Are God's Commandments Burdensome?

1 John 5:3—“For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome.”

In a recent post, Tullian Tchividjian addressed this verse, due to its seeming contradiction to other statements in Scripture which make it apparent that the Law is indeed burdensome (Acts 15:2, Gal. 3:10, James 2:10, Deut. 27:26). How can it be said that the Law is not burdensome when the Law requires perfect obedience, which no one can render? Tchividjian gave the following answer:

"The answer, though incredibly profound, is actually quite simple. Though the commandments are indeed burdensome, that burden has been laid on the shoulders of another. Jesus Christ, who demands that we be perfect, achieves perfection in our place. Jesus Christ, the culmination of the Old Testament story, fulfills the Old Testament laws. That same weight that threatens to break our backs actually did crush our savior. The weights that we bear every day are simply aftershocks of our human attempts to save ourselves. The weights we feel are a phantom; they’ve already been taken to the cross, carried up the Via Dolorosa on Christ’s back. We are free. We are, in Christ, unburdened."

According to Tchividjian, the commandments of God are not burdensome because Jesus bore their punishment on himself. On the Meet the Puritans blog, Danny Hyde responded to Tchividjian’s post, arguing that this though the theology in Tullian’s argument is valid, it is misapplied to this text. Hyde writes:

The right doctrine—Christ’s vicarious obedience and suffering justifies us from the burdensome curse of the law.

The wrong text—the newborn child of God’s has a newfound joy in sanctification.

Hyde purports that the text does not speak about Jesus’s fulfillment of the Law, or about his vicarious atonement, but about the joy and delight believers have in God’s commandments. He then cites Calvin who says regarding this text:

"the law is said to be easy, as far as we are endued with heavenly power, and overcome the lusts of the flesh. For however the flesh may resist, yet the faithful find that there is no real enjoyment except in following God. It must further be observed, that John does not speak of the law only, which contains nothing but commands, but connects with it the paternal indulgence of God, by which the rigor of the law is mitigated. As, then, we know that we are graciously forgiven by the Lord, when our works do not come up to the law, this renders us far more prompt to obey, according to what we find in Psalm 130:4, “With thee is propitiation, that thou mayest be feared."

Hyde then writes that Tchividjian completely misunderstands the text, and that his interpretation would render the text:

"Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God, and since Jesus loves the Father he loves whoever has been born of him. By this we know that Jesus love[s] the children of God,when because we he love[d] God and obey[ed] his commandments. For this is the love of God, that he kept his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome to us because Jesus took their burden."

Hyde’s argument fails on a couple levels. First, he falsely argues that obedience to the Law does indeed become easy for the believer apart from the reality of Christ’s fulfillment of it. While it is indeed true that the Christian is being renewed day by day (2 Cor. 4:16), and that the Law begins to be fulfilled in us through love (Rom. 8:4), the Law continues to accuse the Christian (Rom. 7:14-25). If the Law requires perfect obedience, and the Christian remains a sinner, then the Law itself never becomes easy for the Christian to obey. Both the non-Christian and the Christian are unable to perfectly fulfill the Law of God. Only Christ has obeyed God perfectly. To argue otherwise is to pit this text against other Scriptural realities.

The second problem is that while Hyde contends that there is no basis contextually to assume that the atonement and righteousness of Christ are in the background here, John begins his entire argument with precisely this in mind. Before John gets into his argument about the necessity of the love of God, the love of neighbor, and right doctrine, he states: “If we say we have no sin (present tense), we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (John 1:8-9). Before expounding upon God’s commandments for the Christian, John makes it abundantly clear that perfectionism is an impossibility, and that continual forgiveness is an essential aspect of the Christian life. This forgiveness then is in the background of the rest of John’s argument. John does not have to explicitly state “Jesus fulfilled the Law perfectly on your behalf,” for that to be a reality which stands behind this text. It is the work of Christ which is the basis for the forgiveness propounded by John which serves as an important introduction to the rest of his argument.

To further expound upon this text, let us look at the rest of the context, which explains exactly what John is referring to here:

"Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God, and everyone who loves the Father loves whoever has been born of him. By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and obey his commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome. For everyone who has been born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that has overcome the world—our faith. Who is it that overcomes the world except the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?" (1 John 5:1-5)

John does argue that the Christian will love God and will begin to obey his commandments. The commandments, in context, consist in the love of God and “overcoming the world.” What is important to note is that John then points believers back to their faith. God’s commandments are not burdensome—why? Because we have overcome the world. How have we overcome the world? Faith. Believing the Jesus Christ is the Son of God. The commandments of God are not burdensome because we have faith in the Gospel. And what exactly is that Gospel that we have faith in? The life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins. Faith means that the commandments are not burdensome precisely because Jesus has satisfied God’s judgment upon the human race. Through faith, one is forgiven. If one is then forgiven, the Law no longer becomes a burden. The commandments are not burdensome, because the penalty has been paid and our failures and shortcomings are forgiven. We now can follow God’s commandments without any fear of condemnation. It is only because our imperfections and sins are covered by the blood of Christ that the Law then becomes the joy of the Christian.

Ultimately, the picture of obedience that this text paints is not one of continual beating of the flesh, constant struggle, rigorous discipline, etc. but of joyful obedience through faith in the Gospel. This really fits much better with Luther’s view of good works, wherein the believer joyfully serves one’s neighbor without fear of condemnation, than that of the Puritanical tradition with the like of John Owen and Jonathan Edwards. Having spent time under the preaching and teaching of those in the Puritan tradition, I can say with confidence that such preaching makes the commandments far more burdensome than John contends in this passage. 

