The facts:
In 1989, at age 16, Maurice Clemmons began committing robberies and burglaries in Arkansas. He was arrested, sentenced to 108 years, and imprisoned.
In 2000, the then-governor of Arkansas, Mike Huckabee, commuted Clemmons’s sentence. Clemmons was then released on parole.
In 2001, Clemmons was arrested again for burglary, sentenced to 10 years, and then paroled in 2004. He moved to Washington state.
This past Sunday, he walked into a coffee shop near Tacoma, WA, and shot and killed four police officers. Clemmons fled the scene.
A police officer discovered Clemmons this morning in a stolen car that had broken down on the side of the road. When he fled, the officer fired, killing Clemmons.
The NYT‘s article on the story is here. Christianity Today‘s politics blog had a summary of much of the recent coverage.
In this tragic situation, most of the coverage has focused on how this may affect a rumored presidential bid for Huckabee in 2012. But I post the story here because it draws out many of the issues raised by discussion on this blog surrounding Todd’s earlier post on Tolstoy’s short story, The Forged Coupon.
Check out this quote from an article in First Things by Joe Carter. Carter worked on Huckabee’s failed 2000 presidential campaign, and had researched many of the governor’s numerous criminal pardons. Writing about the Clemmons situation, Carter had this to say:
[Huckabee’s] naivete about how his actions would be judged was compounded by his own belief in the nobleness of his motives. Huckabee was—and likely remains—a true believer in the concept of restorative justice. Like many politicians who latch onto ideas that support their worldview, however, he was enthusiastic about the general theory while failing to grasp the nuances of its application.
Judging from the records, the governor also seemed to put a lot of weight on conversion stories—a common trait among evangelicals, who believe the gospel is sufficient for restoration and redemption of character. The opinion of clergy appears to have carried a great deal of weight in the decision-making process.
COMMENTS
55 responses to “Huckabee and the Pitfalls of Pardons”
Leave a Reply
Yes. There are a couple of things to say on the subject.
The first is the guy was obviously a psychopath. Treading out of my depth a little here, but the person unable to feel empathy is unlikely to respond to a pardon such as this.
Secondly, I have real difficulty with the state setting itself up as the mediator of grace. As I have said before, that sounds very "high church" to me.
Also a little presumptuous of the Governor to pardon a man who took someone else's loved one away.
David, I think you're right on about the guy's mental state. And he was clearly deteriorating in recent weeks. So it's not really a fair arena in which to discuss how grace "works" (or doesn't) with humans.
My real interest in this story is Carter's quote: The idea that grace never works with criminals. He seems to scoff at the idea that "the gospel is sufficient for restoration and redemption of character."
Psychopaths aside, the Gospel (the radical forgiveness based on Christ's passion, often mediated through another person, a church community, and a thousand other things) seems to me the only thing that restores and redeems.
Hey Aaron, thanks for yet another great MB contribution today (also liked your GIVING TREE discovery).
I think you are misreading what Carter said. In your post on the thread, you say that Carter says that "grace NEVER works with criminals" (emphasis mine).
Carter wasn't saying that. He was criticizing the idea that grace ALWAYS works works with criminals.
Carter's key word is sufficient. He's drawing a distinction between one thing being a necessary vs. a sufficient condition for another.
If being the recipient of grace were a SUFFICIENT condition for restoration and redemption, then that means that forgiveness would always result in R&R.
If I am understanding where you are coming from, you are saying that the grace of Christ is necessary (if R&R, then grace must have been the cause). That's a different claim.
PS. Nice thoughts by Browder as well.
The problem, I think, is that the state does not commute a sentence because of the radical forgiveness based on Christ's passion.
Certainly, grace works and I disagree with Carter. My argument is that grace only works when the offended is the one giving the grace and after the law has done its work of afflicting the comfortable.
And it only works when the Holy Spirit is involved. Assuming the HS is going to convict and release through every act such as this objectifies God in a human act much like He would be objectified in an Orthodox icon.
In my opinion, it is not the government's place to presume grace in the place of the victim/victim's family. It is the government's job to keep society safe. If the victim/victim's family gets to know the criminal and petitions the state for leniency, then the government should take that into account.
Hey David. My guess is that you and Carter are basically in agreement.
Carter's quote was:
"Judging from the records, the governor also seemed to put a lot of weight on conversion stories—a common trait among evangelicals, who believe the gospel is sufficient for restoration and redemption of character."
Carter means, I am guessing, that a man may hear the gospel, may become a Christian, and that experience may be deeply sincere and real. But that in itself is not sufficient to release him from the sinful character flaws he had before. He's still going to be a bound sinner and very possibly in the same visible way as before.
Carter could have said the same this way:
"Judging from the records, the governor also seemed to put a lot of weight on conversion stories—a common trait among evangelicals, who have seemed to given chapter 7 of Paul's letter to the Romans a miss."
24] For the old Adam, as an intractable, refractory ass, is still a part of them, which must be coerced to the obedience of Christ, not only by the teaching, admonition, force and threatening of the Law, but also oftentimes by the club of punishments and troubles, until the body of sin is entirely put off, and man is perfectly renewed in the resurrection, when he will need neither the preaching of the Law nor its threatenings and punishments, as also the Gospel any longer; these belong to this [mortal and] imperfect life. 25] But as they will behold God face to face, so they will, through the power of the indwelling Spirit of God, do the will of God [the heavenly Father] with unmingled joy, voluntarily, unconstrained, without any hindrance, with entire purity and perfection, and will rejoice in it eternally.
26] Accordingly, we reject and condemn as an error pernicious and detrimental to Christian discipline, as also to true godliness, the teaching that the Law, in the above-mentioned way and degree, should not be urged upon Christians and the true believers, but only upon the unbelieving, unchristians, and impenitent.
Formula of Concord, solid declaration. VI The Third Use of the Law.
The question for me is whether releasing Clemmons is a graceful act. He was imprisoned at the ripe age of 16 and therefore essentially marked for the rest of his life as a criminal. Before he was released at the age of 27, was he provided education for a future career? Was he provided medical and psychological care? Were efforts made to find him a job and a proper residence? Apart from such efforts the argument could be made that he was punished beyond his imprisonment from the ages of 16-27.
In short, real grace in this situation is more radical than a simple release.
Todd, is the state trying to rehabilitate a prisoner grace or is it an attempt to adjust behavior to make society safer? It sounds a lot more like well-intentioned manipulation than an act of grace. It sounds like an attempted exchange that is anticipating a return on investment.
Frank, help me fit your Formula of Concord excerpt into the discussion. This sounds to me like more of a Two Kingdoms/1st Use of the Law issue than a Third Use issue for Christians.
I would say that if the state is able to remit justice/punishment, then it is equally able to remit grace, albeit a lesser grace than God's grace. The measure of grace is always defined by the measure of justice that is due.
I think the fact that almost no government would actually implement such an over-the-top program for criminals indicates that government is based upon ROI and conditionality.
Grace, loosely defined, yes. I suppose. Unmerited favor.
Christian grace, or even a shadow of it, … one that creates love… no. Government is an abstract system. Not a person who looks you in the face and forgives an affront that was done to them.
