Messages

I have a bit more time to share what happened with Emmanuel's 125th anniversary. Celebration began with the youth outing/overnight. Rev. Dr. John Pless led us in devotion. I took the kids to the church lawn for a few service activities.

We needed the youth to hit the sack early so we could rouse them for church. So we took them skating for three hours to wear them out and turned in at c. 10 pm. Twenty-three youth participated, nine being non-member friends. Only two of them had a congregation. Wonderful sharing the Word with them. My wife and I helped a colleague set up a grand history display and got to bed sometime after midnight.

Up at 5 to pray and finalize preparations. Youth up at 8 for breakfast; clergy to lead service at 8:30. Between services, people took in the history display and participated in a drone photograph. (We were trying to depict a living Luther Seal.) Thankful for our musicians. After the 11 am service, we enjoyed a catered banquet. Attendance for the day was very good, though not as high as Christmas and Easter services. Overall a very successful event prepared by our history committee. Thanks be to God! Thankful that Dr. Pless could preach and participate. He served at Emmanuel as a student pastor, 1978--79.

Here are pictures:

https://www.facebook.com/100071429681870/posts/pfbid02NXpVeJRU5se5E83MdYt7oGUR4L2zcghxr3RDiBkqtEX4ijvq2AgSrFCDgzKazaD8l/?mibextid=Nif5oz

Here is the 11 am service:

https://youtu.be/q0F14R8zRb4?feature=shared

The summary for Bergen's book says there were 600,000 Deutsche Christens. Half of the nation identified as Protestant, about 40 million in number. So the Deutsche Christen movement was relatively small but influential because of its ties to the ruling political party. Their program of de-Judaizing Christianity dried up after the war. I suppose it survives in some Arian Christian groups today.

Terry W Culler writes:
He held himself responsible for RCs all over the world, so getting himself killed or incarcerated would have done nothing to the Germans.

I muse:
A parish priest might've considered himself responsible for all the Roman Catholics in his diocese and done the same. However, many didn't, and were taken to the camps.
I don't know, Peter, how the actions of the pope, if different, would've changed history. I only know that it is increasingly clear that neither Roman Catholic Church nor German Lutheranism were very outspoken or aggressive in opposing the Nazis. The vast majority of the Protestants went along with the anti-Semitic Deutsche Christen state church rather than the underground Confessing Church.

I think the numbers for the Deutsche Christen movement and the Confessing Church were both relatively small. If memory serves, most people were in the middle, moved perhaps by nationalism to support the war.

Behold, how good and pleasant it is
when brothers dwell in unity!
It is like the precious oil on the head,
running down on the beard,
on the beard of Aaron,
running down on the collar of his robes!
It is like the dew of Hermon,
which falls on the mountains of Zion!
For there the LORD has commanded the blessing,
life forevermore.

(Psalm 133, a Word that endures forever)

"Call on the name" is a Semitic idiom for "pray."

Outwardly the obedience may look the same whether one is an unbeliever or a believer. But the obedience looks wholly different to the Lord. Those under first use obey from fear or from desire for a reward. The redeemed obey not from fear or coercion but with a free heart.

This is the difference Luther and Melanchthon are describing with the third use/group. These people use the Law rather than become ensnared by it. (Allowing of course the redeemed are still sinners and the Law still accuses them as they stumble.) Luther, Melanchthon, and other Reformers thought it important to describe this difference,  which is how the use is introduced.

There is a sense, something the Crossings Community (Ed Schroeder and Bob Bertram) often talk about, that for the redeemed, the "have to" has disappeared. (They replace it with "get to.") However, that attitude can be found among non-believers, too. There are good, moral people, who like being nice and helpful to others - not because they might get something out of it.

I agree that altruism and compassion are not exclusively Christian virtues. One even reads examples from nature where dogs and dolphins save people's lives. I think the Lord built these values into His creation so that they still manifest themselves. On the one hand, they are first article gifts. On the other hand, they are third article gifts enhanced by the work of the Holy Spirit.