Justification and the Christian Life: A Response to Steve Lawson

On today's program I responded to a recent lecture by Calvinistic Baptist pastor, Steve Lawson from the 2014 Shepherd's Conference. The lecture was on sanctification in the Christian life, and I showed why his approach is mistaken. This led into a discussion of justification and its centrality in the Christian life.

Here is the program. 

Two Kinds of Righteousness with Dr. Joel Biermann

On today's program I was joined by Dr. Joel Biermann, associateprofessor of systematic theology at Concordia Theological Seminary inSt. Louis. We discussed the controversy surrounding "two kinds ofrighteousness" and its place in Lutheran theology.

Here is the program

An Example of Preaching on Sanctification

In light of the recent discussions, I would urge my readers to take a listen to one of my sermons which touches on the subject of sanctification. I will allow you to decide if such preaching is legalistic or pietistic. 

Sermon on Galatians 5:13-25

Francis Pieper's Doctrine of Sanctification and Good Works

One of the figures that is essential to examine in the ongoing debates over sanctification and good works is Francis Pieper. If one studies Pieper's Dogmatics, it becomes immediately apparent that he is not afraid of emphasizing the importance of justification and good works. He writes:

"The fact that sanctification in this life will always be imperfect must not be put forward as an excuse for the neglect of sanctification. On the contrary, it is God's will and the will of the Christian that he strive after perfection; he wants to be fruitful, not only in some, but in all good works. It is the characteristic of the Christian life and the will of the new man that he refrain from every sin. The Christian is eager to serve God in all good works...The Christian who does not strive to serve God alone is perilously close to losing his Christianity...Unsparing self-denial marks the Christian life." CD III, 33

After this, Pieper talks about how the drive to perfection (which is of course not achievable) should not cause us to despair, but should point us again to the grace of God found in the Gospel. It's something of a circle. We see our sin, look to the Gospel, then in light of that message strive to live holy lives. When we fail at leading such holy lives, we are once again pointed to the Gospel. But note that Pieper continually emphasizes our "striving," and not neglecting sanctification. In other words, the Christian should not simply be content to be "weak on sanctification," but should pray and strive for holiness. This is not to be done, of course, for the sake of gaining or retaining salvation, but because the Christian desires to live a God-pleasing life.

Pieper questions which evil is greater, "perfectionism or indifference to sanctification?" and he argues that both are equally bad. Pieper writes that "The Bible says to the 'Christian worldling': 'This ye know that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Let no man deceive you with vain words; for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience. Be not ye therefore partakers with them." (CD III, 34) It is clear that Pieper is concerned with both legalism and indifference to sanctification. Some in the debate today seem to think that legalism is the only real problem the church has to face, and that indifference to sanctification is almost a virtue, because it shows one's trust in justification.

Good works need to be preached, and one should strive for them. These works are to be in accord with God's law. Pieper writes that, "everything which the Christian performs in obedience to God's will is good and great, whether me prize it or not." (CD III, 39) He argues that "Christians should not be satisfied with having performed this or that good work, but they should become rich in good works...They should not sit and home and wait to be importuned to do good works, but they should go out and seek opportunities to do good works; they should be 'zealous of good works.'" (CD III, 47) Clearly, for Pieper, good works are not purely spontaneous, but one has to actually try and do them.

Preachers have a duty to proclaim the importance of good works. "Secondly, in urging members of their churches to become 'rich in good works,' pastors should not be deterred from doing this boldly and resolutely, without any fear or faltering, by the thought that this insistence on good works might crowd out its central position on the doctrine of justification without works. Only if one does not know the Scriptural doctrine of justification by faith will he be timid in asking for a multitude of good works." (CD III, 48) Pieper then makes the necessary point that encouragement unto good works should always be done in light of the gospel. In one place, Pieper urges: "In addition, God has instructed the teachers and watchmen in His Church to give attention not only to the quality but also the quantity of works performed by Christians." (CD III, 48) He cites Titus 3:8 for justification in doing so. What all of this makes apparent is that Pieper saw encouragement unto good works as a necessary part of the pastoral office. He did not view this as somehow minimizing the truth of simul iustus et peccator or the centrality of justification.

Pieper did not shy away from discussing the doctrine of sanctification and the importance of good works. These are central to the Christian life, the teaching of Scripture, and the pastoral office.

Sanctification as Progressive in Lutheran Orthodoxy

People have often attacked the utilization of the term "progressive sanctification," as a strictly reformed or Wesleyan view. I have shown in the past that this concept is clearly taught in the Lutheran Confessions and the Pauline epistles. This teaching is also one that is taught in various Lutheran theologians throughout the centuries. It really is a given in Lutheran Orthodoxy. Here are some examples of Lutheran theologians using the term "progress" in reference to sanctification:

"Accordingly, constant progress in sanctification is the form of a true Christian life." Adolf Hoenecke,Evangelical Lutheran Dogmatics III, 421.

"It is important to remember, however, that the word sanctification has aquired a definite and restricted meaning, and now refers to the progressive growth in holiness which follows in the life of the believer after his justification by faith alone." Joseph Stump, The Christian Faith, 276.

