Such justification is hidden not only from reason and the world but also from the saints. For it is not a thought, word, or work in us, but it is quite outside and above us, for it is Christ’s going to the Father, which means His suffering, Resurrection, and Ascension. And this does not take place within the range of our senses, so that we might see or feel it; but we can grasp it through faith alone.
And this is a remarkable justification, that we should be called just or possess a righteousness which is no work or thought of ours, and is nothing in us, but is completely outside of us, in Christ, and yet is truly made ours through His gracious gift and as completely our own as if it had been attained and merited by our own selves. No reason could understand this language which gives the name justification to me where I neither do or suffer anything, neither think, sense, or feel anything, and there is nothing in me by reason of which I could be saved and made well-pleasing to God; but apart from myself and all man’s thoughts, works, and powers, I hold on to Christ (seated on high at the right hand of the Father), although I cannot see Him.
But faith can grasp it and build upon it and find strength through it in the midst of temptation. (Exposition of John 16)
Old Life 
Hmmm…. that is why we are not Lutherans. Besides I thought Lutherans connected regeneration (and thus justification..though later in the OS) with the sacrament of baptism. Kinda easy to figure out when someone is justified in lutheran thought.
LikeLike
Darryl, why do you think Luther said that we don’t “think” anything? Surely, we should be comprehending something of Christ and his Gospel at the moment that we first receive faith. I’m having trouble envisioning faith without thought.
LikeLike
That’s a beautiful thing (what can I say I am from Chicago). It makes me want to do cartwheels and even pet cats. That’s an inside joke.
LikeLike
Joseph, I would try to do a more thorough reading on the Lutheran view of baptism before coming to the conclusions you did. It is a bit more involved than what you say. I would not conclude that just because a Lutheran is baptized that another Lutheran would consider him justified. Even Fesko does not draw that conclusion in his book on baptism. Better dig more deeply into Lutheran theology.
LikeLike
John is right. I think you are mis-reading Luther’s quote, Joseph, as well as not understanding Luther’s view of baptism.
LikeLike
Joseph H., I can’t help but think that part of the answer might be found in something like 1 Cor. 1:18-31:
For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written,
“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.”
Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, so that, as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.”
I don’t think the point is to diametrically oppose thought to faith but rather to say that faith is the biblical category as opposed to understanding (or experience, etc.). We relate to God by faith and not by sight, which is to say thought, emotion, experience or whatever “range of our senses, so that we might see or feel it.” So I wonder if when you have “trouble conceiving of faith without thought” it is similar to how Pentecostals have trouble conceiving of faith without experience. What I mean is that maybe we Reformed have the abiding problem of intellectualism the way Pentecostals have the abiding problem of experientialism. Thought surely is of a higher order than experience, but both are still categorically distinct from that of faith.
LikeLike
Zrim, thanks. That’s an interesting passage and I’ll try take the warning against intellectualism to heart. Yet, the Gospel is a set of propositions to be preached and heard. It is in the preaching and hearing of these propositions that the Spirit moves to grant faith and repentance. You may have put your finger on a mystery — how believing the Gospel and understanding it to any degree may occur simultaneously? The faith must be in something (some propositions about Jesus), yet it’s folly until you have the faith.
LikeLike
@Joseph #2: Lutheranism has a more Christocentric focus on Calvinism, which has a more theocentric focus. Lutherans talk more of the cross while Calvinists deal with God’s will and glory. To Lutherans (as well as Anglicans) God is so transcendent He cannot be known. He must be known through the Incarnation, where He became one of us.
LikeLike
I with you on this is a beautiful thing, John. And people think the frozen chosen are unemotional? Nah… we do invisible cartwheels!
LikeLike
Bart,
And I would add, from a Lutheran perpective, that Luther talks of the “hideness” of God–and that He is known primarily through the crucified Christ and in His suffering. I wouldn’t say that “God is so transcendent, He cannot be known.”
LikeLike
I did read in Fesko’s book on Baptism the other day that Calvin talked of feeling and experiencing the “power” (of the Gospel, I am presuming) when partaking of the sacraments in faith. I just found the reference: “Calvin did not believe that the Old Testament sacraments, such as circumcision, merely foreshadowed the grace that would come through Christ in the New Testament. Rather, Calvin believed that the scriptures placed Christ as the substance as both Old Testament and New Testament sacraments. Calvin identified circumcision, purifications, sacrifices, and rites from the law of Moses as Old Testament sacraments, but in the wake of the ministry of Christ, there are now only two, baptism and the Lord’s Supper. True, the sacraments of the New Testament more clearly reveal Christ, but Calvin nevertheless believed the sacraments of both testaments were equal. ‘They’, writes Calvin, referring to Old Testament saints, ‘felt the same power in the sacraments as we do in ours; these were seals of divine good will toward them looking to eternal salvation.’
