Simply excellent. Thank you for writing this article.

Amazing! I read this the other day when it showed up in my email from Issues, Etc. This is a tough concept for any Christian to grasp, even a Lutheran. I hadn’t exactly grasped this in exactly this way and this article gave a great way to look at it. Repentance. A simple word, but hard – nay impossible – for anyone to do, so thankfully God takes care of that for us too!

I wonder why we want to invent the wheel? This , like every article I have ever read by a lutheran is about the law from a christian perspective. this implies that there is some sort of special way to do the law that is not the same as for pagans. this confuses things. how do we look at the world of non christians? are they all seeking after unrighteousness? culture wars anyone?!

Luther has a different approach that works better as a guide to righteousness and for identifying what that looks like in every situation we encounter.

his sermon of 1728 two kinds of righteousness. true earthly righteousness, true heavenly righteousness. He says there IS a true righteousness that pleases God and that is to be completely kept separate from the true Righteousness in christ that we get in faith!

Lutheran christians err in thinking that there is only one kind of true righteousness, ie that only christian who do works in faith do true righteousness, ie righteousness that pleases god. this is not what Luther says.

here is the link.

http://www.godrules.net/library/luther/129luther_e13.htm

that was supposed to be his sermon of 1528 at marburg 9th sunday after trinity. the sermon referenced in article VI 3rd use of the law in the formula of concord.

Frank,

I not sure I understand what you are saying. Are you saying that unbelievers can produce a righteousness that pleases God?

When the Formula of Concord mentions that sermon, it seems to do so narrowly, in reference to the need of the Law to put down “fleshly lusts;” not in reference to everything Luther may have said in that sermon.

Lutherans aren’t bound to everything Luther wrote. Lutherans are bound to the Lutheran Confessions. The Lutheran Confessions are clear, there is only one righteousness that pleases God: the perfect righteousness of Christ. The works that Christians do in faith please God solely for the sake of Jesus’ perfect obedience:

“How and why the good works of believers, although in this life they are imperfect and impure because of sin in the flesh, are nevertheless acceptable and well-pleasing to God, is not taught by the Law, which requires an altogether perfect, pure obedience if it is to please God. But the Gospel teaches that our spiritual offerings are acceptable to God through faith for Christ’s sake, 1 Pet. 2:5; Heb. 11:4ff. In this way Christians are not under the Law, but under grace, because by faith in Christ the persons are freed from the curse and condemnation of the Law; and because their good works, although they are still imperfect and impure, are acceptable to God through Christ…“ (SD, VI, 22-23)

TW

frank sonnek :
I wonder why we want to invent the wheel? This , like every article I have ever read by a lutheran is about the law from a christian perspective. this implies that there is some sort of special way to do the law that is not the same as for pagans. this confuses things. how do we look at the world of non christians? are they all seeking after unrighteousness? culture wars anyone?!
Lutheran christians err in thinking that there is only one kind of true righteousness, ie that only christian who do works in faith do true righteousness, ie righteousness that pleases god. this is not what Luther says.

Wow…you got exactly the opposite out of that sermon from what Luther clearly intended. The righteousness of the Second Table of the Law is, indeed, completely separate from the righteousness that comes through faith in Christ, except for this one little thing: while the righteousness of the Second Table is “pleasing to God” because He commanded it, those who seek to do such works still fail to be pleasing to Him unless they have faith in Christ. Luther writes in this sermon:

10. Above this external piety there is another, which does not belong to this temporal life on earth but which avails only before God and which leads us to the life beyond and keeps us in it. The former piety consists in works, which this present life requires to be done among men, whether they be our superiors or inferiors, our neighbors, or our kindred. It has its reward here upon earth, also ends with this life, and they who do not practice it shorten their days. But this latter piety moves and soars far above everything that is upon earth, and 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.

This piety is now called the grace of God, or the forgiveness of sins, of which Christ speaks in this and other gospels, and which is not an earthly but heavenly righteousness; it does not come of our work and ability but is the work and gift of God. For that human piety may well shield us against punishment and the hangman, and permit us to enjoy temporal gifts; but it cannot attain for us God’s grace and the forgiveness of sin. Therefore, even though we may have this external piety, we must nevertheless have a much higher one, which alone avails before God, frees us from sin and an evil conscience, and leads us out of death into eternal life. [Emphasis mine.]

And, again, just to be clear, Luther continues with:

24. Christians alone know this and believe it, and are in this respect different from those of every other faith and worship on earth. For the Jews, Turks, false Christians, and those who would be righteous by works, also boast that God is merciful; and there is no man on earth but knows something of the grace of God, and yet all of them fail to obtain it, or in other words, they do not have the treasure in which it lies and from which it flows. They continue in their blindness and imagine they can acquire it by their works, rigid life, and their own holiness, with which they only make the wrath and displeasure of God the more grievous.

So, sir, no, Confessional Lutherans are not in any way opposed to what Luther teaches in this sermon.

(BTW, for those of you who think that God converts people through the music of Bach, et al. [not the words, but the music], Luther also says in this sermon what he said in the Smalcald Articles: “31. Therefore I have always taught that the oral word must precede every thing else, must be comprehended with the ears, if the Holy Ghost is to enter the heart, who through the Word enlightens it and works faith. Consequently faith does not come except through the hearing and oral preaching of the Gospel, in which it has its beginning, growth and strength.” And, regardless of the sophistry offered elsewhere on this wrt Luther’s so saying, here he clearly isn’t limiting such statements to the enumeration of sins in individual confession [not that he is in the SA, either, but some have falsely alleged such to be so].)

EJG

EJG,

Well put.

TW

TODD WILKEN “Are you saying that unbelievers can produce a righteousness that pleases God?”

FRANK: in short yes. But it is Luther saying this. so is article XVIII of the AC.

If a sermon is referenced in article VI the confessors thought it to be very important. In fact it provides the “form” for the sound doctrine found in article VI. Chemnitz in his genius took a sermon about two kingdoms in society and tweaked it to answer the same questions about INSIDE believers. Sanctification vs Mortification/love. christ-in-us vs old adam. heavenly kingdom vs earthly kingdom. TWO kinds of righteousness.

TODD WILKEN: When the Formula of Concord mentions that sermon, it seems to do so narrowly, in reference to the need of the Law to put down “fleshly lusts;” not in reference to everything Luther may have said in that sermon.

FRANK:You seem to not share Luther’s shocking and radical insight on what “flesh/body” means in romans 8. So I am not surprised you miss the point of Luther´s sermon. he says “flesh/body” = outward righteousness.

can we walk through Luther´s sermon looking for something that challenges our thinking rather than as a proof text to confirm what we think we already know?

LUTHER: Luther at the start of his sermon says that there is one thing, internalizing the doctrine of the forgiveness of sins, that is the SOLE art of being a christian.

He further says that we will not be able to do this and hold fast to this being alone what makes a christian if we do not know that there are two kinds of righteousness and then learn to skillfully know the difference between those two kinds of true, true meaning god pleasing, righteousness.

Luther here is following closely st Paul in romans chapter 8. here Luther makes the rather startling assertion that “flesh/body” represents true earthly god pleasing righteousness. We Lutherans today assume that flesh/body must simply mean carnal or even sexual sinning like the scholastics. This is a rather shocking view. it is THE revelation to Luther that lies directly behind why “the just shall live by faith” was a thunderbolt to him.

His sermon in summary, in parallel to romans 8 says that there are two kinds of righteousness pleasing to god and ordained by him:

one is outward and earthly righteousness that consists of self-discipline + love. love is strictly actions that better the earthly life of others. this righteousness will die with the earth along with those who try to find life in this. This includes everything in our existence. It excludes faith and christ. no faith is necessary for any of this to happen.

Then there is the inner invisible heavenly Righteousness. Chist and faith. Nothing else is in the heavenly kingdom but this one thing. Why? all else is fully included in the earthly kingdom.

REV ERIC:

Wow…you got exactly the opposite out of that sermon from what Luther clearly intended. The righteousness of the Second Table of the Law is, indeed, completely separate from the righteousness that comes through faith in Christ, except for this one little thing: while the righteousness of the Second Table is “pleasing to God” because He commanded it, those who seek to do such works still fail to be pleasing to Him unless they have faith in Christ

Luther teaches this:

On earth, God is only pleased with actions that better the earthly lives of our neighbor (this is called true love). This ALONE is true earthly righteousness . Here all talk of faith and christ must be fully excluded. meaning no christ or faith is need to do ALL these tnings. furhter they please God and are providenced by him on earth. here on earth , what a man does and not who he is is what justifies him, what makes him just and righteous. in the heavenly kingdom this is turned on it´s head, there we are judged soley by who we are, and not at all according to what we do.

yes we do not have to accept everything Luther wrote. ok. he was falable. I get that. being lutheran is subscribing to the confessions and not personal writings. I get that too. and the point of saying that we dont follow Luther in all he wrote is what? especially if what he says in a particular sermon is wiser and better and truer to scripture than our own views? that is the case here. I KNOW who Luther is. I have come to trust his judgement. who are you? or me?

TODD AND ERIC, i URGE YOU, IN ALL HUMILITY AND DEFERENCE TO THE CHARGE OF THE OFFICES YOU HOLD AND REJOICING IN THE MANY FRUITS YOU HAVE PRODUCED IN LOVE FOR ALL THE REST OF US.

AS BROTHER LUTHERANS NOT TO DISMISS OR GLOSS OVER WHAT LUTHER HAS WRITTEN HERE BECAUSE IT IS BEING URGED ON YOU BY A NOBODY.

I URGE YOU TO STUDY THE CONSTRASTS AND CONTEXT AND FORM OF THAT SERMON AND NOT TREAT DOCTRINE AS ISOLATED POINTS THAT HAVE THE SAME MEANING HOWEVER WE CHOSE TO ORDER THEM.

I SUGGEST THAT THIS SERMON, LINED UP IN EXACT PARALLEL TO ARTICLE vi IS GODS GIVE TO LUTHERANS TODAY TO UNTANGLE ALL THE CONFUSION OVER SANCTIFICATION,. 3RD USE, AND HOW AND WHY OUTWARD RIGHTEOUSNESS IS NECESSARY AND PLEASING TO GOD. EVEN THE OUTWARD RIGHTEOUSNESS OF PAGANS.

Frank,

Unfortunately the distinction you have found in Luther isn’t found either in Scripture or in the Confessions.

In fact, Scripture is clear that “without faith it is impossible to please God,” and “whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.” (Hebrews 11:6 and Romans 14:23, sorry for the proof texts). Scripture specifically says, “no one does good, not even one” (Romans 3:12).

The Confessions repeat this:

“Men truly sin, even when, without the Holy Ghost, they do virtuous works, because they do them with a wicked heart, according to Rom. 14, 23: Whatsoever is not of faith is sin.” (AP, IV, 35, see also AP III, 212; XII, 88; XV, 17; XXVII, 23)

“For a corrupt tree cannot bring forth good fruit, Matt. 7:18, as it is also written Rom. 14, 23: Whatsoever is not of faith is sin. For the person must first be accepted of God, and that for the sake of Christ alone, if also the works of that person are to please Him. Therefore, of works that are truly good and well-pleasing to God, which God will reward in this world and in the world to come, faith must be the mother and source; and on this account they are called by St. Paul true fruits of faith, as also of the Spirit.” (SD, IV, 8-9)

Does a perfect keeping of the Law please God? Yes, of course. But pagans cannot keep the Law perfectly, or at all for that matter. So, pagans cannot produce a righteousness that pleases God, here or at the judgment.