"Now it belongs to the very nature of life to develop, to increase, and to make progress. And it is this development or growth of the new life that we now wish to consider. It is called sanctification."- G.H. Gerberding, The Way of Salvation in the Lutheran Church, 147.

"Justification being purely an act of God, is instantaneous and complete; sanctification being a work in which man has a share, is progressive." - The Way of Salvation, 148.

"Renovation [a synonym for sanctification in Lutheran orthodoxy] is therefore considered to be a continually progressive action both on God's part and on man's." Heinrich Schmid, The Doctrinal Theology of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, 506.

"our renovation progresses from day to day." Quensdedt as cited in Doctrinal Theology of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, 506.

"Unlike Justification, Sanctification is gradual and has its degrees...Through this struggle the child of God constantly advances toward perfection." - Henry Eyster Jacobs, Elements of Religion, 202.

"Is Renewal or Sanctification instantaneous? The struggle as described in Rom. 7 very clearly points to a gradual process. In Col. 1:9-11, an increase of spiritual gifts is prayed for those who had already experienced a renewal (3:9, 10). So on the positive side." Henry Eyster Jacobs, A Summary of the Christian Faith, 253.

Antinomianism Part 2

On today's program I continued the discussion from last week on antinomianism. I discussed antinomian tendencies within contemporary Lutheranism in reference to my recent post on the issue. I went through the quotes I provided and demonstrated how to correctly speak of this issue in a balanced manner. 

Here is the program.

Characteristics of Lutheran Antinomianism

The subject of sanctification, good works, and antinomianism has once again come to prominence in the blogosphere, and Gottesdienst has had a number of recent posts on this subject, utilizing quotes from the Lutheran fathers over against what are perceived antinomian tendencies in certain realms of Lutheranism. One of the things I have noticed in these debates is that one side defends the necessity of preaching good works, while others deny that antinomianism even exists within Lutheranism. Part of the problem is that antinomianism is a notoriously hard beast to define, especially since the manner in which the term is used today is not exactly as it had been used in Luther's time. But, for the sake of clarity on these issues, I think it would be beneficial to try and specifically identify what some of these antinomian tendencies are. These are all statements I have heard from Lutheran pastors, and so I guarantee they are not made up, as some seem to assume:

Sanctification is not a process, but is purely positional as is justification.

The believer is not the new man-Christ is.

The Christian does not cooperate in sanctification.

God's work of sanctification can never be evidenced by a changed life.

Pastors should not encourage people unto good works in sermons.

If you preach on sanctification, you are trying to go "beyond Jesus."

The Christian is utterly sinful, and his good deeds are as filthy rags, so that nothing other than his faith differentiates him from the unbeliever.

There are no rewards for the Christian's good works in heaven.

Lutherans should not worry about what is or is not sin, because Christian liberty negates it.

It is "unlutheran" to ask if a certain behavior is or is not sinful.

That the Christian does not in any sense cease from committing certain sins, because this is a denial of the simul.

Christians always do good works, but they are purely spontaneous, so we should never encourage people to do them, and they are not visible to us. In other words, good works exist, but we should never talk about them and we can't see them.

The doctrine of vocation is the only thing we can say about Christian living; there is no sense in which the Christian's faith grows, and holiness grows.

Because Paul's epistles were not sermon, we should never follow the gospel with imperatives as he does in our sermons.


These are, what I perceive as antinomian tendencies within Lutheranism. If you haven't heard these types of statements made: great! I hope you don't. But unfortunately, these ideas are out there, and are harmful to the church as they are completely inconsistent with our Confessions and Scripture.

Antinomianism

On today's program I discussed antinomianism in light of reformed theologian Mark Jones' new book on the topic. 

Here is the program

Luther on the Necessity of Preaching on Sanctification

"For a Christ who died for sinners who, after receiving forgiveness, will not quit their sin nor lead a new life, is worthless and does not exist.... There is nothing in their preaching concerning sanctification of the Holy Ghost and about being quickened into a new life. They preach only about the redemption of Christ. It is proper to extol Christ in our preaching; but Christ is the Christ and has acquired redemption from sin and death for this very purpose that the Holy Spirit should change our Old Adam into a new man, that we are to be dead unto sin and live unto righteousness, as Paul teaches Rom 6.2 ff., and that we are to begin this change and increase in this new life here and consummate it hereafter. For Christ has gained for us not only grace (gratiam), but also the gift (donum), of the Holy Ghost, so that we obtain from Him not only forgiveness of sin, but also the ceasing from sin. Any one, therefore, who does not cease from his sin, but continues in his former evil way must have obtained a different Christ, from the Antinomians. The genuine Christ is not with them, even if they cry with the voice of all the angels, Christ! Christ! They will have to go to perdition with their new Christ." Martin Luther Concerning Councils and Churches, as quoted by C.F.W. Walther in The Proper Distinction Between Law and Gospel, 121-122

Forde's Article "The Lutheran View of Sanctification"

Much of the contemporary debate on sanctification stems from Gerhard Forde's essay "the Lutheran View of Sanctification", published in the volume Five Views on Sanctification, and republished in The Preached God (these are the page numbers I will be referencing). This article has not only influenced the liberal to moderate circles of which Forde himself was involved, but conservative Lutheranism, and even certain Reformed writers.



