tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8261814012053869943.post9058973782900565382..comments2023-10-09T03:39:02.388-06:00Comments on Expository Lutheran: Sanctification, not by law, third use or otherwise.Bror Ericksonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06913133289813136695noreply@blogger.comBlogger57125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8261814012053869943.post-36190609941259117122010-01-27T05:57:08.344-07:002010-01-27T05:57:08.344-07:00Frank,
I finally got around to reading Luther’s s...Frank,<br /><br />I finally got around to reading Luther’s sermon you linked to, twice. WONDERFUL sermon, a lot packed in it!<br /><br />I think I’m getting to seeing some of what you are getting at on this earthly versus heavenly righteousness distinction. I’ve been going back to Luther’s HD and you really see it there too. Reading that sermon and putting together some of what Luther speaks to concerning just how a theologian of glory sees God operate in the world versus a theologian of the Cross is eye opening in a way. For example natural disasters a theologian of glory reads it like say Pat Robertson and says, “God is punishing you to get your life right” mingling the two types of righteousness that Luther distinguishes SHARPLY. In that sermon Luther says something regarding earthly righteousness and bring plagues, war and pestilence that at first blow, with a ToG background, sounds to support such ToG…but nothing could be further from the truth.<br /><br />I’ll give it a try, peel that apart a bit more:<br /><br />Luther comments not as a theologian of glory but theologian of the cross concerning earthly righteousness that when a nation or group at length becomes so corrupt that earthly ministers of earthly righteousness (as opposed to faith/Gospel, that which is right and good among men in general, good society, peace, etc…) can no longer subdue the over flowing overt wickedness of that society that God sends plague, war and disaster. This differs from say a false teacher like Pat Robertson in this way: false teachers say such to drive men to improve their lives before God with an eye toward heavenly righteousness (which is alone Christ alone) and thus they preach another gospel, in short they confound earthly and heavenly righteousness, in a similar fashion in which they confound Law and Gospel ALL THE TIME whose end product is ALWAYS another gospel. What Luther is saying is just the opposite BECAUSE HE MAKES A STRONG DISTINCTION between earthly righteousness (general good and welfare in this dying world that helps mitigate suffering) and heavenly (Christ alone for us nothing more). That such, plagues, disasters and war comes not so you’ll “clean your act up so God will like/save you” (the other false gospel of false teachers), but rather (1) drive us to Christ AND (2) restore something of earthly righteousness that yields some peace in this life for us so that rank evil does not rule the day.<br /><br />Yours,<br /><br />LarryLarryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13387712441394419154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8261814012053869943.post-73251977237190460442010-01-26T11:28:35.996-07:002010-01-26T11:28:35.996-07:00The other problem, in Calvinistic thought, is the ...The other problem, in Calvinistic thought, is the once saved can’t fall away paradigm. We must remember ALWAYS that in that paradigm there is no such thing as a “deadly sin” once you “cross over the line” of conversion for sure and in truth. Thus, a “third use” of the law must arise that differs from the “none Christian uses”. What need be there to continually “drive to Christ” if I slide into home plate? The first and second uses of the Law become more or less pointless and inapplicable to me, thus only another use can be devised!<br /><br />LarryLarryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13387712441394419154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8261814012053869943.post-84999406867030951752010-01-26T06:58:55.906-07:002010-01-26T06:58:55.906-07:00Frank,
You asked a question a post or two back th...Frank,<br /><br />You asked a question a post or two back that I pondered on this weekend being both and ex Calvinistic SB then a Reformed (John Calvin) confessor myself. It was something like, “how can we communicate this to the Reformed” (by extension I take that to mean all the derivatives including Baptist).<br /><br />I think it goes back to a fundamental problem regarding the sacraments that Sasse points out (paraphrasing) “if you get the sacraments wrong you will get the rest of Scripture wrong”. I know that was true even on a personal level with me.<br /><br />1. If you somewhere in the chain be ye a RC, Reformed, Baptist or Arminian put or define the sacraments as works (Baptist), signs awaiting your work of faith (Calvin) or the vehicle for infused grace in order to get working (Rome) you already have false idea of both Law and Gospel and by extension a false idol you call “God”, “Christ”, the Christian faith, grace, etc… One does not really see the Gospel as it were.