Christians cannot and do not keep the Law perfectly either. But in the case of Christians, faith in Christ is reckoned as righteousness –the perfect righteousness of Christ. This righteousness pleased God, here and at the judgment.

All I ask you is: which of your “two righteousnesses” do you place before God?

TW

TODD WILKEN “Are you saying that unbelievers can produce a righteousness that pleases God?”

FRANK: in short yes. But it is Luther saying this. so is article XVIII of the AC.

If we do not teach that this is true clearly and then learn skillfully how to differentiate the two kinds of God Pleasing rightousness, Luther says we will lose the doctrine of “faith alone” and “christ alone”.

He is saying that knowing and understanding that there are two kinds of god pleasing righteousness is that importand dear brother Todd.

why is Luther right? if we dont see that there are outward works that are necessary and pleasing to God that have NOTHING to do with the Righteousness of faith alone, then we will then have to sneak those external works into the teaching of what it means to be a christian, which then will become Christ/faith PLUS.

this is all clear in the sermon that you seems to gloss over and not value as much as you really should. It will challenge you dear brother. It did me after 53 years of being a Lutheran.

http://www.godrules.net/library/luther/129luther_e13.htm

Frank,

Why do you gloss over clear Scripture and the Confessions? Both clearly speak against what you are saying.

As a Lutheran, I am not permitted to ignore or contradict Scripture or the Confessions, even using Luther.

You claim that AC XVIII teaches that unbelievers can produce a righteousness that pleases God. It says no such thing:

“Of Free Will they teach that man’s will has some liberty to choose civil righteousness, and to work things subject to reason. But it has no power, without the Holy Ghost, to work the righteousness of God, that is, spiritual righteousness; since the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, 1 Cor. 2, 14; but this righteousness is wrought in the heart when the Holy Ghost is received through the Word. These things are said in as many words by Augustine in his Hypognosticon, Book III: ‘We grant that all men have a free will, free, inasmuch as it has the judgment of reason; not that it is thereby capable, without God, either to begin, or, at least, to complete aught in things pertaining to God, but only in works of this life, whether good or evil. “Good” I call those works which spring from the good in nature, such as, willing to labor in the field, to eat and drink, to have a friend, to clothe oneself, to build a house, to marry a wife, to raise cattle, to learn divers useful arts, or whatsoever good pertains to this life. For all of these things are not without dependence on the providence of God; yea, of Him and through Him they are and have their being. “Evil” I call such works as willing to worship an idol, to commit murder, etc. They condemn the Pelagians and others, who teach that without the Holy Ghost, by the power of nature alone, we are able to love God above all things; also to do the commandments of God as touching “the substance of the act.” For, although nature is able in a manner to do the outward work, (for it is able to keep the hands from theft and murder,) yet it cannot produce the inward motions, such as the fear of God, trust in God, chastity, patience, etc.” (AC XVIII)

Where does this article say that the “good” that unbelievers do pleases God? It doesn’t. And, as I have pointed out, the rest of the Confessions make it abundantly clear that unbelievers cannot produce a righteousness that pleases God, here or at the judgment:

“Therefore, of works that are truly good and well-pleasing to God, which God will reward in this world and in the world to come, faith must be the mother and source; and on this account they are called by St. Paul true fruits of faith, as also of the Spirit.” (SD, IV, 9)

TW

dear brother Todd, I know I am not earning brownie points with you probably, and am probably abrasing your ego and making you feel unjustly called to task. I don´t know you, so you know I respect your office and that I am not attacking your person in any way. But this stuff you write about is of the utmost importance to me and so many persons I know. So I would be acting in love not to respond. if my response in any way lacks charity in either form or substance, please feel free to call me to repentence on this dear brother is what I am saying! Let´s as brothers and fellow lutherans who seek to be better at being that argue against the text itself.

Can you point me to one place in all of holy scripture that employs a contrast of legalism vs license? I have been seaching to see if this contrast can be found as a “form of sound doctrine ” anywhere.

Further, I am not seeing anywhere where God in his word uses the “form” of contrasting two erroneous viewpoints in order to illustrate a third point that is truth. This is the “form” of the doctrine you present is it not? My point is that your “form” is not sound, therefore the points you present, even though completely true, will not edify in the way you obviously and truly aim for.

Finally, even the most cherished study in contrasts for a Lutheran, law and gospel is law AND gospel. even though we make that into law VERSUS gospel all the time. and it is wrong and sinful to do this. Your article attempt to address this error. I am grateful for that, but I think you only confuse things more.

I can apply Luther´s “form” or method, and imitate his methods applied to ANY moral situation and then KNOW with COMPLETE confidence, what is gods will for me to DO in that situation and not merely what to believe. right believing is not any form of god pleasing morality here on earth. it is a heavenly art that alone makes one a christian. your article only really offers guidance on right believing. It tells me what to believe but does not offer me completely CERTAIN guidance on what to DO situationally, as to whether or not it pleases God. Can you see my problem here? Your article entices me with the idea that I will read it and then be able to discern with certainty what to DO in any situation to please God. Your article then baits and switches me and only tells me about right-believing. ok. nothing is wrong in what you say, but it doesn´t help me make my earthly life better so it is not about true god pleasing morality at all.

I invite you to take lessons here not just on doctrinal points but on HOW Luther presents the truth. There is nothing new that can be done to improve on what they have done or even to make it more relevant to our current times. My old pastor William Cwirla beat this into me over and over and over again.

Luther and article VI are a direct regurgitation of romans 8. There you will find God pleasing earthly righteousness called “flesh” or “body” contrasted to The Righteousness of faith,there called Spirit.

both are god´s will and are therefore good. only one can save and will live forever.

We both agree on that very last sentence along with Luther, paul and the confessions. Yet we differ with each other on a point we both feel is most important. lets see which one of us agrees with luther paul and the confessions. I am most open to seeing that it is me who is wrong. if that is the case, to be corrected quickly is better so I can then truly serve my neighbor here.

Frank,

Well, now you’ve just changed the subject. You are free to disagree with the “form” of my article.

You wrote of my article, “it doesn´t help me make my earthly life better so it is not about true god pleasing morality at all.” Well, my goal wasn’t to help anyone make his earthly life better. My goal was to call the reader to repentance, whether he is a legalist or licentious. My goal wasn’t to “be able to discern with certainty what to DO in any situation to please God,” as you write. My goal was to show that only faith in Christ pleases God. I’m sorry to have disappointed you.

But back to the point of our exchange: please deal with the statements from the Confessions I have cited for you here. Please show from the Confessions (not vague references to Luther) that unbelievers are able to produce a righteousness that pleases God.

TW

frank sonnek :
yes we do not have to accept everything Luther wrote. ok. he was falable. I get that. being lutheran is subscribing to the confessions and not personal writings. I get that too. and the point of saying that we dont follow Luther in all he wrote is what? especially if what he says in a particular sermon is wiser and better and truer to scripture than our own views? that is the case here. I KNOW who Luther is. I have come to trust his judgement. who are you? or me?

Frank, I couldn’t care less who points out the truth; the truth is simply the truth, without regard for the messenger. That’s not the problem here. The problem is that you do not understand the context of what Luther was writing and have tried to put him at odds with the Confessions. As Pr. Wilken keeps showing you, if you can rightly put Luther at odds with the Confessions in any point, Luther loses and the Confessions win. My contention is that Luther is not saying what you think he is saying. This ‘pleasing of God’ through earthly righteousness Luther makes clear is not pleasing Him to where He will save someone on this basis; rather, one who conducts himself with civil righteousness has purely civil rewards; e.g., (in a properly run state) one who does not murder does not have to fear the police, one who does business ethically will not end up losing the great fortune he amasses due to some crime on his part, and, indeed, God blesses with earthly blessings those who conduct themselves in such a way.

The point is, none of that has to do with righteousness before God’s throne in the Judgment; that comes only by grace, through faith in Christ. Thus, as Luther says in that sermon, the Jews, the Muslims, and those who only appear to be Christians have no standing on that Day. That, sir, is the differentiation between the righteousness of faith and civil righteousness that Luther is teaching and showing to be necessary in this sermon; you can be ‘good’ all day long and God is happy to bless you with outward things in the outward keeping of the commandments, but salvation is only through the righteousness given in Christ–which righteousness brings one to fulfill the commandments ‘fully’, that is, not only externally, but internally, fearing, loving, and trusting in the One True God above all things, because in the having of Christ as your righteousness, all that you do imperfectly is seen as perfect by your Father.

If you can find it, read Philip Melanchthon’s 1521 edition of his Loci Communes, with regard to ‘elicited acts’ and civil righteousness and, I think, your mistake here will be corrected.

BTW: Please get your CAPS LOCK fixed; it seems to be sticking for some reason.

EJG

PASTOR WILKEN
“Where does this article say that the “good” that unbelievers do pleases God? It doesn’t.

AUGUSTANA ARTICLE XVIII: “For all of these things are not without dependence on the providence of God; yea, of Him and through Him they are and have their being.” This says these things are God´s Will, and in fact, cannot exist without the workings of the Holy Spirit in the Old Adam of pagan and christian alike. Am I wrong to say this means that God is pleased with this activity?

context is everything. Again, we cannot think we can list and reorder how doctrinal points are presented and think they will still mean the same thing. Read this, and I think you will not dismiss Luther so lightly as you did earlier nor will you see that what I say opposes anything you said. to the contrary.

This article probably uses Luther´s sermon of 1529 as it´s outline!
In turn article VI in the Formula uses both this and the Luther sermon as it´s outline.
All three make the same contract in order to make the same point.

I think you will rejoice rather than call me to repentance once you really read Luther´s sermon. If not, have at me dear brother! I have copied the part that has to do with what we are arguing over. Translations from german require a certain flair to be readable. run on sentences abound.

Here is the sermon:

The theme of this Gospel reading is a great and important article of faith. This article is called “The Forgiveness of Sins”.

Internalizing this one article is the art that ALONE makes one a Christian. It is his most difficult, important and all consuming lifelong task. He will never have time to find something new, higher or better to learn. It will make a Christian honest and give him eternal life.

It is necessary then, to teach this article diligently and relentlessly in the Christian church, so we can learn to understand this article clearly, and distinguish it clearly from what it is not.

But in order to understand this article that alone makes one a Christian, and not lose it, we must know something else as well. We must know that there are two kinds of true or God pleasing righteousness or two powers. We must also then learn how to skillfully tell the difference between the two.

So what are these two kinds of righteousness or powers that are so very important to know about and tell the difference between?

There is a righteousness that is here on earth. This righteousness is willed and ordered by God and is included in the second table of the ten commandments. This is called “man´s righteousness” or “the world´s righteousness”. The only purpose of this righteousness is to help us live together and enjoy the gifts God gives us.

It is God´s desire that our present life be kept under restraint, and lived in peace, tranquility and harmony. God here wants each person to attend to his own affairs and not interfere with the business, property or person of anyone else. Because God really wants this, He has even added a blessing in Leviticus 18:5: “Which if a man do, he shall live in them” which means that whoever men see is honest, will enjoy a good and long life.

…This is the entire short sum and substance of this righteousness on earth.

…This should be taught in this way for the one purpose of assuring everyone without any doubt at all: “now I know that such a work life or position is right and proper and should have full assurance that God is really and truly pleased with it. If I am Christian, I further have his word and command as a sure witness, which never deceives of fails me.

…But when your conscience rests on this decision that you know your works please God, don´t let this in anyway become an earthly “gospel”. We owe this assurance alone to Jesus who alone is the Gospel. We should delight in this [other Righteousness] and reverence it. We do this even if it is useless to us except that it quiets our conscience and in what relationship we stand to God.