Forde's main thesis is that sanctification is simply "the art of getting used to justification." (226) Forde's contention is that sanctification and justification are synonymous realities that need not be carefully distinguished. "In fact, the Scriptures rarely, if ever, treat sanctification as a movement distinct from justification." (229)Divorcing the discussion of sanctification from justification allows one to fall into moralism and lose the unconditional nature of the gospel. Forde equates the majority view of sanctification with moralism. He argues that we "make the mistake of equating sanctification with what we might call the moral life." (227) The two primary errors in this approach are that it makes sanctification about works, and it conflates civil righteousness with that which one needs to stand before God.

The problem with Forde's definition of sanctification is that it doesn't exhaust the Biblical and Confessional testimonies on the subject. There is a sense in which sanctification involves a greater understand of grace. As the knowledge of one's own sin increases, so does one's understanding of the forgiveness of sins. In this sense, our sanctification involves "getting used to justification." Yet, at the same time, there are ethical and moral implications to sanctification. On this point, Forde falls into a false dichotomy. Either justification and sanctification are synonymous, or God's unconditional grace is lost. Forde argues that "the distinction between justification and sanctification is a strictly dogmatic one made because people got nervous about what would happen when unconditional grace was preached, especially in Reformation times." (230) This sweeping statement contains no reference, and presumes a motivation on the part of those who utilize the distinction which isn't always there. The distinction between justification and sanctification is not a post-Reformation dogmatic tradition, but is inherent in Church teaching from the first centuries of the Church.

The early church distinguished between the forgiveness of sins that one receives through baptism, confession, and the Eucharist, from the inward work of God wherein the Christian's actions are changed. The terminology was often in terms of theosis rather than sanctification, but the same distinction between forgiveness of sins, and the destruction of the sin nature applies. This distinction applied throughout the middle ages and into the Reformation period itself. Unfortunately. Forde's essay has barely any footnotes or references, and so I am unsure where he sees this supposed shift in the dogmatic tradition between identifying sanctification as justification. I presume that Forde sees this error arising as early as the Formula of Concord which distinguishes between justification and sanctification precisely in the manner that Forde criticizes,

"Therefore, even if the converted and believers have the beginnings of renewal, sanctification, love, virtues, and good works, yet these cannot, should not, and must not be introduced or mixed with the article of justification before God." SD III.35

Though Forde seeks to divorce sanctification from morality, placing it solely in the civil sphere, the Formula connects sanctification with virtue and good works, which would certainly be considered "moral issues." In fact, Websters Dictionary cites "virtue" as a synonym for "morality." Unless Forde has an extremely unusual definition of morality, he disagrees with the Formula on this point. Paul himself equates sanctification with certain moral issues as well,

"Finally, then, brothers, we ask and urge you in the Lord Jesus, that as you received from us how you ought to walk and to please God, just as you are doing, that you do so more and more. For you know what instructions we gave you through the Lord Jesus. For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from sexual immorality; that each one of you know how to control his own body in holiness and honor, not in the passion of lust like the Gentiles who do not know God; that no one transgress and wrong his brother in this matter, because the Lord is an avenger in all these things, as we told you beforehand and solemnly warned you. For God has not called us for impurity, but in holiness. Therefore whoever disregards this, disregards not man but God, who gives his Holy Spirit to you." (1 Thessalonians 4:1-8)

Forde sees a genuine problem within the contemporary church that he seeks to correct: moralism. However, Forde's solution is not tenable, as it ignores certain aspects of Scripture, the Confessions, and the catholic tradition. Rather than denying sanctification (or at least central parts of sanctification), the solution is to teach a more robust doctrine of justification. The problem with many evangelical churches is not that they don't equate sanctification and justification, but that they lack a proper understanding of justification. If justification is simply a one-time event, an entrance term at the beginning of one's life of faith, then sanctification takes the central position, and grace can be lost in the mix. We need to emphasize justification as the central reality of the Christian's life. Justification is not just an "entrance term" but defines our entire life in Christ. Justification is continual, not as a process, but as the continuous life giving declaration that our sins are forgiven. This occurs through the sacraments of Baptism, Holy Absolution, and the Eucharist. This solution to moralism, rather than Forde's, is consistent with Scripture, the catholic tradition, and the sacramental theology of the Lutheran Church.

One of the primary issues with Forde's article is that he doesn't do any real exegetical work, and doesn't explain how his position is consistent with various passages of Scripture. He even brings up the question, "Does the Bible not follow the declaration of grace with certain exhortations and imperatives?" (232). But rather than answering this valid question, Forde retorts, "So the protestations go, for the most part designed to reimpose at least a minimal conditionality on the promise." (232) These types of pithy and dismissive responses characterize Forde's work on this issue. Rather than dealing with the Biblical data, he dismisses any opposition as a denial of unconditional grace.

Forde basically limits all talk of sanctification to one solitary passage in Scripture, Romans 6. On this text Forde states, "Actually, all evangelical treatment of sanctification should be little more than comment on this passage." (233) Rather than taking the Biblical data as a whole and consequently analyzing it, Forde takes one section of Scripture, isolates it, and then determines it to be the sole determinative text on sanctification. Ironically, the text doesn't even use the term "sanctification" as does the above quoted statement from 1 Thessalonians which would refute Forde's primary contention. While Paul does certainly point Christians back to the gospel in Romans 6 as the means of sanctification, that doesn't deny the fact that ethical exhortation is a necessary part of the Pastoral office. Romans 6 cannot be pitted against Romans 8, or Romans 12-15. These texts simply don't fit into Forde's system which equates morality purely with civil righteousness. If Paul were talking about civil righteousness, why would the discussion begin with the phrase, "in view of God's mercies" (Rom 12:1)?