My opinion, anyway.
david browder:
The precise point and purpose of the 3rd use/purpose of the law as developed in the lutheran confessions is that christians do NOT have a special use of the law that is in any way diffent than what pagans have.
The third use teaches that both the law AND the gospel should both be and sound EXACTLY the same whether they are being preached to pagans or christians.
Read the formula of concord, solid declaration , article VI on the third use of the law that I have excerpted and tell me I am wrong here. even the part in #26 that i excerpted makes this central point clear no?
it would be great for the Mockingbirds to do something on the 3rd use of the law. there seems to be alot of confusion here between it, and sanctification and fruit of sanctification. sanctification and it's fruit, happen in exactly the same way faith happens. what many call sanctification or it's fruit is really the law mortifying the flesh. whenever someone talks about how a christian should act, this is pure law. not anything really christian.
this is the nexus to me in this case.
Frank, I agree that the pedagogical use of the law is the law's effect for both non-Christians and Christians. Nothing but law and gospel should come out of the preacher's mouth. Yes, your excerpt from the Formula of Concord spells that out (even though I'm an Anglican).
How does this apply to Maurice Clemmons? The only professing Christian in this story is Mike Huckabee.
Frank. . .you wrote, "The precise point and purpose of the 3rd use/purpose of the law as developed in the lutheran confessions is that christians do NOT have a special use of the law that is in any way diffent than what pagans have."
Agreeing that this was the intention for the 3rd use discussion, coming up, as it did, in light of both Luther's dispute with Latomus and the Antinomian disputations, I think (and history is certainly a pietistic guide in this respect) that it has provided a backdoor for the law-gospel-law idea.
While I would affirm (with some qualifications) a strict interpretation of the "3rd Use" in all of its Concordian glory, as an "ecumenical observer" to the intra-Lutheran debates (c.f Love, Life and the Living God–Murray)
I think that the dangers that an explicit "3rd Use" teaching defends against (supposed antinomianism, enthusiasm, "spiritual but not religious," etc) are 1) less frightening than muddying the Gospel with the Law and 2) already defended by a robust 1st and 2nd use distinction. Gerhard Forde has been very helpful in this respect for me.
Anyway, there is more to be said on this and I have nothing but the utmost respect for my LCMS friends and others who affirm a "3rd use" in its intended way; however, perhaps if it were it not there in your confessions there may be more freedom to address its relative merits against other ways of understanding the "uses."
As a Christian, my heart is, in some ways, turned towards an appreciation for the Law–at least in the sense that I can affirm the "good that I want to do," as St.Paul says; nevertheless, with you, I don't think that this "good"–ie.Law–is a specifically Christian good. Since the Law is fundamentally the created intent and (active) revealed will of God for his creatures, I can continue to preach the 1st and 2nd to Christians and non-Christians–to all people–trusting that God is using the Law to convict both in the ways that He intends.
The argument about a "3rd Use" arose because people were not preaching the Law in all of its demand, thus necessitating a clause that said, essentially, "Hey man, I know you're a Christian, but put down the Crack pipe."
Interestingly enough, the problems that you say the "3rd Use" was intened to combat, "that christians do NOT have a special use of the law that is in any way diffent than what pagans have " Is precisely the reason wny many of us to look for other ways to articulate what we think about this issue of the "uses of the law."
just some thoughts—great to have you on here:)
-JDK
JDK
I think here the problem is that the Lutheran third use is read by persons of a reformed background as "cool! here is something I get to do to participate in my salvation!" Right thinking people see the dangers of this, and so miss the value of this third use.
third use=vocation=mortification of the flesh, and the subduing and disciplining of it for the sake of our neighbor.
Third use/purpose simply says this, to paraphrase Luther in one of his sermons:
"when the the practice of the law turns in a vertical direction, it becomes idolatry."
you do not get this with the 1st and second purpose. also the current confusion, both in Lutheran Circles and lutheranized reformed and evangelical such as the faaaabulous Michael Spencer are about exactly what the 3rd use takes aim at:
what is the nexus between sanctification, fruits of sanctification/faith/repentence, repentence, faith, christian outward righteousness vs pagan outward righteousness and sin vs goodness?
A discussion of the Law in its 1st and 2nd uses/purposes do not address this as elegantly as the 3rd use does. in my opinion. meaning it is not redundant.
in the 3rd use discussion of the formula of concord JDK they refer to a sermon of Luther, where he in fact, goes into great detail on the application and practical significance of the third use of the law. you will find that sermon here (note that the confessors are saying that they get their 3rd use ideas directly from Luther in this sermon!):
http://www.godrules.net/library/luther/129luther_e13.htm
It is painfully obvious that those who suggest that Luther did not teach a 3rd use are quite full of it. they merely do not see it taught because Luther did not actually use the label "3rd use". Now just how lame is that for a scholar to miss this? btw this same 3rd use is also taught in the smalcald articles under "monasteries and orders". Luther is ALL about 3rd use and could not possibly be understood without it. it is most key to his distinction between law and gospel!
I am soooo glad to see your site and so to be here JDK. so back at ya!
part 1 of 2
david browder says:
"How does this {that the SAME law and gospel message must be preached in an identical way to both pagan and christian] apply to Maurice Clemmons? The only professing Christian in this story is Mike Huckabee."
Well now. excellent question. Gov Huck is a baptist pastor, along with JC Ryles (favored by that other Baptist, and one of my heroes in the faith Michael Spencer).
They, being good baptists, believe that "sanctification" is something that we can work at to increase and is visible.
here is JC Ryle´s spin on this if you are interested. It is a short read, and notable in that MS points his readers to this to explain what sanctification is all about and is not about.
http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/sanct_just_ryle.html
Now if THIS proposition IS true, then we can hitch our faith to the fact that reneneration=reformation of life. A true christian would NEVER murder, or commit a violent crime that would shock the conscience because they, by definition, have been "fixed". This school (even lutherans) say that " a 'true' christian will NEVER sin, willfully, against his conscience". So from this viewpoint, a pardon of a convert makes perfect sense doesn´t it?
part 2 of 2 david browder.
In contrast, I believe that the proposition of the Augsburg Confession in article 18 "of free will" is the correct read on reality.
The augustana grants to free will, free agency, will-power, reason, etc ALL powers to do ALL outward righteousness.
it says, since free will and reason are in bondage that the ONLY thing reason cannot do is acquire that inner "heart movement" called faith, which is true righteousness.
So then how does this apply to clemens and gov huck? a christian will agree with the latest atheist campaign that says "be good for goodness sake!" God is not necessary or even desirable in working this part out.
clemens has faith? I rejoice. and then I will deal with him according to the law and know that love is what that looks like. I will not deal with him (or you) differently because he is a believer. same law. same gospel.
but then what about the christian community? my fellow believers in church? must i not treat them differently? of course! but this is for a different reason. vocation. This is best explained in Luther´s application of the law in the private examination one makes in preparation for private absolution and confession:
he suggests: "consider your station in life according to the 10 commandments, are you a father, mother , employer, employee [or church member i add]? then he suggests that you consider what you have done with each of those relationships. pure law here. and what even pagans would be wise to do? different relationships/vocations require different actions.
makes sense?
disclosure: I am in with the rod rosenbladt, pat kyle (new reformation press), william cwirla (he was my pastor for 14 years). so what I say here should look no different at all from what they are saying.