…In the past many of us allowed ourselves to be led in the name of the devil by the whims of every lying preacher. There was not even a spark of such teachings. We were blind in error. We tried all sorts of works like tithing and prayer methods, and bought books and tapes. We expended and wasted time and money and energy. We started skateboard ministries and tried target marketing and modern business methods to make our churches grow. We got really busy doing the God-thing and make others feel guilty if they didn´t follow our example, and we neglected important relationships and duties to do all this. We all groped around in darkness to find THE way to serve God, to know what our purpose or ministry or God´s will was in our life and for our life. Yet no one found it. We found burnout instead.
In all of this worthless, unproductive insanity, there was no God who might say: THIS is pleasing to me and is what I have actually commanded, etc.

Yes. Now we see the problem. Our blind guides did nothing less than lose sight of God´s word. They separated it from good works. Instead they set up all these other works to take over and invade every part of our life. In addition they discarded and despised the very positions in life where alone we can do God´s Will. They treated those as mundane, trivial “unspiritual” things, as if God didn´t know what he was doing or even as well as we do, how to manage is affairs here on earth.

It is really important then today to teach and impress on Christians by frequent repetition and admonitions this Word of God. This does not burden us with any special, great or difficult works. It instead sends us to the position in which we find ourself. It tells us to look for nothing else more “spiritual”, but to look for our contentness and happiness there. This Word tells us that we can be certain that for God, this truly pleases him and is greater than any religious thing we could ever do for Him, even though our job is to clean toilets.

Wouldn´t this be a great world if people believed this and everybody remained at his post, always focused on what is really and truly God´s will and command? Heaven would then shower all sorts of blessings and gifts instead of the irritations and heartaches that we have, we really seek, and so deserve.

This visible earthly righteousness is only visible works. This means it excludes faith and Christ. This present life demands this kind of righteousness between done between men, whether our superiors, inferiors, neighbors or our family. It has rewards here on earth. It also ends with this life. Whoever doesn´t do this will have a shorter life.

Far above this earthly visible righteousness, there is another [inner invisible unearthly Righteousness], that does not belong to this temporary life on earth, but which is makes a difference only to God and which leads us to the life beyond and keeps us in it.

That human visible earthly righteousness will shield us from punishment and let us enjoy life, but it still can´t win God´s grace or the forgiveness of our sins. Therefore even though we have this visible righteousness we must still have a much higher invisible Righteousness. The one that only matters to God, frees us from sin and bad conscience,and leads from death into eternal life

In contrast to that earthly visible righteousness this inner Righteousness that only matters to God alone, soars far above anything that is upon earth. It has nothing to do with anything we do as either Christian or pagan.

For how can it be about works and what we do, since ALL that this body can perform and that is called “works” is already fully, and completely included in that outer earthly righteousness that is only about all things visible. [the invisible Righteousness there on earth is therefore fully excluded] [Romans 8]

Receiving this one article of faith is what ALONE makes one a Christian and assures him he is in the kingdom of Heaven, in which Christ protects him and daily forgives his sins. Whoever looks for something additional here, or want to deal with God on a different basis must know that he is no Christian, but is instead rejected and condemned by God.

For this very reason, the greatest skill and intelligence is needed to grasp and understand this invisible and unearthly Righteousness. We must both in our hearts and in dealing with God correctly distinguish it from visible righteousness. This alone is the art and wisdom of being Christian. It is so important that even the Apostles were totally consumed with talk of it, and yet now it suffers the misfortune that no art is mastered sooner than this one.

There is no greater theme for a preacher than the grace of God and the forgiveness of sins, yet we are so wicked people as Lutherans, that once we think we have it down, we are immediately masters and doctors and itch for something greater as though we need to make up new stuff.

The reason this happens is that human understanding just can´t get past this visible righteousness of works. At the same time it cannot comprehend the invisible Righteousness of faith. So doctoral studies usually means being confined to works and resting upon them. It is impossible for anyone in times of temptation and distress feeling the sting of a guilty conscience to stop groping around for works to stand and rest upon. We then try to list the things we want to do, or did. We find nothing to put on that list and the heart feels only doubt and despair. This weakess is glued to our nature so tightly that even those who have faith and know the forgiveness of sins can not overcome it. Even consuming themselves with effort and exertion remains a daily and constant struggle.

Point: All human knowledge, understanding, ability and power is useless to get past this earthly visible righteousness, and instead transfer oneself to this article of faith ALONE. Even though we hear a lot about it and are conversant in it, there continues that old delusion and inborn corruption which wants to present something tangible and visible of it´s own to God and make those things the foundation of salvation. This is the case for those who are Christians and fight against this visible righteousness. Others are completey lost.

So only confess this article [of the forgiveness of sins] loudly: Before the world I may be righteous and do everything God requires. But before God it is only sin according to this article.

In short let everyone examine his own heart and he will find a false Christian there who imagines that he knows all about this subject before he has learned the first principles of it. We hear the words, read and repeated. To carry out the principle in practice and character, to internalized it, and our conscience is founded on it alone and rests on it alone is not in man to do. He is artless here.

This is why I am constantly all over everyone who wants to be a Christian to think about this constantly, assimilate it, practice it, and chastise themselves with it. We can at least this way have a taste of it and so as James 1:18 says, be a sort of first fruits of his creatures. The Apostles were full of Spirit and faith and they couldn´t master this. It is clear that we will never really master this.

FRANK: Luther then goes on in a most glorious way, after explaining what the Righteousness of faith and the forgiveness of sins is: how it was obtained, and then how we can acquire it. This is the BEST part, but it is not the part we are disputing as two Lutheran brothers who love each other as we are now doing.

This later part drives home all the points you are making and which I accept, with great joy, as true and certain. I hope and pray you will accept and see the wisdom of the good dr Luther´s form of presenting the whole truth. You will then truly be equipped please God in the visible righteousness you do and I see and rejoince in as a pastor. god pleasing visible righteousness is self-discipline + love.

I rejoice to see that you are full of this righteousness and also zealous for the article of “the forgiveness of sins”

The Lord´s Peace be with you!

frank william

Frank,

You asked, “Am I wrong to say this means that God is pleased with this activity?”

Yes, you are wrong. The authors of the Confessions are very careful when it comes to saying what pleases God. They are not saying that the “good” works of unbelievers please God. They are simply saying that God uses these works to his good ends, although the works themselves are evil.

You’re right, context is everything. So, why are you ignoring the context of AC XVIII?

The context of AC XVIII is the rest of the Lutheran Confessions, and those Confessions explicitly repudiate your misinterpretation of AC XVIII.

You wrote, “This article probably uses Luther´s sermon of 1529 as it´s outline!” An interesting theory, but nothing more. Even if it were true, it wouldn’t permit us to overturn what the Confessions teach about the only righteousness that pleases God, as you are doing. It also wouldn’t allow us to place your novel interpretation of Luther’s sermon over the Confessions, as you are trying to do.

TW

@Todd Wilken #11

TODD WILKEN “Does a perfect keeping of the Law please God? Yes, of course. But pagans cannot keep the Law perfectly, or at all for that matter. So, pagans cannot produce a righteousness that pleases God, here or at the judgment.”

Christians cannot and do not keep the Law perfectly either. But in the case of Christians, faith in Christ is reckoned as righteousness –the perfect righteousness of Christ. This righteousness pleased God, here and at the judgment.

All I ask you is: which of your “two righteousnesses” do you place before God?

FRANK This is why, exactly as Paul says in Romans 8, that we need an invisible, unearthly Righteousness. I appreciate that you are asking me this with the a pastoral heart and with alot of charity and patience.

I think that part of the problem here is that you are reading what I say selectively because part of it jars your sensibilities. It did mine a short time ago. I am so glad.

You seemed to miss these parts of what I wrote previously:

ME: “one is outward and earthly righteousness that consists of self-discipline + love. love is strictly actions that better the earthly life of others. this righteousness will DIE with the earth ALONG WITH THOSE WHO TRY TO FIND LIFE IN THIS. This includes everything in our existence. It excludes faith and christ. no faith is necessary for any of this to happen.” (CAPS NEWLY INSERTED).”

Let me drive home what this means:

Luther, along with article XVIII AC and article VI FC are slavishly following romans 8 as their outline: The shocking thing Luther does here is understand that “flesh” and “body” here are standin for everything that is Unfaith. There is faith ALONE, or “Spirit, and then there is EVERYTHING else which is meant by “body/flesh” in romans 8.

The scholastics and we, tend to see this as greek dualism. “flesh/body” must mean carnal or sexual lust. Luther departs radically from this. Instead he says “flesh/body” merely means tangible or earthly or really EVERYTHING that is not invisible rebirth and faith. This includes visible earthly righteousness that pleases God.

visible earthly righteousness will perish with the earth with all who try to live there by it. Faith is here fully excluded and is not righteousness that is pleasing to God in any sense. it is false currency in the earthly kingdom.

In contrast, the invisible Righteousness that only matters to God and is about invisible faith alone with nothing at all visibly added to it, and is “use-less” in an earthly and visible way is what will live along with all those hidden in him. visible works are false currency here in the heavenly kingdom.

This is the full baggage carried by the passage “The Just shall live by Faith”. and exactly why it was such a lightning bolt to Luther.

@Todd Wilken #15

Frank,

We have come full circle. Again, you have failed to show that your distinction is supported in either Scripture or the Confessions. You have also failed to show how your distinction can be reconciled with the clear and abundant teachings of Scripture and the Confessions regarding the only righteousness that pleases God.

What is jarring to my sensibilities is your error in this matter, with all due respect.

I urge you again to stick to the clear teaching of the Scriptures and Confessions, and leave this error where it belongs –in the pile of other bright ideas that sound good and make sense, but are nonetheless contrary to God’s Word.

TW

@Todd Wilken #15

PASTOR WILKEN”Well, now you’ve just changed the subject.”

FRANKI need to strive to emulate your gentle manner dear pastor. thanks. It really was my point all along. see how unclear I can be? thanks for your patience.

PASTOR WILKEN You wrote of my article, “it doesn´t help me make my earthly life better so it is not about true god pleasing morality at all.” Well, my goal wasn’t to help anyone make his earthly life better.

FRANK so what i said then was correct not only in your visible action.

PASTOR WILKEN My goal was to call the reader to repentance, whether he is a legalist or licentious. My goal wasn’t to “be able to discern with certainty what to DO in any situation to please God,” as you write. My goal was to show that only faith in Christ pleases God. I’m sorry to have disappointed you.

FRANK I think most of your readers would not be shaken by anything you wrote. and you would also not answer the question that is vaild that is most asked “How can I know what to DO with certainty that what I do is pleasing to God here on earth?”

because modern lutherans start out of order and (correctly) state that there is only ONE righteousness that saves, they then have no organic room to connect God´s Word to the visible righteousness that pleases God for us to do on earth.

true earthly morality is bettering the earthly life of others. Lutheran pastors here eviscerate their capacity to do this and show others how this is done. What is left is focusing on the self discipline of OTHERS or doing love wityout discipline. neither is god pleasing earthly righteousness. you leave Lutherans prey to wolves here. evangelicals with their siren song of making the christian faith “relevant” (ie somehow visible , sense-ible, practical, tangible).

Can pagan or christian do the law perfectly? Article XVIII says there is only ONE thing fallen willpower cannot do: keep the first commandment. So outwardly? yes. Inwardly? not even close! if one keeps the first commandment one has kept them all. this is faith. The just live only by this.

This idea is built into the very structure of the treatment of the 10 commandments in the small catechism. True visible righteousness is mortification/self-restraint + love. In every commandment except one, there are two parts: self restraint (eg dont kill) and love (help and befriend, actions, love). The Old adam can only manage love by first doing mortification. but he can DO it. Mortification is visible proof that faith is absent.

