say that the Cross of Jesus is merely the starting line, but that it is the center, it envelops and draws the entire Christian life to itself--sanctification is not moving on from the cross to our own holiness, but the Spirit keeping us at the cross, hearing the Gospel, being nourished with faith, receiving the flesh and blood of our Lord in and under the bread and wine. It is Jesus, Jesus, and more Jesus. Keeping us in true faith, holding fast to Christ, confessing Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again--and here and here alone is our only hope and our only assurance. This place, this only place, in the whole of human history where sin and death were destroyed, where hell was ransacked, and where God's victory over these things has indeed truly happened, once and for all. For you, for me, for the whole world.
If the law is only about condemnation, why did God even bother with giving us a law? I think this is why the 3rd use is important. Otherwise, it can turn religion into a self-referential shell game, a kind of nominalism that apes the Gospel, but lacks its power. As the Reformed emphasize (but Lutherans for some reason seldom do), salvation is being set free to do good works (indeed the Augsburg Confession calls this "the new obedience").
If the law is only about condemnation, why did God even bother with giving us a law? I think this is why the 3rd use is important. Otherwise, it can turn religion into a self-referential shell game, a kind of nominalism that apes the Gospel, but lacks its power. As the Reformed emphasize (but Lutherans for some reason seldom do), salvation is being set free to do good works (indeed the Augsburg Confession calls this "the new obedience").
The Law isn't only about condemnation. It does tell us how we ought to live and what we ought to do, as the third use tells us, but the third use must point to the first use, and never give rise to thinking that we are righteous in our efforts to be obedient. The third use provides for us the proper way to relate to our neighbor, Coram Hominibus; not the proper way to relate to God, Coram Deus. As the guiding of how we act it pulls us toward good works for our neighbor's sake.
The Law isn't only about condemnation. It does tell us how we ought to live and what we ought to do, as the third use tells us, but the third use must point to the first use, and never give rise to thinking that we are righteous in our efforts to be obedient. The third use provides for us the proper way to relate to our neighbor, Coram Hominibus; not the proper way to relate to God, Coram Deus. As the guiding of how we act it pulls us toward good works for our neighbor's sake.
There are real limitations to this coram deo, coram homnibus distinction (and the "Two Kingdoms" theology has been critiqued, especially in its role in early 20th century Lutheran theology in Germany, needless to say in the ELCA it does not necessarily have the place it once did).
If the law is only about condemnation, why did God even bother with giving us a law? I think this is why the 3rd use is important. Otherwise, it can turn religion into a self-referential shell game, a kind of nominalism that apes the Gospel, but lacks its power. As the Reformed emphasize (but Lutherans for some reason seldom do), salvation is being set free to do good works (indeed the Augsburg Confession calls this "the new obedience").
Like ViaCrucis said, the Law is not only about condemnation. But it is always about condemnation. The Law can be used by us to emphasize one of the three uses, but in the end, it's God's Law, and His Word does what He said it would: it does not return to Him empty. The Law, even if one of its uses is emphasized, still applies in all three ways at once, which is why some people use the term "three-fold use" rather than "three uses".
If the law is only about condemnation, why did God even bother with giving us a law? I think this is why the 3rd use is important. Otherwise, it can turn religion into a self-referential shell game, a kind of nominalism that apes the Gospel, but lacks its power. As the Reformed emphasize (but Lutherans for some reason seldom do), salvation is being set free to do good works (indeed the Augsburg Confession calls this "the new obedience").
Don't Lutherans believe that one fruit of salvation is good works? And in order to perform good works, don't we have to be instructed as to what they are? Isn't that why Paul exhorts the Churches to good works? So that they can actually do them?
When Paul exhorts to good works I see no indication that his intention is to condemn. He seems to be addressing Christians living in the Spirit who are genuinely capable of good works.
From what I understand of Lutheranism, the principle being enunciated in this thread is the Law/Gospel distinction, along with the claim that the Law always condemns. Are Paul's exhortations then taken to be condemnatory? Article VI? And would the command given to Adam and Eve be for condemnation, or is the principle only in effect after the Fall? It seems strange to say that any and all exhortation is necessarily condemnatory. Is this Lutheranism or just an interpretation?