The Lord´s Peace be with you.
jdk
"Interestingly enough, the problems that you say the "3rd Use" was intened to combat, "that christians do NOT have a special use of the law that is in any way diffent than what pagans have " Is precisely the reason wny many of us to look for other ways to articulate what we think about this issue of the "uses of the law." "
to me this is a diagnostic that there is a great misunderstanding of exactly what the 3rd use or purpose is all about.
suggestion: read luther´s sermon referenced by the section on the third use thinking as you read it: "THIS, and nothing but, is what the confessors mean , along with Luther, when they talk about the 3rd use."
You should then see that a distinction between law and gospel cannot be understood, in the full lutheran sense, without seeing things this way.
Third use=law gospel distinction in practical application.
The third use is NOT a special use for christians but rather a use that tells christians that there is no special use/purpose of the law for christians.
Yeah I know that can only make sense in a Monty Python sort of way, but that IS what the 3rd use is there to do. Amazing that germans, who typically are short on the humor gene, could come up with such a thing. maybe it is that german irony gene that permits for this… and me, being of good norwegian/viking ancestry… well, what do I know….sigh.
when the law turns vertical it becomes idolatry.
jdk
Gerhard forde takes a dim view of the 3rd use. I don´t think he understands it.
and why not?
he thinks sanctification and it´s fruit are some sanctified law happening in us.
sanctification=regeneration regeneration is what? it is the new creation of a will that conforms completely to God´s Will. it is a keeping of the first and second commandments #1 to now fear love and trust in God above all else, and #2 to instinctively call upon God´s name in every trouble and to pray praise and give thanks, automatically, as a response to suffering.
" fruit of sanctification/faith/repentence" inwardly is peace love joy faith.
outwardly it identical to and so appears identical to what pagans do that is outward righteousness.
anything that tells us christians how we should act is law. period. including the fact that christians (and pagans!) should do everything as flowing out of pure gratitude to God for his grace.
G Forde seems to talk about this part as being a part of sanctification. it is not. He is not really always so clear as to whether this just simply happens ( of course it does not!) or if maybe 'evangelical encouragement" (ie talking about it) is necessary.
Anything that talks about how christians should behave is law preaching , and so is NOT sanctification or it´s fruit. it is "mortification of the flesh, subduing and disciplining it, for our neighbors good and for ourselves as our own, first neighbor. (ie " love your neighbor as yourself" implies that self love/law must come first…)
many here present this all as justification contrasted with sanctification. I think this can confuse things. regeneration is not justification, but the more useful contrast, reading responses on michael spencers blog for example, is how what a christian does and is is different that what a pagan does and is.
here the third use is very useful when it says that the 3rd use is a special use/purpose of the law for christians that tells christians that there is NO special use of the law for them.
jdk
correction. my last post should read:
forde suspects that the 3rd use is asserting that some sanctified law happening in us that we can work at doing more of.
again read luther´s sermon that the confessors say is where they get their "3rd use " idea from. you may feel most free to assume that the Lutheran 3rd use is exactly as Luther describes it. nothing more and nothing less:
http://www.godrules.net/library/luther/129luther_e13.htm
sanctification in a nutshell:
sanctification=regeneration. It is really that simple.
regeneration is what? it is the new creation of a will that conforms completely to God´s Will. it is a keeping of the first and second commandments #1 to now fear love and trust in God above all else, and #2 to instinctively call upon God´s name in every trouble and to pray praise and give thanks, automatically, as a response to suffering.
" fruit of sanctification/faith/repentence" inwardly and outwardly happen automatically.
what happens outwardly and automatically as fruit of faith/sanctification/regeneration/repentance is identical to the righteousness God works in pagans and our old adam using the law.
outwardly it identical to and so appears identical to what pagans do that is outward righteousness.
anything that tells us christians how we should act is law. It falls under the theological category of "mortification of the flesh". period.
This includes the fact that christians (and pagans!) should do everything as flowing out of pure gratitude to God for his grace.
We don´t do that do we?
This fully excludes silly rules meant to make sanctification appear different in christians like "a christian will never willfully sin." Our willpower too must die and be born from above. This excludes the pernicious lie that only sins fully and sincerely repented of are forgiven. this excludes the lie that a christian will always do good works in loving response to what Jesus did for him or that this is even necessary for outward righteousness to be a good thing. or that we can simply try harder to improve on any of this.
Frank. . . love the comments.
A few thoughts on your comments:
If, as you've said:
the 3rd use is a special use/purpose of the law for christians that tells christians that there is NO special use of the law for them.
then I would completely affirm that "use," but am not totally convinced that this can not be achieved by asserting the simul and then trusting the Law (in all of its uses) to do its killing work. . .
It is also interesting that most of us who would share your concerns and appreciation of sanctification/regeneration, fruit/root idea have, nevertheless, come to a similar conclusion while self-consciously rejecting the 3rd use. Perhaps there is some "cognitive dissonance," and I hate boiling down disagreements to semantics, but I can affirm all of your comments while still rejecting a need to talk about a 3rd use.
Finally, I think that Luther's relative silence (in an explicit way) on the "uses of the Law," particularly in light of how prolific he was, should give us all some indication about how important the specific designation was to him and inform some of our dependence on this language.
Like its use in Paul, the distinction between Law/Gospel defies hard codification (as I'm sure you know) and maybe an emphasis on the different "uses" should be minimized in favor of simply clearly articulating both law and Gospel.
It seems that, invariably, the "uses" discussion devolves into an attempt to figure out how God is using the Law in and on and through a broken world, thus enticing us to try and "see through the Cross," to "be like God," rather than be continually killed by all 57 uses and raised to new life by the Gospel.
Again, it may be simply that as a non-Lutheran, I am not as attuned to the nuances of the debate as others who have seen both sides abused may be–we Anglicans have our own issues that would raise similar red flags, I'm sure.
At any rate, thanks for your thoughts–this has been really helpful and necessary as we work through these issues. Rest assured, at any rate, that any friend and admirer of Rod Rosenbladt and New Reformation Press is a friend of ours!
fondly,
jady
Frank,
Thanks for your response.
Quick note: J.C. Ryle was the Anglican Bishop of Liverpool in the late 19th century. A true Low Church Protestant, he is a hero to many of us here who share his ecclesiology and dedication to the Biblical (and Protestant) doctrine of justification. As you say, we get off the boat with too high a view of regeneration. His book Knots Untied is a delicious polemic against the Oxford Movement (under the thumb of which we suffer).
Gov. Huckabee clearly had too high of a view of Christian anthropology/regeneration. The third use of the law would not have helped this man either, I'm afraid. His mental state was a little too complex and cobwebby. Psychosis is a tricky thing.
As much as I would like to extend a graceful hand to prisoners, I'm afraid that this simplification of the human condition puts peoples' lives in jeapardy (as evidenced ad nauseum). If I am the head of the state, I do my job and keep dangerous people away from the populace.