Could this be the confessional version of revival?
LikeLike
That is on p. 82 in Fesko’s book Word, Water and Spirit.
LikeLike
John Y., how about a biblical version of true devotion?
LikeLike
Joseph “Missing the Point” Grigoletti
LikeLike
Darryl,
I was speaking tongue-in-cheek; biblical version of true devotion works for me. I know you love that word revival. I think you put it up there with radical.
LikeLike
John Y. Got it. Revival is right there in the book of banned words with feelings.
LikeLike
Darryl,
Now you have got to help me out with Vern- he won’t let me off the hook with the reconstructionist thing and he thinks an emphasis argument is a fallacy. And now he wants to go to the book of James- I wonder why?
LikeLike
Darryl,
Can you give me a date on when Luther wrote that exposition on John 16? Was it from his commentary on the Gospel of John?
LikeLike
John Y. I took it from page 252 in Day By Day We Magnify Thee (Daily Readings for the Entire Year). The reference there is WA 46.44 ff — almost as indecipherable as the Koeschel numbers affixed to Bach’s compositions.
LikeLike
Darryl,
I was wondering about the date because the early Luther (before 1525) said some things that would make one wonder if he wavered on the objective and subjective work of the Gospel. It seems like a lot of the reformers wavered on this from time to time in their writings and it gets confusing for those studying them on how to make sense and bring clarity to the issue. I know Luther after 1525 was very reluctant to go subjective at all and seemed more conscious or aggressively opposed to subjectivism than Melanchthon and Calvin. That’s why I was inquiring of the date. I will try to do a google search to see what I can find.
LikeLike
Hi John,
I don’t mean to butt in, but something came to mind that may be helpful. When the BOC was written, the decision was made to renounce some of Melancthon’s work, but to not name him. I can’t remember exactly what it was all about, but I’m sure your pastor does. Or have you already covered that in your BOC studies?
LikeLike
Lily,
The second Martin and those he worked with did correct some to the problems associated with Melanchthon in the later writings in the confessions (BOC). I also just read in Fesko’s book on Baptism that Luther and the confessions do not speak of baptismal regeneration like many Lutheran’s today teach it. I was going to go back and check the confessions out in the sections on baptism but have not yet. What do you think about that? I always had trouble with baptismal regeneration and this is often misunderstood outside the Lutheran camp.
LikeLike
Lily,
Good luck in your battles with Paul. I would not bother- unless you’re well versed in logic and philosophy he rarely validates anything you say. And he gets quite condescending and rude about it. Most whom he has blasted end (on the grounds of invalid arguments) up ignoring him. He usually does not read what I say so I doubt if he will read this.
LikeLike
Hey John,
You never cease to impress me with all of your knowledge and studies! I wish I could be of help on baptism – the scriptures seem plain to me on the subject so I’ve never backtracked the subject. I’ve read Hermann Sasse’s: We Confess Anthology (see the link below). I don’t think it’s sold in three parts anymore, but if you can lay your hands on the part about the sacraments – that’s the section I’m recommending. The Anthology is required reading by some professors at the seminary, so that says something much better than my recommendation. I would love to hear the results of your study.
Thanks for the warning about Paul – if that’s logic and philosophy at work – it’s nothing I’m familiar with. The man who really impressed me with his skills is Christopher Hitchens. He seems like an honest man and I hope all of the prayers being offered for him will make a difference and end with a heart of faith in him.
We Confess Anthology
http://www.amazon.com/We-Confess-Anthology-Hermann-Sasse/dp/057004278X
LikeLike
Hey John,
I finally looked for Fesko – are you talking about J.V. Fesko (former Baptist now Reformed) and his book, Word Water and Spirit? Few people outside Lutheranism “get” Luther. Please check with you pastor – he also might have the Sasse book that I mentioned earlier. Blessed Pascha to you! 😉
P.S. I started using the old term: Pascha this year in rebellion to the misuse of the word Easter. If I see another Dr. Suess Easter Hunt advertisement or other such nonsense… ugh!!!
LikeLike
Lily,
Thanks for the link. Blessed Pascha to you too. I concur with the ads.
LikeLike
And yes Lily, that is the Fesko book I was referring to. Although this post is 2 days late. Fesko goes into much detail about the biblical and theological error (reformed view) of baptismal regeneration.
LikeLike
I hear you, John, The Lutherans return the favor in the BOC and Saxon Visitation if I remember correctly (not to mention later writings). Definitely among the areas the communions are not in agreement and I try to avoid discussing outside our communion.
LikeLike