Outwardly the obedience may look the same whether one is an unbeliever or a believer. But the obedience looks wholly different to the Lord. Those under first use obey from fear or from desire for a reward. The redeemed obey not from fear or coercion but with a free heart.

This is the difference Luther and Melanchthon are describing with the third use/group. These people use the Law rather than become ensnared by it. (Allowing of course the redeemed are still sinners and the Law still accuses them as they stumble.) Luther, Melanchthon, and other Reformers thought it important to describe this difference,  which is how the use is introduced.

An earlier generation of Luther scholarship recognized that the third use distinction for Christian life started with Luther. Roman Catholic historian Heinrich Denefle (1844--1905) described how Luther was working from late medieval categories for his threefold use. Luther scholar Gustav Kawerau (1847--1918) affirmed that Luther taught the threefold use of the Law.

Somehow in the next generation these insights were lost---perhaps the troubles of two world wars disrupted the continuity of teaching. Elert and Ebeling introduced the only-two-uses idea, which took hold and has misled the church about the history of doctrine ever since.

For example, Luther (1522), Melanchthon (1528), and Roehrer (editor for Luther's 1535 Galatians Commentary) were all writing about threefold or third use of the Law before Calvin even published his Institutes (1536). The idea that a third use of the Law is Calvinistic is clearly inaccurate. The wiser course of study is to consider how Calvin said something different from the Lutherans, as Will points out above.

As I read the article that included "three-fold" it seemed to me that it wasn't so much about how God uses the Law, but the different ways three different groups of people hear (or ignore) the law. Three groups of people is certainly different than three uses.

An earlier generation of Luther scholarship recognized that the third use distinction for Christian life started with Luther. Roman Catholic historian Heinrich Denefle (1844--1905) described how Luther was working from late medieval categories for his threefold use. Luther scholar Gustav Kawerau (1847--1918) affirmed that Luther taught the threefold use of the Law.

Somehow in the next generation these insights were lost---perhaps the troubles of two world wars disrupted the continuity of teaching. Elert and Ebeling introduced the only-two-uses idea, which took hold and has misled the church about the history of doctrine ever since.

For example, Luther (1522), Melanchthon (1528), and Roehrer (editor for Luther's 1535 Galatians Commentary) were all writing about threefold or third use of the Law before Calvin even published his Institutes (1536). The idea that a third use of the Law is Calvinistic is clearly inaccurate. The wiser course of study is to consider how Calvin said something different from the Lutherans, as Will points out above.

As I read the article that included "three-fold" it seemed to me that it wasn't so much about how God uses the Law, but the different ways three different groups of people hear (or ignore) the law. Three groups of people is certainly different than three uses.

If you read endnote nine in Paulson's article, you'll see that Melanchthon began teaching about the three uses of the Law in precisely this way. He's following Luther as he writes about three types of hearers. This is again firm evidence that what Luther writes in 1522 gives rise to what Melanchthon writes in 1527.

But taking the long view, such observations are already in Augustine, though not termed in this way. The Reformers are building their theology with ancient stones and not brand new. These are good catholic observations.

Didn't those "good catholic observations" lead to the "works-righteousness" that caused Luther to break with Roman Catholic tradition? That's the fear that we, who eschew a distinct third use, fear about those who promote any obedience to the Law.

No. I think the doctrine of purgatory, enumeration of sins in confession, ideas of merit, penance/atonement brought about popular notions of works righteousness in late medieval practice.

Teaching people to obey God's Law is repeatedly stated in the Bible and throughout the history of Christian doctrine. It's good catholic practice, so long as one's obedience is understood as an expression of faith and love for the righteousness received through Christ alone.

An earlier generation of Luther scholarship recognized that the third use distinction for Christian life started with Luther. Roman Catholic historian Heinrich Denefle (1844--1905) described how Luther was working from late medieval categories for his threefold use. Luther scholar Gustav Kawerau (1847--1918) affirmed that Luther taught the threefold use of the Law.

