Being Lutheran Podcast Episode #180 – Augsburg Confession Article 6, Part 1

Hey brothers,

I appreciate any critique of my Reformed faith and I think the one you make in this episode is quite serious and causes me to make a hard stop to consider it. As Jason said, I believe that we and you agree on the necessity of good works. However, at about the 3:20 mark of this broadcast Jason asserts, I think correctly, that the “first move” of us Reformed “is doing good works for the glory of God rather than vocation.” I think that is a fair assessment of our approach not just to good works but to all of life. As Jason pointed out, the first question and answer in our Shorter Catechism is

Q. 1. What is the chief end of man?
A. Man’s chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him for ever.

The Scripture proofs for this Q&A are 1 Cor. 10:31; Rom. 11:36; Ps. 73:25-28.

Our Larger Catechism Q&A for the first question is slightly “larger” and goes like this:

Q. 1. What is the chief and highest end of man?
A. Man’s chief and highest end is to glorify God, and fully to enjoy him for ever.

The Scripture proofs for this Q&A are Rom. 11:36; 1 Cor. 10:31; Ps. 73:24-28; John 17:21-23.

So, I think Jason’s take is dead on. That being said, I really had no idea that we would disagree that the glory of God should be the primary motivation though. I have to admit that if the critique of our approach to good works is that we value too highly the glory of God relative to vocation I am very happy to accept that critique especially in light of I Corinthians 10:31 which commands us “…whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.” We Reformed could be wrong about our reading of this passage but it does seem to place the glory of God as the ultimate and primary motivation for everything we do even as minor as eating and drinking.

I am also in agreement with Jason criticism that there are some Reformed who, to borrow a phrase from Augustine, are “incurvatus in se”. In other words, we are navel-gazers constantly concerned that our motives are pure. But that is just a bad practice of a Reformed person who is not familiar with our confessions and catechisms or has not completely accepted the teaching on this topic contained therein.

Chapter 16 of the Westminster Confession of Faith is titled “On Good Works”. Paragraphs V & VI state the following:

“V. We can not, by our best works, merit pardon of sin, or eternal life, at the hand of God, because of the great disproportion that is between them and the glory to come, and the infinite distance that is between us and God, whom by them we can neither profit, nor satisfy for the debt of our former sins; but when we have done all we can, we have done but our duty, and are unprofitable servants: and because, as they are good, they proceed from his Spirit; and as they are wrought by us, they are defiled and mixed with so much weakness and imperfection that they can not endure the severity of God’s judgment.

“VI. Yet notwithstanding, the persons of believers being accepted through Christ, their good works also are accepted in him, not as though they were in this life wholly unblamable and unreprovable in God’s sight; but that he, looking upon them in his Son, is pleased to accept and reward that which is sincere, although accompanied with many weaknesses and imperfections.”

I like to think of paragraph VI as our version of Luther’s encouragement to “go sin boldly”.

I think that what might cause some of the problem that Jason has experienced with his contacts with us Reformed on this issue is our view of sin and how drastic it really is compared to almost everyone else’s view. Our Shorter Catechism Q&A 82 goes like this

Q. Is any man able perfectly to keep the commandments of God?

A. No mere man, since the fall, is able in this life perfectly to keep the commandments of God, but doth daily break them in thought, word, and deed.

The proof texts for this assertion are. Gen. 8:21 and Rom. 3:9ff, 23.

The Larger Catechism’s version of this is found in Q&A Q. 149 which states:

Q. Is any man able perfectly to keep the commandments of God?

A. No man is able, either of himself, or by any grace received in this life, perfectly to keep
the commandments of God; but doth daily break them in thought, word, and deed.

The proof texts for this assertion are James 3:2, John 15:5, Romans 8:3, Ecclesiastes 7:20, I John 1:8, 10, Galatians 5:17, Romans 7:18-19, Genesis 6:5, Genesis 8:21, Romans 3:9-19, James 3:2-13.

I believe this is something that we constantly address and is a point of separation, in my opinion, between our beliefs and those of many other denominations and, admittedly, it ends up causing some people to become paralyzed. But I don’t think a practice that is inconsistent with our overall beliefs, as that practice clearly is, is an argument against the belief. That is why I would not argue that your approach to vocation is wrong because there are some Lutherans out there that are doing their vocation with little to no concern about God’s glory.

None of that made me do the hard stop. What made me do the hard stop was the very provocative assertion by Brett that our approach to good works misses “the Gospel aspects of vocation”. I think we can all agree that the Gospel is incredibly important for us. Missing it in any way is potentially damning. So, I would really appreciate you unpacking that assertion for me. How is it that we miss the Gospel aspect of vocation by asserting that our primary motive for good works is God’ s glory?

I look forward to your answer. Keep up the good work.

