Lutheran Quote of the Day: Luther on the Kingdom of God

Yes, yes. I realize I haven't posted an original in almost two weeks. I promise, I will post tomorrow. For now, here is another good one from Luther:

"The kingdom of God comes...only through the gospel and faith in God, through which hearts are cleansed, comforted, and pacified. For the Holy Spirit fills a man's heart with love and knowledge of God and unites his spirit with God's Spirit. As a result his mind is changed so that he wills and desires, seeks and loves, whatever God wills."

-Martin Luther, WA 15:725

Lutheran Quote of the Day: Luther on the Holy Spirit and the Law

If this isn't the third use of the law, I don't know what is...

"Therefore it happens in the New Testament that while the Word of life, grace, and salvation is proclaimed outside, the Holy Spirit teaches inside at the same time. Therefore Isaiah says (Is. 54:13): “All your sons shall be taught by the Lord.” And in Jeremiah we read: “I will give my laws…And they shall all know Me” (cf. 31:33-34). Hence Christ refers to these two prophets when He says in John 6:45: “It is written in the prophets: ‘they shall be taught by God.’” Likewise in 2 Cor. 3:3: “You are a letter from Christ delivered by us, written, not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts.” Thus we read in 1 John 14:27 that “His anointing will teach you all,” and in John 14:26 “But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit…will teach you all things.” Accordingly, this is how Scripture must be understood when it says that the laws are written in the minds and in the hearts. For by “mind” and “heart” (for this is how we are speaking now) it means intellect and feeling. For to be in the mind means to be understood; to be in our heart means to be loved. Thus to say that the Law is in the mouth means that it is taught; to say that it is in the ear means that it is heard; to say that it is in the eyes means that it is seen. Therefore it is not enough for the Law to be in the soul and to state objectively that it is there. No, it must be in the soul formally, that is, the Law must be written in the heart out of love for the Law."

-Martin Luther, LW 29:198

The Law and Sin

My Gerhard Forde post is forthcoming, but I wanted to get us thinking through something I don't believe Forde takes seriously into account. This is, the relation of sin to the law. Forde places such a separation between law and gospel, due to his purely existential definition of that law, that he forgets that "the power of sin is the law" (1 Cor. 15:56). Not that the law is mankind's essential problem, but rather, the law reveals how sinful we really are. If sin is not kept in mind when analyzing the law's first two uses, the law, and not sin, becomes man's essential problem. The gospel then saves us from the law and not from sin. Without the consideration of sin, the law, as we understand it in its first two uses, becomes meaningless. The question becomes: does there exist a definition of law that is not essentially defined in its connection to sin? If so, then Forde's thought is flawed. If not, then we can acknowledge Forde's construction.

What do these verses from Paul tell us in connection to these considerations?

"And the commandment which was to life, this was found to be death to me; for sin taking occasion through the commandment deceived me, and through it killed me. So indeed the Law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good. Then that which is good, has it become death to me? Let it not be! But sin, that it might appear to be sin, having worked out death to me through the good, in order that sin might become excessively sinful through the commandment. For we know that the Law is spiritual, but I am fleshly, having been sold under sin." Rom. 7:10-14

Ugh!

What a terrible, and just plain wrong depiction of the third use of the law. I found this in a footnote in a paper that is posted in some archive on the LC-MS' website. I don't think anybody claims that this is the definition of the third use. The only "daily drowning" I'm aware of in Lutheran theology is through contrition and repentence (2nd use). "It is the Law". . . WHAT (!) ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?!?!

This “daily drowning of the old nature” by the Law is what is classically known within Lutheranism as the Law’s “3rd use”. The Law’s 1st use is its restraining of the evil present in all humans, Christian and non-Christian. Its 2nd use is to show our continued rebellion of human against the will of God. The “third use” is its use as a guide for the Christian life. The Christian, in so far as he is a new creation, has no need of the law. Since the new creation is solely the work of the Holy Spirit sent by Jesus Christ and the Father, it has no need of the Law: it is the Law. If the new creation were not in full conformity with the Law, the “new” creation would remain an imperfect reality and could certainly not claim to be a “saint” or holy one (as Paul calls all Christians in his epistles). But the old nature remains. This nature does not desire to serve God, but enjoys its continued rebellion. The Law must be continually spoken to this old nature. The law, however, is not applied externally by the natural order, by conscience, or by government, but by the new creation itself. So the law is actually applied by the Christian internally to the old nature. This is the “3rd Use of the Law”. Stumme writes that “For the mainstream Lutheran ethical tradition, however, there is no third use of the law that stipulates a specifically Christian form of existence replete with distinctive patterns of obedience.” Yet he cannot help but add that “the God of the Decalogue is quite enough.” Those who would reject a 3rd use of the Law end up resurrecting it in some other form. (Stumme, John “A Tradition of Christian Ethics” in The Promise of Lutheran Ethics Karen L. Bloomquist and John R. Stumme, Eds. (Fortress Press, Minneapolis, MN: 1998) p.16)

