Your friend will likely tell you that I have used the word positively. I think it has value. It’s not as though we are talking about any kind of an “equal pulling” here — the Symbols are bang on right that it should be excluded outright. But you are exactly right that the Spirit produces within us freedom of the will, and that that renewed will which is totally the gift of the Spirit truly cooperates in all the works of the Holy Spirit. That’s what synergism of sanctification refers to. I don’t think it’s really confusing – and because it remains so fragile and weak, we must remain constantly under the forgiving verdict of God’s pardon. To speak of our synergism in sanctification is not at all to intrude our will into meriting anything from God; it is to confess that our new sanctified will wills that all such impulses be put to death within us by God’s grace.
McCain: Thanks, Pastor Weedon. And, to put a finer point on it, sanctification has NOTHING to do with justification. Cooperating with the Holy Spirit is always post facto regeneration, never before, or during, nor is it causative, etc. And, I guess we should point out that anyone wishing to express protest against the word “synergism” in regard to sanctification should note that the Formula in the Latin uses “cooperatio” which is precisely what the word “synergos” in the Greek means. They both mean, literally, “work with.” Since “synergism” is such a growl word, for good reasons, in regard to justification, I would prefer avoid its use in this discussion so not unnecessarily to cause confusion from the very get go, but properly understood, defined and distinguished: it is just fine to help explain the consequence of regeneration and how our freed will does cooperate with the Holy Spirit.

Pastor McCain,
See my posts #8 and 9 here if you have time:
http://catholica.pontifications.net/?p=2125
You need not post this on the comments section.
In a nutshell:
1) “Continuous justification” is the point of concern here.
2) (from my post linked to above) Certainly, our sanctification (Christ in us) does, in some sense, have bearing on our final salvation / justification, because when we sin, that sin has a debilitating effect on our faith, which holds onto the alien righteousness of Christ that saves and secures us.
Is this true?
3) By the way, you might find this Weedon post very interesting as well (where he upholds “continuous justification” ) http://weedon.blogspot.com/2007/01/continuous-justification.html (Weedon, I think rightly, supports the “continuous justifcation” model offered by Preuss here [it is interesting that Preuss eventually converted to Rome...])
McCain: There is nothing really remarkable about “continuing justification.” The point is regeneration. How does God work regeneration? Via the cooperation of our human will? Via good works produced as a result of regeneration? Our Lutheran Confessions, which I kindly invite you to read, have excellent and thorough presentations on these points. We are continually forgiven, as Luther says in the Small Catechism, “daily the old man should be drowned and die with all sin,” etc. Thanks for reading. As for Preuss’ conversion. Actually, it came about through his being won over to Roman Catholic musings on the immaculate conception and bodily assumption of Mary, than anything to do with justification, so that’s kind of a mute point.

Saint Paul writes to Saint Timothy, “Likewise, urge the younger men to be self-controlled.” Now, more than ever, as Western Christian civilization is crumbling all around us, we need to be told what that means. We need to hear what self-controlled means; it is Law. By preaching this, as our Lutheran forebears did, we will learn what pleases God and benefits our neighbor and, in the process, be convicted of sin and driven to confession and the Sacrament of the Altar.
If we don’t get specific about such things, we risk gaining a false sense of the depth of our own sin, and our own need for repentance. It just might not occur to me that I’m breaking a particular commandment, unless I am told what it means to break it. The old man is very good at tuning out general statements about being a sinner, even if we add “poor, miserable” to it.
We also risk creating an antinomian Lutheran culture, a soil that produces young people who don’t really look or behave much differently from those produced in the dying culture around them. They don’t know the meaning of modesty or self-control. They lack manners. They respect neither parents or pastors. In short, they have been trained to hate authority, because their Lutheran culture has given them a pat answer to any specific point of Law: I’m a poor, miserable sinner, and that won’t change until I’m dead. I say the general confession every Sunday. Leave me alone. Or they might go to confession and confess what troubles them, based entirely on their own unformed consciences, untouched by a growing knowledge of the Law, which David loved.
So great is this spirit of antinomianism that, for example, I’ve spoken with many conservative pastors who wouldn’t dare set standards for their young people at church. As in, You may not approach God’s altar dressed like a harlot. Or like a bum. Some pastors wouldn’t dream of doing such a thing in the first place, while others wish they could, but know what a nuclear bomb that would be in the congregation.
Then come the very postmodern, Pilatesque “what is truth” replies. How can you really say that a nose ring or a tattoo or purple punk hair is wrong? Did God really say? Who made you the judge of what is modest and what isn’t? It’s really remarkable that we still have a civilization at all.
Attempts to reason away such plain Scriptural language as that of Titus 2, or a host of other passages in the New Testament, whether by appealing to such theological buzzterms as synergism or by crying “Reformed!” or “fundamentalist!” or “papist” are a slap in the face to Lutheran preachers of the past (beginning with Luther), bespeak a willful ignorance of history, and reveal the deep-seated antinomianism in modern Confessional Lutheranism. It is a small wonder that the grass looks greener in Constantinople or Rome or Geneva. Some folks just don’t want to turn their children into little Marilyn Mansons or Britney Spearses for the sake of maintaining a nebulous sense of “monergism.” And that is sad, because they don’t realize that the formulaic preaching they are hearing, with lessons shoe-horned into an antinomian, post-liberal, Gospel-narrative-only hermeneutic, is not really Lutheran at all. They will have been led by their shepherds away from the green grass of the Gospel to stoney ground.
McCain: Well…that about says it all as far as I’m concerned.

