I love Luther’s line that “they may be fine Easter preachers, but they are very poor Pentecost preachers”.
Or to put it another way, using Meilaender again:
“We need a theology that does not invite us to act as if the incarnation, cross, and empty tomb have done nothing new and transforming in history”

This is an excellent quote from a rather “late” Luther work, On the Councils and the Church (1539), representing Luther’s final stand on the medieval church. This is “Luther unplugged,” a rambling discourse by a man who has nothing to lose and is simply telling the unvarnished truth. It is one of my favorite works of Luther. As you demonstrate with this quote, it is a most relevant read today.

“…but also cessation of, sin.” Does this mean as Christians we are able to stop sinning.

Gregory,
I don’t think Luther thought we could quit sinning all together. But for instance if we are guilty of fornication, we might quit fornicating at least physically, and we might try to keep our minds from wandering too. We just don’t tell the shacked up couple hey thats o.k. because your forgiven. We might tell them, hey move out or tie the knot, but you can’t go on like this.
This idea that we can’t keep from sinning, therefore we ought not try to clean our lives up, is a bit silly. My guess is that was what Luther was getting at.

“Does this mean as Christians we are able to stop sinning.[?}”
It means that God has begun the transformation of the old man in Adam into the new man in Christ, which is now whole and entire by imputation but becomes wholly our own by our death and resurrection. We are becoming what we already are in Christ. Sin ultimately ceases when we die, and the old Adam dies daily by the Holy Spirit working through Baptism, “beginning and growing here on earth and perfecting it beyond, as St. Paul teaches (Rm 6- 7).”

Certainly. Now, the fact that we won’t be perfect in this life, that we will fall into sin, is a pretty poor argument against preaching that we are to repent our sins and, with the Holy Spirit, amend our lives.

Gregory,
No one could accuse Luther of believing that. There’s a big difference between struggling with sin (which is the life of repentance) and living in sin (which is the antinomian life). I believe Luther is talking about ceasing to “live in sin.” I’m no Greek scholar, but I’ve heard that Biblically this is reflected as a difference between “sinning” and “doing sin.” Anyone know more about this?

if you but believe, you are saved
It seems that Dr. Luther is still describing an antinomian which in the end is still legalistic. The antinomian here takes faith as another law which the listener can auto induce by himself.
LPC

I can’t imagine putting matters any more clearly than Pastor Cwirla did in his Nov. 15, 3:04p.m. comment. Thanks Pr. Cwirla!

Amen to Pastor Cwirla! This topic has special interest to me, since I have a friend who has gone the way of legalism, and accuses me of going the way of license.
I agree with Pastor Cwirla’s explaination, and my sadness is with those who do not understand that “We are becoming what we already are in Christ”, and that the ability to clean up ones life does not qualify as a litmus test as to whether one is “in” or “out”.

Doug, we do not merit heaven by our works. But, a person who willfully, intentionally and persistently engages in actions that are contrary to God’s Word does in fact drive out the Holy Spirit.
For instance, a persons who continually becomes drunk and does not despair of this behavior and manfully fight to overcome it, but says to himself, “Oh, well, I know I am a child of God. I am forgiven in Christ. I am ok” and goes along his merry way continually becoming drunk, or engaging in fornication or adultery or other such places himself outside the kingdom of God.

Rev. McCain, I agree. As a layman, I have had conversations with both types. My experience has been that those who emphasize “go and sin no more” without also including “neither do I condemn you” do far greater damage to the individual.
I have seen those who have gone too far down the way of liberty repent and come back again, but those who go too far down the road of legalism seem to be lost for a very long time. To date, I have yet to see one of that persuasion come back to Christ alone as their basis for assurance.
I believe both must be given – law & gospel – but would personally err ever so slightly to the side of forgiveness in the hope of leading my brother to trust in Christ alone in all aspects of salvation.
My trouble lies with the idea of the litmus test, and the seemingly ever present self examination (found in Reformed circles) that never reveal the real problem; the still present sinful nature. As Bo Giertz reminds us in his book, picking the burrs off of the coat, or removing the bugs and holding them up to God is the easy part.