<br /><br />2. Similar to this the problem is the same problem one has communicating to unbelievers in general, you have to destroy their idol as the Cross must do. Keep in mind that in Baptist and Reformed thought in one way or another their ultimate “sacrament”, that which and whereby they “know they are saved/elect/predestined/converted and think there is a gospel ‘pro me’ is in those secondary works (fruits) that either prove faith exists for real OR in the more closest to Luther Calvinist get types faith itself is THAT “sacramental” work. Shown this way: When the suffering conscience does not know if God has been gracious to them (pro me) and “am I elect”, these later Calvinist will say (trying to help), “do you believe these things (Christ alone, etc…)”. IF you can say “yes” to that then you are elect. That’s there LAST line of defense or “help” against this fiery trial from the devil. They do not see that “do I really have faith” IS the issue, they, thus, cannot simply GIVE you Christ but yet ask for the work of faith to assure one’s self. Thus, the “sacrament” of the Reformed and Baptist church in which a false “pro me” is said to exist or be is either in secondary works/fruits that indicate TRUE SAVING FAITH or faith itself and NEVER the sacraments nakedly themselves.<br /><br />Does that help?<br /><br />LarryLarryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13387712441394419154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8261814012053869943.post-21429302785724090762010-01-22T14:08:42.345-07:002010-01-22T14:08:42.345-07:00I know you do dear brother. the following revelati...I know you do dear brother. the following revelations are new to me only within the past 4 months or so, and I have been lutheran all my life at 53 years! So I am excited as you are to see a way to untangle what looked to me like a hopeless knot within Lutheranism.<br /><br />1)Lutherans err by thinking and talking about only one kind of god pleasing righteousness. You will not find a single lutheran article that tries to guide lutherans in this area,that does not therefore imply that there is some sort of special law for christians or somehow being christian has something to do with how we behave. We formally (almost) get it right. In application, we make sanctification into something we do. so works sneak into faith. they then, as luther predicted, sneak works into faith through sanctification. Steve martin made this clear with his article on the 3rd use error he found in the synodical catechism. this revelation is only about a month old!<br /><br />2) law and gospel are the driver not the fruit. the dispute is over the fruit. so the discussion needs to be between two kinds of righteousness that are TRUE and god pleasing. Christ ALONE, escluding works, in Paul vs Outward true righteousness ALONE, excluding faith, in James.<br /><br />3) in romans 8 flesh/body = everything that is not the nvisible righteousness of Christ Alone. So it includes outer righteousness and excludes faith.<br /><br />4) Lutherans and evangelicals, at least formally, get Christ/faith alone. In practice they muddle because they don´t really accept the necessary correlary to this: Any talk of works by christian or pagan must be about works ALONE. all talk of faith and christ must be excluded since that is about faith ALONE. <br /><br />This is quite clear in the culture wars where even I find myself objecting to things in civli society for religiously moral reasons. that is not true civic morality and it does not please God!<br /><br />any discussion of homosexuals, abortion, separation of church and state etc etc, must ONLY be about true earthly comfort and never moral cure.<br /><br />The test is not: "does god allow that?" the test is "does it better the lives of anyone and aid in my own self discipline and restraint (ie keep us from meddling in each other´s lives without a license to do so). It looks unreligious. practical. even immoral. condining. all that.Frank Sonnekhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18119302543437442204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8261814012053869943.post-75496624038303485992010-01-22T13:47:35.402-07:002010-01-22T13:47:35.402-07:00Frank,
I look forward to it and truly appreciate ...Frank,<br /><br />I look forward to it and truly appreciate it, because I know it takes time and patience to help people with this including myself.<br /><br />YOurs,<br /><br />LarryLarryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13387712441394419154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8261814012053869943.post-86339999171526906342010-01-22T06:15:50.405-07:002010-01-22T06:15:50.405-07:00Larry,
