Keeping Up Appearances

Since the beginning of this year, I have been keeping myself busy with several projects -- translating a 300-year-old (Latin, German, French, Greek, Hebrew, Spanish, Italian, Old English) book, preparing two new classes for CUW's Beloit Adult Education Program, and preparing a presentation for the Augustana Ministerium -- along with trying to keep up with the two parishes I am serving. To say the least, I have been doing quite a bit of reading. As a slow reader, the amount has been daunting and at times overwhelming.

Because of this high demand, I have tried to stay clear of other issues (although they might be very important), so that I can get these other projects completed. I have not been too successful because I am a delegate to this year's LCMS convention and have been trying to make myself as informed as possible on the key issues. And then another issue has drawn me out -- the discussion of Sanctification and the Third Use of the Law.

As I have been pondering this matter, I believe another item can be thrown into the mix -- Theosis.

Theosis (deification) is a key theological issue among the Eastern Orthodox. And those who speak of theosis as the shape of the Christian life sound so much like some Lutherans who are discussing Sanctification/Third Use of the Law. I have seen some dear friends go down the path of theosis away from the primacy of justification. Likewise, in my discussions (heated arguments) with fellow confessional Lutherans, I hear some speaking of sanctification in a way that sounds like 'theosis' to such an extent that it sounds to me that they are moving away from the primacy of justification.

And so, I am planning another series of blog posts under the title "Sanctification, Third Use of the Law, and Theosis."

The Antinomian and the Legalist (5/5)

In a previous post, I made some general observations about the weaknesses of the papers by Dr. Scaer and Dr. Marquart.

First, I commented that both Dr. Scaer and Dr. Marquart equate the accusatory function of the law with the second use (p. 5 and p. 3, respectively).

Anonymous basically said that I was wrong. To which I respond, you cannot say the law always accuses, but then say it does not accuse in its first and third use. Because to say that the law does not accuse in its first and third use is to say that the law does NOT always accuse.

Second, I said "It is the height of arrogance that men can dissect the Law in their regular preaching."

Anonymous asked, "Are you accusing Dr. Marquart of reaching for the 'height of arrogance'?" To which I respond: This comment was not just in regards to Dr. Marquart's comment, but to any who assert that a mere mortal can preach one use of the law distinctly from its other uses.

Anonymous also took issue with my break down of who needs the uses. To which I respond: That is the issue. Only the Spirit of God knows what each individual hearer needs. Thus the preacher must preach the law and let the Spirit wield it according to uses. I let the Spirit do His work of convicting, convincing, converting. I simply want to preach the law and Gospel in their fullness.

Anonymous adds that the Christian "doesn't need any use because he doesn't need any law." To which I respond: And I'm antinomian?

Third, I disagreed with Marquart's statement of how Christian's are made holy.

Anonymous accused me of overlooking other statments from Marquart's paper. To which I respond, we are not made holy by our obedience, but solely by the merits and mediation of Christ. Dr. Marquart's later comment -- "The Law is the standard and measure of good works, but it lacks the power to produce or motivate them" -- does not speak of our holiness, but the measure. In the earlier comment -- "Our lives are holy only as they conform to the revealed will of God, in other words, to the third use of the Law" -- he defines holiness by our work (conforming). At worst, it wrong; at best, it is a poor choice of words.

Fourth, I take issue with Dr. Marquart's denial that good works are 'automatic' when the confessions speak of good works as 'spontaneous.'

Anonymous state that "'spontaneously' does not mean 'automatically' or 'the work of automata.'" To which I respond, Webster's New International Dictionary (2nd edition, unabridged) lists automatic and spontaneous as synonyms. Anonymous is wrong.

Finally, I have had the privilege of reading many works by Dr. Marquart and hearing numerous essays at symposia. I believe his paper from 2005 symposia was not one of his best. It definitely should not be used as a litmus test for orthodoxy on the subject of the Third Use of the Law. I had intended to leave that paper be, until a certain influential member of synod began using (misusing) it as a litmus test. I wish we would lay this specific paper by Dr. Marquart to rest. We should remember all the wonderful things he did and said in defense of the true doctrine in the face of our synod's difficult times. That should be his continuing legacy, not an isolated paper on a disputed topic.