Maybe not capital punishment, but I don't make someone else's loved one pay for a theological insight I have that may be wrong.
I guess I'm stuck on this being a 1st use/Two Kingdoms issue. Maybe I missed the point.
Frank, you say:
"G Forde seems to talk about this part as being a part of sanctification. it is not. He is not really always so clear as to whether this just simply happens ( of course it does not!)"
What is your view of the Holy Spirit in this conforming of will to Christ?
Here's one thought that may help. We often talk about dead writers as if there was just one consistent mind behind everything they wrote.
This is of course a mistake. People change. What they thought or said one day might be different from what they thought a year later.
There isn't a single "Mark Twain" or "Oscar Wilde" or "Shakespeare"… or Luther.
Of course it may be that Luther may be stunningly consistent throughout everything he wrote between 1515 or 1545. Possible.
But as Wittgenstein says it is easy to get "bewitched by language." Since we use one word ("Luther") for the author of thousands of different sermons and essays and books — we start assuming that the author of all of those things was exactly the same guy.
Like Jady, my thanks to Frank and welcome him here to MB.
part 1:
JDK says:
If, as you've said:
“the 3rd use is a special use/purpose of the law for christians that tells christians that there is NO special use of the law for them.”
then I would completely affirm that "use," but am not totally convinced that this can not be achieved by asserting the simul and then trusting the Law (in all of its uses) to do its killing work.
Frank responds:
The law shows our sin (1st use). No disagreement here. It is a curb (2nd use). Who disagrees there? Who disagrees even that we are saint/sinners/simuls? No one.
But it does not take a rocket scientist to read a lot of Lutheran stuff and people posting at Internet Monk to see that the burning issue is simply this:
what should the “Christian life” should “look” like? What should “christian works” look like is really the question here.
Then the Old adam sneaks works in through the back door calling them “sanctification” or “fruit of sanctification”. They then say these “sanctified” (ie Christian!) works are visible and that some sort of “sanctified will power” can increase these “Christian works”.
JC Ryles and many Lutherans confuse “sanctification (which really=regeneration=faith)” as what is really “the mortification of the flesh(= law)”. They quote Paul talking about running the good race, contended, fighting, and say that is sanctification talk. It is not.
This is mundane profane mortification that looks exactly like what righteous pagans do. These do not define us as or make us Christians. Pagans can outwardly do ALL of the things Paul urges. ALL of them. A.L.L. Name ONE thing a Christian outwardly does that no unbeliever would ever do. Just one.
So our works, again, now called “sanctification” take on, again, a vertical dimension, and again, allow us to visibly separate sheep/goats, wheat/weeds , deep/shallow soil. Lutherans actually argue whether or not there can be a lawful united states of American if lawmakers do not acknowledge some sort of diety or absolute truth. This is crazy talk. To quote obama. “yes. They can!”.
I would suggest that the 3rd use IS tailor made and prescient for the current confusion. It is THE doctrine for the year 2009 to straighten out ALL confusion on sanctification and what it should look like to be a Christian. Or as Michael spencer calls a “Christ shaped , cross shaped” life. What DOES this look like? The 3rd use has all the answers here: It looks exactly like the life of a righteous pagan.
People also struggle with terms and the nexus between those terms: sanctification, justification, fruit of … faith/righteousness/law/repentence/sanctification. How do these things all interrelate? Confusion.
The ultimate Lutheran responses is that the nexus is not a doctrinal one but the nexus is rather in the very flesh and person of Jesus Christ. The ultimate answer is in the incarnation, but not as the Orthodox would do that one. The augustana “systematizes” all doctrine this way: “the Gospel and all it´s articles. Again the 3rd use cuts through all this terminology confusion like Mr Clean on steroids. Oh he looks like he is on steroids… ok LOTS of steroids… .
JDK and frank discussion part 2:
JDK says:
It is also interesting that most of us who would share your concerns and appreciation of sanctification/regeneration, fruit/root idea have, nevertheless, come to a similar conclusion while self-consciously rejecting the 3rd use.
Perhaps there is some "cognitive dissonance," and I hate boiling down disagreements to semantics, but I can affirm all of your comments while still rejecting a need to talk about a 3rd use.
Frank responds:
Yes, but I suggest you cannot do it as elegantly or without creating a lot of new paradyms and categories and terms. 3rd use drives one back to all the old stuff. It´s been tried: Forde says “sanctification is getting used to the idea that we are forgiven”. Dang that sounds cool! How would I apply that to my questions?
Why not suggest instead to substitute the word “regenerated” for the word “sanctified” as is done all over the Lutheran confessions, along with article VI of the FofC on 3rd use. This answers all questions: is it complete? Can it be increased by trying harder? Is it created by what? is it justification? Is it something we do? I am Norwegian. I don´t do “complicated” very well. Shallow end of intellectual gene pool here.
JDK says:
Finally, I think that Luther's relative silence (in an explicit way) on the "uses of the Law," particularly in light of how prolific he was, should give us all some indication about how important the specific designation was to him and inform some of our dependence on this language.
Frank responds:
Luther talks about the law as 1) showing our sin, as 2)curbing our evil with the sword, and as 3)telling us that roll-your-own-works are worthless and that we can take comfort that the mundane stuff is what God wants.
Mirror. Curb. Rule.
I don´t find it unhelpful for someone to walk behind Luther and categorize. Too many Lutherans say Luther did not teach 3rd use (wrong!!) and that this is the problem. It is so not the problem. It is the solution to the problem. Do yourself a favor and carefully read, as in outline for yourself, what Luther says in the sermon of his referenced by the 3rd Use.
JDK WITH FRANK PART 3
FRANK CONTINUES:
Don´t take my word for this. This Norwegian Lutheran farmboy who is not of the marryin kind and was crazy enough to pick up and permanently relocate to Brasil is simply not august enough to stand up to those stellar men who are saying 3rd use is theologically icky and not from Luther.
Let Luther himself correct this.
Luther´s thoughts in his sermon in a nutshell echoed in article VI on 3rd use is simple:
ALL earthly righteousness, is earthly, is about works, is all in the second table. Will end when the earth ends. Is all for our neighbor. It is mundane, profane meaning no Christ or faith is required. It is what righteous pagans also do. ALL OUTWARD RIGHTEOUSNESS = works. Equals works righteousness. It IS righteousness of God. This must include outward sanctified works.
There is a righteousness that is far above this. It is an INNER righteousness. That righteousness is called the Gospel, faith, regeneration , sanctification. Since ALL works and righteousness of works are included in that earthy righteousness, we must totally exclude talk of works, even “sanctified works” when talking about this second righteousness.
This IS Luther on the 3rd use and it is inseparably intertwined with his distinction between law and gospel. My summary is not nearly as good as his sermon! Read it! Better study and outline it!
JDK AND FRANK PART 4
JDK says:
Like its use in Paul, the distinction between Law/Gospel defies hard codification (as I'm sure you know) and maybe an emphasis on the different "uses" should be minimized in favor of simply clearly articulating both law and Gospel.
Frank responds:
We make it hard by not reading seeing what we need in the old stuff because of a terminology barrier perhaps. Augustana article 18 on free will paraphrase:
1) we concede to human free will and reason the full power to do ALL outward righteousness.