I am working on a detailed response to yo...Larry,<br /><br />I am working on a detailed response to you that I will send you as a MS word attachment to an email. It is too long to post here.<br /><br />I echo each and every one of your concerns in short. <br /><br />James truly IS a straw "gospel". there is not one period that points to Christ. That is a good thing actually when we are talking about the true righteousness of outward works that please God.<br /><br />Our task is to remove the subject of FAITH completely from any reading of James. James is about true god pleasing outward righteousness. <br /><br />The righteousness he talks about will die with the earth along with those who actually think they can live by doing those things. <br /><br />That is our goal in dealing with James. <br /><br />We are to remove ALL talk of christ and faith and being a christian and what that is from any part of St James. and we need to be brutal in this. This is actually not a hard thing to do! <br /><br />James is about being justified by works ALONE (being a truly just person in the earthly sense). This excludes faith. fully. lady justice holding a scale. who we are (ie christian) has no part in this fully biblical definition of earthly righteousness. This form of being truly just is ALL about things that can be measured on a scale. visible sense-ible stuff. Here on earth, justice needs to exclude nepotism or who someone is right? In the heavenly kingdom this gets turned completely on it´s head! in christ we are judged ONLY by who we are, what we do is irrelevant. this is not justice in any earthly sense of the word is it?<br /><br />If inner Righteousness is faith ALONE, without works, then works are fully excluded. <br /><br />What even Lutherans tend to miss is that there IS as biblical correlary to this fact: The reverse is also fully true then: if outward god-pleasing earthly righteousness is about works ALONE, then we need here to FULLY exclude all talk of faith or what it means to be a christian. Here christ and faith are FULLY excluded. <br /><br />Ponder that. It is sort of a shock to us raised to think otherwise if we truly understand what this says.<br /><br />Luther says that we will lose "christ alone" and "faith alone" if we do not understand that this is so. he says this at the start of his sermon on two kinds of righteousness.<br /><br /> Our goal with James then , is to drive this second point home. It is one even Lutherans are uncomfortable with since they tend to sneak works in under the heading of "sanctification". being christian then becomes: faith PLUS... <br /><br />Pagans do better at the law than we christians do. Why? we turn the law into a moral exercise aimed at pleasing God. This is what the culture wars are really all about. <br /><br />We then are useless to our neighbor, and so we don´t look loving because we aren´t according to Gods Word. and we do not please God.<br /><br />Truly good outward works here on earth are earthly.<br /><br />they are soley about making the life of our neighbor better, and have nothing at all to do with faith or Christ.<br /><br />To drive this point home is our aim in guiding people through James. We are to remove all talk and connection to faith and Christ.Frank Sonnekhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18119302543437442204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8261814012053869943.post-19600337706166087492010-01-21T14:16:00.621-07:002010-01-21T14:16:00.621-07:00“So now dear Larry, Saint James will become your f...“So now dear Larry, Saint James will become your friend and fast ally in pointing to that Righteousness that ALONE can save.”<br /><br />I might need a bit more elaboration on this.<br /><br />Let me give you my main concern having NOT been a life long Lutheran and deeply entrenched in the torments of Reformed and Baptist religion. On that side of the aisle the BIG problem is the James 2:24 becomes the “spring board” for the “enumerated list” of “these here are good works” those over there are not. Rather it comes in a bit more Satanically like this, “yes those things you do over there (the mundane, etc…) while they are not sin…they are not as spiritual, high or to be elevated to the level of good works like this enumerated church box list (various from denomination to denomination and local church cult to local church cult”. <br /><br />This is where I see two thing and did see/experience a RANK return a form of protestant Roman theology. Luther in his many sermons on good works, which goes back to my post this morning, always “fleshes” out these good works pretenders using the most mundane of works. Basically saying if you ask them (and he said this very thing, I’m paraphrasing from memory) if eating, sleeping, marrying, changing diapers, picking up a straw are good works the false teachers will say “no”, but rather defer to the “more spiritual list”. In his day that was things like prayer, fastings, monk and nun houses, etc… With the Anabaptist he saw the same thing going on as they withdrew either rebelliously or passively from society. In our day and age, definitely in Baptist realms and PCA realms I can say first hand, maybe in some Lutheran circles, you still get that “enumerated list” that is the “more spiritual” church yard list. And it’s never as stark as the mundane list is sin and the church list is not sin, but rather an insidious implied “yes, yes the mundane list is assumed and not “sin”, but this local church yard cult list is where the REAL spiritual good works are.”