The Antinomian and the Legalist (4/5)

Several posts on the topic of the third of the law and Scaer and Marquart had no comments, but I will list the subject of the posts here:

First, in relationship to the Third Use of the Law, the two men work from different definitions of sanctification. This is important as one sees sanctification as who and whose you are; the other views sanctification by what you do. This difference effects how they approach the purpose of preaching and who applies the law in its third use. Marquart views the preacher as wielding the Law in its Third Use. Scaer has the preacher preaching the Law and the Spirit wields it according to its three uses.

Second, how each man reacts to the comments of an emeritus pastor effects how they approach the Third Use of the Law. Without the full details, we do not know if the emeritus pastor's evaluation is full and correct. We do not know if this emeritus pastor has correct or incorrect understanding of Law and Gospel, of Sanctification, of Third Use. We are unable to judge for ourselves whether his complaint is justified or not, because we do not have access the preacher(s) he appears to be critiquing.

Third, each man uses a different definition for good works. This is extremely important. Marquart reacts against the view that good works flow as from an automaton (without thought or effort). Scaer sees good works which are like fruit which a tree produces. Scaer does not promote an automaton view of good works, but simply as a fruit tree from its nature produces fruit, so also the Christian through the working of the Spirit brings forth good work according to his new nature in Christ. Marquart would appear to say that the fruit analogy is not effective because there was no thought put into it.

The Antinomian and the Legalist (3/5)

In a previous post, I observed that Dr. Scaer and Dr. Marquart appeared to have different definitions of antinomianism. Dr. Scaer defines antinomians as those who reject the entire law in all its uses. Dr. Marquart has a definition limited to the apparent rejection of the Third Use of the Law.

Aaron provides a quote from Chemnitz (via Jonathan Lange's article Using the Third Use) by which he says that Chemnitz provides the link between Scaer's and Marquart's definitions. [In an attempt at full-disclosure, I should say that I am not a Chemnitz fan (oops, I guess that gives some people a reason to call me a heretic). I think his contribution to Lutheranism is overrated.]

The readers of this blog can look at the quote themselves and make their own judgment. I prefer to follow the Formula's definition: "Therefore we justly condemn the Antinomians or nomoclasts who cast the preaching of the law out of the churches and would have us criticize sin and teach contrition and sorrow not from the law but solely from the Gospel" (FC.SD.V.15).

The Lutheran Confessions' definition of antinomianism trumps Chemnitz's definition from a non-confessional document. A disagreement over the Third Use of the Law does not constitute sufficient grounds to throw out epitaphs such as 'antinomianism.' It for this reason that I believe Marquart's label of 'antinomianism' is incorrectly applied.

The Antinomian and the Legalist (2/5)

In a previous post, I observed that Dr. Scaer approached the topic – of the Third Use of the Law – from a descriptive view and Dr. Marquart approached the topic from a prescriptive view.

To which PTM responded: “Is this descriptive, or proscriptive? Possibly both? And since you and I are both Lutheran enigmas, isn't that ok?” Followed by a quote from the Lutheran Confessions (Large Catechism III.39-47; McCain, p. 412-413).

First, is Scaer’s approach ‘descriptive’ or ‘proscriptive’? [I had to get out my Webster’s New International Dictionary (2nd edition, unabridged) to try to figure out the difference between the two words. Because the definitions used the verb form in the definition, I am providing the definitions to the verbs.]

Describe – to write down or write out or to give an account
Proscribe – to put outside the law or to denounce or condemn
Prescribe – to describe in advance or to lay down authoritatively as a guide

Well, I certainly do not think Dr. Scaer was denouncing or condemning. Although Dr. Marquart denounced certain things, his approach was more prescriptive. So, I must admit that I do not understand the point PTM was trying to make; oh well, nothing new there.

Second, in regards to the quote from the Large Catechism: I agree with it. The question remains: does the new man act ungodly or the old Adam? Answer: old Adam. Does the old Adam need the Third Use of the Law or the Law in all its points? Answer: the Law in all its points. Who lives according to the Word? Answer: the new man or Christ in us; born in us through the Spirit. Does Christ and His Church live by the law or the Gospel? Answer: the Gospel.