PASTOR WILKEN But back to the point of our exchange: please deal with the statements from the Confessions I have cited for you here.

FRANK we are doing that using article XVIII AC. I think we can stay there for one more exchange. I think there is a point there I see in the context of what I find in Luthers commentary on galatians and, well everywhere, that makes me read article XVIII differently than you do dear pastor and see something there you do not. Maybe I am reading into it. I would suggest that we could move to article VI FC, the catechisms or the smallcald articles to do this.

So ok. I will now turn to article IV, but first set the stage with your kind patience. I am sure you know all this stuff way better than me, but since we are reading the same stuff and walking away with contrary understandings, this seems necessary. thanks for your patience dear friend:

In his sermon on two kinds of righteousness, Luther, following romans 8 says invisible Faith ALONE only matters to God. So what is left? EVERYTHING that is visible! that´s what. And NOTHING that is visible then can be in any way a part of faith alone.

So what does this have to do with knowing there are two kinds of righteousness, and why does Luther say we will lose that all important ALONE after the word faith and christ if we dont recognize these two kinds of righteousness?

because THEN we will have to put visible righteousness somewhere. life would be impossible without it or air or water! So if there is only one kind of righteousness where do we put visible righteousness?

We modern day Lutherans, not reading enough lutheran stuff and drowning in reformed much make it part of sanctification and 3rd use. That is what we do.

we turn something that is invisible gospel ALONE (sanctification) into something visible or law, and we make the 3rd use law that is about visible works ALONE into something that is harnesed to invisible faith and intent and so make it a component of Gospel. This second thing is pure Calvin and is EXACTLY where Chmnitz is trying to drive a stake.

Article VI informs us that what we call Sanctification should really be called mortification! and yes it TOO IS a work of the Holy Spirit and NO that does NOT make it sanctification.

How we describe 3rd use can be found nowhere in article VI FC because it is not there. In article VI sanctification = Christ-in-us. Christ needs the law how??!! What we call “sanctification” in common lutheran articles and practice article VI calls “mortification” ALL and ONLY about the OLD ADAM. What do we and pagans have totally in common? Old Adam. so article VI says the SAME law applies to pagan and christian alike.

so now the text of article VI

“Thus the Law is and remains both to the penitent and impenitent, both to regenerate and unregenerate men, one [and the same] Law, namely, the immutable will of God . NO SPECIAL CALVIN STYLE 3RD USE LAW FOR CHRISTIANS THIS PART SAYS.

and the difference, so far as concerns obedience, is alone in man, inasmuch as one who is not yet regenerate does for the Law out of constraint and unwillingly what it requires of him (as also the regenerate do according to the flesh); but the believer, so far as he is regenerate, does without constraint and with a willing spirit that which no threatenings [however severe] of the Law could ever extort from him.” THE DIFFERENCE IS PURELY WITHIN THE DOER AND THERE IS NO INTRINSIC DIFFERENCE IN WHAT IS DONE is what this last part says.

When I read this, I read that this is God driving out of the Old Adams of men every single first article and 4th petition gift that makes my earthly existence good and happy. you are saying that none of that pleases God?

I think you are making an absolute statement here dear pastor where you should not and it is not wise or the form of sound doctrine to do so. you have all the doctrinal points correct to the last dot of I and cross of T, but what you are saying is not useful in that it does not home in on and unravel where the real confusion is. Also, any discussion of Law should offer guidance to know how to determine whether our not what our hands and bodies are doing pleases God in an earthly way or not. Why even talk about vocation vocation does not please god in any way at all even when pagans do it? I am not saying that visible righteousness on earth justfies and is god pleasing righteousness that is about all that is visible ALONE , in the same sense as The invisible Righteousness that is Christ ALONE pleased God. Ask me more about this if you really feel you need to.

PASTOR WILKENPlease show from the Confessions (not vague references to Luther) that unbelievers are able to produce a righteousness that pleases God.

FRANK My references to Luther are anything but vague. I would suggest that we could move to article VI FC, the catechisms or the smallcald articles to do this. I am hitting Luther alot because I have been working on translating his commentary on Galatians and Romans and the sermon I referenced. I have deeply internalized these writings pastor wilken.

Heck the fact that God promises earthly blessings and the fact that he wills that we love our neighbor does not mean that it pleases him in an earthly sense when we do these things and he is displeased when we do not conversely? are you saying that this is a pure logical gloss on my part or an incorrect inference? God hates it when I love my neighbor then Pastor Wilken? he loves it when I hate my neighbor?

Here is the true answer that unravels the knot:

He loves the acts and drives them out of us with the law. in both christian and pagan.

On earth he tells us that justice is ONLY about what is visible, flesh body stuff. It must fullu exclude religion to be moral and righteous. as soon as we make morality about right and wrong in terms if pleasing God then we are neither moral nor please God. all talk of faith must be fully excluded from this earthly morality for it to be on earth, true morality or righteousness. earthy morality is ONLY mortification + love. ALONE, apart from faith.

In the heavenly kingdom he turns this ALL exactly on its head!

There we are judged strictly by who we are and works are excluded. So the works are the same and God makes them happen, likes them (they are good for us and he is our good father and so provides for us with them)

Where is problem is not with the acts , it is with who we ARE. This is described in the tautology that

1) “because we are sinners we must sin. we are not sinners BECAUSE we sin.”
2) because we are now Christ-in-us we must do gods will. we are not christ-ians because of what we do.

we are sinners but sinner is NOT who we ARE. it is not a part of being human even though it looks like that. (cf the flacian error FC).

but we ARE righteous insofar as we are regenerated. Why regeneration= Christ-in-us. Christ IS Righteousness. It could not exist apart from his very being.

my email is fwsonnek@gmail.com. we can move to that media if that would be of service. I am happy to stay here.

TW

Frank,

You have lost me. What, in a sentence or two, is your point? Is your point that unbelievers produce a righteousness that pleases God? If so, you’re simply wrong. If direct quotations from Scripture and the Confessions won’t convince you, I don’t know what will.

I simply don’t know how to respond. You seem to have invented a new way of reading the Confessions that discounts or ignores everything that conflicts with a few Luther sermons you’re especially fond of. You have yet to respond to the Confessional quotations I provided at the beginning of our conversation. They just seem to bounce right off you. I wish you would listen to them.

The only righteousness that counts is the kind that counts before God, now and forever. Christ’s righteousness counts before God. And, it alone produces the very love for neighbor you want to wring out of an “earthly righteousness.”

You commented at the beginning of our conversation, “I wonder why we want to invent the wheel?” Frank, I say with brotherly concern, you are the one reinventing the wheel. And, you don’t need to. You don’t need to fix Lutheran theology. It isn’t broken.

Apply your intelligence and zeal to Scripture and the Confessions as they are, and not to speculation and new ideas.

TW

@Rev. Eric J. Stefanski #16

PASTOR S”This ‘pleasing of God’ through earthly righteousness Luther makes clear is not pleasing Him to where He will save someone on this basis;

FRANK Agreed. You will note I nowhere ever hint at this. why is that? Your problem is you are used to seeing things presented in 1940 style Lutheran fashion. It jars you to see the very truth I trust you do believe presented as Luther does it, because it forces you to realign.

PASTOR S rather, one who conducts himself with civil righteousness has purely civil rewards; e.g., (in a properly run state) one who does not murder does not have to fear the police, one who does business ethically will not end up losing the great fortune he amasses due to some crime on his part, and, indeed, God blesses with earthly blessings those who conduct themselves in such a way.”

FRANK You are both making works do not please God into an absolute statement. this is not absolutely true in every single contest . This would mean that nothing done on earth pleases God. That would mean that God is NOT pleased when someone gives you love, because they did not do it perfectly.

Here is where your thinking is screwed up dear pastor. You have given me brotherly permission to be blunt and to the point with you as two brothers are over a good beer by trying to tell me as a Lutheran that I am pitting Luther against the confessions. This simply cannot be done. so here is where you miss luther and the confessions and scripture, not to imply they are always on my side. but in this case they are!:

God IS pleased with the DEED even if he is not with the DOER, he in fact, the Holy Spirit, is the one who makes this happen. He drives it. It is his work. we must thank God for it. It would be wrong not to thank God when people show us love imagining God is NOT pleased with that. How lame would that be? Here you should contemplate the direct connection between our topic here and the blessings you enjoy enumerated in the 1st article and 4th petition of the catechisms. God is not pleased with the production of all these things? he is only “pleased”? I think not! It is the DOERS he has a huge problem with. the fact that mortification is required to make this happen proves further that NO faith is required for these truly GOOD works that are truly pleasing to God to happen. The formula here is Holy Spirit + law + old adam = production of true love for neighbor.

What he is NOT pleased with is the DOER. The deed is fine. So what is missing? faith in the heart of the doer! The tree is bad, the fruit is questionable but can be made edible by a good dose of mortification , in earthly parlance, this is called self discipline and self denial.

This can be readily seen from article VI:

“Thus the Law is and remains both to the penitent and impenitent, both to regenerate and unregenerate men, one [and the same] Law, namely, the immutable will of God; and the difference, so far as concerns obedience, is alone in man, inasmuch as one who is not yet regenerate does for the Law out of constraint and unwillingly what it requires of him (as also the regenerate do according to the flesh); but the believer, so far as he is regenerate, does without constraint and with a willing spirit that which no threatenings [however severe] of the Law could ever extort from him. ” (CAPLOCK STUCK: THE DIFFERENCE IS IN THE DOER NOT IN THE DEED.)

What you miss is so simple because you are insisting in focusing on the doer when in earth righteousness is all about the deed. you are imposing heavenly kingdom “rules of righteousness” on “earthly righteousness”!!!

on earth God squeezes true righteousness out of the UNrighteous like that last drop of toothpaste from a tube.

Again true visible and earthly righteousness here is found in the DEED not the DOER, the ACT and not the ACTOR! This is what you miss. This is ONLY visible self-restraint/discipline + love. self discipline here = mortification/killing law. love = actions that better the earthly life of someone else.

to summarize pastor S:

Earth = righteousness in actions = ALL things visible
Heaven = righteousness in the heart = strictly invisible
Invisible alone, because all things visible, bodily, fleshly (romans 8!) are FULLY included in Earth.

You are helping me here because I am just at this very moment connecting the dots and seeing where you and we other Lutherans (including me!!!) have been turning things down the wrong path and getting the nexus between law and sanctification (there is none there actually!) all boluxed up.

remove the quotes from around ‘pleasing of God”. it is absurd to say that God Blesses things he is not pleased with. do you really believe that? Earthly blessings.

I will repeat myself here to confess our common faith clearly:

Visible earthly righeousness, along with its blessings, along with those who seek their life in those dying things, will die along with the earth.

The invisible Righteousness, Christ, that only matters to God, will live and never perish, along with all those who find themselves hidden in that Christ due to their baptism.

you are not from the countryside of the dakotas like I am. you would know better how to shoot. you are going “ready, fire , aim!”

This should be like shooting fish in a barrel for a Lutheran pastor. and you are talking to a peon nobody of a Lutheran layman who is a smouldering wick compared to the stature of you two men.