<br /><br />The Satanic, and I use that word without reservation or apology, insidiousness of it is that it is not “black and white” as I said but “implied, insinuated, suggested, hinted at”.<br /><br />For even Luther himself said it was a “straw epistle” meaning AT BEST of lesser value (many don’t realize what Luther meant by that term) and that it was not apostolic because to be apostolic it had to be as Christ commanded, “you shall bear witness of Me”.<br /><br />That’s why I’m a bit recalcitrant at making James my Gospel buddy and definitely not putting it on the level of Paul and Romans. If backed into a corner and I have to “pick” my weapon Paul’s clarity wins hands down every time. There I can be sure of what the Gospel says, ole James I cannot be so certain of.<br /><br />Perhaps this is an exercising of Paul’s warning in Galatians that even if an apostle (as Peter did too many times) or angel from heaven brings another gospel that is not a gospel, it is cursed. And as Luther also said if the Judas or the devil himself actually speaks the real Gospel, that I listen to. Or elsewhere as Luther states, ‘if they use the Scriptures against us, we will use Christ against the scriptures’. And that goes for ANY man or document. And that’s not dissuading Scripture’s authority but keeping, as you say, the right ORDER. The right context many attempt to keep but the right order is where the enthuised doctrines fail for they level and normalize everything so that NO order or an inverted order only exists.<br /><br />LLarryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13387712441394419154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8261814012053869943.post-65289206696849571562010-01-21T08:10:10.615-07:002010-01-21T08:10:10.615-07:00So now dear Larry, Saint James will become your fr...So now dear Larry, Saint James will become your friend and fast ally in pointing to that Righteousness that ALONE can save.Frank Sonnekhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18119302543437442204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8261814012053869943.post-89566053588701952412010-01-21T08:08:11.117-07:002010-01-21T08:08:11.117-07:00So now you can fully agree with those who call upo...So now you can fully agree with those who call upon st james, and agreeable point out the larger truth.<br /><br />yes good works DO justify in making a man just in an early sense that will perish with the earth.<br /><br />True outward righteousness is ALL about a horizontal acting in love to make the earthly life of our neighbor better. as soon as we aim our works vertically with the purpose being to please God, then our works become use-less to our neighbor and for that exact reason, they do not please God. they are idolatry and not god pleasing righteousness! <br /><br />All talk of faith is FULLY excluded here. why? because faith is ALONE and FULLY included in that inner and invisible Righteousness: Christ. <br /><br />so it cannot be anywhere found in that OUTER righteousness that is about our neighbor and truly pleasing to God.<br /><br />but this outer righteousness will perish with the earth even though we should enthusiastically agree with James here about it being necessary. Indeed James makes our point: He says "SHOW me your faith, and I will show you my works". He is exactly making the same point here that faith, the ONLY thing that makes one christian IS invisible. The works he talks about are not that. and he also then is saying that to make works about some religious pleasing of God is USE-less! good works are all and only about helping widows and orphans and others in their earthly bodily distress.<br /><br />There is a Righteousness however that will not perish. Jesus Christ is that righteousness. We don´t look to understand this in James. Different tools for different things eh? Both tools are good and useful.Frank Sonnekhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18119302543437442204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8261814012053869943.post-62376559932553712352010-01-21T07:56:47.049-07:002010-01-21T07:56:47.049-07:00all the lutheran stuff about law good works and be...all the lutheran stuff about law good works and being a christian talks about keeping the law from "christian perspective" . this absolutely implies that there is only ONE kind of righteousness that pleases God. This is only partially true. or rather it is true as an isolated statement, but not in full context. This is wrong. and it screws with the Gospel as a result.<br /><br />We often treat doctrinal points as stand alone truths that we can present independently or in any order. Paul and Luther are all about context and contrasts. We need to exercise the discipline of the form of sound doctrine. we need to study the methods and order in which paul and luther present each doctrine, and learn how to present things, and not just list the doctrines out of context or think we need to be creative to apply and make relevant old truth to present times.