My reading 1 John 2:1-2 says God still does not want us to sin, though if we do, we have an Advocate.
LPC

When Luther writes, “Now he who does not abstain from sin, but persists in his evil life, must have a different Christ, that of the Antinomians; the real Christ is not there, even if all the angels would cry, “Christ! Christ!” He must be damned with this, his new Christ”, he is reflecting what the Lutheran confessions reiterate again and again, that such a faith is an “delusion”.
The confessions say FC SD IV, 15 ” Therefore the expressions or propositions mentioned [that good works are necessary, and that it is necessary to do good] are unjustly censured and rejected in this Christian and proper sense, as has been done by some; for they are employed and used with propriety to rebuke and reject the secure, Epicurean delusion, by which many fabricate for themselves a dead faith or delusion which is without repentance and without good works, as though there could be in a heart true faith and at the same time the wicked intention to persevere and continue in sins, which is impossible; as though one could, indeed, have and retain true faith, righteousness, and salvation even though he be and remain a corrupt and unfruitful tree, whence no good fruits whatever come, yea, even though he persist in sins against conscience, or purposely engages again in these sins, –all of which is incorrect and false.”
Please note that the confessors deny the idea that a person has faith who continues in wicked intention, and at the end of paragraph, use language which is other places described as mortal sin, that is, “he persist in sins against conscience”. This is a classic definition of mortal sin…sins against conscience, against better knowledge, purposely to engage in sin. (See Chemnitz’s Loci, the article on Mortal Sin for 30 pages of discussion on this). Melancthon, in AP IV, 61-68 also makes this clear to Rome, that we do not call such behavior faith. For they were quite critical of the Lutherans and often accused them of such a characterization of faith.
Walther also makes this quite clear in Law and Gospel in a number of theses.
The point, getting back to Luther’s quote, is that the matter is not just that one likes Easter and the other like Pentecost, but rather, one has Christ, and Christ is the object of the faith of one and NOT the other. This is not just a matter of preaching a bit more about good works, but it is essentially a matter of pastoral care. About listening carefully to people who are not clinging to Christ by faith, but to a delusion, and warning them, calling them to repentance. This is an important aspect of pastoral care. The preaching of the law, calling people to lead holy lives, exposes these delusions in those who call themselves Christians. When that happens the pastor must seek to counsel these folk from the word, to lead them back to Christ.

The Confessions teach that we can to a very small extent begin to fulfill the Law in this life (those who are regenerate, that is). This is done only with great weakness, but the Holy Spirit enables us to turn from sin and pursue good works in this life already. If this were not true, then none of us would ever go to church, pray, or do anything described in the Ten Commandments. We cannot preach to regenerate Christians as if they were total unbelievers. We preach to them as Christians, who still struggle with sin and its consequences.

Pastor Beisel, thanks for your comment. Amen and Amen to it. I believe we need to do a great deal more with the truth that Christ dwells within us, the entire Trinity in fact, as a blessed fruit of our being declared righteous. A pastor shared a sermon he delivered, in a comment he made on the other recent post on this subject and frankly, after listening to it, I was rather appalled at his tone. It was angry. It was scolding and harsh. He was nearly yelling at his congregation. I believe he made the mistake of preaching to his flock as if they were not, and are not, baptized children of God. The Law predominated in his sermon and this should not be.
Yes, we know former Evangelicals heard nothing but Law, and little Gospel, but it is wrong for any Lutheran pastor to over-compensate for this by never preaching and teaching the proper Biblical understanding of our duty, calling and life in Christ as baptized children of God to strive against the sinful flesh, in manly battle against the temptations that come our way, doing so precisely in the strength that is ours in Christ, forever pleading for His mercy and relying on it totally.
We have given some former Evangelicals the impression that Lutheranism is saying:Relax, dont’ worry about doing any works. And sadly I’ve seen tragic examples of people imbibing deeply of this kind of antinomian garbage living precisely as though they need not give any attention to their life in Christ! We reap what we sow.

What is interesting in this discussion is that it seems that we are missing Luther’s words. He says in the quote above, “Now he who does not abstain from sin, but persists in his evil life, must have a different Christ, that of the Antinomians”. Now, while I agree that Christians do seek to do God’s will, the new man desires to do what is right, but that is not what Luther is talking about here, is it? To have a different Christ, that is, quoting Luther “persists in his evil life, must have a *different Christ*”, means one is a Christian? An unbeliever? Again, please read the words of Luther, and tell me who Luther is preaching to when he speaks to those who “persist” in sins.
This discussion continues to revolve around those who claim to have faith, but “persist in living in sin”. They watch slasher movies, porn, get drunk etc, and all without concern. Claiming to stand in the grace of God. Do they, according to Luther, have faith? Do they, according to the confessions, have faith? Are they believers? According the confessions I quoted above, can faith exist in the heart of such a person? The confessions say NO! Luther says that have a “different Christ”. Is there more than one Christ who we can have as the object of our faith?
Yes, we exhort Christians to live in love. The question is, what are the means to produce this? Exhortations or the means of grace? When we speak about the fruit of the spirit, that is, Love, what does this mean? Who produces it? When? How? While I hear a lot of folk speaking about doing good works, I hear very few connecting that goal to the means, which are always and only, the means of grace. Love, eg, is a fruit of the Spirit. He produces it. (He is never disconnected from the WORD/means.) If I come to the means, I have accomplished nothing. I come as a beggar, seeking God to work. I bring nothing and add nothing. I come in faith, trusting that God will work. My coming does not cause him to work.