@Todd Wilken #20

Pastor S has helped me see where you two brothers are getting it wrong:

article VI last paragraph . epitome. paraphrase:

“The Law, or immutable will and pleasure of God is and remains …, one [and the same] Law for both pagan and christian. The difference, as to conforming to gods will and pleasure , is alone in the DOER then and not in the ACT . The pagan DOES gods will and pleasure out of restraint and unwillingly what it requires of him (as also the regenerate do according to the flesh); but the believer, so far as he is regenerate, does without constraint and with a willing spirit that which no threatenings [however severe] of the Law could ever extort from him. ”

what you are missing here is that it is Gods problem here is with the DOER. what is missing here is faith in the heart. You are applying the heavenly “rules of righteousness” to the earthly kingdom. stop! the heavenly rules are that we are righteous because of who we are, the earthly rules is that we are righteous because of what we do. heavenly righteousness is sin when turned into earthly righteousness and earthly righteousness damns when it gets turned into heavenly righteousness intended to please God.

Full circle. you are just not getting what I am saying. you are reading one thing and I am saying something that pulls you out of a rut you are confortable in dear pastor.

fondly,

frank

Frank,

You’re right, I am in a rut. It’s a rut I vowed to stay in at my ordination. It’s a rut I swore I would die before I leave it.

You’re not getting me out of the rut of clear Scripture and the Confessions.

Go, be clever. Out-smart as many pastors as you like, and count me among them. Just don’t get so smart that you refuse to listen to God’s Word… I fear you’re getting close to that.

TW

@Todd Wilken #22

PASTOR WILKEN You have lost me. What, in a sentence or two, is your point?

FRANK in the dust it seems. I am sorry for that. I have many shortcomings and limitations I see.

PASTOR WILKENIs your point that unbelievers produce a righteousness that pleases God?

FRANK yes that is my simple point.
You have worded in a way that is better than I have
“nature is able in a manner to do the outward work, yet it cannot produce the inward motions, such as the fear of God, trust in God etc” article XVIII.

You are confirned in thinking I am wrong on this in every possible context, yet you are only able to think in one context (the most important one, where you are right on the money).

I will go back and paste in all your cites here and respond. but I think my first few arguments will win you by showing you being too absolute or misundertanding.

You focus on DOER and his lack of faith. DOER + DONE – FAITH =SIN = DEATH
I am focusing on the DEED done without faith. DEED + MORTIFICATION = LOVE

God is pleased with these actions even if he is so not cool with the actor. I am simply saying that God is pleased if your wife, who happens to be a pagan , loves you. God loves this and it pleases him because he loves you, even if you are “all the wicked” ie also a pagan (small catechism, 4th petition) .that is why he bothers to squeeze this out of your wife´s old adam and your pagan neighbors like the last drop of toothpaste out of the tube from her recalcitrant ass of an old adam. This is alot of work. why should he bother? for YOU! because he loves you and even all the wicked. Indeed without any merit or worthiness on your part (apart from faith! this is THE corelary to faith ALONE just as luther says it is).

Article XVIII says the Holy Spriit provides these acts of love and only in Him do they have their being. This means God is pleased when these actions are done even when they are imperfectly done. He even makes the bad part serve his will he likes them that much.

Now lay article XVIII against the small catechism 1st article and 4th petition!

There you will see the works part of article XVIII in its full implications: all the gifts in the first article and 4th petition are what is being produced in the works-fallen-free-will-reason part of article XVIII. This is being provided soley out of fatherly goodness without any merit or worthiness on our part (ie no faith required for it to be done or received!) and it is done even by and for all the wicked (unbelievers!) . You are silly to say that God is not pleased with these works and actions. Flip it to see how silly you are being: God is DISpleased at your pagan neighbors doing anything in the first article you are getting. Um… I think not…..

It is not the actions but the actors that are the problem. it is the doer not the deed done that are where the REAL problem is. every one of your cites makes this exact point. We focus on the deed, just as you are doing now. the problem is not with the worldy gifts God gives us it is with the user of those gifts.

I have dealt with article XVIII. it is my favorite article btw. now I will go back and copy in here the other cites you ask me to respond to. please forgive me for not responding directly to them earlier. It is not easy being blonde. or norwegian….. ahem….

PASTOR WILKEN POST #5

“How and why the good works of believers, although in this life they are imperfect and impure because of sin in the flesh [The Old Adam] , are nevertheless acceptable and well-pleasing to God, is not taught by the Law, which requires an altogether perfect, pure obedience if it [man, check the german here...] is to please God. But the Gospel teaches that our spiritual offerings are acceptable to God through faith for Christ’s sake, 1 Pet. 2:5; Heb. 11:4ff. In this way Christians are not under the Law, but under grace, because by faith in Christ the persons are freed from the curse and condemnation of the Law; and because their good works, although they are still imperfect and impure [imperfect and impure because mortification is required to make it happen. It happens from an unwilling heart of UNfaith because the old adam still clings to us] , are acceptable to God through Christ…“ [ the fruit done by the christ-in-us, santification, is NOT being addressed here. lets be clear.] (SD, VI, 22-23)

FRANK The difference is in the DOER, the tree,and not the DONE here. I fully believe, teach and confess this.

This passage has NOTHING to do with the fruit of sanctification or the new man christ-in-us. it is about what the old adam in the believer is made to do , by the Holy Spirit through mortification. Making this distinction is the entire point of article VI. we are together on this point right?

It is my personal confession.

PASTOR WILKEN CITES FROM POST #!!
“Men truly sin, even when, without the Holy Ghost, they do virtuous works, BECAUSE they do them with a wicked heart, according to Rom. 14, 23: Whatsoever is not of faith is sin.” (AP, IV, 35, see also AP III, 212; XII, 88; XV, 17; XXVII, 23) (EMPHASIS ADDED)

“For a corrupt TREE cannot bring forth good fruit, Matt. 7:18, as it is also written Rom. 14, 23: Whatsoever is not of faith is sin. For the person must first be accepted of God, and that for the sake of Christ alone, if also the works of that person are to please Him. Therefore, of works that are truly good and well-pleasing to God, which God will reward in this world and in the world to come, faith must be the mother and source; and on this account they are called by St. Paul true fruits of faith, as also of the Spirit.” (SD, IV, 8-9)

FRANK I made this point earlier didnt I? the problem is with the tree and not the fruit.

If so, you’re simply wrong. If direct quotations from Scripture and the Confessions won’t convince you, I don’t know what will.

Ah sorry. I will respond directly to the confessional cites you have provided now.

frank sonnek :
God IS pleased with the DEED even if he is not with the DOER

Frank, I wrote this very thing in my first response to you:

The righteousness of the Second Table of the Law is, indeed, completely separate from the righteousness that comes through faith in Christ, except for this one little thing: while the righteousness of the Second Table is “pleasing to God” because He commanded it, those who seek to do such works still fail to be pleasing to Him unless they have faith in Christ.

Thus, there is no matter of Pr. Wilken or I ‘not getting it’, but only of your mis-stating both the principle and what has been in our replies. Pr. Wilken has to confess and ask, “You have lost me. What, in a sentence or two, is your point?” The reason for this is that what it seems that you are wanting to say doesn’t contradict anything he teaches, but you keep saying that it does. Yes, civil righteousness is ‘pleasing to God’, since He set forth what it is; yet, civil righteousness does not save.

The only real question is whether you are saying that such ‘earthly righteousness’ has something to do with sanctification. I don’t think you are, but, very simply, you have used so many words to say so little that it’s difficult to be sure one knows what you’re actually saying.

In short, it seems to me that you haven’t found anything new in Luther’s sermon, but that you’ve simply used a defective way of saying what you found–that, coupled with assertions of your own humility coupled with derision for those who don’t see anything original or earth-shattering in your thinking.

EJG

Frank,

You wrote, “Article XVIII says the Holy Spriit provides these acts of love and only in Him do they have their being.”

That is not what Article XVIII says. It says: “For all of these things are not without dependence on the providence of God; yea, of Him and through Him they are and have their being.” The unbelievers do no have the Holy Spirit. The “good” deeds of unbelievers are not provided by the Holy Spirit, but produced by their own will (which is in rebellion against God). God does providentially use these deeds for his good purposes, but they do not thereby please God.

The longer you stick to this erroneous line of thinking, the father from the truth your statement become. Please stop.

TW

TW

I have disagreed with Pastor Wilken on the disposition of KFUO FM, but this is a most excellent, edifying and enlightening article.

@Todd Wilken #25

PASTOR WILKEN no. it is not like that. you have patiently tried to get at what I am saying. you have a true pastors heart. that is rare today. The fact that your boilerplate doesnt fit my boiler is not your fault really. I was where you are only 6 months ago.

You DO understand that I AM saying that truly good visible works apart from faith please God in the true sense of that word “please.” Yes even if they are not perfectly done!

You accuse me of heresy (no offense taken here IF you are right dear brother!) .

Look then at what your position must be stated as:

NOTHING done to or by anyone in the first article or 4th petition of the small catechism is pleasing to God in ANY true sense of that word pleasing.

Those catechetical articles clearly state what? Luther´s that all these things are done independently of the existence of faith (without any merit or worthiness, even for all the wicked). And…. (drum roll) The acts please God. Really and truly. You asked me for a confessional cite for this. now you have one you should know well!

Every one of YOUR confessional cites state the problem is in the DOER not the DEED.

More! This shows the urgency of knowing what I am saying: if you administer word and sacrament as pastor and you have no faith, God is STILL pleased, really so, with the ACTS you have done.

I am not here to out-clever our outwit anyone. that is not fair. and is ad homen.

the Lords Peace be with you.

@Todd Wilken #28

PASTOR WILKEN You wrote, “Article XVIII says the Holy Spriit provides these acts of love and only in Him do they have their being.”

FRANK I said Holy spirit, art XVIII say God. is that a nit you really want to pic? Normally isnt it the holy spirit we are taught to think of as working through the word, both law and gospel? You do not mean this! breathe deeply. think.

PASTOR WILKENThe unbelievers do no have the Holy Spirit.

FRANK: True that. does that mean then, that the HS does not work on men until they believe, or only on believers with the Gospel? or only on believers with law and gospel? You dont mean what you just said. easy does it….

PASTOR WILKEN The “good” deeds of unbelievers ….

FRANK “good” in quotes. You are saying here that NOTHING done by or to old adams of pagans and christians in the first article of the creed or the 4th petition is truly pleasing to God. I say Old Adam because ALL those things ARE all done without any faith being necessary aren´t they? (even to all the wicked, without merit worthiness even without our prayer or asking. done by whom? Old adams. chirstian and pagan ones.).

PASTOR WILKEN are not provided by the Holy Spirit,

ARTICLE VI FC

“(solid) Thereafter the HOLY GHOST employs the Law .. . … because of the flesh [the old adam]…as it is written: When the Holy Ghost is come, He will reprove the world (which includes also the old Adam) of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment. …… …believers …are reproved by the Holy Spirit from the Law…

no less than the godless are driven and held in obedience by the threats of the Law, 1 Cor. 9:27; Rom. 7:18. 19.

(epitomy) Thus the Law is and remains both to the penitent and impenitent, both to regenerate and unregenerate men, ONE [and the SAME] Law, namely, the immutable will of God.”

PASTOR WILKEN but produced by their own will (which is in rebellion against God).

FRANK You are saying that God the HS does NOT drive the old adam in pagans to behave himself through the law. (see the article VI and it´s scripture cites above)? You do NOT mean that!

FRANK old adam is what christian and pagan have completely in common. This is why article VI says the old adam “continues” in the believer. it is simply the unbeliever in us that lingers on refusing to die after our baptism.

PASTOR WILKEN God does providentially use these deeds for his good purposes, but they do not thereby please God.

FRANK ok this thing providence falls under a different category than what we have been discussing right?

FRANK I humbly accept in all discipline your pastoral admonition to be careful of what I write. Sincerely so. It is your charge to so admonish me as a pastor.

It is also my charge as a layman to be a good berean and for you to endure this if it is being done sincerely and in submission to your holy office.