<br /><br />There are TWO kinds of true righteousness. Romans 8: <br /><br />one will die with the earth along with those who try to live by it,<br /><br /> and the other Righteousness will live forever along with those who live in that righteousness. <br /><br />BOTH are true righteousness. BOTH please God. <br /><br />Only one can save.Frank Sonnekhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18119302543437442204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8261814012053869943.post-5821081683105398202010-01-21T07:49:52.721-07:002010-01-21T07:49:52.721-07:00I am trying to learn larry how to communicate this...I am trying to learn larry how to communicate this insight of luther to Lutherans and other christians so they "get it". it is exactly what is needed to correct the utter confusion lutherans have about the law and righteousness.<br /><br />how can we help our reformed and evangelical bretheren if we ourselves are not clear on this?<br /><br />Lutherans say there is only one TRUE righteousness. so they discount outward righteousness as being phoney or pharisaical.<br /><br />Luther says at the beginning of his sermon that we will lose the "christ alone, faith alone" if we do not give outward righteousness it´s full due.<br /><br />he is right. because we will then sneak good works into the doctrine of the Gospel rather than letting it be about inner and invisible faith alone. being a christian will then become inner faith PLUS something visible we do.<br /><br />So paradoxically, defending grace alone means being clear that there IS a true god pleasing outward righteousness that includes everything utterly except that one invisible thing Christ and faith that connects us to that one thing.Frank Sonnekhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18119302543437442204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8261814012053869943.post-8151308201124886172010-01-21T07:45:09.765-07:002010-01-21T07:45:09.765-07:00"WOW, eye popping, Luther’s Roman’s 1 insight..."WOW, eye popping, Luther’s Roman’s 1 insight, on a new level!<br /><br />WOW that is some strong Gospel news in a round about way! If I could dance (I pretty much look like a cow on skates trying to dance) I’d be dancing. Thanks, I think that made my day!!!<br /><br />Larry"<br /><br />Indeed Larry. I have been a lutheran all my life. and i totally missed this critical point.<br /><br />I also missed the simple point that Sanctification is defined, quite simply as the indwelling Christ. So we look to the Incarnate Christ not only as Example, but also to answer each and every question as to what Sanctification and it´s fruit is and is not. Does christ need encouragement or prodding or law to do God´s Will? of course not. <br /><br />Just as we MUST sin because we are sinners, the meaning of MUST in our sanctication is the same Christ MUST do God´s Will. there the must can only mean simply a must that excludes choice or other option rather than a moral must that involves choice and willpower.Frank Sonnekhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18119302543437442204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8261814012053869943.post-33115887804052734322010-01-21T05:53:41.667-07:002010-01-21T05:53:41.667-07:00“Who but Luther could see that this "flesh/bo...“Who but Luther could see that this "flesh/body" in Romans 8 is actually god pleasing outward righteousness? Amazing!”<br /><br />WOW, that just hit me! THAT’s why Luther could see good works in so many things say our inherent pietism does not. Both good works as in “high end ones” if you will like helping my neighbor in time of need, and urgent moments like Haiti, but also in the mundane, eating, sleeping, marriage, day to day drudgery in a seemingly nothing job, fast food cook, etc… The not so “glimmery” works, the not so “church (meaning religious) yard list” and so forth. That seeing past the Greek category for flesh/spirit and unto the Hebrew unity earthly. That’s why Luther though one of the highest insightful theologians of the Cross in history is simultaneously very earth and very practical. Counter pose that with alllllllll the more or less Gnostic spirit like folks out there. <br /><br />There was always this “Luther touches me practically in a real earthy I can ‘get it’ sense” that I never could have with many of my former denom. Pastors and their writers (e.g. Reformed, Baptist and Puritans). It was always in this what I call “gnosis spiritual misty I’m not sure how you reach/achieve it realm”. If you COULD some how achieve this, the later, then you might have assurance of salvation.<br /><br />WOW, eye popping, Luther’s Roman’s 1 insight, on a new level!<br /><br />WOW that is some strong Gospel news in a round about way! If I could dance (I pretty much look like a cow on skates trying to dance) I’d be dancing. Thanks, I think that made my day!!!<br /><br />LarryLarryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13387712441394419154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8261814012053869943.post-12107353595640361102010-01-21T05:32:23.421-07:002010-01-21T05:32:23.421-07:00Frank,