Don't Lutherans believe that one fruit of salvation is good works? And in order to perform good works, don't we have to be instructed as to what they are? Isn't that why Paul exhorts the Churches to good works? So that they can actually do them?
When Paul exhorts to good works I see no indication that his intention is to condemn. He seems to be addressing Christians living in the Spirit who are genuinely capable of good works.
Right.
For example: if someone tells me that as a good practice now that I am a Christian, that I should help my weak neighbor and not harm them, but care for them, then I'm going to, yes, be guided as to what I should do when I see a homeless guy or someone being beaten up. I'm also going to feel the sting of the Law as I realize that numerous times I have not done this even when I would be perfectly capable of helping out. And I'm going to be taught that I should restrain my hand when I'm angry so I don't hit someone.
The intention isn't to condemn me, but it still presents a mirror that shows where I fall short in uncountable errors.
From what I understand of Lutheranism, the principle being enunciated in this thread is the Law/Gospel distinction, along with the claim that the Law always condemns. Are Paul's exhortations then taken to be condemnatory? Article VI? And would the command given to Adam and Eve be for condemnation, or is the principle only in effect after the Fall? It seems strange to say that any and all exhortation is necessarily condemnatory. Is this Lutheranism or just an interpretation?
Paul's exhortations are (probably) not intended as condemnation, but exhortation. But most likely his hearers will understand it in multiple ways, including exhortation! When we use the Law, any of its functions can be emphasized, hence AC VI, as you point out. It is a good thing for preachers to exhort their flock to good works, and to tell them what those works are.
Pre-Fall, there was no sin. So there is nothing to condemn with the Law. Instead, the Natural Law only shows how Adam and Eve should love their neighbor.
God doesn't command that we do right for the purpose of condemning us, but because doing what is right is the right thing to do. But because of sin, the Law becomes a crushing weight on our backs, the condemnation isn't because God sets out to condemn us, but because our own failure to obey the Law condemns us.
"What then should we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet, if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.” But sin, seizing an opportunity in the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. Apart from the law sin lies dead. I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died, and the very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me. For sin, seizing an opportunity in the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me. So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and just and good.
Did what is good, then, bring death to me? By no means! It was sin, working death in me through what is good, in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure.
For we know that the law is spiritual; but I am of the flesh, sold into slavery under sin. I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate."
In beholding God's Law we behold, as a mirror, our own wretchedness; because as it says, "Do this, for it is good" I do not do it, and see that I don't do the good that I ought to do. That is the condemnation of the Law, not that God sets out to condemn but that true righteousness makes clear the unrighteousness of sinners. So the Law says, "Love your neighbor" and so I see that I am to love my neighbor--and yet I fail to do this little thing, a million opportunities spring up in the course of my week that I could be loving toward my neighbor but, either through wrong action or sinful inaction I do not do it. "The good that I want to do, I don't do; and the evil that I do not want to do I do, what a wretched man I am, who can save me from this body of death?"
So no, exhortation is not condemnation; but our failure to do as we ought is our own condemnation, it's a condemnation of our own making through our own sinful action and inaction. We do what we ought not, and fail to do what we ought.
I think "condemnation" is a strong term, probably why Zippy was puzzled by it. It doesn't really do justice to how it works in practice. The idea of a mirror is a better analogy. Sometimes you don't like what you see, but I wouldn't say looking into a mirror is always a horror show, not unless you are neurotic..
That's one reason I tend to emphasize what Lutherans have in common with other Christians. The insider talk can be confusing.
God doesn't command that we do right for the purpose of condemning us, but because doing what is right is the right thing to do. But because of sin, the Law becomes a crushing weight on our backs, the condemnation isn't because God sets out to condemn us, but because our own failure to obey the Law condemns us...