2) Free will/will power/reason is incapable of keeping the first and second commandments.
Only faith/regeneration can do this ONE work. And faith and regeneration can be created only by the holy spirit through the spoken word.
Since ALL the righteousness of works can be done by men, then when we talk of faith, these works must be excluded.
This is 3rd use talk. This is not 1st or 2nd use talk.
Questions?
JDK says:
It seems that, invariably, the "uses" discussion devolves into an attempt to figure out how God is using the Law in and on and through a broken world, thus enticing us to try and "see through the Cross," to "be like God," rather than be continually killed by all 57 uses and raised to new life by the Gospel.
JDK AND FRANK PART 5
Frank responds:
Show me one “use discussion” that looks like that please. Maybe I am “entering here in midconversation”?
All the evangelical conversations I see get confused over the one question “what should the ”Christian life/works look like”?
This is precisely the question the 3rd use seeks to answer. It is so not “ok you are a Christian free from the law, now put down that crack pipe”.
“enticing us” is what the law does. We forget that the HS uses law in the form not only of stick but also carrot.
Agreed: almost any reading of contemporary Lutheran or LCMS stuff has only two flavors:
1) sanctification=”you SHOULD do good in response to the gospel (law!). This is clearly error.
2) Or the school that is reactive to this first error by erroneously saying the 3rd use looks like that first error so they reject the 3rd use!
There is a third choice here I am suggesting: there is a proper teaching of the 3rd use. It would cure a lot of evangelical and Lutheran error on law/gospel.
“continuously killed and raised up”. Yep that sounds about right. But those who don´t buy in here see that we overstate here don´t they? and we do. They say: but righteousness IS righteousness and we should we not feel good and not killed when we do it. They are right. They SHOULD feel good when they do right. We should praise gay couples who chose to rear disabled children who no one wants or loves, meaning we should praise even those we thing could not possibly have faith in God when they do righteousness. and we should praise that AS righteousness. And we get to be happy when we see that. That is truly love and righteousness. Again read Luther´s sermon.
jdk and frank part 6
frank continues:
In the Kingdom of Grace we are judged according to who we are and not what we do. In the Kingdom of the World we are quite properly judged by what we do and not who we are. To be a "respecter of persons"= injustice in the kingdom of the world. Lady justice is blindfolded and holding a scale and illustrates what I am saying.
JDK writes:
Again, it may be simply that as a non-Lutheran, I am not as attuned to the nuances of the debate as others who have seen both sides abused may be–we Anglicans have our own issues that would raise similar red flags, I'm sure.
JDK AND FRANK PART 7
Frank responds:
Nope. That isn´t it. You guys do nuance in one very swell way so far as I can see.
And you are right there in the very middle of what we are talking about: “what should the Christian life/works look like”? which is exactly why I am here.
It is enough to point to Christ and say it looks exactly like his life in the sense that he was utterly ordinary, profane and mundane. True. Nothing heroic. He had to be pointed out in a crowd. He had a ´rap as a winebibber and glutton. He probably earned those. But still.
We are “simuls” as you point out. Saint AND sinner. He was not that. So to say we should have a “Christ/cross shaped life” looks like another version of “what would jesus do?” it doesn´t help. A proper teaching of the 3rd use would help immensely.
JDK writes:
At any rate, thanks for your thoughts–this has been really helpful and necessary as we work through these issues. Rest assured, at any rate, that any friend and admirer of Rod Rosenbladt and New Reformation Press is a friend of ours!
fondly,jady
Frank responds:
I went to the same church for 14 years with pat Kyle. Rod always was there in the background of every conversation. Maybe a little of what I learned from them took root. That is a nice thought. The Lord´s Peace be with you Jady!
December 3, 2009 10:45 AM
David Browder with frank part 1
"J.C. Ryle was the Anglican Bishop of Liverpool in the late 19th century."
I need to get out more. I had no idea. Assumed he was american baptist!
His treatise on sanctification vs justification suffers from two shortcomings:
So what is wrong with what JC ryles says?
In what, then, are justification and sanctification alike?
(a) Both proceed originally from the free grace of God. It is of His gift alone that believers are justified or sanctified at all.
Comment: the Augsburg confession equates sanctification with having faith. And describes this as how God inwardly conforms our will to his will. This looks more like becoming something rather than doing something. And from that becoming, will automatically flow the doing, called ‘fruit of sanctification/faith’ . this fruit is not sanctification. It flows from it. Another way the Augustana states this is to concede the FULL ability to do ALL good works to fallen free will (see the augustana on free will and further see how it connects to what follows and why it says this point is so important to a terrified conscience). It says the ONLY think where the Holy Spirit is required is faith, which is then described as a weak beginning of keeping the first commandment, have no other gods, which means to fear love and trust in God above all things, and the second commandment to not take God’s name in vain, but rather to call upon in every trouble. This second way of saying this is the same way as the first.
Such are the points on which justification and sanctification agree. Let us now reverse the picture, and see wherein they differ.
(d) In sanctification our own works are of vast importance and God bids us fight, and watch, and pray, and strive, and take pains, and labour
If what the Augustana says is true, then we should classify ALL this as the Law speaking to us. This is NOT sanctification. Sanctification, along with it’s fruit, is produced in exactly the same way as faith is produced. Words like “fight watch and pray” do not look like doing something naturally out of a conformed and truly free will. Indeed this looks exactly like what st paul calls the ‘mortification of the flesh’, ‘making the old adam submit’ ‘subduing the old adam’ ‘running the race’ ‘following Jesus example’ . this looks like thorns and thistles not like the new birth. Yes we CAN do this and SHOULD do this. It should be done using the same profane commonplace tools pagans use: hard work, practice, training, discipline trial and error, carrot and stick, ‘try harder’ etc etc. Neither we nor the pagans need Jesus or the Holy Spirit for any of this. At the same time we have to say this IS all, even in pagans, a work of the Holy Spirit that he wrests from men by force of threat and punishment and appeal to our ego and urge for self preservation and well being. But for this he can use our natural free wills. We do not have to die to do this part. The only part of this we need the Holy Spirit for is faith in Jesus Christ. And for this the only way is to die and rise again in baptism and become a new man, not a refurbished one. I might add that here, especially, free will, aka will power , is the enemy of God and sanctification, not a help. Will power fights being usurped by the new will created in the new man, while pretending to be about ‘getting better”. We don’t need to get better. That would be impossible, we need to die and be reborn.
david browder with frank on Jc ryles part 2
Ryles: "(h) Justification is the act of God about us, and is not easily discerned by others. Sanctification is the work of God within us, and cannot be hid in its outward manifestation from the eyes of men."
If the Augustana is right, then sanctification “looks “ like faith. It is invisible. It is an inward change of our wills and a weak beginning of keeping the first table of the law.
Here it is good to think “will of God” and “will of God in Christ” when we read “The Law” or the “decalog”or “good works”.
It is God’s will and providence that all men do good works. God makes this happen. There are not two wills of God. There is one one.
Even the will of God seen in Christ is not a different will, it is only a view of that will seen through the only lense where we can see it correctly.