Please continue to be fair and avoid ad homen as you are able, sinners that we both are. I will do the same. Feel free to rebuke what I say. not my motives or person. This is in fact your duty. So I will take joy when can do this.

The Lords Peace be with you.

Article VI

.

Frank,

The fact that you refer to clear citations of the Lutheran Confessions as “boilerplate” concerns me deeply.

Forgive any an hominem on my part. I was referring to your statement, “This should be like shooting fish in a barrel for a Lutheran pastor. and you are talking to a peon nobody of a Lutheran layman who is a smouldering wick compared to the stature of you two men.” which gave me the impression that you thought you were thinking circles around us. Perhaps you are, but your thinking doesn’t line up with Scripture or the Confessions.

You also wrote: “It is also my charge as a layman to be a good berean…” That is my point. The Bereans tested everything Paul taught against Scripture. You are not doing this.

You are faulting me for teaching what the Scripture and Confessions teach. You are faulting me for refusing to be moved from the Scripture and Confessions by your arguments. You are faulting me for not accepting your novel reading of Scripture and the Confessions (one you admit has only lately come to you).

I speak bluntly because I am concerned about you: You seem to have developed a theory about the works of unbelievers, one you believe solves the alleged problems of Lutheran theology. But this theory is causing you to disregard the clear teachings of the Confessions, and refer to them as “boilerplate.” This is not good.

TW

@Rev. Eric J. Stefanski #27

PASTOR S “The reason for this is that what it seems that you are wanting to say doesn’t contradict anything he teaches, but YOU keep saying that it does.

FRAMK Ahem. that is not what pastor Wilken says now is it? It IS what I am saying.

PASTOR S Yes, civil righteousness is ‘pleasing to God’, since He set forth what it is;

PASTOR WILKEN #22 “Is your point that unbelievers produce a righteousness that pleases God? If so, you’re simply wrong. If direct quotations from Scripture and the Confessions won’t convince you, I don’t know what will.”

PASTOR S: yet, civil righteousness does not save.

FRANK you summarized Luther on this point nicely in post #8 actually:

The righteousness of the Second Table of the Law is, indeed, completely separate from the righteousness that comes through faith in Christ, except for this one little thing: while the righteousness [VISIBLE WORKS] of the Second Table is “pleasing to God” because He commanded it, those [THE UNBELIEVERS] who seek to do such works still fail to be pleasing to Him unless they have faith in Christ

PASTOR S The only real question is whether you are saying that such ‘earthly righteousness’ has something to do with sanctification.”

FRANK no question at all. I got goosebumps that that specific question mattered to you!

that is the entire interest in this discussion for me.

Article VI FC, following Luthers method in his sermon, says sanctification = christ in us, (or actually they say the new birth. same thing eh?) So your answer is really then “what law does christ in us need was already just answered? none.” visible righteousness = mortification + love. That mortification part makes clear that “visible righteousness” and indeed any visible works means we are talking soley about the old adam and not the new man, the christ in us, my post #21 says all this , as you rightly observe , with way too many words.

PASTOR S: In short, it seems to me that you haven’t found anything new in Luther’s sermon, but that you’ve simply used a defective way of saying what you found.

FRANK tell that “nothing new” part to pastor W. He states that it is new and in a word heretical. So you are saying i am reading luthers sermon correctly with a defective way of communicating what I say. I guess your, ahem, tone here and from the start was to cut my arrogance, wordiness and being an asshole. I can do better. since mortification = SELF discipline, i need to stop there don´t I?

I do not accept that this is NOT new news to most lutherans. and I DO urge you to consider that this is THE Lutheran way to teach sanctification vs visible righteousness/works we all must do. This is merely the distinction of law and gospel WITHIN the believer as the sermon is recast in article VI FC..

You already knew all this you say. That is music to my ears Pastor!!! it is nothing new to you. please point me to where you have dealt with this topic uin this way in all sincerlty then. I would like to see how you do this same thing and break it all down. I have been searching for you for a long time.

Please note that this last paragraph is utterly and truly devoid of any sarcasm. I feel the need to say this since, well , I noticed your own writing style leans slightly there. pot always assumes the other is kettle. not true in THIS for instance at least.

That there is rank confusion in our churches in this exact topic cannot be disputed.

I have never seen this contrast ever presented by anyone ever that you see is in Luther. in talking about what sanctification is and is not and contrasting sanctification not with justification but rather instead contrast it with visible righteousness, mortification + love? Senkbeil doesnt do this neither does forde, marquardt, nestingen or any of those other stellar names. You say you do this all the time? it is nothing new. cool. I am thrilled. Make it yours. I will cheer you on from the sidelines.

LUTHER

“Internalizing this one article [ the forgiveness of sins] is the art that ALONE makes one a Christian. It is his most difficult, important and all consuming lifelong task. He will never have time to find something new, higher or better to learn. It will make a Christian honest and give him eternal life.

But we cannot understand this article that alone makes one a Christian, and not lose it, we must know something else as well. We must know that there are two kinds of true or God pleasing righteousness or two powers. We must also then learn how to skillfully tell the difference between the two.”

This exact contrast is parotted in art XVIII AC and in art VI FC but there reworked to talk about law and gospel within the believer. “parrot” is meant as highest compliment here. it is what we should all strive for.

Lutherans typical error is to talk about “doing sanctification” using the 3rd use as coach. they then turn sanctification into doing law and 3rd use into some wierd calvinist from hell gospel helper. You know this. how do you drive the stake into its ugly heart? Luthers format is how.

Peace be with you dear pastor S Thank you for your pastoral heart .

@Todd Wilken #32

Please let me sincerely apologize for being an asshole ok? My tone has been entirely unacceptable, and your tone has been very evenly pastoral, mild, humble, yet unbending. ALl the things I love to see in a Lutheran pastor . especially that unbending pne.

This apology and buttering is not for any purpose but one of christian love. Which I am sorely lacking in.

When I said boiler plate what I meant was this:

We lutherans have a historical habit of responding to arguments as they are framed by our opponents. When we do this with catholics it turns out ok since we use words in the same ways with the same meanings.

when we do this with the reformed we end up getting pulled their way without even knowing it.

I do not have any “theory” of works of unbelievers. I do believe that Pastor S gets that I am an obnoxious ass who is way to wordy and and cant explain his way out of a paper bag. or something like that. he also gets that there is nothing new in what I am saying.

You see what I am saying as new and opposed to your own view of scriptures and the confessions.

That is good huh? empty glasses can be filled. full ones cannot be.

I took great care to respond fully to your cites from the confessions in great detail, and then to pile out the one confession you have memorized by heart if you , like me, were raised Lutheran.

What should we make of this situation?

the facts:

I am an arrogant asshole who IS too wordy just as dear pastor S has helpfully pointed out to us.

Pastor S finds nothing at all remarkable or new in what I have written. I can hear him yawning from here. That yawn damps home that he “gets” Luther. but still…

You state repeatedly, humbly and pastorally that you see what I say as radically new and diametrically opposed to how you see the confessions and scriptures.

one two or three people here appear to probably be wrong. We cannot all three be right. and the part about me being an ass and the doctrinal part, me and pastor S seem in fully harmony on. I would say kumbayah time, but he has yet to accept my apology for being an ass.

Pastor W. This topic. phrased as “what must I DO to please god and make him happy” comes again and again in my dealings with pagans, christians , lutheran christians. everyone.

most everyone, at least formally agrees in faith alone. so they agree that DOING cannot save. So we can attack this by repeating over and over that DOing cannot save. Ok. But if people give lipservice to that formula but obviously also are cheering for a work-around, then that doesnt really do anything does it?

but we both know this DOING gets snuck in in ever more creative ways.

Study Luther´s sermon. I have offered up a smoother translation of the part that addresses the problem I see in post #17 it is faithful to the original but it is more readable than the translation done by some baptists here:

http://www.godrules.net/library/luther/129luther_e13.htm

you really think my pointing to Luther is by someone who is looking for something “new”? Gosh I wish everyone did that, with an entire writing, in context. I would love to see the concordia quarterly full of men xeroxing and trying to restate and reapply what Luther said. that would be very cool and very productive. Luthers commentary on galatians and romans and his preface to romans are also really very good. Galatians commentary ALMOST made it into the confessions. Can one truly “”get ” the confessions without also reading lots of luthers works ? especially his church postils, galatians commentary and whatever of his work is directly referenced by the FC? I don´t think so.

and… the lords peace be with you. This is terribly important stuff. I hope we see it through together.

Luther “Life is Mortification”. We get to share this experience together now!

fondly,

frank

@Todd Wilken #32

“You are faulting me for not accepting your novel reading of Scripture and the Confessions (one you admit has only lately come to you). ”

this fact means I am slow and blind and stupid. it does not mean it is anything new. it is apostolic. c´mon pastor W. You know that!

You persist saying we are at odds doctrinally and not in concord even after my last careful and detailed response to your confessional cites. yet you have not yet commented on those. show me my error. please.

Geepers!

fondly,

frank william.

Pastor W. This topic. phrased as “what must I DO to please god and make him happy” comes again and again in my dealings with pagans, christians , lutheran christians. everyone.

most everyone, at least formally agrees in faith alone. so they agree that DOING cannot save. So we can attack this by repeating over and over that DOing cannot save. Ok. But if people give lipservice to that formula but obviously also are cheering for a work-around, then that doesnt really do anything does it?

but we both know this DOING gets snuck in in ever more creative ways.

note that what is being askeds is NOT what must I do to be saved. it is what must I do to please God. it is not the same question but we insist on anwering it as though that first question is what is being asked.

this is a huge problem for Lutherans and everyone.

frank sonnek :
@Rev. Eric J. Stefanski #27
PASTOR S “The reason for this is that what it seems that you are wanting to say doesn’t contradict anything he teaches, but YOU keep saying that it does.
FRAMK Ahem. that is not what pastor Wilken says now is it? It IS what I am saying.

He says that what you actually are saying is wrong–and I agree; I am saying that what I think you want to say is something other than what you have been saying.

PASTOR S Yes, civil righteousness is ‘pleasing to God’, since He set forth what it is;
PASTOR WILKEN #22 “Is your point that unbelievers produce a righteousness that pleases God? If so, you’re simply wrong. If direct quotations from Scripture and the Confessions won’t convince you, I don’t know what will.”

Again, I am talking about the carrying out of God’s will (which is pleasing to Him) even by unbelievers who remain unpleasing to God; Pr. Wilken is clearly stating that the unbelievers (the “doers”) are not producing anything to please Him.

Let me make it clearer:

When an unbeliever does what is civilly righteous, since God ordained what is to be done, God’s will is done and His Church on earth is benefitted–but for the one who does these things without faith in Christ, they remain damnable offenses. Thus, we could say that God is pleased with the damnable sins of the unbelievers that are in accord with civil righteousness and, thus, serve the interests of His Church on earth. But in saying such a thing, we have to recognize that we are, indeed, using ‘please’ with two different shades of meaning; most people have trouble with that concept. This is akin to Luther’s discussion of God’s will in things contrary to His will in The Bondage of the Will, or a discussion of God’s antecedent and consequent will.

PASTOR S The only real question is whether you are saying that such ‘earthly righteousness’ has something to do with sanctification.”
FRANK no question at all. I got goosebumps that that specific question mattered to you!
that is the entire interest in this discussion for me.
Article VI FC, following Luthers method in his sermon, says sanctification = christ in us, (or actually they say the new birth. same thing eh?) So your answer is really then “what law does christ in us need was already just answered? none.” visible righteousness = mortification + love. That mortification part makes clear that “visible righteousness” and indeed any visible works means we are talking soley about the old adam and not the new man, the christ in us, my post #21 says all this , as you rightly observe , with way too many words.