The Gospel alone works regeneration, but in order to grow in our regeneration following our initial coming to faith (regeneration, subjective justifcation), we must accept the invitation to continually come to the feast when invited to come. We don’t speak of a nonbeliever deciding to do this for good reasons (initial conversion is totally monergistic), but when it comes to the believer’s continual feeding, when the Holy Spirit convicts us and then invites us we cooperate… we decide to come again and again. We are continually justified (the wicked – we are still sinners – are declared righteous), and hence we grow in our regeneration.
McCain: This is simply not what the Lutheran Confessions teach Nathan. They teach growth in sanctification, not regeneration. “Even though people who are converted and believe in Christ have the beginning of renewal, sanctification, love, virtue and good works, these cannot and should not be drawn into, or mixed with, the article of justification before God. This is so the honor due to Christ may remain with Christ the Redeemer and tempted consciences may have a sure consolation, since our new obedience is incomplete and impure.” (FC SD III:35; Concordia, p. 542). Nathan, again, and I say this with all due respect, and out of concern for you, please read very carefully our Confessions on these points. I know it will be a blessing to you.).

Paul,
The comment by Aaron Wolf is a wonderful example of begging the question. Is that all you want to do?

Paul,
Here are two theses from Walther which should give any preacher who is interested in preaching sanctification in a biblical way, pause, lest he think that it is time to turn up the heat, and really get these antinomians to change course….
“Thesis XVII.
In the thirteenth place, the Word of God is not rightly divided when a description is given of faith, both as regards its strength and the consciousness and productiveness of it, that does not fit all believers at all times.
_______________________________
McCain: David, that’s not what I said or advocate. I’m not talking about “describing” faith or its strength or the awareness of it. Walther himself never hesitated however to teach his congregation in his sermons about their lives as Christians, the great “therefore” of the grace given to them. His sermons are great examples, in my opinion, of how one preaches and teaches about the life of the regenerate Christian. “God Grant It” is a great book, if you haven’t had the chance to see it yet.
David, have you carefully considered those quotes from our Confessions that do say it is prefectly legitimate, yes, even necessary to speak to the regenerate about their growth in their living as Christians?
_________________________________
Speers, quoting Walther: Young ministers who are still without great experience frequently make this mistake. They desire to make an impression on their people and rouse them out of their natural security. They imagine that, in order to prevent hypocrites from regarding themselves as Christians, they cannot raise the demands which they make upon those who are Christians too high. However, here is a point where the minister must be careful not to go beyond the Word of God, or by reason of his zeal he will inflict awful harm on the souls of his hearers. Alas! Christians are in many respects quite different from the descriptions, bona-fide descriptions, at that, which are given of them in sermons. The minister wants to rouse his people and warn them against self-deception. However, that cannot be his ultimate aim. His ultimate aim must be to lead his hearers to the assurance that they have forgiveness of sins with God, the hope of the future blessed life, and confidence to meet death cheerfully. Any one who does not make these things his ultimate aim is not an evangelical minister. For this reason he must be careful, for God’s sake, not to say: “Any one who does this or that is not a Christian,” unless he is quite sure of his ground. Frequently a Christian may act in a very unchristian manner.
Rom. 7:18 Paul says: I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) dwelleth no good thing; for to will is present with me, but how to perform that which is good I find not. It is plain that in this passage the apostle describes a Christian. How a person becomes a Christian he had described before. Next, he proceeded to show how a Christian ought to walk and to please God. In the section of his epistle from which the above passage is taken he begins to discuss the doctrine of spiritual tribulations in which Christians frequently are merged, in order to comfort them. He describes a Christian as a double being. The true Christian, he says, always desires what is good, but frequently he does not accomplish it. Now, then, if a preacher describes a Christian in such a manner as to deny that, unless he accomplishes all that is good, he does not really will what is good, the description is unbiblical. To will what is good is the *main trait* of a Christian. Frequently he does not progress beyond the good will to do something. Before he is aware of it, he has gone astray; the sin within him has come forth, and he is ashamed of himself. But for that reason he has not by any means fallen from grace.”
_______________________
McCain: I agree entirely with Walther. Walther here is not talking about what I’m talking about though David. The way to avoid what Walther is saying is not to let preaching, specific and explicit preaching/teaching about our regenerate life in Christ go by the wayside and think that only to the extent we point out people’s sins with the Law are we covering sanctification as Scripture talks about it.
_________________________
Here, Paul, Walther warns against this kind of ranting against the failures of Christians, and states that the ULTIMATE AIM of the preacher is to lead them to the assurance of forgiveness…that the MAIN TRAIT of the Christian is willing to do…
and then thesis X
Thesis X.
In the sixth place, the Word of God is not rightly divided when the preacher describes faith in a manner as if the mere inert acceptance of truths, even while a person is living in mortal sins, renders that person righteous in the sight of God and saves him; or as if faith makes a person righteous and saves him for the reason that it produces in him love and reformation of his mode of living
______________
McCain: Yes, right. Absolutely. To the unregenerate, yes, this must be said. However, our Confessions clearly speak to how we talk to the regenerate about their lives as Christians. I’m thinking you are so focussed on the unregenerate and those in mortal sin you are simply not thinking as much about the way we speak about sanctification, in our sermons, to the regenerate. Thanks for the comments.
_______________________