Hi Dave,
I wasn’t aware that anyone had said that it was anything but the means of grace that give the power to do this. Love is a fruit of faith, not the cause of it. Where the fruits are lacking, as you have rightly pointed out, is there really faith? It certainly calls that into question.
In discussions like this I think it is possible for one to speak only of one aspect. We are focusing in this discussion on the fruits of faith, and the need for preachers to instruct people in the works they ought to be pursuing if they are truly converted believers. In a sermon, quite obviously, one must make it clear that these are truly fruits, and not nuts (sorry, just a little humor there). McCain’s beef with preaching today is simply that there seems to be lots of preaching of repentance, lots of preaching of faith/atonement/Christ, but little preaching of new obedience. And, if we are to follow Chemnitz’ advice in “Ministry, Word, and Sacraments” (which you and I were discussing at Conference over breakfast), we should preach all three: repentance, faith, and new obedience.

I am not interested in seeing this posted, just figured it was a way to write to you quickly…
Paul, a personal remark about my sermon. You are right, the sermon was very harsh, as the words from Paul were very harsh, spoken to “Christians”. (“Those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God” A very severe warning, and yet even more necessary, the need to stop Christians from camping on certain sins, like drunkenness, slasher movies, porn, homosexuality, (sound familiar?) and actually take the law seriously in their lives, that is, when they have their *list* of no-nos and yap about them all the time, missing the fact that they, themselves, are in the same boat. And here the confusion that you and Paul Beisel exhibit is interesting. You ignore Luther’s words and then use your ignorance to slam my sermon, and that in a very backhanded way. Please be aware Paul, the blade that you are wheeling so freely at times, cuts two ways. Others are watching just how good your works are, and as I have said to you before, with the audience that you seem to have, well, comes a lot of responsibility). (Btw, long before your comment, I wrote to someone who reads your blog, evaluating this sermon myself as very strong law, hard to hear and not one of my best sermons. I did not post it looking for compliments and was surprised when it garnered no severe criticisms).
Wrt what you actually said about the sermon. You were right, it was harsh at times. The law is not easy to preach and my concern is that nobody walked away that day thinking that somehow there are anything but repentant sinners and impenitent sinners. That sins, like the ones found in 1 cor 6, Gal 5 et al, accuse us all, and so we dare be very careful lest we look down our nose about certain sins, eg homosexuality and other forms of sexual immorality while ignoring gossip, envy, greed which are common among Christians and often carried on with impunity, and which if we carry on impenitently condemn us. That even in our best works, if we are not repentant for the sin that inheres in it, as Luther said at Heidleberg, that good work becomes for us, a mortal sin.
However, I have to completely disagree with your comment that the law predominated. Yes, there was a LOT of law, as there was in the text. The Gospel predominates in a sermon when it is the answer to the problem exposed by the law. The problem through this section of Gal 5 is that people were misusing their freedom, lacking in LOVE etc. Cf vs 12-14. These are Christians. So what ANSWER did Paul suggest? Walk in the Spirit…that is, come to the means of grace. That the Spirit will produce these things in and through you. This is a promise to those Christians who see themselves failing and tempted to begin to believe that it is ok to walk in the lusts of your flesh. The answer that I gave in the sermon, pointedly and clearly is that the answer is in the application of the Gospel, the means of Grace, which the Spirit uses to produce the new life of a Christian. The Gospel is the answer to that question.
Now compare this to your discussions, and there with the exception of the occasional gospel cliche about grace, there is no serious connection of the new life in Christ with the Gospel. To put it bluntly, there is no real gospel application. The Law predominates because you do not point us to the gospel in any way. The gospel is almost treated as a *power* with which we are invested and which we exercise, rather than God’s work in us through the means. That is to pervert the gospel itself. My sermon was harsh law, and as I said to you a long time ago, the text will give opportunity to preach about new life and love, which is a fulfillment of the law (gal 5:14). This text is clearly spoken to Christians, and is very hard to hear. However, Paul does not just degenerate into a list of exhortations without a connection to the means, as your messages and those of others so often do. Rather, in the middle of it all are the means of grace, which work our sanctification, the Spirit working and producing in us Love, HIS FRUIT, for which HE gets all the glory.