Somehow in the next generation these insights were lost---perhaps the troubles of two world wars disrupted the continuity of teaching. Elert and Ebeling introduced the only-two-uses idea, which took hold and has misled the church about the history of doctrine ever since.

For example, Luther (1522), Melanchthon (1528), and Roehrer (editor for Luther's 1535 Galatians Commentary) were all writing about threefold or third use of the Law before Calvin even published his Institutes (1536). The idea that a third use of the Law is Calvinistic is clearly inaccurate. The wiser course of study is to consider how Calvin said something different from the Lutherans, as Will points out above.

As I read the article that included "three-fold" it seemed to me that it wasn't so much about how God uses the Law, but the different ways three different groups of people hear (or ignore) the law. Three groups of people is certainly different than three uses.

An earlier generation of Luther scholarship recognized that the third use distinction for Christian life started with Luther. Roman Catholic historian Heinrich Denefle (1844--1905) described how Luther was working from late medieval categories for his threefold use. Luther scholar Gustav Kawerau (1847--1918) affirmed that Luther taught the threefold use of the Law.

Somehow in the next generation these insights were lost---perhaps the troubles of two world wars disrupted the continuity of teaching. Elert and Ebeling introduced the only-two-uses idea, which took hold and has misled the church about the history of doctrine ever since.

For example, Luther (1522), Melanchthon (1528), and Roehrer (editor for Luther's 1535 Galatians Commentary) were all writing about threefold or third use of the Law before Calvin even published his Institutes (1536). The idea that a third use of the Law is Calvinistic is clearly inaccurate. The wiser course of study is to consider how Calvin said something different from the Lutherans, as Will points out above.

As I read the article that included "three-fold" it seemed to me that it wasn't so much about how God uses the Law, but the different ways three different groups of people hear (or ignore) the law. Three groups of people is certainly different than three uses.

If you read endnote nine in Paulson's article, you'll see that Melanchthon began teaching about the three uses of the Law in precisely this way. He's following Luther as he writes about three types of hearers. This is again firm evidence that what Luther writes in 1522 gives rise to what Melanchthon writes in 1527.

But taking the long view, such observations are already in Augustine, though not termed in this way. The Reformers are building their theology with ancient stones and not brand new. These are good catholic observations.

An earlier generation of Luther scholarship recognized that the third use distinction for Christian life started with Luther. Roman Catholic historian Heinrich Denefle (1844--1905) described how Luther was working from late medieval categories for his threefold use. Luther scholar Gustav Kawerau (1847--1918) affirmed that Luther taught the threefold use of the Law.

Somehow in the next generation these insights were lost---perhaps the troubles of two world wars disrupted the continuity of teaching. Elert and Ebeling introduced the only-two-uses idea, which took hold and has misled the church about the history of doctrine ever since.

For example, Luther (1522), Melanchthon (1528), and Roehrer (editor for Luther's 1535 Galatians Commentary) were all writing about threefold or third use of the Law before Calvin even published his Institutes (1536). The idea that a third use of the Law is Calvinistic is clearly inaccurate. The wiser course of study is to consider how Calvin said something different from the Lutherans, as Will points out above.

To be clear. I am not advocating the elimination of the  threefold use. It can be useful for teaching.

There can be other ways to teach the Godly life and we ought to refrain from condemning everyone who does that without the third use. There certainly are antinomians out there. As David observes  many are a result of over reaction to Calvinism and Pietism. But not everyone who finds the third use as weak is necessarily an antinomian.

Peace, JOHN

Agreed. God's people have written about the usefulness of the Law since inter-testamental times. They did not always have this specific terminology but were able to think and communicate about Sanctification nonetheless.

Speaking for the three use crowd: we already answered that. No. Lex SEMPER accusat. Semper is semper. I am assuming, though, you are speaking of our life in this age and not after the Parousia.

Agreed. Always accuses; always teaches, too.

It's in the Weihnachtspostille of 1522, New Years Day text, Galatians 3:23-29.
 