VERY helpful! I appreciate that. I'm...Frank,<br /><br />VERY helpful! I appreciate that. I'm going to digest this and Luther's sermon a bit.<br /><br />I appreciate that very much,<br /><br />LarryLarryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13387712441394419154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8261814012053869943.post-87138001388531780272010-01-20T15:21:32.552-07:002010-01-20T15:21:32.552-07:00Larry:
1)"You mention something about readin...Larry:<br /><br />1)"You mention something about reading these things in Greek not Hebrew thought. I’ve heard that before. Could you peel that apart and explain that a bit more? "<br /><br />My understanding, and I am no expert here, is that the Hebrews regarded the entire man as unitary. no real separation between body and soul. The greeks are very eastern-religion in their approach. they make a huge deal about carnal vs small-s spiritual. <br /><br />The scholastics tended to follow the greek school. In Roamns 8 therefore, they make a big deal of flesh vs spirit and miss the whole point. they take flesh to mean carnal, sexual, base,etc.<br /><br />One of Luther´s important insights here was to see that flesh/body in romans 8, since it is contrasted to Spirit, means everthing that is not faith. Since faith is ALONE what endures, the everything else would be anything besides that, anything pertaining to our earthy existence, earthly righteousness!<br /><br />Who but Luther could see that this "flesh/body" in romans 8 is actually god pleasing outward righteousness? amazing. This is what is behind "the just shall live by faith" being so important to Luther.<br /><br />2) "And Luther’s quote about ‘this life is the mortification of the old adam/flesh’. That’s starting to make some sense."<br /><br />Since faith is ALONE in the heavenly kingdom, and ALL ELSE is in the earthly kingdom, our earthly existence, ALL that the earthly existence is about is earthly outward righteousness that will perish, along with all who seek there life there, with the earth. But this earthly righteousness (mortification enabled Love) is how God works his will here among us on earth for our good. Here in this earthly existence/kingdom, faith is a counterfeit currency. It is vertical deviation of works done to please God, when our works, to truly please him, should be only pointed at our neighbor for his benefit. <br /><br />We don´t do works here on earth to please God. we do them to make things better for our neighbor, and we know that doing THAT pleases God. mortification is what must be done to the Old Adam for him to be able to love his neighbor.<br /><br />Luther´s sermon on two kinds of righteousness says that faith ALONE is in the heavenly kingdom. that means everything ELSE must be understood to be all in the earthly kingdom, the earthly life we live in. Here earthly righteousness is the legal tender.<br /><br />earthly outward righteousness has exactly two elements: self-discipline (aka mortification) + Love. Love is actions that make the earthly lives of our neighbor better.<br /><br />ALL the earthly blessings that you call "daily bread" is produced bY God, through man, here in this way. food drink house home family work faithful friends and employees etc etc.<br /><br /><br />if that was not clear, please feel free to redirect Larry. All this is in the luther sermon on the two kinds of righteousness along with Luther´s commentary on Galatians which you can find by googling.Frank Sonnekhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18119302543437442204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8261814012053869943.post-27620973611897574552010-01-20T12:56:52.156-07:002010-01-20T12:56:52.156-07:00No alexander I did not see you saying anythink abo...No alexander I did not see you saying anythink about justification there, but that is the common pitfall and the reason so many are leary.Bror Ericksonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06913133289813136695noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8261814012053869943.post-60499413478000741852010-01-20T12:02:18.115-07:002010-01-20T12:02:18.115-07:00I'm confused why you would say anything about ...I'm confused why you would say anything about justification. Did I write something that made you think that I thought they would feel justifed by the admonishment?<br /><br />I do get what you are saying but I feel you are down playing the law in the first several chapters of Romans. <br /><br />Dr. Rob has described Romans three as the darkest chapter in all of the bible because it leaves man with no hope in himself.