"These works are done by believers"
Posted on August 23rd, 2008
There is a growing problem of antinomianism in contemporary Lutheranism. Rev. Paul McCain had a brief post about this on his blog, and we’ve commented on it here as well. “Christ does all good works through me,” they will say – and accuse you of false doctrine if you preach that the Christian does (and ought to do) good works. Such people find warm welcome in congregations that bill themselves as “confessional” and “liturgical.”
But do the Confessions teach that “Christ does all good works through me” (or the variant, ”The Holy Spirit does all good works through me”)? Here’s what the Formula of Concord says (Epitome, Article VI):
Fruit of the Spirit, however, are the works wrought by God’s Spirit, who dwells in believers. The Spirit works through the regenerate. These works are done by believers because they are regenerate. They act as though they knew of no command, threat, or reward. In this way God’s children live in the Law and walk according to God’s Law…. The believer, so far as he is regenerate, acts without constraint and with a willing spirit to do what no threat of the Law (however severe) could ever force him to do.
As I read it, the Spirit does the works and the believer does the works. Together. The Spirit dwells in the believer, who freely cooperates. Both do the works. Which is why I find it a reprehensible doctrine to say that the believer doesn’t do good works, only Christ (or only the Holy Spirit – sheesh, make up your minds already!) does them.
It is a doctrine that becomes an excuse to ignore the Christian life. The typical formulaic “You’re a sinner; Jesus died for you; all is forgiven” sermon leads to antinomianism, where the believer is taught that he needs no guide and does no good works. You’re free to believe that. You’re just not free to call yourself “Lutheran,” much less “confessional” if you do.
Thoughts? Show me if I’m off-base. Please. I can handle it.
Pastor Esget, thanks for so clearly and succinctly stating matters this way. “Pithy” is the word that comes to mind. “Spot on” is the phrase that comes to mind.
You nailed it. Philippians 2:13 says the same thing – for God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.
God is at work in you to will and to do. It doesn’t say God wills and does. You will and do, and that is God’s work in you. It’s the consequence of being forensically justified for Jesus’ sake.
Good post!
Pastor, could you elaborate more on the two positions you presented in this post (i.e. “Christ does all good works through me” vs. “the Christian does (and ought to do) good works”)?
Does holding the first position necessarily make one an Antinomian? Does the Christian do good works apart from Christ? Is it even possible to do good works apart from Christ? How are “good works” properly preached in a Lutheran sermon?
Chris,
I have no idea who your talking about, these antinomians.
Who teaches that Christians don’t do good works? Name names.
I’ve never bought the notion that Lutherans are especially vulnerable to antinomianism. But if we are, we are in good company (Romans 3:8).
The real question is, does the Christian do good works so that he can track his own moral progress? If so, those aren’t good works at all.
TW
Rev. Wilken:
First of all, it’s “Christopher.” Or “Pastor Esget.” Please, anything but “Chris.” (That goes for the rest of you whom I’ve been too bashful to tell how much I hate it.)
I’m surprised that you “have no idea” about this. You’re far better connected than I am.
I’d prefer not to “name names,” as organizations and institutions tend to get smeared when that happens. Witness the reaction in Christian News, and how Higher Things was slandered by its former association with Dan Woodring. I’m far more interested in addressing the theology, and the teaching of our Confessions, than making this personal. (I wanted to do the same with the “Zoloft” piece, but unfortunately failed in that endeavor.)
While I have only encountered a few pastors teaching/preaching this in my hearing, I have definitely heard this from laypeople who claim to have been taught this by their “confessional” pastors at previous congregations. When confronted, they deny it, which makes accusations rather difficult, seeing as I’m generally busy on Sunday mornings.
I think that passage in Romans (and others in the same epistle) demonstrates the opposite of your point; Paul is at pains to demonstrate his opposition to such false doctrine. The fact that three of the articles in the Formula of Concord address this problem shows that it’s been a problem from the beginning. Our Synod has a long history with associated problems, e.g., “Gospel Reductionism” from the Seminex days. Scott Murray’s book delves into issues surrounding the Law in LCMS, and I recently spoke with an LCMS pastor who is working on a doctoral thesis at a very prominent university on this very topic.