Your brother in Christ,

One Comment

JT Borah says:
October 23, 2020 at 8:33 am
Hey brothers,
I appreciate any critique of my Reformed faith and I think the one you make in this episode is quite serious and causes me to make a hard stop to consider it. As Jason said, I believe that we and you agree on the necessity of good works. However, at about the 3:20 mark of this broadcast Jason asserts, I think correctly, that the “first move” of us Reformed “is doing good works for the glory of God rather than vocation.” I think that is a fair assessment of our approach not just to good works but to all of life. As Jason pointed out, the first question and answer in our Shorter Catechism is
Q. 1. What is the chief end of man?
A. Man’s chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him for ever.
The Scripture proofs for this Q&A are 1 Cor. 10:31; Rom. 11:36; Ps. 73:25-28.
Our Larger Catechism Q&A for the first question is slightly “larger” and goes like this:
Q. 1. What is the chief and highest end of man?
A. Man’s chief and highest end is to glorify God, and fully to enjoy him for ever.
The Scripture proofs for this Q&A are Rom. 11:36; 1 Cor. 10:31; Ps. 73:24-28; John 17:21-23.
So, I think Jason’s take is dead on. That being said, I really had no idea that we would disagree that the glory of God should be the primary motivation though. I have to admit that if the critique of our approach to good works is that we value too highly the glory of God relative to vocation I am very happy to accept that critique especially in light of I Corinthians 10:31 which commands us “…whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.” We Reformed could be wrong about our reading of this passage but it does seem to place the glory of God as the ultimate and primary motivation for everything we do even as minor as eating and drinking.
I am also in agreement with Jason criticism that there are some Reformed who, to borrow a phrase from Augustine, are “incurvatus in se”. In other words, we are navel-gazers constantly concerned that our motives are pure. But that is just a bad practice of a Reformed person who is not familiar with our confessions and catechisms or has not completely accepted the teaching on this topic contained therein.
Chapter 16 of the Westminster Confession of Faith is titled “On Good Works”. Paragraphs V & VI state the following:
“V. We can not, by our best works, merit pardon of sin, or eternal life, at the hand of God, because of the great disproportion that is between them and the glory to come, and the infinite distance that is between us and God, whom by them we can neither profit, nor satisfy for the debt of our former sins; but when we have done all we can, we have done but our duty, and are unprofitable servants: and because, as they are good, they proceed from his Spirit; and as they are wrought by us, they are defiled and mixed with so much weakness and imperfection that they can not endure the severity of God’s judgment.
“VI. Yet notwithstanding, the persons of believers being accepted through Christ, their good works also are accepted in him, not as though they were in this life wholly unblamable and unreprovable in God’s sight; but that he, looking upon them in his Son, is pleased to accept and reward that which is sincere, although accompanied with many weaknesses and imperfections.”
I like to think of paragraph VI as our version of Luther’s encouragement to “go sin boldly”.
I think that what might cause some of the problem that Jason has experienced with his contacts with us Reformed on this issue is our view of sin and how drastic it really is compared to almost everyone else’s view. Our Shorter Catechism Q&A 82 goes like this
Q. Is any man able perfectly to keep the commandments of God?
A. No mere man, since the fall, is able in this life perfectly to keep the commandments of God, but doth daily break them in thought, word, and deed.
The proof texts for this assertion are. Gen. 8:21 and Rom. 3:9ff, 23.
The Larger Catechism’s version of this is found in Q&A Q. 149 which states:
Q. Is any man able perfectly to keep the commandments of God?
A. No man is able, either of himself, or by any grace received in this life, perfectly to keep
the commandments of God; but doth daily break them in thought, word, and deed.
The proof texts for this assertion are James 3:2, John 15:5, Romans 8:3, Ecclesiastes 7:20, I John 1:8, 10, Galatians 5:17, Romans 7:18-19, Genesis 6:5, Genesis 8:21, Romans 3:9-19, James 3:2-13.
I believe this is something that we constantly address and is a point of separation, in my opinion, between our beliefs and those of many other denominations and, admittedly, it ends up causing some people to become paralyzed. But I don’t think a practice that is inconsistent with our overall beliefs, as that practice clearly is, is an argument against the belief. That is why I would not argue that your approach to vocation is wrong because there are some Lutherans out there that are doing their vocation with little to no concern about God’s glory.
None of that made me do the hard stop. What made me do the hard stop was the very provocative assertion by Brett that our approach to good works misses “the Gospel aspects of vocation”. I think we can all agree that the Gospel is incredibly important for us. Missing it in any way is potentially damning. So, I would really appreciate you unpacking that assertion for me. How is it that we miss the Gospel aspect of vocation by asserting that our primary motive for good works is God’ s glory?
I look forward to your answer. Keep up the good work.
Your brother in Christ,
JT

One Comment

Leave a Reply Cancel reply