Lutheran Quote of the Day: Malysz on Dependence and Independence

In preparing for my next series of posts on the law (It will start with Gerhard Forde, but... be patient; tomorrow would be the soonest), I came across this quote from Piotr Malysz. I don't remember if it figured into my first (literally) post on dependence and independence, but its thesis is strikingly similar. See my previous posts: Dependence and Independence and Self-Generation; Dependence and Independence Cont.. I find the paradox of being dependent on the created order to show superiority over that created order to be intriguing. We all do it (to a certain extent or another) without recognizing the absurdity of it. It reminds me of Jonathan Swift's "Yahoos." As such we fight over, and strive for power (over God's creation), prestige (from God's creation), popularity (from God's creation), love (from God's creation), acknowledgement (from God's creation); we strive to subdue (God's creation), create (from God's creation), bring under control (God's creation); we use our bodies and minds (that are created) to set ourselves apart from the rest of mankind (God's creation). We do this, much like the Yahoos, without realizing that (without God) we are just animals rolling around in the mud.

"Sin is also enslavement to imperium-- control and, if need be, violence-- as a means of preserving one's integrity. Adam and Eve destroyed their relationships not only by fearing a violation of their trust on another's part but also by chronic suspiciousness of another's, that is, God's self-giving. They saw in God's giving an attempt to confine them into reciprocation, thereby exerting control over their independence. Human life has thus become a struggle for control as a means of survival. This, in turn, has brought about the enslavement of man to creation. Man has abandoned his God-appointed role of creation's steward and endeavours to place himself above the created order as God's equal. But as a creature he can only claim equality with and independence from God by violently lording it over creation, not merely because this is the way he now understands God's being, but also because he recognizes his dependence on creation, which is God's work, and thus on God himself. Exploitation of God's things gives an allusion of power. In this way, creation is necessary for man as a means of self-assertion. The continued increase of his control over the created realm, including other human beings, creates the impression of approximating divinity. Put differently, in order to preserve his integrity, man must enslave. He is both enslaved and enslaver. Paradoxically this only deepens human dependence on the now-hostile creation.

"The isolation and enslavement of sin underscore that-- at bottom- it is a debilitating inability to love and trust, which "like spiritual leprosy, has thoroughly and entirely poisoned and corrupted human nature" (FC SD I, 6). As such, sin undermines everything that human nature was created to represent. Instead of allowing oneself to receive another in his self-giving, and thus to gain oneself, the sinner attempts his self-realization by going in the opposite direction, to the inside. Sin, to use Luther's dictum, makes man into a homo incurvitas in se ipsum. This turning in on oneself is the inevitable price of the trust-destructive misinterpretation of God's being, and thus also of failing to acknowledge one's humanity in its relational richness. In other words, the price of the knowledge of good and evil is the recognition of oneself as evil. Man cannot know evil without at the same time seeing it in himself, in his lovelessness and distrust.

"The tree that Adam and Eve were forbidden to eat from was not, contrary to their expectations, a vehicle of secret wisdom. The knowledge originated within man together with the deed, with his choice of un-love, with his rejection of God's self-giving. It came on the heels of man's attempt to be like God, in which the former isolated himself from his Creator and other human beings, abandoning his unique position within the created realm as the recipient of God's love and blessing. It came with man turning in on himself and the resultant collapse of his being. It is now with great difficulty that man preserves his integrity. He can do so only by a violent, self-centered and self-enslaving exercise of supremacy. Therefore, in so doing, he not only knows evil in himself but also actively propagates it.

"Consider the dreadful ambiguity that underlies all human desire to be creative. Ethically speaking, even the best of human works are tainted by vested interests, resentment, or distrust. Moreover from the scientific perspective, man's harnessing of creation's resources exposes his potential for self-destruction and thirst for more power, as much as it shows ingenuity. Finally, much as he may wish to avoid and ignore it, man meets with disintegration throughout his life only to be confronted by it conclusively at the point of death. The all-consuming presence of death reveals that creation without its steward has gone wild-- it dies both from lack of proper care and from the abuses it suffers at the hand of man. It has become the devil's playground. Man himself-- having separated himself from the life-giving love of God-- faces the same destiny as the creation he was so hasty to abandon in pursuit of self-realization. In isolation from God he is dust and to dust he must return (Gn 3:19). In a word, life without love and trust is deadly. It not only kills the isolated and enslaved human being but also spreads death around in spite and because of human attempts to avoid the inevitable. "Whoever tries to keeps his life will lose it" (Lk 17:33)."