One final issue I have with this essay is that Forde reverses the existential order of Law and Gospel. For Forde, the gospel, the message of God's unconditional grace, comes first, and consequently one understands sin. "We begin to see the truth of the situation when we realize that because God had to do that, we must have been at the same time sinners. God would be wasting his breath declaring people to be righteous if they were not actually and wholly sinners!" (238) Our understanding of sin, in Forde's view, arises from the unconditional nature of the gospel. If God's grace is unconditional, then I must be a sinner and have nothing to do with my own redemption. This reverses the traditional approach that the Law shows sin, and consequently the gospel shows God's grace. Ironically, Forde agrees here with Krister Stendahl's critique of the traditional Lutheran view, wherein he argues that "solution precedes plight."

It has to be said that Forde does allow for progress in sanctification in some sense. He says, "there is a kind of growth and progress, it is to be hoped, but it is growth in grace - a growth in coming to be captivated more and more, if we can so to speak, by the totality, the unconditionality, of the grace of God." (240) But this growth is really a growth, not in good works, but in understanding justification better, or, "getting used to the fact that if we are to be saved it will have to be by grace alone." (240) He describes this as a process wherein God is coming down to us. It is a downward movement, rather than upward moral progress. In this context, he is willing to say "it is not that sin is taken away from us, but rather that we are taken away from sin - heart, soul, and mind, as Luther put it." (242) In some sense then, Forde is willing to say that Christians begin to hate sin, and even stop "particular sins" (242) The good works of the Christian are real, and they show themselves through earthly things, through vocation, and love of neighbor. He rejects the idea of deification, or any "upward movement" of the soul toward God.

I am glad that Forde can speak of progress, yet the way that growth is explained is one dimensional. Growth demonstrates itself almost exclusively in having a greater understanding of justification. This simply does not comport with the Biblical data. It is certainly true, but not to the exclusion of other aspects of growth in faith. Forde is also right in his eschatological emphasis, and his focus on vocation. However, again, he is teaching truth to the exclusion of other realities. The Christian does move toward the goal, just as the goal moves toward him. Paul is willing to say that he presses on toward the goal. (Philippians 3:14) This is not a purely downward movement. Also, vocation is not all there is to say about the Christian life. It is certainly a central theme in Scripture, and Luther's writings, but there are other important themes as well. Involved in growth is communion with the Trinity - participation in God that works itself out through prayer, the sacraments, the divine liturgy, etc. While good works are performed "downward" there is also an upward movement of the soul toward God. This is even confessed in our liturgy. We are to "lift up our hearts" to the Lord.

Frankly, of all the work of Forde that I have read, this article is the weakest. Forde adopts certain important Biblical themes, but in doing that he denies others. He doesn't deal seriously with the Biblical text, the Confessional tradition, or even cite the theology he is critiquing. I am personally amazed that this article has had such a broad impact on the church.

Further Clarifications on Sanctification

It has come to my attention that there have been some more people who have responded to what I have said about sanctification. I don't want to attack any brother pastors who are faithful workers for the kingdom of God. So, I will not do that. But what I do want to do is clarify some things, because a lot of this comes down to misunderstanding.

First, I want to say that I don't think anyone should be checking their progress on sanctification. We grow in grace as the Bible tells us we do; that does not mean that we need to be looking at ourselves, hoping for progress. You won't find it. And there is a good reason you won't find it; the more you grow in grace, the more sensitive you are to your sin. Thus, others might see change in you, but you won't.

Second, progressing in the Christian life isn't about "becoming less sinful." Rather, it's about the raising up of the new man and the killing of the old. This is a work that is done as the Law kills, and the Spirit brings life. Thus, the affections and actions of the new man are more and more prominent throughout the Christian's life. We still have a sin nature, which effects all that we do. However, the new nature gains victory over the old, and rules more and more. This causes us to obey the desires of the new man over the old. This isn't opposed to viewing conversion as a daily reality, because it is. However, that daily repentance has actual affects in our lives.

Third, I'm not stuck on the term "progressive sanctification." The Lutheran Dogmaticians distinguish between the "narrow sense" of sanctification, and the "broad sense" of sanctification. The narrow sense is described as growth. Thus, progressive sanctification seemed to be an appropriate term because it basically stayed within the Dogmatic Lutheran tradition. If you are afraid of confusing this with the Reformed or Wesleyan doctrines of sanctification, then I understand if you don't use the term. I have no issue with that. I personally prefer speaking of Christification, because that gets at both the Patristic sense of "theosis" in the Christian life, as well as the Christological nature of growth. Sanctification isn't about moral progress; it's about a deepening communion with God which demonstrates itself through increasing works of love.

Fourth, I don't condone judging the sanctification of other people. I heard someone say that I equated cursing with not being sanctified; not saved. I don't do this at all. I choose not to use profanity. I don't think it is a wise think for a Christian to do, because it can give a bad witness to the world. That being said, I don't ever get on the case of my friends who do. The only time that I would is if foul language is being used in the pulpit. What I was criticizing in my post was not specifically cursing, smoking, or drinking, but doing those things in excess, and doing them in an arrogant spirit of "I can use my Christian liberty to do whatever I want and do it in your face." In other words, I am going to do these things just to offend people.