You’re still not writing clearly.

A Christian ought to manifest ‘civil righteousness’, but not merely be coerced into ‘behaving’; it is to flow from the new man as the product of fearing, loving, and trusting in God. When such is the case, it is no longer mere civil righteousness. The fact that such is never perfect in the Christian on earth gives him cause always to repent, confess, be absolved, receive the Lord’s Supper, etc., that his flesh may again be put to death and that love may be formed within him by the reception of God’s love in Christ–since we only love in the true sense (there’s another word with multiple meanings in Scripture) because we have received that love.

No, my tone from the start was that of one shocked that you so misrepresented what Luther was saying; my tone now is of one who would like you to see that your being so wrapped up in your ‘new discovery’ is keeping you from seeing that 1) it’s nothing new and 2) what you are presenting is making it look like you are believing something more broadly wrong than what your actual likely error is. Thus, Pr. Wilken is constantly coming back to the broader error and you can’t see why he’s thinking that, e.g., you think that there is salvation apart from faith in Christ. I have come to the conclusion that you don’t think that there is salvation apart from faith in Christ, and that you’re tripping over the phrase ‘pleases God’ and investing it with more than Luther intends–and possibly more than you intend, as well.

I do not accept that this is NOT new news to most lutherans. and I DO urge you to consider that this is THE Lutheran way to teach sanctification vs visible righteousness/works we all must do. This is merely the distinction of law and gospel WITHIN the believer as the sermon is recast in article VI FC..
You already knew all this you say. That is music to my ears Pastor!!! it is nothing new to you. please point me to where you have dealt with this topic uin this way in all sincerlty then. I would like to see how you do this same thing and break it all down. I have been searching for you for a long time.

Let me give you a challenge, first: In three short sentences or fewer, clearly state what you are declaring “THE Lutheran way to teach sanctification.” I think you are saying, “Sanctification is not a matter of external good works that we all must do (and that the unbelievers are to do, too), but it is the constant putting to death of the Old Adam and the rising to life of the new man, which is only by grace through faith in Christ.” Or, you’re saying the exact opposite; that’s the problem: it’s hard to tell which you are saying.

EJG

frank sonnek :
Pastor S finds nothing at all remarkable or new in what I have written. I can hear him yawning from here. That yawn damps home that he “gets” Luther. but still…

one two or three people here appear to probably be wrong. We cannot all three be right. and the part about me being an ass and the doctrinal part, me and pastor S seem in fully harmony on. I would say kumbayah time, but he has yet to accept my apology for being an ass.

Well, let’s see:

1) With paragraphs like the first here, it’s hard to take your apology seriously. Nonetheless, I reckon it was offered seriously, and I forgive you. I would have done it sooner, but I had to actually read it first.

2) Actually, there is always a possibility that all are right, but that one is saying it wrong and conveying something that he doesn’t mean; that is the hope I hold out for you.

3) I’m going to refrain from answering further until the ‘challenge’ I gave you is met, as I don’t think anything productive will be done without this.

EJG

Eric,

If Frank were saying that, I can’t see why he would argue with my article. That’s my article in a nutshell. But, I’m as confused as you are.

TW

@Rev. Eric J. Stefanski #37

PASTOR S”Let me give you a challenge,

FRANK let me invite you to mortify your flesh so you are better equipped to serve the needs of others. the preparation half of god pleasing visible righteousness.

PASTOR S: first: In three short sentences or fewer, clearly state what you are declaring “THE Lutheran way to teach sanctification.”

FRANK: Love. the second half of god pleasing visible righteousness! love is always something tangible that improves the life of others.

here is the 3 sentence Lutheran way to teach sanctification:

article VI

1) point two and 3 exist wholy and soly within this single point: Christ in us, which IS sanctification, not fruit of and is also synonymous with rebirth, regeneration, and faith.
2) therefore what ever question is asked of the Incarnate Christ and answered, is also asked and answered as to what our sanctification is and looks like: eg Does christ need mortification or encouragement or reminders to do fruit of sanctification? did he grow in wisdom? did he do everything perfectly? in what sense?
3) it is clear from this that NO talk about mortification or law or effort is about christ in us (he needs the law?) but is instead about mortification of the old adam, just as talk of visible works also belong only here.

This is merely a complete plagarism of article VI , in its entirely summarized, now in 3 sentences.

your turn.

@Todd Wilken #39

why do we need to reinvent the wheel would mean : ) ) that

a) your content is fine, and

b) you are being creative and finding a way to present that content probably being unaware that luther has a far more useful and appliable approach that answers many more questions.

I cant fine anywhere in scripture or the confessions where someone takes two errors, contrasts them to make a third point that is true. for starters. this is not the pauline or luther-an way to use contrast. secondly it is not a contrast made anywhere in scripture or luther or confessions. Luthers two kinds of righteousness of course is used in romans 8, article XVIII the catechisms, smallcald articles, apology, formula of concord…….

I thought: “man brother wilken would be thrilled to be informed that there is already a far better and more closely confessional and scriptural approach to what he is trying to do.”

Luthers approach fully answers the pervasive question in every contest I have seen in the last 4 months on internet monk, veith and your site lots of others: “what must I DO to please God and how can I know for sure that it does?”

Your article answers that question in a way that can be practically applied how? or does it not even address it? It looks like it should at least partially do so! I was challenged to use it has a tool our guide in that way. I spent some good time on that before I posted.

maybe my being an ass got in the way of making that point? It is sitll a valid one.

peace and blessings,

frank

@Rev. Eric J. Stefanski #38

” Pastor S finds nothing at all remarkable or new in what I have written. I can hear him yawning from here. That yawn damps home that he “gets” Luther. but still…

should read “dampens hope that he got the Luther sermon”

because for me it was “wowee!!!!!!!!” But you already knew all that, but still I wasnt´feeling a wowee from your end. that would not have been about my brilliance. it would have been about Luther´s ok.

I have a tendency to sarcasm that must daily die in baptism if ya catch my drift. this was not one of those moments. go with sincere here is my recommendaiton pastor S!

@Rev. Eric J. Stefanski #38

“Actually, there is always a possibility that all are right, but that one is saying it wrong and conveying something that he doesn’t mean; that is the hope I hold out for you.”

I know when I talk like that i am being either condescending or playful. Lets go with playful. unless you want to indicate otherwise of course! ) this sucks to have a first contact of this intensity without beer brats voice tone or facial expression to clue one in and smooth things out.

frank sonnek :
@Rev. Eric J. Stefanski #38
“Actually, there is always a possibility that all are right, but that one is saying it wrong and conveying something that he doesn’t mean; that is the hope I hold out for you.”
I know when I talk like that i am being either condescending or playful. Lets go with playful. unless you want to indicate otherwise of course!

Let’s go with clear:

Many of your ‘sentences’ are not sentences. Most of what you have written doesn’t communicate anything clearly. In the end, we still have to guess at what you mean. If two of us guess differently what it is that you’re trying to say, we can both answer you differently and be right in what we’ve said…just not in what we’ve guessed.

This is neither condescending nor playful nor sarcastic: your writing doesn’t make a lot of sense.

EJG

Frank,

You’re playing games and being cute. It’s very difficult to take you and your comments seriously. I’ve tried all day today to correct you. Now your responses to both me and Pastor Stefanski have become childish.

Really, these kind of responses demean the subject we’ve been discussing.

When you’re ready to correspond about this seriously, I’ll be happy to continue.

TW

@Rev. Eric J. Stefanski #44

That is easy to fix in a 3 sentence statement is it not? what is not clear? tell me rather than just take a shot at my writing style. if you want complete sentences where the syntax is perfiect I can do that. I will rework quickly

@Todd Wilken #45

aw that is not fair and not nice. I am not being demeaning . I am being self effacing in an attempt to get past the personal so we can focus on the subject at hand.

I am being both serious and sincere. You should question and attack my wording or the truth of what I am expressing doctrinally. Please do not question my sincerity/seriousness. that is not fair and it is not love. if I have lacked love, point to my acts/words. dont question my seriousness dear pastor.

Frank,

I don’t know what you are doing. But I do know I don’t want to be a part of it any more. Please reconsider your position and repent.

TW

frank sonnek :
@Rev. Eric J. Stefanski #44
That is easy to fix in a 3 sentence statement is it not? what is not clear? tell me rather than just take a shot at my writing style. if you want complete sentences where the syntax is perfiect I can do that. I will rework quickly

No ‘shots’ were taken. Your lack of clarity all day long has been a problem. I don’t think it is too much to ask that you write in clear sentences, where it is evident what you mean and do not mean. If you truly think that you have grabbed some great truth out of that Luther sermon that has eluded all of us for centuries, I would think that you would want to present it in a way that makes sense.

This is likely the last I’ll respond this evening, and as I serve a dual parish and have a couple of folks in the hospital, there’s every possibility that I won’t be on the computer at all tomorrow, so take your time.

EJG

@Rev. Eric J. Stefanski #44

here is the 3 sentence Lutheran way to teach sanctification:

article VI

What is the Lutheran teaching of sanctification. It is found in article VI

1) Sanctification IS Christ-in-us, which not fruit of sanctification and is also synonymous with rebirth, regeneration, and faith.
2) Therefore ALL questions asked and answered about thje Incarnate Christ and are is also asked and answered as to what our sanctification is and looks like.
3) It is superabundantly clear that NO reference to mortification, law or effort is about sanctiification, but MUST be instead refer to the old adam, just as talk of visible works also belong only to the later.

This is merely a complete plagarism of article VI , in its entirely summarized, now in 3 sentences.

@Rev. Eric J. Stefanski #44

now with typos corrected:

here is the 3 sentence Lutheran way to teach sanctification:

article VI

What is the Lutheran teaching of sanctification. It is found in article VI

1) Sanctification IS Christ-in-us, which not fruit of sanctification, and is also synonymous with rebirth, regeneration, and faith.
2) Therefore ALL questions asked and answered about the Incarnate Christ are at the same time, answers as to what our sanctification is and looks like.
3) It is superabundantly clear that NO reference to mortification, law or effort is about sanctiification, but MUST instead refer to the old adam, just as talk of visible works also belongs only to the later.

This is merely a complete plagarism of article VI , in its entirely summarized, now in 3 sentences.

@Todd Wilken #48

wow.

@frank sonnek #51
Since I checked back one last time:

#51 is almost clear.

In #3, however, you seem to assert that the new man does not do visible works. If so, please prove this. If not, please show how/where what you are saying contradicts Pr. Wilken’s article.

It also seems like you are not merely distinguishing old man and new man, but separating them–that is, separating the spirit of the new man from the flesh in such a way that a man is no longer a single being, but two unrelated beings. Let me give you a sentence that makes a distinction without making such a separation: The new man doesn’t sin, yet the individual who is a Christian sins.

And now, an early trip to bed for me.

EJG

@Todd Wilken #45

“I’ve tried all day today to correct you.”

Pastor S said in post # 8 that the one point you and I clearly disagreed on he saw Luther saying. and he saw no error in that. so tell him that. he says “civil righteousness can be called god pleasing because he wills it.” and says luther says this.

He added that this kind of righeousness cannot save, which same point I made seconds later in a post. so pastor s agrees there too.

The fact that pastor s and I agree on these two points, means precisely that you are asking only me to repént of something withhout making clear what that something is.

That is not christian or right for a pastor to do Pastor Wilken.

I felt that there was ego rearing it´s head in our conversation. So my response in love was to self depreciate. This was not met with a corresponding gesture. the response looks now more like self vindication as in “ah , the problem is ALL him! see he even admits it!”.