Pastor Speers, is there one of Walther’s theses that explains away 1 Thessalonians 4?
“Finally, then, brothers, we ask and urge you in the Lord Jesus, that as you received from us how you ought to live 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.”
Here are more portions of that chapter:
“For this is the will of God, your sanctification; 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 . . . ”
“[W]e urge you, brothers, to do this more and more, and to aspire to live quietly, and to mind your own affairs, and to work with your hands, as we instructed you, so that you may live properly before outsiders and be dependent on no one.”
All of this, of course, is with our eyes on Christ, Who will Himself “descend from Heaven.” But there’s lots of “urging” as to how we ought to live here.

Pr. McCain,
Please read all of what I have written before judging what I say. I’m not the best communicator, and I’m afraid you will misunderstand me. You don’t need to post any of this on your blog unless you feel it is helpful.
I went into quite a study of this back in the Summer of 2005 when I read “Handling the Word of Truth.” On page 50, Pr. John Pless favorably quoted Adolph Köberle, saying: “it is not fitting to teach justification evangelically and then in the doctrine of sanctification to turn synergistic.”
This statement bothered me because of what I had already read in the Confessions about “cooperation.”
I then read Köberle’s “The Quest for Holiness” and Harold Senkbeil’s “Sanctification: Christ in Action” as well. Great books!
However, I believe Köberle goes too far when he says on page 149:
“So the Confession is perfectly correct in its statement that through the Word and faith a liberated will (arbitrium liberatum) is in fact imparted to the one who is justified. … But in spite of this, in spite of all its caution, the Formula was mistaken when it called this liberated activity, that after all is no part of us but proceeds from God, a ‘cooperation.’”
WHAT? “The Formula was mistaken”!!! Is that type of statement consistent with a quia subscription to the Confessions? The Confessions unmistakably say “cooperation” (and of course we all know the Greek equivalent of this word is “synergy”).
Köberle was correct in his recognition that the Formula must be denied at this point if one is to completely deny synergy in sanctification and simply call it “monergistic” instead. Due to this position, Köberle then must take aim at the Scriptural evidence of “synergy” as well, which is exactly what he does when he continues on page 149:
“Of course Scripture speaks of the disciples as ‘fellow workers with God’ but perhaps hardly any of its statements are handled with greater flippancy than this one.”
WOW! If Köberle meant what I think he did, that’s scary. I hope I’ve misinterpreted him.
In any case, I believe that such an absolute denial of “synergy” in sanctification is a denial of Confessional Lutheranism, and thus of Christian doctrine. The Confessions are a correct exposition of Biblical doctrine, and this Confessional belief in “cooperation” in sanctification comes straight from the “synergoi” of 2 Cor. 6:1.
While the Confessions do speak of “cooperation,” it is certainly not synergism in the classical (two horses pulling a cart) sense of the word. It is a much more qualified synergism.
Perhaps your “monergistic synergism” can be a good phrase in certain contexts if understood properly, but I expect our opponents would consider it a nonsense term (isn’t it?). “Alone-working together-working?” Isn’t that an oxymoron? One cannot be alone and in company at the same time.
I understand your desire to keep the word “synergism” out of discussions on sanctification. It is certainly a unique “synergism” described in the Confessions. However, I would counter that I prefer to keep the term “monergism” completely out of discussions on sanctification (except as sanctification relates to justification).
It is easy enough to qualify the synergism (as the Confessions do), if only by simply quoting Philippians 2:13. You cooperate in sanctification, but “it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure.” That illustrates the issue perfectly without going beyond what Scripture says on the matter.
My main point: We don’t have to boil every concept down into a one- or two-word catch phrase. It is often advisable NOT to! I believe this is one of those cases. Perhaps neither “synergism” nor “monergism” are helpful in understanding sanctification. However, the confessors did not shy away from the concept of cooperation. They simply qualified 2 Corinthians 6:1 with Philippians 2:13.
Perhaps it’s just me. I’m bothered by the phrase “faith alone.” Is faith ever alone?
________________
McCain: The shorthand here is meant simply and only to say that our conversion/regeneration is by grace alone, through faith alone. In other words, it is a description of instrumentality. Faith, alone, is the means by which grace is given to us for regeneration. But Faith, if it is true and living Faith, is never alone. That’s what James is talking about. Faith, without works, is a dead faith, no true trust in Christ at all.
___________________
But, I’m even more bothered when people say that sanctification is simply monergistic. I believe it is of great importance to reserve that term for the distinct (though inseparable) doctrine of justification. I believe talking about sanctification as “monergistic” can lead to dangerous confusion about the correct monergistic nature of justification.
I hope I’ve made sense! If not, please ask me what I meant by such-and-such.
PAX!
Erich
________
McCain: I am a fairly big believer in the notion that one can say just about anything as long as one explains it correctly, but…when it comes to these issues I am an even bigger believer in just sticking with the words and phrases provided about these issues in our Confessions, which, are very concerned, precisely on the question of Free Will that we do stick with the words and phrases and terms provided in our Confessions so as not to cause the kind of confusion and seemingly endless squabbling one finds whenever these things come up. We can use our Confessions’ words and phrases well enough and explain them well. That’s why when my friend Susan tries to impose on this discussion the term terms “monergism” or “synergism” she is running a very high risk of confusing people and leading the conversation into a confusion over how these terms play out in justification. Well intended? Yes. But ultimately not very helpful? Yes. I would rather just stick with the Confessions. But if a person insists on trying to say that Sanctification is “monergistic” in such a way as to exclude our will or thinking or doing or striving, that’s wrong. If they are saying this to exclude from the concept of Sanctification that we bring something to the table and God brings his bit. That’s wrong too. All we have is “God’s bit” but he allows us in regeneration a freed will and gives us the ability to respond and act in accordance with the grace given. If people choose to call this “synergism” well, ok, but again, I don’t know ultimately how helpful it is.
Koberle is simply, and plainly, wrong and you are correct that a denial of human cooperation with God’s grace in the doing of good works is a denial of what our Confessions teach.