Paul Beisel!
We talked Chemnitz and ate breakfast together! What does this mean?
Paul B., Luther is speaking about and preaching to unbelievers, in this quotation, is he not?

Dave,
I wasn’t commenting at all on your sermon. I think that Luther is saying that those who persist in sins though they claim to believe in Christ really do not have Christ at all (a “different Christ”). He is saying they are not really Christians. I’m sorry that you thought my statements before were ignorant. I wasn’t anywhere disagreeing with you.
Paul Beisel

Paul B.,
I said you both were ignoring Luther’s words and that Paul McCain slammed my sermon, why in this way and in this place I really do not understand.
Second, the words of Luther in this quotation essentially speak to, what Luther and our confessions considered, unbelievers. Now the message that you wrote, which Paul M. offered his Amen to, speaks about a third use of the law, cf what Paul M. offered “never preaching and teaching the proper Biblical understanding of our duty, calling and life in Christ as baptized children of God to strive against the sinful flesh, in manly battle against the temptations that come our way”. Now, simply put, the third use does not apply to those who “persist in sin” and have a “different Christ”. It is a misuse of the third use, to apply to those who do not have faith. It is of no real use.
Finally, I am sorry that I got into this discussion. I do believe that the discussion, as framed, creates much more heat than light. I have come to believe that it is a waste of time. Not that a discussion about preaching the third use, Christian living etc would ever be a waste of time. But this discussion does not try to do that, rather, as you say, it seeks “to speak only of one aspect”. And that is what creates the confusion, I believe, for many.
The law will never solve, motivate, enable etc anyone to live a Christian life. To speak about Christian living one must needs speak about the Gospel. Because this discussion just keeps hammering about “one aspect” I believe many find it confusing, trying to figure out how the problem is resolved without the gospel.
And while it could have actually produced good fruit among many who have lacked clarity it just keeps hammering away, ignoring the confessions and Luther, even when they are quoted.
See you for another breakfast, perhaps in April. Bring along your Chemnitz.

This is just harsh. You obviously haven’t read my recent post on “preaching on New Obedience.” I don’t see how I have said anything off the mark in any of these discussions.
PLB

Paul B., Paul McCain
I am sorry if what I said was harsh, unreasonable, unkind etc. I was trying to call attention to the way in which Luther and the confessors dealt with those who were living in persistant sin, and that is not to preach the third use, not to give lessons on holy living. Good pastoral care requires a clear call to repentance not parenesis, in this case. I guess I was having a hard time getting from the Luther quote to a preaching of the third use. My bad, I suppose.
As I said, having thought about this for some time now, I really believe that the way this discussion has been/is framed, is not a discussion that will bear much fruit. Others may disagree and I say carry on! I will leave the thing alone and carry on the work I have to do.
Again, I am sorry that I injected myself, and beg forgiveness for any offense I have caused. As I did have 14 hours of driving to do today, I did listen to the sermon Paul McCain critiqued, again, listening for tone, anger, scolding, gospel, and I have to say, while what I preached was a lot of law, the Gospel predominated, and I did not hear any scolding or anger. I did hear passion and intensity, and I suppose that could be mistaken/misunderstood for anger etc. But others, my wife and a friend, both of whom are more than willing to point out my mistakes, did not find such things in this sermon, nor did a church member who spoke to me about this particular sermon, just recently, in a conversation unrelated to this recent comment about the sermon on this blog.
In any case, carry on! I hope that this discussion bears fruit for those involved.

Dave,
Okay–I think I finally get what you were saying after reading your last comment. I just wasn’t understanding you properly. You are right–preaching to unrepentant sinners is not 3rd use. It is really second use. It is the preaching of repentance. Luther is obviously referring to people who need to be called to repentance once again, and converted to faith in Christ.
Paul B.

One thing that needs to be kept in mind when one critiques a sermon is that the pastor who wrote and preached it knows his people and knows what they need. We, as mere 2nd hand-hearers, do not! I believe, though, if one is willing to be taught *what* the *text* says, that one could be well-benefit from listening to the sermons on St.Paul’s Altamont website (be they pastors or lay people!) Sorry for the shameless plug for a friend, but I couldn’t resist!