For those who may not have access:

15. Second, [we see] that that is a threefold use of the Law—or that people take a threefold attitude toward it. The first are those who risk everything and lead shameless lives against it; for them, it is as if there were no Law. The second are those who refrain from such a dissolute life and are preserved in an honorable life; they are under discipline outwardly, but inwardly they are hostile to their guardian, and all their things happen out of fear of death and hell. Thus they keep the Law only outwardly, and the Law keeps them outwardly, but inwardly they do not keep it and are not kept by it. The third are those who keep it outwardly and inwardly; they are the tablets of Moses, written outwardly and inwardly by the finger of God Himself.

16. Just as the first are godly neither outwardly nor inwardly, so the second are only outwardly godly and at heart, ungodly; but the third are thoroughly godly. St. Paul says about that: "We know that the Law is good if one uses it correctly." But how does one use it correctly? He answers: "Whoever knows that no Law has been given to the righteous, but to the unrighteous" (1 Timothy 1[:8-9]). What does that mean? Nothing other than that whoever wants to preach the Law properly must distinguish these three, s that he by no means preaches the Law to the third group as if in that way they would become godly, for that would be misleading. But he should preach in that way to the first group for whom [the Law] was instituted, so they would leave their shameless life and let themselves be preserved under their guardian. However, it is not enough for them to be preserved and kept by the Law; they must again learn to keep the Law. Then, above and beyond the Law, h must also preach the gospel, in which Christ's grace is given to keep the Law. Thus it is a completely different thing to preserve and keep the Law and to be preserved and kept by it. The first group neither keep nor are kept; the second are kept; and the third keep [the Law].  Luther' Works (Concordia Publishing House, 2013), 76:7-8 (Church Postil II)

This is not exactly the "threefold uses" that was created after Luther.

It seems to me that it is not infidelity to believe that the "third use" as traditionally understood has only thin support in Reformation theology. That alone does not deny Luther's strong appeals to a holy life so clearly asserted in the Decalogue, Small Catechism. Nor does it deserve being branded as antinomian.

17th century Orthodoxy is not only road to confessional fidelity.

Peace, JOHN

To judge the matter thus is like looking at the Mississippi head waters and saying, "Well, it's not the Mississippi as we know it in New Orleans." 17th century Orthodoxy widens the river, adding a fourth use and regularizing the terms. Nevertheless, you cannot find a Reformer earlier than 1522 making this threefold distinction. Nor has study revealed a medieval theologian who makes third use about use of the Law in Christian life. That is a river flowing from Luther's theology of the Law into subsequent theology.

The only-two-uses crowd hates this but that doesn't change the history.

George, it's not a sermon but a Postilla: commentary on appointed readings. Luther prepared the text for his Postilla until 1527 when he handed duties off to Stephen Rodt. So the text is Luther's, not someone else's. Luther went back to editing the Postilla in 1540. The reading for the key passage stayed the same through the editions.

There's no escaping that this is Luther. He introduced the Reformation enumeration of the uses of the Law. This was known in an earlier generation of Luther scholarship but was papered over in the twentieth century.

So, your position is that the selection referenced came straight from Luther with no editing by others for edition after edition.

None of the editors for any of the editions ever complained about such a change. Luther had over 20 years to address such a problem if it were real. Luther edited the texts up to 1527 and from 1540 onward but did not change this. If someone else wrote it in the first edition (1522), then we have someone else to credit for contributing the threefold use of the Law as it appeared in the Lutheran Reformation. But the suggestion has no historical basis. This text is Luther's.

George, it's not a sermon but a Postilla: commentary on appointed readings. Luther prepared the text for his Postilla until 1527 when he handed duties off to Stephen Rodt. So the text is Luther's, not someone else's. Luther went back to editing the Postilla in 1540. The reading for the key passage stayed the same through the editions.

There's no escaping that this is Luther. He introduced the Reformation enumeration of the uses of the Law. This was known in an earlier generation of Luther scholarship but was papered over in the twentieth century.