PTM’s quote from the Large Catechism does not prove his point, but proves the necessity of preaching the Law in all its points and to let the Spirit ‘use’ it as He knows it should be.

The Antinomian and the Legalist (1/5)

A while back, I was basically asked, 'put up or shut up,' when I asserted that Professors Marquardt and Scaer of Concordia Theological Seminary, Ft. Wayne, IN, had distinct approaches to their views to the Third Use of the Law. I provided a number examples (which can be found in previous posts) of these differences.

In some following posts I will try to give an answer to the responses that were raised. Although I am sure that to some people that , whatever answers I do give, will be insufficient or inadequate.

My initial comments about Scaer and Marquardt were given in response to my wife being called an antinomian (and by association me, because I did not disagree with her). This moniker 'antinomian' was given because of difference of opinion on the Third Use of the Law. But the true antinomian is one who opposes the law (whether first, second, or third use). So to call someone 'antinomian' because of difference of opinion on the Third Use of the Law reveals the ignorance of the name caller. [Yes, I mean ignorance]. I have found that those who so freely call others 'antinomians' are themselves 'legalists.'

So thus if I am an 'antinomian' based on my understanding of the Third Use of the Law, I guess I would have to consider the one who calls me that is a 'legalist.'

Distinct Approaches -- Scaer and Marquart (6/6)

Continuing with my observations regarding the distinct opinions of two respected churchmen of The Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod on the subject of the third use of the law (their papers are referenced in a previous post), my sixth and final observation is the weaknesses of each man's presentation.

• Both Dr. Scaer and Dr. Marquart equate the accusatory function of the law with the second use (p. 5 and p. 3, respectively). As I commented in a previous post, I find this approach to be unclear in its biblical and confessional roots.
  
• Dr. Marquart's underlying premise throughout his paper is that the Law can be preached in its third use distinct from the first and second uses. While the Law may be preached by men, it is used by God. It is the height of arrogance that men can dissect the Law in their regular preaching. On any given Sunday, the people gathered in my congregation need all three functions - the hypocrites (and any unbelievers present) need the first; the old Adam in believers needs the second; the new man needs the third. No matter which function each individual requires, the Law always accuses.
• Dr. Marquart says "Our lives are holy only as they conform to the revealed will of God, in other words, to the third use of the Law" (p. 3). It appears as if he is saying that we are made holy by the law. I was taught that our lives are made holy by the blood of Jesus Christ and His righteousness which is bestowed by the Holy Spirit - "And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God (1 Cor 6:11). The confessions also speak of the Holy Spirit effecting holiness through the Gospel. "The Holy Spirit effects our sanctification through the following: the communion of saints or Christian church, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. In other words, he first leads us into his holy community, placing us upon the bosom of the church, where he preaches to us and brings us to Christ" (LC II.37).
• Marquart notes, "Clearly the New Testament exhortations to love and good works require conscious effort, not unthinking, automatic compliance with inner instincts!" However, note what the Formula of Concord contributes, "Fruits of the Spirit, however, are those works which the Spirit of God, who dwells in the believers, works through the regenerated, and which the regenerated perform in so far as they are reborn and do them as spontaneously as if they knew of no command, threat, or reward. In this sense the children of God live in the law and walk according to the law of God. In his epistles St. Paul calls it the law of Christ and the law of the mind. Thus God’s children are “not under the law, but under grace” (FC, Ep. VI.6).

Distinct Approaches -- Scaer and Marquart (5/6)

Continuing with my observations regarding the distinct opinions of two respected churchmen of The Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod on the subject of the third use of the law (their papers are referenced in a previous post), my fifth observation is how each man defines good works.

• Dr. Scaer sees good works as being "done freely" (p. 3) and from a Luther quote "as a tree bears fruit" (p. 6).
• Dr. Marquart sees good works as "conscious attempts" because we are not "automata" (p. 8).

One sees good works as those things which are done through us; the other as those things which we determine to do.

Distinct Approaches -- Scaer and Marquart (4/6)

Continuing with my observations regarding the distinct opinions of two respected churchmen of The Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod on the subject of the third use of the law (their papers are referenced in a previous post), my fourth observation is how each man reacts to a concern of an emeritus pastor.