Fifth, I don't think that we are sanctified by our own efforts. We are sanctified by God as he comes to us through word and sacrament. He raises up the new man within us, and kills the old. But, at the same time, the new man actually does good works. As Augustine says, "God saves us, though not without us." We cooperate with God's grace, because he has renewed our wills and given us an affection for himself, and his commands.

Finally, I don't think that the Law sanctifies. Sanctification comes as a result of the gospel. The Law kills, but the Spirit gives life. But that doesn't negate the fact that we should tell Christians to do good works. Paul, the Confessions, Pieper, Walther, etc. both talk about encouraging people to do good works, and the Gospel as the sole means of sanctification. These are not mutually exclusive ideas.

And one additional question that I need to answer is, "Why is this teaching important?"

The first response I would have to this is simply that the Bible teaches it, so we should believe it and believe that it is important. Second, there are some abuse the gospel and say "The Christian isn't progressively sanctified by the Spirit, thus I might as well just live in sin because I'm saved anyway." There are people who live this way; I have met some of them. This guards against that error. Third, this should affect our prayer life. We should pray that the Lord would increase our love, and our hatred for sin. We should also pray for our brothers and sisters in Christ, that they too might grow in grace. Fourth, it also is an encouragement when we look to our brothers and sisters and see how they have grown. It is a chance for us to rejoice in God's goodness, that he really does work within his people!

Sanctification and Good Works

Here's the program.

This past week has seen an eruption of posts on the Lutheran blogosphere on the topic of Sanctification. Because of my involvement in this discussion, I decided to focus the program today on that topic. I clear up some misconceptions and demonstrate the Biblical and Lutheran approach to sanctification and good works.

Progressive Sanctification- A Pauline Doctrine

There are two senses in which Paul speaks of sanctification. Often it is used in the past tense, referring to the fact that God has made us completely holy in Christ:

"And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption." (1 Corinthians 1:30)

"And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God." (1 Corinthians 6:11)


At other points, Paul speaks of sanctification as something that is progressive. It involves growth in intrinsic holiness, which is a fruit of the perfect holiness we have in Christ,

"so now present your members as slaves to righteousness leading to sanctification." (Romans 6:19)

"Now may the God of peace himself sanctify you completely" (1 Thessalonians 5:23)

"Finally, then, brothers, we ask and urge you in the Lord Jesus, that as you received from us how you ought to walk and to please God, just as you are doing, that you do so more and more. For you know what instructions we gave you through the Lord Jesus. For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from sexual immorality; that each one of you know how to control his own body in holiness and honor, not in the passion of lust like the Gentiles who do not know God; that no one transgress and wrong his brother in this matter, because the Lord is an avenger in all these things, as we told you beforehand and solemnly warned you. For God has not called us for impurity, but in holiness. Therefore whoever disregards this, disregards not man but God, who gives his Holy Spirit to you." (1 Thessalonians 4:1-8)


Paul speaks in many places about growth in the Christian life,

"Though our outer self is wasting away, our inner self is being renewed day by day." (2 Corinthians 4:16)

"And it is my prayer that your love may abound more and more, with knowledge and all discernment." (Philippians 1:9)

"For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son" (Romans 8:29)

"Now may our God and Father himself, and our Lord Jesus, direct our way to you, and may the Lord make you increase and abound in love for one another and for all, as we do for you, so that he may establish your hearts blameless in holiness before our God and Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus with all his saints." (1 Thessalonians 3:11-13)

"[speaking of the love that they have for one another] But we urge you, brothers, to do this more and more" (1 Thessalonians 4:10)

"your faith is growing abundantly, and the love of every one of you for one another is increasing." (2 Thessalonians 1:3)


Paul argues that we should be active in killing sin,

"Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, to make you obey its passions. Do not present your members to sin as instruments for unrighteousness, but present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments for righteousness." (Romans 6:12-13)

"Put to death therefore what is earthly in you: sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness which is idolatry." (Colossians 3:5)


Paul makes it clear that we should be intentional and active in doing good works, living holy lives,

"I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind." (Romans 12:1-2)

This phrase introduces the imperative section of Romans from 12-15 which contains numerous exhortations unto various good deeds.

"Be imitators of me as I am of Christ." (1 Corinthians 11:1)

"let us cleanse ourselves from every defilement of body and spirit, bringing holiness to completion in the fear of God." (2 Corinthians 7:1)

"If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking one another, envying one another." (Galatians 5:25-26)

"Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children. And walk in love as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God." (Ephesians 5:1)

"Now this I say and testify in the Lord, that you must no longer walk as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their minds. They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart. They have become callous and have given themselves up to sensuality, greedy to practice every kind of impurity. But that is not the way you learned Christ!— assuming that you have heard about him and were taught in him, as the truth is in Jesus, to put off your old self, which belongs to your former manner of life and is corrupt through deceitful desires, and to be renewed in the spirit of your minds, and to put on the new self, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness." (Ephesians 4:17-24)

"But as for you, O man of God, flee these things. Pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, steadfastness, gentleness." (1 Timothy 6:11)

"So flee youthful passions and pursue righteousness, faith, love, and peace, alone with those who call on the Lord from a pure heart." (2 Timothy 2:22)

