1984

     When I began AP summer reading and had to read How to Read Literature Like a Professor, I was shocked when the author claimed that there is only one story.  He described how many works follow a common pattern.  As I read 1984, I truly understood that.  Since I've already read Anthem, Fahrenheit 451, and Brave New World, I began to feel like I'd overdosed on dystopian novels because I noticed all the similarities.  Anthem is my favorite, but in terms of which is the best literary work, I'm not really sure.  I just know it's not Fahrenheit 451.
     There is one quote in 1984 that stuck out to me, especially the last sentence.  "The book fascinated him, or more exactly it reassured him.  In a sense it told him nothing new, but that was part of the attraction.  It said what he would have said, if it had been possible for him to set his scattered thoughts in order.  It was the product of a mind similar to his own, but enormously more powerful, more systematic, less fear-ridden.  The best books, he perceived, are those that tell you what you know already."

Lindke and Lecture 23: The Answers

     Questions:  Does Lecture 22 apply only before conversion?  Can contrition proceed from love of God, as in a person being sorry they sinned against the very God who died for them?
     According to Lindke's paper, "Apology, Article XII (V):  Of Repentance," repentance has two parts:

• Contrition:  Terrors smiting the conscience through the knowledge of sin 
• Faith:  Believes that, for Christ's sake, sins are forgiven, comforts the conscience and delivers from terrors

     Repentance can be described in two ways:

• Stricte dicta:  Contrition
• Late dicta:  Contrition and faith

     Lecture 23 states, "One of the principal reasons why many at this point mingle Law and Gospel is that they fail to distinguish the daily repentance of Christians from the repentance which precedes faith."  At all times, contrition can be defined as "being bruised or crushed" (Lindke quotes Our Great Heritage).  What Walther is pointing to with his distinction is that "because Christians are both sinners and saints, their faith in the Gospel can have an ameliorating effect on the fear inherent in their contrition.  The dominant emotion then can become sorrow, based not on terror before the God of judgment, but on the knowledge that we have offended the gracious Lord of our salvation (Lindke)."  However, Lindke goes on to caution against focusing too much on this differentiation, saying, "While this distinction has validity and value in understanding the sorrow contrite Christians feel, it tends to relegate God's law to a secondary position in contrition.  Walther's statement stands:  'Contrition is solely an effect of the Law.'  David was crushed when Nathan said, 'You are the man,' not when he said, 'The Lord has taken away your sin.'"
      Walther writes, "David had contrition together with faith.  That is, indeed, a sacrifice with which God is pleased.  Contrition of this kind is not a mere effect of the Law, produced by the Law alone, but it is at the same time an operation of the Gospel.  By the Gospel the love of God enters a person's heart, and when contrition proceeds from love of God, it is indeed a truly sweet sorrow, acceptable to God."  I typed this quote before reading Lindke's article; when I came back to it today, my ears perked up.  To me, this sounds like Walther is distinguishing repentance stricte dicta from late dicta.

Short Answer:  Before conversion, contrition cannot proceed from love of God.  Afterward, it may be seasoned with love, but this is not necessary.  The bottom line is that contrition is an effect of the law.

Vocab:
Ameliorate:  to make better, improve

Lecture 22: Short and Sweet

     Short Summary:  Thesis XI attacks the false teaching that contrition is worthless if it comes from fear of God's wrath and punishment rather than love for God.
     Commentary:  At first, this made no sense to me; how would you be contrite out of love?  As it turns out, that's the point.  The idea is that we should be sorry for sins because we have love for God in our hearts (point:  we have good hearts) rather than a selfish fear of punishment.  The clearest Biblical examples refuting this are the jailer at Philippi and the crowd at Pentecost.  Before conversion, there is no love for God in our hearts; they are hostile rather than good.
     As I began writing this post, I started to wonder if this applies to us only before conversion; after conversion, can we be sorry for our sins because they hurt God?  Well, let's begin with four pertinent details of Lecture 22 to provide a background for investigation.
    After conversion, the Law doesn't stop working.  It still acts as a mirror; Romans 3: 20 states, "Through the law we become conscious of sin."  Walther comments, "Here the apostle states the function of the Law:  it produces, not love, but the knowledge of sin."  He also later writes, "Even when there is love of God in a person's heart, it will be spoiled by the devil."  Walther quotes the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, "When we speak de contritione, that is, regarding genuine contrition, we cut out those innumerable questions which they cast up, viz., whether a person's contrition flows from love of God or from fear of punishment.  For these are nothing but mere words and a useless babbling of persons who have never experienced the state of mind of a terrified conscience.  But we say that contrition is the true terror of conscience, when it begins to feel its sin and the anger of God against sin and is sorry for having sinned."
     With that said, I'm not going to answer the questions yet.  Lecture 23, which I've read, expands upon the subject, and I also want to check out a paper from the WLS Essay file, Rev. Allen Lindke's "Apology, Article XII (V):  Of Repentance."
     Vocab:  

Τοῦτό ἐστι τὸ σῶμα μου = Touto mou estin to soma = (literal translation) "This is the body of me," Jesus' words in the Lord's Supper

Nitimur in vetitum semper cupimusque negata = We are ever striving after what is forbidden, and coveting what is denied us.

Lectures 20 and 21

     I have once again picked up Walther's Law and Gospel, this time with a new reading strategy based on a teacher's advice.  I am trying to read it like other books, not study, but here are some highlights.
     Lecture 20 describes "faith unfeigned," genuine faith, while dispatching the false doctrine that faith, once present, cannot be lost.  Genuine faith is not simply believing that the Bible's teachings are true; living faith changes the heart.
     Lecture 21 presents two explanations of justification.  I've written them as equations.
Catholic:  Faith + Love = Justification
Lutheran:  Faith = Justification, then Faith → Love
    In chemistry, → means "yields;" Walther would probably say "produces."  Faith yields love and good works, but they are not what gives it power to justify.  At one point, I wondered why it mattered what came when; if faith naturally produces love, who cares when justification takes place?  The problem is that if I believe I am justified partially by the love, or good works, that I add to faith, I am relying on work righteousness.  The burden of salvation is on me, and though I can't carry it, I don't look to the One who can.
     The analogy that drove Lecture 21 home for me was that of an apple tree.  You don't add apples (love) to an apple tree (faith); the tree simply produces them!  I'd heard the second part of this analogy before, but not the first.
Vocab:
     Forma:  The quality that makes something what it is.  The forma of applesauce is apples.  According to Catholic teaching, love is the forma of faith.
     Fides Formata:  According to Catholic teaching, faith with the proper form; that is, faith with love added to it.
     Fides Informis:  According to Catholic teaching, faith without the proper form; that is, faith without love added to it.