Dr. Marquart recounts the following:

About two years ago an emerited colleague wrote to me complaining about a sort of preaching which “seemingly questions the Formula of Concord. . . about the Third Use of the Law.” He added: “How can one read the Scriptures over and over and not see how much and how often our Lord (in the Gospels) and the Apostles (in the Epistles) call for Christian sanctification, crucifying the flesh, putting down the old man an putting on the new man, abounding in the work of the Lord, provoking to love and good works, being fruitful . . .?”

• Dr. Marquart accepts the criticism of this pastor as true and begins his thesis that preachers should be preaching more sanctification, good works, and third use of the law.
• Dr. Scaer responds to the pastor's criticism noting that we have no details from which the pastor leveled his criticism, but this pastor's criticism tells us more about he believes is proper preaching of the third use of the law.

The problem with Dr. Marquart's approach is that we (the readers and hearers) have no way of knowing what specifically errant preaching is being chastised. We are not able to determine if the pastor's criticism is justified or not. Dr. Scaer does not dismiss the criticism, but tempers his judgment of those preachers who are being criticized.

Distinct Approaches -- Scaer and Marquart (3/6)

Continuing with my observations regarding the distinct opinions of two respected churchmen of The Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod on the subject of the third use of the law (their papers are referenced in a previous post), my third observation is how each man defines sanctification.

• Dr. Scaer defines sanctification: "Putting on the new man is the work of Christ (Gospel) and is the real sanctification" (p. 2).
• Dr. Marquart defines sanctification by equating it with the Third Use (p. 1) and as "our lives are holy only as they conform to the revealed will of God, in other words, to the third use of the law" (p. 3)

One sees sanctification as who and whose you are; the other views sanctification by what you do.

Distinct Approaches -- Scaer and Marquart (2/6)

Continuing with my observations regarding the distinct opinions of two respected churchmen of The Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod on the subject of the third use of the law (their papers are referenced in a previous post), my second observation is how each man defines antinomianism.

• Dr. Scaer defines antinomianism in two places: "Antinomianism is the belief that Christians are by faith free from all moral and ethical standards" (p. 2) and later, "...the antinomian view that the Law's accusations apply to the Christian as sinner, lex semper accusat, and not to Christian life" (p. 11).
  

• Dr. Marquart defines antinomianism: "the neo-antinomian avoidance of sanctification and the Third Use..." (p. 1).

One equeates the law with moral and ethical standards; the other with sanctification. This distinction affects how each man approaches the subject of the third use and its application to the Christian life.

Distinct Approaches -- Scaer and Marquart (1/6)

In a previous post, I mentioned the distinct opinions of two respected churchmen of The Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod on the subject of the third use of the law. I am sure some who have read the papers will find my thoughts too picky, others might consider them appropriate.

After hearing the presentations, Q&A sessions, and panel discussion (and after re-reading the papers), my first observation concerns each man's underlying approach to discussing the third use of the law:

• Dr. Scaer approached the topic from a descriptive view. He is more interested in how it is received by the hearer. This evidenced by his parenthetical insertions of "first use" or "second use" or "third use" throughout his paper.
• Dr. Marquart approached the topic from a prescriptive view. He is more interested in how each specific function of the law is presented by the preacher. This evidence by his repeated references to preaching.
  

Ow! That Hurts!

What do you do when you are hit in the face by a two by four? You react in pain because you cannot help but feel the hurt. Such is the case in regard to an on-going discussion concerning sanctification and the third use of the law.

I have sensed over the past few years a growing division within confessional Lutheranism and trying to figure out where it was coming from. At the 2005 Concordia Theological Seminary Symposium, I got my whack in the face and realized what the key divisive issue was. After hearing the presentations by Dr. David Scaer and Dr. Kurt Marquart, it was apparent that sanctification and the third use of the law were among the key divisive issues. As a Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, graduate, I was not aware that these two highly respected churchmen had such distinct opinions on the third use of the law.

Since then Ihave felt the pain, as I have seen men and women whom I greatly respect dividing themselves up between these two starkly contrasting positions. Some may argue that the differences are largely semantics, but I see essential differences which must be addressed.