We should not fall in to the errors of a "need" to seek after natural law or ‘common sense’ to tell us what is truth minus Christ. Things like the true need for bloody sacrifice to be made. Which tells us that the opposite of sin is goodness when it is really faith.
This SAME will of God , called outward right-eousness is accomplished, by him in two ways:
by threat and promise of the Law in pagans and in dealing with our still overactive Old adams, and
in Christians, and only insofar as they are regenerated, by faith, that is, by the creation of a new man in us who’s prime distinctive is a will that is in perfect conformity to God’s Will such that we conform to that will of God, insofar as we are regenerated, automatically and unconsciously, and as ‘second nature.
david browder with frank part 3
Think of how Jesus kept the law. It looks exactly the same in us insofar as we are regenerated. Is it visible? Yes. But not as jc ryles seems to imply.
Jesus perfect goodness appeared to all as extraordinarily and peculiarly… ordinary. His small town (probably gossipy) neighbors didn’t say “well, there WAS something a little different about that boy… he was a little tooooo good…” No. nothing of the sort. Instead Surprise . registered as “ isn’t that Jesus, the son of joe-blow and no one at all special? Who would have ever guessed that he would become……”. Why is this?
If the inner invisible new will of the new man, that st paul and the augustana calls ‘sanctification’ in us produces the SAME outward righteousness, ie Will of God, that the Holy Spirit wrests from Old Adam and pagans alike by stick (fear of loss, aging, punishment) and carrot (think of santa clauses game here), then that ‘fruit of sanctification’ is visible in an invisible way.
It is right in front of everyones nose because no one can see it.
Like a row of shiney new identical Honda civics with blacked out windows. One of them has the new man sitting inside and driving. Which one has the new will of the new man driving it? How would we know? Why would it matter? Now if one starts driving erratically, that does not look like new man driving does it. Something is wrong.
Here the analogy breaks completely down. For in fact we have two ‘drivers’ in the car:
The free-will , anarchistically driving the old adam to it’s death. It can accomplish this even and especially by driving with great skill (ie keeping the law meticulously well as the Pharisees DID do “your righteousness must EXCEED that of the Pharisees!” Jesus says NOT in sarcasm but to the exact contrary to say doing this is quite impossible). This is called “will power’ ‘elbow grease’ ‘ accountability’ ‘trying harder’ and of course the ever popular ‘what would jesus do’ which wraps our egocentric ideas with the cloak of divine power.
This wars directly against the other driver, even and especially , often when it is producing the best pharisaic behaviors in us. For if we are good, we wonder why Jesus is really necessary.
The other driver, is that new will of the new adam that is spontaneously cranking out holy works without any need for exhortation, reminders, spiritual pushups.
Again, you MUST mediate deeply on the incarnation of our Lord here. THIS is the picture God the Holy Spirit points us to.
Only here can we get it.
And it is good to remember that Jesus was our substitute/stand in not only hanging on the cross (for theology wonks his ‘passive obedience’) but also was our substitute/stand-in when he lived a perfectly mundane profane ordinary unremarkable un-‘spiritual’ life FOR us (his "active obedience").
Because we cannot do this. so he did it ALL for us. outside of us. 2000 years before us.
he brings us this regenerated new will personally to you in your time and in your place, in your baptism.
david browder:
david says:
"I guess i am stuck on this being a 1st use/Two Kingdoms issue. Maybe I missed the point."
first use: "law shows our sin."
two kingdoms = two kinds of righteousness. both are kingdoms of God. there is only one righteousness not two. one will of God not two. Only in christ, who is THE Law/will of God incarnate, can we see this one will of God clearly.
1) earthly kingdom. outward law. outward earthly righeousness. This outward righteousness should be though of as including ALL outward works of righteousness.
3rd use/purpose: "your outward works are not christian and are in no way what make you a christian different from pagans! and you fully remain a member of this kingdom."
2) heavenly kingdom. faith. inner righteousness.being regenerated. works are excluded in this kingdom of heaven. we are included: having a new will made in us that perfectly conforms, insofar as we are regenerated, to God´s will. we here have a feeble start of keeping the first and second commandments: fear love and trust in God above all things and call upon his name in all troubles and pray praise and give thanks in those troubles.
3rd use here says: nothing at all. this kingdom is about faith. 3rd use is pure law and is about outward righteousness, and so say nothing about being a christian.
there will be no law and no gospel in the resurrection when our regeneration is complete.
stampdawg:
"Of course it may be that Luther may be stunningly consistent throughout everything he wrote between 1515 or 1545. Possible."
this is important!
roman catholics and ecumenists favor the early luther. circa "95 theses."
reformed favor middle luther ala "bondage of the will."
Lutherans are all over the late crusty irritable intractable Luther. circa "smallcald articles".
besides , who cares about what Luther had to say, except that he was brilliant and completely and utterly all about Jesus and the incarnation and nothing else but…..
Frank! You've got some time on your hands:) I'm finding this very helpful, because it really does seem that we are missing each other somewhere, because all of your concerns and statements about the intent, result and end of the Law I can affirm without championing a 3rd use–so what am I missing?
But, before I proceed, I must say that had the 3rd use of the law ever been presented as anything even approaching your description of it perhaps some of us here wouldn't be so skittish about the concept.
Ok, here are some thoughts:
1) While Luther never wrote of a 3rd use, and even only infrequently spoke of a distinct 2uses (unless you take the two kinds of Righteousness as two uses–which one should, but I digress) it is clear from his sermon on "Christian Righteousness" that the idea that you are calling the 3rd use could be extrapolated from his teaching and indeed what the Solid Declaration may have intended with its discussion of the 3rd use BUT this understanding is not what has been received either in Lutheran circles or beyond.
While there may be a way to "correctly" teach the 3rd use, history attests to the fact that it has very rarely been done. As Forde writes, "The history of the idea of the 'third use of the law' offers little' encouragement for its use in a truly evangelical ethic". . indeed:)
When operating within this sort of "usage" terminology (which I try to avoid) then whether well-intended or not, allowing for a 3rd use will (if history is a guide) devolve into people who "began by the spirit but are attempting to be perfected by the flesh" (the paraphrase for rhetorical flourish translation of Galatians 3:3)
It seems that when one maintains only two uses: 1)civil and 2) theological, then there is no escape hatch for "old adam" as it were, and we are all (Christian and non) faced with the slammed door of the gas chamber (thanks for the analogy by the way:)
2) You've described the (supposed:) three uses of the law as:
Mirror. Curb. Rule.