Obviously good works done to “track moral progress” are not a good thing. Did I say they were? I think some Lutheran teachers become so frightened of merits or tracking sanctification that they fail to teach AC VI and FC IV, V, and VI.
Christopher:
Sorry about getting your name wrong.
I don’t read Christian News.
In citing Romans 3:8, I was saying that Paul was wrongly accused of being antinomian.
Of course Paul rejected antinomianism. But, why was he accused of teaching it, and by whom? And, could the same thing be happening in the cases that you mention?
I still reject the theory (usually held by those headed East) that an implicit antinomianism is Lutheranism’s Achilles heel. Lutheran doctrine permits no antinomianism whatsoever.
I have never talked to anyone who seriously holds to the views you describe in your post. I HAVE talked with many who accuse others of holding to those views; but that is hardly evidence against them.
What concerns me more is the soft-core moralism and crypto-calvinism in our circles. Works are presented as the assurance of genuine faith. I suggest that this, rather than antinomianism, is the greater danger among us. And, I am willing to name names.
When you write: “I think some Lutheran teachers become so frightened of merits or tracking sanctification that they fail to teach AC VI and FC IV, V, and VI.” What do you mean?
Do you mean, as others on this subject have asserted, that preaching Law and Gospel, with the Gospel predominating and having the final word, is failing to teach AC VI, FC IV, V, and VI?
TW
Josh S wrote,
“And now we have Lutherans overreacting to the moralism of American Protestantism by treating AC VI, and FC IV-VI as though they were obscure footnotes that really ought not to be discussed.”
Who?
Who is “treating AC VI, and FC IV-VI as though they were obscure footnotes that really ought not to be discussed.”?
Please, Josh or Christopher (or anyone else who has witnessed this), give me an example of a Lutheran doing this.
I can give you dozens of examples of “the moralism of American Protestantism” in Lutheran pulpits.
Are there examples, or are this post and thread really about Law/Gospel preaching and ending our sermons with the little whip?
TW
Avery Cardinal Dulles accurately notes: “Lutherans hold that the justified person remains always and inevitably a sinner, sinning in every act, and worthy of condemnation in the sight of God, while Catholics hold that justified persons have been cleansed of all sin and can by their good works truly merit the crown of eternal life.” (“Justification and the Unity of the Church” in The Gospel of Justification, ed. Wayne C. Stumme, Eerdmans, 2006, pp. 127-128). Genuine Lutheran preachers preach the Law in its fullest severity which exposes the true nature of the hearer (even after conversion) before God (hardly antinomian). The Lutheran preacher so delivers the Gospel that Christ alone has done everything by His death and resurrection that nothing more needs or could be done by the hearer before God. Dulles states the Lutheran position should not be preached, in apparent agreement with Pastor Esget. So, Pastor Esget, are you half Roman or do you go the whole way?
Gregg
Gregg,
Dulles may be describing the Roman position correctly, but I have a hard time understanding how his characterization of our position squares with LC IV:66-67 or SA Third Part III:40.
Dear Pr. Weedon,
The Dulles characterization does square with LC IV as I would direct your attention to 65: “But the act or ceremony is this, that we are sunk under the water, which passes over us, and afterwards are drawn out again. These two parts, to be sunk under the water and drawn out again, signify the power and operation of Baptism, which is nothing else than putting to death the old Adam, and after that the resurrection of the new man, both of which must take place in us all our lives, so that a truly Christian life is nothing else than a daily baptism, once begun and ever to be continued. For this must be practised without ceasing, that we ever keep purging away whatever is of the old Adam, and that that which belongs to the new man come forth.” Dulles rejects that the Old Adam ever remains this side of heaven; genuine Lutherans do not because the Scriptures do not allow it. When pastor Esget says that there is more to preach than the forgiveness of sins, he seems to be departing from the orthodox Lutheran faith (“where there is forgiveness of sins, there is life and salvation”). Why does he insist on preaching good works after he has preached forgiveness of sins? Is he preaching only a partial forgiveness because after his “forgiveness” there remains the sin of failing to “do good works” which he thinks is purged by more Law? Or does he contend that our real sin is ignorance so if we would just learn the Law better, we would be better people, doing “good works”?
I trust you can help because I don’t get it.