<br /><br />More later I have to think about more.Alexandernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8261814012053869943.post-16388628123391697352010-01-20T10:04:21.890-07:002010-01-20T10:04:21.890-07:00Sorry Alexander but I don't see this the same ...Sorry Alexander but I don't see this the same way. In fact at the first I see him writing about the law. almost a didactic teaching sort of way. And it almost isn't even law here yet. He is teaching with it about it etc. It isn't second use. If anything all he is doing here is telling them what their response to the law should be. He gets to law at the end of his letters. He expects them to do it. Some are going to hear it and be convicted, some are going to hear it and amend their lives, and it is all going to have different effects and the same effects on all the individuals. Second and third functions happening. But none of them are going to go away thinking they are thereby justified by following this admonishment.Bror Ericksonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06913133289813136695noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8261814012053869943.post-87137344188311127462010-01-20T09:12:20.213-07:002010-01-20T09:12:20.213-07:00@ Pastor Bror, Perhaps I should have expanded on t...@ Pastor Bror, Perhaps I should have expanded on that thought. I agree that we can't choose how to use the law. Also function is a lot better word..<br /><br />What I meant was that if you follow Paul's letters as letters there seems to be a way he writes the Law. For example Roman 1-3 is second use of the law it meant to kill and drive to Christ. Then in the middle Romans 4-11 paul talks about the gospel and its implication. Then at the end 12-16 Paul start writing about more law. But that this law writing has a different tone to it. <br /><br />If you read Paul's letters as a whole it was always strange to me that Paul followed a law Gospel law style of writing. It makes more sense to me that Paul intended that second law writing to serve a different function. <br /><br />@ Frank<br /><br />Thanks for your answers I will have to digest then before I ask any more. <br /><br />Also do you blog anywhere?Alexandernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8261814012053869943.post-23171596470397734382010-01-20T09:04:47.766-07:002010-01-20T09:04:47.766-07:00Larry,
It is Dr. Murray. I misspelled his name. He...Larry,<br />It is Dr. Murray. I misspelled his name. He is a pastor at Memorial Lutheran in Houston. He has written a couple articles on this now. Mostly in Concordia Theological Quarterly. I don't know if any of his stuff is available on the net. Great man though.Bror Ericksonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06913133289813136695noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8261814012053869943.post-74771351078879130892010-01-20T08:44:55.573-07:002010-01-20T08:44:55.573-07:00This is a great discussion, a lot here to ponder, ...This is a great discussion, a lot here to ponder, there are some “chewy” points to ponder on all this.<br /><br />Bror’s point on the term “use” is a good one, I personally have never been able to cow tow the Law to the “use” I prefer it. It’s never so much a confusing issue when one commits a what one might call “obvious negative sin”, theft and so forth. Rather when one does an actual good outward work or deed. It pretty much convicts me or not, even when I do do something outward according to the Law, I know my heart on its BEST day has mixed feelings and didn’t do it for unselfish reasons. If for no other sin the old Adam, which itself is a category easier spoken of in words and syllables than to peel apart within one’s self, will gather up this outward good work as a good guy point.<br /><br />Calvin’s category for third use, the one I learned the most and experienced the most personally (to a LOT of un-assurance that I was ever saved, elected, born again, etc…) prior to coming over to Luther, is much different. There’s always a hidden or implied exhortation as a Calvinist to do it out of joy or gratitude for what Christ has done (in the Baptist Calvinist realm John Piper is probably the biggest one). Sermons in calvinist churches, both Baptist and PCA of which I’m personally familiar, circle almost exclusively around or emphasize “third use” to the loss of the Gospel. The Gospel becomes a sort of one sentence, “oh yea we assume that so we are not denying that”, then on to a thousand sentences about the third use.<br /><br />Frank,<br /><br />You mention something about reading these things in Greek not Hebrew thought. I’ve heard that before. Could you peel that apart and explain that a bit more? And Luther’s quote about ‘this life is the mortification of the old adam/flesh’. That’s starting to make some sense.<br /><br />Thanks,<br /><br />Larry<br /><br />PS: Bror, who is and what is this Dr. Murry dissertation?Larryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13387712441394419154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8261814012053869943.post-54245510535317157632010-01-20T08:04:43.014-07:002010-01-20T08:04:43.014-07:00Alexander,