This seems to be a more classically Reformed categorization of the three uses:cf. http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/sproul/threefold_law.html
continued from above:)
At any rate, many of us here are working under the categories of the 1st use being both civil and a curb and the 2nd, by being the rule, is the mirror. We've got a post on that here: http://mockingbirdnyc.blogspot.com/2009/05/in-words-of-judge-dredd-i-am-law.html
Gerhard Ebeling (anathema to many LCMS, I know—for now:) explains how I,at least, see the distinction:
Although form the theological standpoint the usus politicusand usus theologicus have to be sharply distinguished, yet in the preaching of the law they are most closely interwoven, in so far as the preacher's aim is always that the law should be understood at the same time in both in usus politicus and usus theologicus. For it is surely to the same men that the law applies in both usus, and not as if there were a category of some kind of completely hardboiled sinners for whom the usus civilis alone is appropriate, while the usus theolgoicsu is for another category of sinners"
This is where, as far as I can tell, Forde is coming from in his upholding of 2uses while speaking against "antinomianinsm" in his essay on Law and Sexual Behavior
"First of all, the widespread notion that the doctrine of the uses of the law gives permission for fundamental changes in the content of the law is quite mistaken.11 The doctrine of the uses of the law is just what
it says. It concerns the use and not the content of the law. The idea that law could be so altered in content that the civil use would be somehow milder than or even contrary to the theological use is
quite foreign to the doctrine. Law may indeed be applied variously
according to the situation but the basic content remains the same.
Forde again, from The Law Gospel Debate . . .the Lutheran view of the uses of the law can be held only from the point of view of faith, for the doctrine of the two uses of the law implies that the law must be limited strictly to this age. The proper use of law, then, can be grasped only in the light of its eschatological limitation. This means that only from the point of view of faith can one come to speak of a civil or theological use of the law. It is only from the viewpoint of faith–that is, only n the light of th gospel00that one can recognize the eschatological limit and hold law "in its place: in this age. Apart from faith and the gospel, man will inevitably attempt to extend the use of the law beyond this age as an instrument for either utopian aspiration or self-justification (p.203)
Ok. . I'm sure this won't be the last word on the subject!
One more thought (you're rubbing off on me Frank:)
Here is the final section from an article entitled "Changing Definitions; The Law in Formula IV" from 2005 Concordia Theological Journal by one of our Mockingheroes James Nestingen:
Luther himself points the way in a thesis from the Antinomian
Disputations quoted in the Formula: "Therefore the law (and likewise the gospel) is to be taught without distinction to the pious [editors note: me] just as to the wicked [Browder]." Instead of sorting the congregation out into those who require first, second, or third use, the preacher is called to declare the biblical text and to proclaim both law and gospel in their fullness: the law in its requirements and accusations as the text demands; the gospeI in its power to actually forgive and raise to newness of life. In such proclamation, under the power of the Holy Spirit, the law comes to its one, true, and only
end: Christ Jesus himself
it can be found here:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=2&ved=0CAsQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ctsfw.net%2Fmedia%2Fpdfs%2Fnestingenlawfcvi.pdf&ei=j-gYS92dO5vmmwO32b3WAw&usg=AFQjCNHVCbBUl0omUqzi7NQy4frQolOLIw&sig2=_4qzkmY77kUNkrvK2oNxfQ)
Last one!
This is from Mark Matte's review of the 3rd Use and the aforementioned Life, Law and the Living God by Andrew Murray. . . Not incidental to our discussion, the title is "Beyond the Impasse: Examining the issue of the 3rd use of the Law . .
Regarding Forde, Mattes writes:
Murray tends to misinterpret Gerhard Forde's rejection of a third use of the law as an outworking of existential premises." This, however, inaccurate, especially given Forde's constant contention, following Luther, that antinomianism is a "play staged in an empty theater,"23 Forde's
discussions of boundaries in sexual ethics24 (the very issue that sparked Murray's study), and Forde's rejection of Bultmann's self-authentication of the ego at the center of theological inquiry.25 Forde helps us understand that preachers must take into account that, despite this culture's assumptions about itself, it is all law disguised behind the mask of
autonomous, consumerist liberty. Lf anything, Forde believes that his
quest to distinguish properly law and gospel actually situates the law in its proper place for human well-being.26 Forde rejects a third use because he does not see this formulation as offering anything that is not already in the
first use."
the whole article can be found here:
http://gnesiolutheran.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/mattes.pdf
My gosh! I just spent what feels like a lifetime reading all of these comments. Simply amazing discussion! Thank you all for it.
Frank, the address you give to get to Luther's sermon doesn't seem to be working. Can you help me out with that?
Frank,
Certainly, when I mentioned JC Ryle as a hero (and he is, in our circles), it is due to his ecclesiology and steadfastness in defending sola gratia, sola fide, solus Christus against a neo-Aristotelian movement in the Church of England in the mid-to-late 19th century.
Sanctification is probably something the wonderful bishop and I would part ways on. Too far over on the Reformed side of the third use for me.
There's something I don't understand about the LCMS scholastically right now, though. I've been told that there has been an inordinate amount of scholarly energy being placed on defending the third use at Concordia and other LCMS institutions.
Presumably, this is in reaction to a perceived rejection of the third use in ELCA circles which led to a wandering down the Episcopalian path.
My concern is that the LCMS is allowing a challenged to the doctrine of justification and Luther himself go unchecked. I'm speaking of the New Perspective, Auburn Avenue, neo-Thomism, et al.
The Presbyterians and Reformed Baptists are answering the call but the LCMS seems to be trying the run out the clock on the third use.
Can you give me an insider's perspective on why this is?
David
sean norris part one:
"Frank, the address you give to get to Luther's sermon doesn't seem to be working. Can you help me out with that?"
try this!
http://www.godrules.net/library/luther/129luther_e13.htm
let me know if that doesn´t work.
Why is this sermon important to a discusssion on 3rd use of the law? This sermon is referenced as the basis for The Formula Of Concord article VI "on the 3rd use of the law". So we can safely conclude that what this sermon has to say is how the Lutheran Confessors see Luther teaching the 3rd use.
The two key things I think are this:
1) two kinds of righteousness: "earthly kingdom", outward righteousness, that contains everything one can and should say about works, and will end with the end of the earth. and "heavenly kingdom", inner righteousness, that excludes everything one can say about works since that is wholy in the first kingdom, that is wholy about faith and alone is what can be called "christian" and alone is where we should place our trust.
2)Pre-reformation, the church made up good works. So this is sort a non-theological historical context that would, today, best apply how? maybe the "what would Jesus do" crowd? the third use is the corrective to this historical situation thussly:
"In what error and blindness we were aforetime, when not even a spark of such teaching enlightened us and we allowed ourselves to be led in the name of the devil by the whims of every lying preacher; we tried all kinds of works, ran hither and thither, expended and wasted our energies, money and property; here we established masses and altars, there cloisters and brotherhoods, and every one was groping for the way in which he might serve God; yet no one found it, but all remained in darkness. For there was no God who might say: This is pleasing to me, this I have commanded, etc.
Yes, our blind guides did nothing less than lose sight of God’s word, separated it from good works, and instead of these set up other works everywhere; in addition to this they discarded and despised the positions in life, which God had appointed, as though he knew no better, nor even as well as we, how to manage his affairs.
6. Therefore we must constantly take heed to inculcate this Word of God, which does not burden us with any special, great and difficult works, but refers us to the condition in which we live, that we look for nothing else, but with a cheerful heart remain satisfied in it, and be assured that by such work more is accomplished than if one had established all the cloisters and kept all the orders, although it be the most insignificant domestic work. For hitherto we have been woefully deceived by the fine luster and pomp of works, hoods, bald pates, coarse apparel, by fasts, wakes, pious looks, playing the devotee, and going barefoot."
sean norris PART II:
According to this sermon of Luther, one could assert that the 3rd use of the law IS "The teaching of the two kingdoms" or even better "the two kingdom practical application of law and gospel."
often even lutherans confuse the "two kingdom teaching " as some wierd sort of separation of church and state teaching. it is sooooo not that!