Gregg
Gregg,
Take both sections together and what do you get? You get a sanctification which is progressive, which is never completed in this life, and which therefore lives constantly under the forgiveness of Christ. I’ve not heard Pr. Esget in any way deny that we must live under the forgiveness of God constantly. His incisive law preaching (see the Higher Things sermon!) makes it utterly clear that forgiveness is a must – and he delivers that in his Gospel proclamation.
I think, though, that where Dulles errs is in the notion that there is not real progress in the Christian’s walk. There is, though it is attended with great weakness and frailty. I’m going to simply borrow some thoughts I’ve written on it before and post them here – begging the indulgence of Pr. Esget:
The danger is in thinking that the holiness given you in Christ is not whole, perfect, complete. It IS. It is not at all so much the case that holiness grows in you, but that you grow in holiness. The gift is given: now we make progress in learning to live from it, so that love becomes ever more our life. “Progress” is okay concept in such a scenario. Old Martin Chemnitz used it:
“The healing and renewal itself is not such a change that is immediately accomplished and finished in a moment, but it has its beginnings and certain progress by which it grows in great weakness, is increased and preserved.” Examen I:424
“The renewal of the new man, as also the mortification of the old, is not perfect and complete in this life but that it grows and is increased day by day until it is perfected in the next life, when this corruptible will have put on incorruption.” Examen I:538
“But men are to be admonished that they should through the Spirit mortify the deeds of the flesh and firmly adhere to Christ by faith and through the use of the Word and of the Sacraments become more and more united with Him and seek from God the gift of perseverance, and wrestle, lest the wantonness of the flesh drive out the gift of perseverance.” Examen I:607
More and more united. With Christ. So that repentance means turning away from the life that is in Adam (a dead end road if ever there were one) and growing into the freedom given in Christ. “Unbending” us, if you will, and opening our eyes to believe and live from the gift.
I think that’s why St. Peter said after that long list of virtues that need to be ours and increasing, that if they are not, the problem isn’t with our good works, but with our faith: “Whoever lacks these qualities is so nearsighted that he is blind, having forgotten that he was cleansed from his former sins.” (2 Pet 1:9)
This particular point is one that Schmemann nailed:
“And the holiness of the Church is not our holiness, but Christ’s, who loved the Church and gave Himself for her ‘that He might sanctify her…that she might be holy and without blemish’ (Eph 5:25-27). Likewise the holiness of the saints as well is but the revelation and the realization of that sanctification, that holiness that each of us received on the day of baptism, and in which we are called to increase. But we could not grow in it, if we did not already possess it as a gift of God, as his presence in us through the Holy Spirit.” (Schmemann, Eucharist, pp. 23, 24)
The gift is given whole: the Holy Spirit gives us the gift of Christ Himself to be our all – sanctification is the life of appropriating that gift ever more and more, turning away from the old self and finding life in union with Him who is our Life.
And from another post:
I got to hear Dr. Steve Hein give a presentation on the Lutheran take on sanctification. I appreciated much of what he laid out. But I think there’s more to the story. I’ve been mulling this around in my mind and thought I’d throw it out for any thoughts you all might have.
Dr. Hein correctly points out that the Old Adam does not need renovation but execution. Similarly, the new self does not need progress because it possesses in Christ perfection. So far, so good.
And yet the Formula of Concord can speak of “healing” of our nature:
“Furthermore, human nature, which is perverted and corrupted by original sin, must and can be healed only by the regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit. However this healing is only begun in this life. It will not be perfect until the life to come.” FC SD I:14
Now, if the Old Adam is irreformable, and the new self is perfect in Christ, wherein is there room for healing of our nature?
I would propose that the human nature is thus something distinct from the old Adam (which is the corruption of the nature) and the New self (which is the perfection of the nature). This thing that is distinct is human nature in the process of being healed by God’s grace – a healing that will not be perfect in this life. That means that we HAVE to live under God’s forgiving grace for the whole of our earthly pilgrimage since when we stand before His judgment seat none of us will have inherent in us the perfection that the Law of God demands. As St. Augustine wrote so perceptively “We must remain under God’s pardon until the end, lest we attribute too much to ourselves.” But it is the process of healing that I would like to reflect on a bit, and throw out some thoughts for reaction:
1. The healing work of God in our lives is precisely the activity of the Holy Spirit. Luther’s grace and the gift in grace. Grace being the pardoning verdict of God and the inseparable gift of the Holy Spirit who comes with that pardon to begin the work of healing.