Paul tells Titus to teach his congregation to do good works,

"Remind them to be submissive to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good work, to speak evil of no one, to avoid quarreling, to be gentle, and to show perfect courtesy toward all people." (Titus 3:1-2)

Sanctification in the Formula of Concord

As a follow up to my previous posts, here is the Formula of Concord's teaching on sanctification:

"These words say absolutely nothing about our will, nor do they say that it effects something, even in the newborn human being, of itself, but they ascribe that to the Holy Spirit, which cleanses human beings and daily makes them more upright and holier." SD II.35

"Through the ministry of preaching he brings us into the Christian community, in which he sanctifies us and brings about in us a daily increase of good works." SD II.38

"Although those born anew come even in this life to the point that they desire the good and delight in it and even do good deeds and grow in practicing them, this is not (as was mentioned above) a product of our own will or power, but the Holy Spirit." SD II.39

"As soon as the Holy Spirit has begun his work of rebirth and renewal in us through the Word and the holy sacraments, it is certain that on the basis of his power we can and should be cooperating with him, though still in great weakness." SD II.65

"Because in this life we receive only the first fruits of the Spirit and our rebirth is not complete but rather only begun in us, the struggle and battle of the flesh against the Spirit continues even in the elect and truly reborn." SD II.68

"these same gifts [renewal and conversion as explained earlier in the paragraph] are retained, strengthened, and increased." SD II.72

"Likewise, too, although renewal and sanctification are a blessing of our mediator Christ and a work of the Holy Spirit, they do not belong to the article or in the treatment of justification before God but rather result from it since, because of our corrupted flesh, they are never fully pure and perfect in this life." SD III.28

"This does not mean on the other hand, that we may or should pursue sinning or remain and continue in sin without repentance, conversion, and improvement." SD III.22

"He renews them and sanctifies them, and he creates in them love toward God and the neighbor." SD III.23

"It is correct to say that in this life believers who have become righteous through faith in Christ have first of all the righteousness of faith that is reckoned to them and then thereafter the righteousness of new obedience or good works that are begun in them. But these two kinds of righteousness dare not be mixed with each other or simultaneously introduced into the article on justification by faith before God. For because this righteousness that is begun in us--this renewal--is imperfect and impure in this life because of our flesh, a person cannot use it in any way to stand before God's judgment throne... Even following their renewal, when they already are producing many good works and living the best kind of life, human beings please God, are acceptable to him, and receive adoption as children and heirs of eternal life only because of Christ's obedience." SD III.32

"Therefore, even if the converted and believers have the beginnings of renewal, sanctification, love, virtues, and good works, yet these cannot, should not, and must not be introduced or mixed with the article of justification before God." SD III.35

"Thereafter, once people are justified, the Holy Spirit also renews and sanctifies them. From this renewal and sanctification the fruit of good works follow." SD III.41

"Many construct for themselves a dead faith or illusory faith, which exists without repentance or good works. As if true faith and the evil intention to remain and continue in sin could exist in a single heart at the same time! That is impossible." SD IV. 15

Some Clarifications on Sanctification

There was quite a reaction to my previous post. Much of the reaction was positive, but some of it extremely negative. Apparently my post even created a meme!



Well, I'm not going to respond to that type of goofiness, but there are some questions that I have been asked regarding my view of sanctification that I would like to address.

Are you saying that part of our righteousness before God is based on our sanctification?

Of course not! I'm not sure how anyone who reads what I have written can possibly assume this, but I have been asked this by a few people. Our standing before God is always solely based on the alien righteousness of Christ. I have always, and will always proclaim this. Our sanctification is always imperfect, and our works would always condemn us apart from God's grace.

Are you promoting the idea that Christians should try to be sinless?

Again, I'm not sure how anyone would assume this after reading anything I have written or listening to my program. No one will ever be sinless in this life. Every work we do is tainted by the old Adam that still clings to us. That doesn't, however, negate the fact that we do genuinely good works, even though they are tainted by our sin nature.

Should I be looking for constant progress in the Christian life?

This is one of the reasons why I became a Lutheran, because I couldn't handle the navel gazing puritanism that I encountered in my previous experience. We often don't see progress in the Christian life. We often seem as if we are getting worse! But in reality, this is an effect of the Spirit, showing you more of your sin. Your sensitivity to sin is itself part of sanctification. Even if we can't see it, God is changing us on the inside, raising up the new man and killing the old. We always look to what God has done in Christ for us instead of in us for assurance. That doesn't mean, however, that the work of Christ in us can never show itself through visible action.

Should we look for assurance in our sanctification?

Again, if you have paid attention to anything I have written on this subject you would know that I don't promote this idea. Our assurance comes from the objective work of Christ, and God's gifts given to us through word and sacrament. Our assurance does not come from the state of our hearts, because we still struggle with sin.

However, there is such a thing as false faith and false assurance. Both Scripture and our Confessions mention it. If you live with no repentance in continual willful sin, you shouldn't have assurance, because you don't truly have faith in the gospel. We are supposed to (according to our Confessions) believe in the doctrine of mortal sin. That's why we practice church discipline; faith doesn't exist without repentance.

Progressive Sanctification- A Lutheran Doctrine

Contemporary Lutherans seem almost afraid of the word "sanctification" or of the concept of the third use of the Law. It is feared that any talk of progress in the Christian life leads into Evangelicalism, Reformed Theology, or even Pietism. Preaching must always utilize a Law-Gospel paradigm without any exhortation unto good works. Remind the people of their sin, then of there savior, that's all. I even heard a Pastor recently say that the Christian can do no good, only evil.