Pastor McCain,
Thank you for your time on all this. I appreciate it.
Perhaps what has me confused is the definition of “sanctification”.
As David Scaer said some years back: “[sanctification is] the Christian’s life in the world, i.e. good works. This is the definition of dogmatic theology and not the common Biblical use of the word, which describes the entire activity of the Spirit in the Church, e.g., sacraments, conversion, faith, good works.” (from Scaer, David P, Sanctification in Lutheran theology).
Am I correct in saying that you – and the Confessions? – define sanctification primarily / only in the first sense?
Nathan: Dr. Scaer makes a good point. The term “sanctification” may be used to describe various aspects of what is revealed in Scripture. It is used in one sense as a synonym for “justification” in others it is used to describe the life that results from regeneration. Our Lutheran Confessions, and here I’m thinking specifically of the Formula do use the word “sanctification” in the latter. Similarly the word “Gospel” is used in different senses in the Scriptures and consequently the Confessions, in a wider sense and a narrower sense.
The point however is not really at the end of the day terms. We can use whatever term we wish as long as we define them correctly.
Those who are trying to insist that “sanctification” is the ongoing reception of God’s grace via the means of grace and therefore we should not speak about it in terms of our works are simply incorrect and are, with good intentions, just confusing the issue and are, wrong.
There are pastors who do believe that we should not in our sermons talk about good works Christians are to be doing, after they, in their sermons, have declared the Gospel, but rather should point out how people fail to keep the law and then, in so doing, they have covered instruction in good works simply, as far as I can tell, has no foundation in the Scriptures, Confessions or the example of our fathers in the faith as I read their sermons.

Would it not be more helpful to distinguish between the narrower and wider senses of sanctification? The Confessions seem fairly clear that we are made holy (sanctification in the wide sense) only by the Holy Spirit through the Word and Sacrament, but that in living holy (sanctification in the narrower sense) we cooperate with the Spirit in weakness and “only as long as the Spirit rules, guides, and leads him”.
McCain: Sounds good to me! We do not increase concern or appreciation for the one sense of sanctification by neglecting the other sense. That is what I see happening.