2. The healing work of God in our lives does indeed produce a progress in sanctification. Again, from the Symbols: “The longer we live [i.e., in Baptism] the more we become gentle, patient, meek, and ever turn away from unbelief, greed, hatred, envy, and arrogance.” LC IV:67
3. Because our natural sinful condition is to be “bent in on one’s self” – the work of healing is a work of unbending, shifting the focus from looking at myself to looking toward God in faith and the neighbor in love. “The Christian lives outside himself” as the good Dr. Luther once put it.
4. The healing work of God in our lives is not ours to measure. Why? A) Because lex semper accusat. The Law of God doesn’t deal in fractions. It deals with the whole and shows that the whole of our lives stand under the verdict of condemnation for not being 100% love. B) Because the nearer one draws in faith to the Holy One, the bigger one’s sin appears. It is the one who is in danger of falling from the faith who sees sin as being not a big problem in his/her life. It is the one who SEES the sin in their life as huge and cries out for mercy and pardon, who is in fact drawing near to God. Basic Isaiah 6.
5. Because the Christian’s life by definition is the overlap between the constitutive centers of the human race in Adam (hence, sin and death) and in Christ (hence, righteousness and life), the Christian by definition is a conflicted person. Romans 7 describes the actual experience of the person who is a Christian.
6. The conflicted person who has sin and death at work in them from Adam and yet righteousness and life at work in them through our Lord Jesus Christ, experiences the struggle as learning to live from the one constitutive center (Christ) rather than from the other (Adam), hence, we beg God, as did in today’s collect, for “an increase of faith, hope, and charity.”
7. Progress in healing, genuine transformation, comes not as the result of moral effort, but moral effort is the result of the healing and genuine transformation whose source is the Spirit’s imparting to us of the life of the Son of God. “And we all with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another. For this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit.” 2 Cor. 3:18 Thus, “since we have these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from every defilement of body and spirit, bringing holiness to perfection in the fear of God.” 2 Cor. 7:1
8. Thus, Schmemann hit the nail on the head when he could speak like this:
“”And the holiness of the Church is not our holiness, but Christ’s, who loved the Church and gave Himself for her ‘that He might sanctify her…that she might be holy and without blemish’ (Eph 5:25-27). Likewise the holiness of the saints as well is but the revelation and the realization of that sanctification, that holiness that each of us received on the day of baptism, and in which we are called to increase. But we could not grow in it, if we did not already possess it as a gift of God, as his presence in us through the Holy Spirit.” (Eucharist, pp. 23, 24)
9. The “healing” involves the will, so that we use our new will to desire the good things our God wants. “Even in this life the regenerate advance to the point that they want to do what is good and love it; and even do good and grow in it.” Yet being regenerate, they freely confess: “this is not OF our will and ability, but OF the Holy Spirit.” It is still true, though, that the baptized have a freed will and that their nature is healed as they use that will “not only to hear the Word, but to agree with it and accept it, although in great weakness.” So then, the healing of our natural will is accomplished as we “in the daily exercise of repentance” “cooperate in all the Holy Spirit’s works that He does in and through us.”
10. God heals human nature so that it is able to enjoy the life that He has prepared for it; without that healing the unregenerate “even in the land of uprightness deals corruptly; he does not see the majesty of the Lord.” Is 26:10 – think of the dwarfs in *The Last Battle* who had not the faculties to enjoy the Paradise in which they were and who imagined themselves to be in the dark stable.
Pr. Weedon,
It seems you are adding something new and not taking “both sections together.” As with the Large Catechism, SA 3, III, 37-39 speaks my position better: “37] In like manner confession, too, cannot be false, uncertain, or piecemeal [mutilated or fragmentary]. For he who confesses that all in him is nothing but sin comprehends all sins, excludes none, forgets none. 38] Neither can the satisfaction be uncertain, because it is not our uncertain, sinful work, but it is the suffering and blood of the [spotless and] innocent Lamb of God who taketh away the sin of the world. 39] Of this repentance John preaches, and afterwards Christ in the Gospel, and we also. By this [preaching of] repentance we dash to the ground the Pope and everything that is built upon our good works. For all is built upon a rotten and vain foundation, which is called a good work or law, even though no good work is there, but only wicked works, and no one does the Law (as Christ, John 7, 19, says), but all transgress it. Therefore the building [that is raised upon it] is nothing but falsehood and hypocrisy, even [in the part] where it is most holy and beautiful.”