Your whole response is situated in the context of Romans 7, but my question had to do with passages found in Romans 8 and Romans 12, where Paul exhorts to good works:
So then, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh—for if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body you will live. (Romans 8:12-13)
I appeal to you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. Do not be conformed to this world but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may prove what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect. (Romans 12:1-2)
Let love be genuine; hate what is evil, hold fast to what is good; love one another with brotherly affection; outdo one another in showing honor. Never flag in zeal, be aglow with the Spirit, serve the Lord. Rejoice in your hope, be patient in tribulation, be constant in prayer. Contribute to the needs of the saints, practice hospitality. Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them. Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep. Live in harmony with one another; do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly; never be conceited. Repay no one evil for evil, but take thought for what is noble in the sight of all. If possible, so far as it depends upon you, live peaceably with all. Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God; for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” No, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals upon his head.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. (Romans 12:9-21)
Consider Paul's progression:
Although it is good, the Law brings death and condemnation due to sinful flesh.
The Spirit brings life and puts to death the deeds of the flesh.
Christians should live in the Spirit.
Those living in the Spirit should perform good deeds (see "spoiler" passages above).
Now according to your post and the Lutheran Law/Gospel distinction, every prescription is Law and all Law results in condemnation, even if condemnation was not the primary intent of the prescription. Therefore (4) is an instance of Law, and Paul begins and ends with Law. The passages in the "spoiler" are instances of Law and therefore will result in condemnation.
I have two questions. First, according to your interpretation when Paul exhorts to good works in "spiritual worship" he is actually just creating more death-bringing Law and the inevitable condemnation that ensues. This renders the progression of the letter impotent by re-creating the original problem in the final chapters--the problem of the condemnatory Law. A plain reading seems to indicate rather that Paul views the Law of (1) differently from the "Law" of (4). How do you make sense of this?
Second, it is my understanding that for the Lutheran there are three uses of Law: curb, mirror, and guide. It makes sense to me to simply say that (4) belongs primarily to the third use, rather than the second. Where in Lutheran doctrine is it stated that the second use needs be present in all Law? That no prescription can be offered that will not result in condemnation?
(I have heard that Luther understood flesh/Spirit as Law/Gospel, and this may be what I do not understand, for Paul seems to give prescriptions in the Spirit.)
I think "condemnation" is a strong term, probably why Zippy was puzzled by it. It doesn't really do justice to how it works in practice. The idea of a mirror is a better analogy. Sometimes you don't like what you see, but I wouldn't say looking into a mirror is always a horror show, not unless you are neurotic..
I'm not sure. Maybe it's a small point, but I would erase the word "Sometimes" from your post. From what I understand, for Lutherans the mirror (second use of Law) will always reveal sinfulness. I think it helps to mitigate the concept of condemnation, but it still seems strange to give the mirror such a central place.
Did Paul think his words in Romans 12 would "become a crushing weight on our backs"? How could he have? Wasn't his whole point that the crushing weight of the Law caused by the flesh was put to death by the Spirit, and that in the Spirit we find freedom and joy in carrying out the works of the Spirit?
Now any Godly command can remind us of our imperfection and need for grace. They can and should bring us back to the foot of the cross. But I don't see why this needs to be highlighted to the extent that it fills the whole picture. Having too many mirrors seems to me to be a sign of self-preoccupation. Why not let the 3rd use overshadow the 2nd use for mature Christians living in the Spirit? (Perhaps this deserves its own thread)
Brethren, I do not consider that I have made it my own; but one thing I do, forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.
Your whole response is situated in the context of Romans 7, but my question had to do with passages found in Romans 8 and Romans 12, where Paul exhorts to good works:
So then, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh—for if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body you will live. (Romans 8:12-13)
I appeal to you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. Do not be conformed to this world but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may prove what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect. (Romans 12:1-2)
Let love be genuine; hate what is evil, hold fast to what is good; love one another with brotherly affection; outdo one another in showing honor. Never flag in zeal, be aglow with the Spirit, serve the Lord. Rejoice in your hope, be patient in tribulation, be constant in prayer. Contribute to the needs of the saints, practice hospitality. Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them. Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep. Live in harmony with one another; do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly; never be conceited. Repay no one evil for evil, but take thought for what is noble in the sight of all. If possible, so far as it depends upon you, live peaceably with all. Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God; for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” No, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals upon his head.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. (Romans 12:9-21)
Consider Paul's progression:
Although it is good, the Law brings death and condemnation due to sinful flesh.