"First would Pauls exhortations be...Alexander,<br />"First would Pauls exhortations be considered third use of the law? It seems to me that he doesn't write them in a second use kind of way but they are also law because they command. Ex. 1 Thessalonians 4, Romans 13, Ephesians 5 and 6."<br />See this is where you get it wrong, in a "second use kind of way" <br />See I don't debate whether or not there is a third use Alexander. I whole heartedly agree that there is. The question, as Larry, asks is what is it? Right now the man to talk to about this is Dr. Murray. He did his dissertation on it. One of the biggest screwups concerning third use is the phrase third use. It should be third function, that is more how the term reads and is used in the BOC. The law functions this way and that way. The law isn't for us to use, you don't get to decide on it's use. Law is law. It will convict you of sin, and it will also show you ways in which you can make a God pleasing choice concerning what to do or not to do. But if anyone uses anyone when it comes to law, the law uses you, not the other way around. You don't get to use the law.Bror Ericksonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06913133289813136695noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8261814012053869943.post-80164467905754442952010-01-20T05:43:04.211-07:002010-01-20T05:43:04.211-07:00alexander
"Also what do I say to some one th...alexander<br /><br />"Also what do I say to some one that says "written law is not for believers"?<br /><br /><br />as a Lutheran talking to Lutherans, you would also patiently and lovingly take them to article VI, the epitomy since it is easier and shorter.<br /><br />You will then and show them exactly how this looks within a believer. <br /><br />heavenly INNER righteousness. Christ-in-us. AND earthly OUTER righteousness, law and Old Adam which will perish with the earth. <br /><br />both god pleasing. <br /><br />one will live forever. the other will perish with the earth and the Old Adam.Frank Sonnekhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18119302543437442204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8261814012053869943.post-12860796682440894012010-01-20T05:39:13.696-07:002010-01-20T05:39:13.696-07:00alexander
"Also what do I say to some one th...alexander<br /><br />"Also what do I say to some one that says "written law is not for believers"?<br /><br />You should really read Luther´s commentary on Galatians together with the writing of Luther on Moses and his law. Usually these Lutherans read what luther says about moses and his law being abolished for christians without really understanding what he means by "abolished" and "christian"<br /><br />For the new man in christ, the law no longer exists. Christ needs no law eh? <br /><br />But because the Old Adam is still with us, we still need the written law. not just moses, but the law written in our heart called conscience or what lutherans call "natural law", along with the written civil laws of the country we live in. The old adam in pagans and in us is still under the full curse of the law. <br /><br />my simple proof for this old adam still being under the full curse of the law is that you will physically die, along with all your truly god pleasing outward righeousness. <br /><br />my simple proof for the fact that you as new man are freed from the law is your baptism and the promise of the resurrection!Frank Sonnekhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18119302543437442204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8261814012053869943.post-55347658185353007422010-01-20T04:47:07.964-07:002010-01-20T04:47:07.964-07:00#3 alexander
"Last question what do you thin...#3 alexander<br /><br />"Last question what do you think about this article http://www.presenttruthmag.com/archive/VII/7-3.htm By John Warwick Montgomery?"<br /><br />I thought it lacked clarity. that it would be unuseful as a guide to help a Lutheran or other christian untangle this mess. Usually Lutherans make this issue about law/gospel. faith/works comes closer, but since most lutherans flee from the idea that there are works that are truly god pleasing even if unbelievers are doing them, this path too gets confused. Law and gospel are the drivers for fruit. no one is confused here. the confusion is about the fruit. <br /><br />so the discussion needs to be about fruit. two kinds of righteousness. both truly please God. one will die with the earth, one will live forever per romans 8.<br /><br />better to read Luther and study article VI in it´s form and method. than montgomery.<br /><br />again article VI starts out: regeneration/sanctification and it´s fruit simply happen like light from sun. therefore if we talk about law then it MUST be about something else.<br /><br />It must be ALL about the Old Adam ONLY. in regeneration we are talking faith ALONE. so works MUST be ALL about Old Adam. see what they are doing here? It is their method you must learn. This is Luther´s own method. this method is exactly why he is so clear. You can be clear like him!<br /><br />http://www.godrules.net/library/luther/129luther_e13.htm<br /><br />here are the juice words that look like article VI:<br /><br />"But this latter piety ...has nothing to do with works. For how can it have works, since all that this body can perform and that is called works, is already included in the former piety." <br /><br />God bless you in seeking to love your neighbor and in living in that Love that will not perish.Frank Sonnekhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18119302543437442204noreply@blogger.com