I didn't see this when I first became a Lutheran, because I was only concerned to hear about the gospel rather than being beaten by the Law each Sunday like I was at Reformed Churches. Yet, after some time in Lutheran churches, and in Lutheran circles I began to see that progressive sanctification is neglected, often denied altogether. As I read through Luther, Chemnitz, Walther, Krauth, Pieper and others, I saw a great incongruity between what these classical sources said and what was being taught as Lutheran theology. These classical sources talked a lot about good works, progressive sanctification, and even give advise as to how to avoid specific sins. I fear that if these figures were around today they would be labeled "legalists" or "pietistic."

This type of teaching has practical consequences. I know of Lutheran pastors, theologians, and lay people who use as course language as they can, drink excessively, watch pornography, blow smoke in people's faces who don't approve of the act, just to proclaim their "Christian liberty." I don't think this is what Luther or Paul had in mind when they discussed the concept. I seem to remember someone answering the question, "Shall we sin that grace may abound?" with the answer "by no means!", or as the Cotton patch paraphrase puts it: "Hell no!" I think many Lutherans today would answer that question by saying "of course!"

Progressive sanctification is taught in our Confessions. For example,

"This faith is the true knowledge of Christ; it uses the benefits of Christ, it renews hearts, and it precedes our fulfillment of the law." Ap. IV.46

"To be justified means that out of unrighteous people righteous people are made or regenerated, it also means that they are pronounced or regarded as righteous." Ap. IV. 72

"Faith truly brings the Holy Spirit and produces a new life in our hearts, it must also produce spiritual impulses in our hearts." Ap. IV. 125

"Therefore Paul states that the law is established, not abolished, through faith, because the law can be kept only when the Holy Spirit is given." Ap. IV. 132

"We openly confess, therefore, that the keeping of the law must begin in us and then increase more and more." Ap. IV. 136

"Since this faith is a new life, it necessarily produces new impulses and new works." Ap. IV. 250

"Furthermore, we also say that if good works do not follow, then faith is false and not true." SA 13.3

"Here, then, we have the Ten Commandments, a summary of divine teaching on what we are to do to make our whole life pleasing to God. They are the true fountain from which all good works must spring, the true channel through which all good works must flow." LC First Part, 311

Note that Luther is willing to even admit that living by the Ten Commandments is pleasing to God- a phrase which I have heard condemned by a prominent Lutheran pastor.

"Meanwhile, because holiness has begun and is growing daily, we await the time when our flesh will be put to death, will be buried with all its uncleanness, and will come forth gloriously and arise to complete and perfect holiness in a new, eternal life." LC Second Part, 57

"But the Creed brings pure grace and makes us righteous and acceptable to God. Through this knowledge we come to love and delight in all the commandments of God because we see here in the Creed how God gives himself completely to us, with all his gifts and power, to help us keep the Ten Commandments: the Father gives us all creation, Christ all his works, the Holy Spirit all his gifts." LC Second Part, 69

"When we become Christians, the old creature daily decreases until finally destroyed." LC Fourth Part, 71

"Now, when we enter Christ's kingdom, this corruption must daily decrease so that the longer we live, the more gentle, patient, and meek we become, and the more we break away from greed, hatred, envy, and pride." LC Fourth Part, 65-67

These quotes could be multiplied, and I didn't even begin quoting the Formula. Good works are an essential part of Lutheran theology, as can be demonstrated here by the Confessions themselves. The believer is made a new creation by the waters of Holy Baptism. The Holy Trinity dwells within the Christian, causing him to love God and neighbor. This causes the Christian to obey God's commandments, and to daily increase in love of God and neighbor.

All of this should cause us even more to have a robust doctrine of sanctification. Through baptism, we truly are made new creatures. That should give us hope in the fact that we can begin to obey God's commandments, though imperfectly. Rather than using phrases like "weak on sanctification" or "sanctification is just getting used to justification", why don't we actually adhere to what our Confessions teach? Sanctification is a progressive reality, we are made to be like our Lord as our sinful natures are put to death and the new man arises.

The difference between the Lutheran and Reformed is not that the Reformed believe in progressive sanctification and personal holiness, but Lutherans don't. Rather, traditionally, the dividing line has been in terms of the prominence of certain teaching. In Lutheranism, justification predominates over sanctification, and the second use of the law over the third. Good works and sanctification always have to be taught in view of justification, in view of what God has done for us. However, that is not grounds for rejecting sanctification altogether.

The Lordship Salvation Controversy

On this week's program I did an overview of the Lordship Salvation controversy within evangelicalism, and explained why from a Lutheran perspective, both sides of the debate are wrong. Here is the program.

The Reformed View of Patristics and Entire Sanctification

On this week's podcast I answered a listener question about how the Reformed view early church history and concluded with a discussion of the Wesleyan doctrine of entire sanctification. Here is the program.

This Week's Podcast: Paul, Progressive Sanctification, and Molinism

I spent the entire program answering various listener questions. I talked about the nature of contemporary Pauline scholarship and the New Perspective on Paul, answered a question about progressive sanctification, discussed molinism as a supposed "middle ground" between Calvinism and Arminianism, and finally talked briefly about the reformation. Listen here.