-Piotr Malysz, “Third Use of the Law in Light of Creation and the Fall,” Logia 11, no. 3 (2002), 14-15.

Calvin and Hobbes

Paul Gregory Alms over at incarnatus est has inspired me to post on a most important topic...Calvin and Hobbes:

Lutheran Quote of the Day: Yeago on Luther on Genesis, all in Hütter

This is from a wonderful essay by (the now defected) Reinhard Hütter called, "The Twofold Center of Lutheran Ethics: Christian Freedom and God's Commandments." I thought this would be a good intro into my upcoming section on the different Lutheran positions on the continued relevance and place for the law in the lives of believers. Both what Luther says and what Yeago says in response, I agree with. I would only offer a slight tweak in emphasis: While the interpretation of the tree is a good one, it is not the only "historical form" (as Yeago would say) by which God ordered Adam's life. Adam was put in the garden to "work it" and "keep it" (Gen. 2:15); God "commands" him concerning the tree (2:15); Adam was in charge of the animals (2:19-20); God created Eve to help Adam (and logically thus, Adam helped Eve), and they were to serve each other as man and wife (2:20-25). From all this I would argue that man was created to live in a communion of self-giving; in worshipping God in service and faithfulness, and in serving each other and God's creation. The command concerning the tree does, though, have a type of arbitrariness to it (in the good sense). That is, by not eating from it, Adam does not benefit creation, nor neighbor, nor God (in that we can never "benefit" God). In keeping the commandment concerning the tree, Adam and Eve, rather, give God the only thing we can ever offer him: loving faithfulness to his Word.

"In interpreting Genesis 2, Luther states:

"And so when Adam had been created in such a way that he was, as it were, intoxicated with rejoicing toward God and was delighted also with all the other creatures, there is now created a new tree for the distinguishing of good and evil, so that Adam might have a definite way to express his worship and reverence toward God. After everything had been entrusted to him to make use of it according to his will, whether he wished to do so for necessity or for pleasure, God finally demands from Adam that at this tree of knowledge of good and evil he demonstrate his reverence and obedience toward God and that he maintain this practice, as it were, of worshipping God by not eating anything from it. [From LW 1:9]

"David Yeago rightly draws the following consequence:

"The commandment is not given to Adam that he might become a lover of God by keeping it; Adam already is a lover of God, "drunk with joy towards God," by virtue of his creation in the image of God, by the grace of original righteousness. The commandment is given, rather, in order to allow Adam's love for God to take form in a historically concrete way of life. Through the commandment, Adam's joy takes form in history as cultus Dei, the concrete social practice of worship... The importance of this cannot be overstated, particularly in view of conventional Lutheran assumptions: here Luther is describing a function of divine law, divine commandment, which is neither correlative with sin nor antithetical to grace; indeed, it presupposes the presence of grace and not sin. This function of divine commandment is, moreover, its original and proper function. The fundamental significance of the law is thus neither to enable human beings to attain righteousness nor to accuse their sin, but to give concrete, historical form to the "divine life" of the human creature deified by grace... The commandment is given originally to a subject deified by the grace of original righteousness, a subject living as the image of God; it calls for specific behaviors as the concrete historical realization of the spiritual life of the deified, God-drunken human being. What happens after sin comes on the scene is simply that this subject presupposed by the commandment is no longer there,; the commandment no longer finds an Adam living an "entirely divine life," "drunk with joy towards God," but rather an Adam who has withdrawn from God who believes the devil's lies about God and therefore flees and avoids God. It is precisely the anomaly of this situation that causes the commandment to become, in Luther's terms, "a different law" (alia lex). [David Yeago, "Martin Luther on Grace, Law, and Moral Life: Prolegomena to an Ecumenical Discussion of Veritas Splendor," in The Thomist, 62 (1998), 176-178.]"

-

-Reinhard Hütter, "The Twofold Center of Lutheran Ethics: Christian Freedom and God's Commandments," In The Promise of Lutheran Ethics, ed. Karen L. Bloomquist and John R. Stumme, 31-54 (Minneapolis, Minn: Fortress Press, 1998), 42-43.