The Spirit brings life and puts to death the deeds of the flesh.
Christians should live in the Spirit.
Those living in the Spirit should perform good deeds (see "spoiler" passages above).
Now according to your post and the Lutheran Law/Gospel distinction, every prescription is Law and all Law results in condemnation, even if condemnation was not the primary intent of the prescription. Therefore (4) is an instance of Law, and Paul begins and ends with Law. The passages in the "spoiler" are instances of Law and therefore will result in condemnation.
I have two questions. First, according to your interpretation when Paul exhorts to good works in "spiritual worship" he is actually just creating more death-bringing Law and the inevitable condemnation that ensues. This renders the progression of the letter impotent by re-creating the original problem in the final chapters--the problem of the condemnatory Law. A plain reading seems to indicate rather that Paul views the Law of (1) differently from the "Law" of (4). How do you make sense of this?
Second, it is my understanding that for the Lutheran there are three uses of Law: curb, mirror, and guide. It makes sense to me to simply say that (4) belongs primarily to the third use, rather than the second. Where in Lutheran doctrine is it stated that the second use needs be present in all Law? That no prescription can be offered that will not result in condemnation?
(I have heard that Luther understood flesh/Spirit as Law/Gospel, and this may be what I do not understand, for Paul seems to give prescriptions in the Spirit.)
"But when man is born anew by the Spirit of God, and liberated from the Law, that is, freed from this driver, and is led by the Spirit of Christ, he lives according to the immutable will of God comprised in the Law, and so far as he is born anew, does everything from a free, cheerful spirit; and these are called not properly works of the Law, but works and fruits of the Spirit, or as St. Paul names it, the law of the mind and the Law of Christ. For such men are no more under the Law, but under grace, as St. Paul says, Rom. 8:2 [Rom. 7:23; 1 Cor. 9:21 ]." - Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord VI.17
Yes, we have a new obedience, from God, by the power of the Spirit because we are a new creation in Christ. Why a Lutheran may not like to merely leave it at this, is because of the following:
"But since believers are not completely renewed in this world, but the old Adam clings to them even to the grave, there also remains in them the struggle between the spirit and the flesh. Therefore they delight indeed in God's Law according to the inner man, but the law in their members struggles against the law in their mind; hence they are never without the Law, and nevertheless are not under, but in the Law, and live and walk in the Law of the Lord, and yet do nothing from constraint of the Law." ibid VI.18
This is a case of simul iustus et peccator, that we are both saint and sinner. The new man, born and alive in the Spirit, walks in faithful obedience to God, delighting in God's law, loving and doing all things willfully, freely, and cheerfully. But while we are alive in this body of death, that is, our own mortal flesh (which remains corruptible, mortal, etc until the resurrection on the last day) the old man, the old Adam, persists--and so there is the daily struggle between the new man (who is alive, obedient, and free) and the old man (who is dying, disobedient, and a slave to the appetites).
The Law guides the new man in bearing the good fruit in the Spirit; and it mortifies the old man.
So the issue in this case is that we are simultaneously saint and sinner; saint by the power and Spirit of God and sinner by the flesh, that is, the old Adam present in our members. The Law crushes the old man, but provides the new man with how he should live.
I do think the third use should have a more prominent place. It's one reason I've started appreciating the Reformed tradition moreso, as there is more of a balance between justification and sanctification. But there were/are Lutherans that emphasize the third use, they are called pietists (dating back to Johann Arndt's True Christianity, which is a good read), and they are a noteworthy part of some traditions, particularly the Scandinavians and also in America in the Scandinavian synods (and later ELCA).
Yes, we have a new obedience, from God, by the power of the Spirit because we are a new creation in Christ. Why a Lutheran may not like to merely leave it at this, is because of the following...