This confession (“For he who confesses that all in him is nothing but sin comprehends all sins, excludes none, forgets none.”) is what Dulles rejects (as papists always have). Lutherans preach of our own good works otherwise: “By this preaching of repentance we dash to the ground . . . everything that is built upon our good works.” This is hardly undone by the sections in SA 3, III that follow. There is no mention of “progress” but of remaining in this contrition and faith, both of which are worked by the Holy Spirit.
Back to the point. To preach good works after one has preached the Gospel seems to undermine both the Gospel and the freedom it brings. Good works do follow the Gospel, but not when preached with, as or after the Gospel. Consider FC, Epitome IV: “10] 5. Nevertheless, by the words mentioned, necessitas, necessarium, necessity and necessary, if they be employed concerning the regenerate, not coercion, but only due obedience is to be understood, which the truly believing, so far as they are regenerate, render not from coercion or the driving of the Law, but from a voluntary spirit; because they are no more under the Law, but under grace, Rom. 6, 14; 7, 6; 8, 14.” In short, the regenerate do good works “not from coercion or the driving of the Law, but from a voluntary spirit.”
That our sanctification and our good works follow justification, does not require us to think that our good works add to or participate in our sanctification. My holiness is not me but Christ in me by His Word, Work, Will and Spirit. Since He controls these, if they increase it is by Him, not me.
But, hey, what do I know? You are the preacher; I am the air conditioner salesman.
Gregg
Pr. Weedon,
Please forgive the last line of my last reply. It was unnecessary and I regret it.
I do wish to know, however, how your understanding of a progressive sanctification fits with James 2:10: “For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it.”?
Gregg
Dear Gregg,
Lex semper accusat. The Law always condemns anything less than absolute, total, and perfect love. But the fact that our good works are not perfect, does not at all mean that our good works should not be increasing. The LC plainly uses such “increase” language for the good works and “decrease” language for the works of the flesh. But since we never achieve the perfection in love that God’s law demands, our good works remain in need of forgiveness. They are all partial, fragmentary and weak – but if we are “in Christ” they are to be growing.
They don’t grow by exhortations to do good works, although these also have their place. They grow rather through Union with Him who IS absolute, total, and perfect love. He is wholly given to us and His perfect love covers all our sins. Yet He calls us to grow in our union with Him so that His love actually increases within us.
Perhaps we could let Dr. Luther have the final word on the subject. From his famous Defense of All Articles:
This life is not godliness, but growth in godliness;
not health, but healing;
not being, but becoming;
not rest, but exercise.
We are not now what we shall be, but we are on the way;
the process is not yet finished, but it has begun;
this is not the goal, but it is road;
at present all does not gleam and glitter, but everything is being
purified.
– Martin Luther, A Defense and Explanation of All Articles (AE 32:24)
P.S. My suggestion to preachers is to formulate their sermons thus:
Law / Gospel / Mystical Union
The good works simply flow from the Mystical Union. Thus, the primary form of exhorting to good works is to exhort to union with Him who shapes His own love in our lives.
Wil,
Would that be Law/Gospel/Sacraments?
TW
Todd,
Law/Gospel/faithful use of the means of grace unto their proper ends. Yes.
Law/Gospel/Go to Communion. No.
In tonight’s reading from Philippians, St. Paul said: “filled with the fruit of righteousness ***that comes through Jesus Christ*** to the glory and praise of God!”
It is that union with Christ which is reached us through His Words finding a home in us, through Baptism, through the comforting absolution, through the Holy Eucharist. These bring, in their faithful use, a union with Christ – a union that, as Chemnitz said (cited above) we grow in.
I should add that the more we grow in that union with Christ, the more acutely aware of our sin we become and the more painful it is to us. We continually plead for Him to burn it out of us entirely through His sanctifying, loving embrace, though we know it will not fully happen until the joyous day when “our baptism is completed.”
Make any sense?
Perfect sense.