“42] Many disputations also are usefully and well explained by means of this true distinction, of which the Apology treats in reference to the passage James 2:20. For when we speak of faith, how it justifies, the doctrine of St. Paul is that faith alone, without works, justifies, Rom. 3:28, inasmuch as it applies and appropriates to us the merit of Christ, as has been said. But if the question is, wherein and whereby a Christian can perceive and distinguish, either in himself or in others, a true living faith from a feigned and dead faith, (since many idle, secure Christians imagine for themselves a delusion in place of faith, while they nevertheless have no true faith,) the Apology gives this answer: James calls that dead faith where good works and fruits of the Spirit of every kind do not follow. And to this effect the Latin edition of the Apology says: Iacobus recte negat, nos tali fide iustificari, quae est sine operibus, hoc est, quae mortua est. That is: St. James teaches correctly when he denies that we are justified by such a faith as is without works, which is dead faith. ”

Looking at my past posts and reading my BOC, I have decided, I better get cracking, I have alot to learn.

MM

You can find Luther’s sermons at christianbooks.com at a realy great price. You can google search for Walther’s sermons, there’s a few websites that publish them.

Greg,

You bring up a good point about growth in santification. I was reading the BOC sections on good works and L&G. The reformers also mention growth in santification. While at the same time mentioning the Holy Spirit produces that growth by convicting us of our failure to keep God’s Law and turning us back to the righteousness of Christ. God also is the only one who can actualy see that growth, because He’s the only one who can see the true motivation of the heart. If we went by externals only, Mormon’s, Budhists, JW’s and even some athiests could seem righteous. I think it’s good that we Lutherans focus on Justification like we do, but at the same time, I think it’s dangerous to downplay santification. Our forefathers didn’t.

MM

Maybe I should have explained myself better. From God’s perspective, there is no “tension” between Law and Gospel, but we as 100% saints and 100% sinners create that “tension”. Let me explain what I mean by tension. That tension is the suduction of exremes that lies between being a legalist or an antinomian. As I thinking about this more and more, I agree with you that the tension doesn’t lie with the Gospel. It lies with on how we use the Law. As I read the “Old Lutherans”, in their sermons they would simply preach the text and the Holy Spirit would apply the application of the Law on wether it’s a 2nd or 3rd use. It seems like many today are trying to “shoe horn” the 2nd use of the Law into every passage that gives a command. I could be way off base, so please correct me if I’m wrong. But I can’t help but noticing a difference between the “Old Lutherans” and us newbies, on how they use the Law. Hey, maybe it’s time to have a week long series on Law and Gospel, get a mix bag of theologians like Saleska, Rosenbladt to Baker? Or maybe a pastors roundtable?

Blessings
MM

If you ask the average American, he will have knowledge of the basic Gospel message and he can probably tell you all about “forgiveness” because it is very trendy to be “forgiving” in our culture right now. But ask the average American what he knows about the Ten Commandments and I think you might be surprised at the ignorance you would find. I wonder what percentile would even be able to name 5 out of the 10? Concepts about which I wrote earlier, like the voluntary restitution involved in repentance, are completely alien to most people. The extent of the evidence is probably not conducive to the forum of a blog site but at present, America does lack an understanding of God’s Law far beyond any deficit in its awareness of the Gospel message. I also agree with Mr. Mapus’ insight that at least concerning the sermons I’ve heard, it is rare that I hear the full weight of the law preached and explained. What I hear most often is a barely perceptible, watered down version of the law and a lengthy discourse on all the freedoms of the Gospel. I won’t try to explain again what message this sends to most people; all I can suggest is that there is a problem and there are perceptibly harmful ramifications.

Also, I am assuming there is some reasoning that is escaping me behind Pastor Wilken’s statement that “ . . . the Church Growth movement is fundamentally pietistic and legalistic.” I don’t see any reason to agree with that statement because on the contrary, the Church Growth movement is all about tolerance in general and accommodating alternative worship styles in order to increase the size of a congregation. That is shameless antinomianism; exactly the opposite of legalism. It is throwing out certain laws and rules in favor of tolerance and accommodation and I would consider it another example of the prevalence of antinomianism in our age.

MM