I am so sorry you have chosen the worst possible construction here dear pastor. It puts you in a difficult spot .

fondly,
frank

@Rev. Eric J. Stefanski #53

PASTOR S: “It also seems like you are not merely distinguishing old man and new man, but separating them–that is, separating the spirit of the new man from the flesh in such a way that a man is no longer a single being, but two unrelated beings.”

FRANK whoa baby. Here I am not so certain. We will need to explore this together…

try this: there is one being but NO communication of attributes. or rather only in one direction: What can be said about the Christ in us, can be said about the WHOLE believer, eg “you ARE washed you ARE sanctified. Whereas Paul would never communicate the atributes of the old adam to the whole man. “I , but I see a different rule at war in my flesh”.

How is this?

flacius made the error that we ARE sin according to our human nature. This is error. Confessional response: It looks that way but the incarnation proves otherwise.

this same thing is NOT true about the new man. The new man IS, in his very nature Righteousness. such that rihteousness is not what he does so much as what he is. Doing gods will is simply what he is. there is not a choice of will at all here. it is like light from sun.

This is like the way the incarnation looks. see how my definition works in application? I have now redefined: “sanctification is christology within us”. My Lutheran definition of sanctification reduced to only 5 words. Test this if you will. It would be cool if it were right!

What this means, I think,and I cannot see where it is wrong in a quick mental runthrough of all the contexts I can think of offhand, is that whatever we say about the New Man must be said about US. It IS WHO and WHAT we really and completely are. We can not talk about the old adam in this same way. This is why paul can say we ARE sanctified, the christ in you. he would NEVER say this about the Old Adam in us. No. That is who we WERE.

What I see that might argue against this are the article VI words “insofar as” we are regenerated or “if we were fully regenerated” might rule out my idea here. Comments here?

Please explore this with me by my side and not as an antagonist. please?

PASTOR S: “Let me give you a sentence that makes a distinction without making such a separation: The new man doesn’t sin, yet the individual who is a Christian sins.”

FRANK You are assuming here a priori that any kind of separation is absolutely wrong in any sense right? Is this wise to do? Usually absolute statements are about error. I can only think of a few that MUST be absolute to work. I push on those few very hard!

for this to be true it would have to be true in every relationship we can say about old new man we can put it in I think. I am not trained in the rules of logic but I think that is how we test this. Let´s test this and see what comes up:

The new man doesn’t sin, yet the individual who is a Christian sins.
the new man does gods will yet the individual who is a christian……..
the new man is forgiven yet the individual who is a christian…………..

a cursory glance makes this look like this is true in only a negative sense, then my idea would be validated here right about a lop sided “communication of attributes”?

PASTOR S ” It also seems like you are not merely distinguishing old man and new man, but separating them–that is, separating the spirit of the new man from the flesh in such a way that a man is no longer a single being, but two unrelated beings.”

FRANK I am not sure what flesh means here. I am nearly positive that it does NOT mean “flesh” or “body” in the greek sense. as in carnal as in lust and sexual sin. I think it probably, along with Old Adam , simply means whatever is in us that is NOT Spirit. visible vs invisible. earthly vs heavenly. anything that can do works vs invisible faith. Exactly as romans 8 has it.

PASTOR S: In #3, however, you seem to assert that the new man does not do visible works. If so, please prove this.

FRANK Let me find Luthers spin on this that expresses what I am saying and thinking there, and I will post that.

PASTOR S If not, please show how/where what you are saying contradicts Pr. Wilken’s article.

I find NO problem with the content of Pastor Wilkens article. at all. I have stated this several times. See my post #41. forgive my caplock key getting very very stuck on that NO.

Luther commentary on galatians on I but not I but christ in me, who IS the new me

VERSE 20. Yet not I.
Paul explains what constitutes true Christian righteousness. True Christian righteousness is the righteousness of Christ who lives in us. We must look away from our own person.

Christ and my conscience must become one, so that I can see nothing else but Christ crucified and raised from the dead for me. If I keep on looking at myself, I am gone.
If we lose sight of Christ and begin to consider our past, we simply go to pieces.

We
must turn our eyes to the brazen serpent, Christ crucified, and believe with all our heart that He is our righteousness and our life. For Christ, on whom our eyes are fixed, in whom we live, who lives in us, is Lord over Law, sin, death, and all evil.
[note: article VI formula of concord is right: regeneration, the new birth = sanctification]

VERSE 20. But Christ liveth in me.

“Thus I live,” the Apostle starts out. But presently he corrects himself, saying, “Yet not I, but Christ liveth in me.” He is the form of my perfection. He embellishes my faith.
Since Christ is now living in me, He abolishes the Law, condemns sin, and destroys death in me. These foes vanish in His presence. Christ abiding in me drives out every evil. This union with Christ delivers me from the demands of the Law, and separates me from my sinful self. As long as I abide in Christ, nothing can hurt me.

Christ domiciling in me, the old Adam has to stay outside and remain subject to the Law. [ Read article VI 3rd use of the law, formula of concord here. This is “Mortification of the flesh.”] Think what grace, righteousness, life, peace, and salvation there is in me, thanks to that inseparable conjunction between Christ and me through faith! [article VI formula of concord says THIS alone is sanctification. Our Baptismal regeneration is our sanctification. Nothing else!]

Paul has a peculiar style, a celestial way of speaking. “I live,” he says, “I live not; I am dead, I am not dead; I am a sinner, I am not a sinner; I have the Law, I have no Law.” When we look at ourselves we find plenty of sin. But when we look at Christ, we have no sin. Whenever we separate the person of Christ from our own person, we live under the Law and not in Christ; we are condemned by the Law, dead before God.

Faith connects you so intimately with Christ, that He and you become as it were one person. As such you may boldly say: “I am now one with Christ. Therefore Christ’s righteousness, victory, and life are mine.” On the other hand, Christ may say: “I am that big sinner. His sins and his death are mine, because he is joined to me, and I to him.”

[Note: What Luther says here is radical: This is all about the Incarnation. And it is about the fulfillment of prophecy that each Christian becomes the Law and Will of God made incarnate in his beating heart. EVERYTHING we can say about the righteousness of Christ in the incarnation is what we must also say about our very persons, our sanctification and it’s fruit.

Practical application here: False teaching taught in the LCMS “we must preaching sanctification. We do this by preaching the law as an evangelical 3rd use exhortation.” Think of doing this to Christ in the incarnation. It simply looks silly. He simply did God’s Will because he was Jesus. We, in our new nature (remember that in article VI the new birth = sanctification), do God’s Will in exactly the same way! Whatever needs to be exhorted, reminded or encouraged is Law. It is mortification of the flesh. This IS also a work of the Holy Spirit. ]

@Rev. Eric J. Stefanski #53

#51 is almost clear.

PASTOR S “In #3, however, you seem to assert that the new man does not do visible works. If so, please prove this. ”

Not exactly. I think that would be overstatement and so error. The new man christ in us has arms and legs and a body. and those will do things. So the new man does things that are visible. but they are invisible at the same time ! How can this be?

http://www.godrules.net/library/luther/129luther_f11.htm

Martin Luther:

LUTHER “79. To further understand how Christ was put under the Law: Observe, he placed himself in subjection in a twofold manner. In the first place, he put himself under the works of the Law. He permitted himself to be circumcised and to be presented and purified in the temple. He was submissive to his father and mother, and all those things, when no obligation required. For he was Lord over all laws. He acted voluntarily in this respect, unprompted by fear of punishment or expectation of reward as far as he was himself concerned. ”

LUTHER”When we consider the question of mere external works, we can perceive no difference between his conduct and that of individuals actuated by compulsion and restraint. His liberty and free will were concealed from men, just as the imprisonment and unwillingness of others were not apparent.”

FRANK The works are intristically and visibly identical to those done by pagans. and so the difference is invisible. faith. The fact that the difference is in the DOER and not the DEED makes the difference invisible even though the acts are visible. This is like a bunch of shiney new identical red hondas with the windows blacked out. The driving looks identical. there is no way to tell from the driving what kinda driver is driving, the pagan or christian. This shows up as well in article VI where it says tweo things: the same law works in christians and non christian old adams. The works look identical. the difference is in the doer.

LUTHER Thus Christ acts under the Law, though properly not under the Law.

He conducts himself like those in bondage to it,

FRANK Read this as visible earthly righteousness.

LUTHER but he is himself free. His will being free, he is not under the Law.

FRANK invisible inner christ righteousness

LUTHER In the matter of works, which he voluntarily performs, he is subject.
But we, both as to our wills and to our works, are under the Law; for we effect works by constraint of will.

FRANK we, both to our WILLS and works. Old adam. Our will must die too! This is why it is only righted in a qualified way to say that a believer will never WILLFULLY sin. Luther says elsewhere “life is mortifcation”. This means EVERY thing we right is a battle primarily against will power. This is the will of the old adam but we think we can rely on it for our good and mistake it for new man and sanctification it is not. I learned, strangely, from AA, of which I am not a member, that in acting right, will power is actually the enemy and not the friend. AA is all about visible righteousness boot camp. no faith or gospel required for it to work very very well.

@Rev. Eric J. Stefanski #53

PASTOR S In #3, however, you seem to assert that the new man does not do visible works. If so, please prove this

FRANK I need to point out that the following is true within christians as well. what we do that is our old adam vs our new man is indistinguishable to us. So we look to Christ for assurance that we truly are christian. ie that we are saved.

please see my immediately previous post for a full context (incarnation!) on this.

FRANK The works are intristically and visibly identical to those done by pagans. and so the difference is invisible. faith. The fact that the difference is in the DOER and not the DEED makes the difference invisible even though the acts are visible. This is like a bunch of shiney new identical red hondas with the windows blacked out. The driving looks identical. there is no way to tell from the driving what kinda driver is driving, the pagan or christian. This shows up as well in article VI where it says tweo things: the same law works in christians and non christian old adams. The works look identical. the difference is in the doer.

I see no point in continuing discussion on this thread. email me if you think otherwise.

Per emails I’ve re-enabled comments on this thread.

Quoting Frank #26 “God is pleased with these actions even if he is so not cool with the actor. I am simply saying that God is pleased if your wife, who happens to be a pagan , loves you. God loves this and it pleases him because he loves you,”

Uh, No, God does not love the DEED no matter good or ill, God only loves the Doer. Hence why we are Lutheran and not Romanist Scholastics.

The author uses a common rhetorical device of comparing and contrasting the two categories, liberty and license, with great persuasion. Repentance is the key.

I felt that as I read along that both conditions could be applied to myself. I was then reminded of the great Lutheran truth that I am simultaneously a sinner and a saint.

Another way to look at this timely and worthwhile topic, is to apply it to organized churches. As I understand it, the Missouri Synod, did not condemn slavery as sin during the Civil War. Old Walther himself, if I have this straight, thought that the institution of slavery was not specifically condemned in the Bible. He thought, again I hope that I have this straight, that the problems of the day were caused by the abolitionists in northern states.

The idea was, and I am guessing, that the human institution of slavery could not be condemned because people of good will on both sides of the issue could not agree. If there is no human agreement, then there would be no moral condemnation.

And so it was with prohibition. Consumption of alcoholic beverages is not a sin in itself, and so it is legalistic to say that it is. Some say it is sinful and some say that isn’t. If there is not a consensus on a human issue, then no one dare say that it is sinful.

How then, in our time, fares abortion? Abortion, in the traditional Old Synodical Conference view, is regarded as a sin. In other faith communities it is not a sin. How then do the Old Synodical Conference churches, state that abortion is a sin while slavery and alcohol consumption are not?

Is it not legalistic for a synod to condemn abortion as sinful?

Very important! Thank you!