This, and nothing else, is what is meant by the 3rd use as being a "guide for christians." That we look to the 2nd table for what God wants and avoid roll-your-own-piety. period. simple. and there is NOTHING more than this to the 3rd use for the Lutheran Confessions. it is NOT a guide in the sense of having christians complete their sanctification by means of the law. It´s intent is wholy to the exact contrary. and yeah, I know lots of Lutherans speak to the contrary! Ouch!!!
I am seeing that Gerald Forde and others maybe are putting alot more into the Lutheran 3rd use than is actually there. I think there are alot fewer "moving parts" to the way Lutherans present it than they say.
Important contextual Note: In Luther´s time, he considered, under the law of love as opposed to faith), to assume that everyone in his parish was christian. that would be EVERYONE. Therefore, in our time, we need to tweak the wording when he says "christian" he often merely means citizen. When Luther wants to talk about unbelievers, he has to reach outside of europe and refer to "the turks". I think this simple distinction is often overlooked and so complicates things. what do you think?
Things are not helped by the fact that I have yet to see a Lutheran presentation of the 3rd use that seems to in any way look like the simple way the confessions state this teaching. they make things really really complicated, and seem to always confuse sanctification/fruit of with what the 3rd use is intended to grow. This looks the same as most evangelical confusion I see here.
I think JC Ryles faithfully describes what most lutherans and evangelicals who are more doctrinal in bent think. too bad! not at all helpful!!!
Know that the definition of what is "lutheran" is what the confessions say. Nothing else.
david browder
i have seen articles by david scaer and kurt marquart that are about as clear as mud on the 3rd use.
and most of what I see are a bunch of "fruit inspectors" who consistently read all exhortations in scripture and the confessions to holy living as being sanctification talk! when it is pure law!
pray for the LCMS. You are right on the money in what you observe!
JDK . whoa. this is the good stuff. I will need some time to digest all that.
my initial impression is that Forde and others think that the Lutheran 3rd use is asserting way more than it is.
I was unaware that the 3 uses are sliced and diced differently among the reformed. makes sense. guess I need to get out more huh? you guys can help me with that…. um ARE helping me with that.
I will be baaaaaack!
I still think that the central issue for troubled consciences today in the church can be reduced to this question:
"what are the christian life and christian works supposed to look like" and varations such as "what is the will of god actualized in the life of a christian supposed to look like?" or "what would a jesus/cross shaped life look like?"
The 3rd use says that these are the wrong questions to ask based on faulty premises. But the third use must be seen in connection with the two kingdoms and law and gospel and most especially aimed at that target audience of "troubled consciences" which is the only audience the Lutheran Confessions repeated are written directly to.
I am not seeing now 1st and 2d use or some other presentation can help a troubled conscience here as clearly and neatly and practically.
Luther´s sermon here is brilliant.
Sean. . here is a link to the sermon too:
http://www.trinitylutheranms.org/MartinLuther/MLSermons/Matthew9_1_8.html
you are looking on the list JDK provided for matthew9_1_8_2nd.html !
Thanks Frank and Jady!
Hey David B. Your reflections on what might be happening in LCMS are I think VERY perceptive.
I.e… in part a reaction to ELCA via a fear of perceived antinomianism. Fitz describes just this very thing (in this case something that happened to Anglicanism in the 1600s) in his book THE RISE OF MORALISM and attributes it to a fear of A.
The only direct experience I have with the LCMS is a small parish in my city that believes it is important not to permit people guilty of sexual immorality to worship there.
stampdawg
I greave over the fact that you are right.
The LCMS is well on its way to being the church known and famous for its stand against homosexuality and sexual sinning.
they say this is about ELCA antinomianism. it is not.
it is about buying into the evangelical\reformed view that detaches fruit of sanctification from the new will of regeneration where the "must" looks like the "must" in the law of gravity (ie things "must" fall).
What else COULD that new will do but God's Will and do it automatically, insofar as we are regenerated? Think here of the incarnation.
here sanctification is increased solely by a hearing of the Gospel. Works and will power are wholly excluded and are the enemy.
the fruits of sanctification become instead attached to some imagined impaired yet sanctified free will or will power.
then sanctification becomes all about outward works,and separating wheat/weed and sheep/goat rather than the inner righeousness of faith. The "must" here now is a law "must" as in "try harder". but we don't call that law. we call that 3rd use or such….
so it looks like law, gospel, law.
this is the root of LCMS trouble. They will not be able to help the ELCA or themselves till they fix this.
this is my insiders view of things…
stampdawg
i believe the antidote to this is as Luther and the Lutheran confessions suggest in the REAL Lutheran third use:
concede to free will and will power the power to do ALL outward works of righteousness. all. ALL!
and thereby exclude from the righteousness of faith, ALL works since they are FULLY included in outward righteousness.
We then fully exclude from the righteousness of works that ONE work that free will cannot produce, that inner righteousness of faith.
if we talk of faith works are excluded.
we must not neglect the true corellary as the LCMS as done:
if we talk of works, faith is excluded.
Pat Kyle over at new reformation press blog says this in a very compelling way to such types (I covet his brevity!):
"I challenge you to point out one single outward thing a christian does that a pagan cannot or would not do."
this is true Lutheran 3rd of the law talk here. it disabuses us of a "spirituality" detached from Gods Word. What is God's will in our lives? answer: what do the 10commandments say in terms of where God has stationed you in society?
This REMAINS the correct answer even and especially for those who know God's Will in Christ.
This is exactly why you will not see Lutheran youth praying anxiously to be shown God's Will for their lives,and wonder if maybe we should quit our dayjob and start a skateboard or a clown ministry.
We don't seek this in prayer, we open God's Word and consider our station in life according to the 10 commandments and reflect on what we have done with those relationships.
This is not about the God's will in christ and the righteousness of faith. this is about God's will in outward righteousness. we keep the two completely separate.
This is 3rd use talk Lutheran style.
" sanctified works " is an oxymoron.
true sanctification does not look like work. it just is. My proof is the Incarnation.
Jesus did not have to try to be good.
sanctify they by thy Truth. Thy Word is Truth. Jesus IS the Truth, The Word, The Life. Love. Love would simply cease to exist if He ceased to exist.
"But a christian needs to do good works, it is necessary for a christian to do good works"
Answer "this is true. and do you do them? great! we have no argument there. This IS God's will. He has promised you earthly rewards for doing this. Furthermore, you can know he is pleased with this.
but…. you don't need to say anything at all about faith to do those.you do not need christ in any way to do these outward things. there you are doing merely what any good pagan also needs to and must do."
"but faith"….
answer: " faith and even christian righteousness must be about something else than works and outward righteousness right? since we have thorougly exhausted the subject of works withhout any need to talk about faith or christ or being a christian?
so your point is?"
Lutheran 3rd use talk.