Gnesio » Theology

They Need No More Discussion or Clever Interpretation

Gnesio — Sun, 08 Apr 2012 19:49:07 +0000

If some were to teach doctrines contradicting an article of faith clearly grounded in Scripture and believed throughout the world by all Christendom, such as the articles we teach children in the Creed – for example, if anyone were to teach that Christ is not God, but a mere man and like other prophets, as the Turks and the Anabaptists hold – such teachers should not be tolerated… For they are not mere heretics but open blasphemers… With their blasphemy such teachers defame the name of God… In like manner, …those [should not be tolerated] who teach that Christ did not die for our sins, but that everyone shall make his own satisfaction for them. For that, too, is blasphemy against the Gospel and against the article we pray in the Creed: “I believe in the forgiveness of sins” and “in Jesus Christ, dead and risen.” Those should be treated in the same way who teach that the resurrection of the dead and the life everlasting are nothing, that there is no hell, and like things, as did the Sadducees and the Epicureans, of whom many are now arising among the great wiseacres. … We are told that when the holy fathers at the Council of Nicea heard the doctrine of the Arians read, all hissed unanimously, and would not listen or permit any argument or defense but condemned them out of hand, without disputation, as blasphemers. … So, in this case, there ought not to be much disputing; but such open blasphemers should be condemned without a hearing and without defense, as Paul commands (Titus 3:10): “A heretic is to be avoided and let go, after he has been admonished once or twice”; and he forbids Timothy to wrangle and dispute, since this has no effect, except to pervert those who hear (1 Tim. 6:20). For these common articles of all Christendom have had hearing enough. They have been proved and decreed by the Scriptures and by the confession of the whole church, confirmed by many miracles, and sealed by the blood of many holy martyrs. They are testified to and defended in the books of all the doctors. They need no more discussion and clever interpretation.

from Martin Luther, Commentary on Psalm 82, (AE 13) [Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1956], pp. 61-62.

See also:

A Summary of Martin Luther’s Christology in the Psalms

Gnesio — Mon, 02 Apr 2012 20:42:31 +0000

On Easter evening Jesus told the group of His followers assembled in a room behind locked doors: “These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled. Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures.” (Luke 24:44-45) (NASV) Luther accepted the New Testament writer’s assertion that in the Psalter there were predictions about Christ, his life and work.

The Book of Psalms was a favorite Old Testament book for the Reformer. Pelikan claimed that “throughout his career Luther paid much attention to the Psalter, as this volume (i.e. No. 14) and its predecessors show.” Luther preached on nearly all of the 150 psalms and wrote extensive expositions on a considerable number of them, many of which he treated as Messianic. Throughout his life, beginning with 1513 Luther lectured and wrote his Dictata super Psalterium (Dictations on the Psalter). In the course of these lectures Luther began to see the light of the Gospel of grace. In 1517 the Reformer published his Die sieben Bußpsalmen (The Seven Penitential Psalms). Plass asserted about these psalms that they are an exposition that “is brief, warm, and devout; in the manner that became typical of Luther, it emphasizes the righteousness of Christ.” In the American edition the following volumes contain Luther’s Psalms interpretations and expositions: Numbers 10, 11, 12, 13, 14.

Among major Messianic Psalms found in the five books of the Psalter, authored by David, would be the following: 2, 8, 16, 22, 24, 40, 68, 69, 110. A number of Messianic Psalms were written by individuals living at the time of David and contain references which are based upon the promise God gave David in 2 Samuel 7:12-17.

The New Testament writers quote more often from the Psalter than from any other Old Testament book. Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit the Psalm authors, both those whose names are mentioned in the superscriptions and those that are not, wrote concerning various aspects of the life, person, states, and offices of the Messiah. Luther said that if a Bible reader wished to see the faith of the Hebrews at its clearest and best, then he should turn to the Psalter, where he would have a book that abounds in expressions of faith in Christ and a longing for Him. In the preface to the Psalter, written for the German Bible, Doctor Luther stated:

The Psalter ought to be a dear and beloved book, if only because it promises Christ’s death and resurrection so clearly, and so typifies His kingdom and the conditions and nature of all Christendom that it might well be called the little Bible. It puts everything that is in all the Bible most beautifully and briefly, and is made an Enchiridion, or handbook, so that I have a notion that the Holy Ghost wanted to take the trouble to compile a short Bible and example-book of all Christendom, or of all saints.

Luther, on the strength of the New Testament, found a considerable number of Psalms as Messianic, Psalms written by David, Solomon, Asaph, Korah, and Ethan. Besides those written by David, namely Psalms 2, 8, 16, 22, 24, 40, 68, 110, and 132, Luther also recognized Psalms 72 by Solomon, 89 by Ethan, 118 and 45, entitled: “A Psalm of the Sons of Korah.” In all these Messianic Psalms there are to be found considerable Christological data that could be employed in setting forth a Christology according to systematic lines. They contain Christological materials also found in later Old Testament books and also given explicitly in the New Testament.

Psalm 2 has the following title in a modern Luther’s German Bible: “Weissagung von Christo, des ewigen Könige, seinem Reich and dessen Feinden.” Luther in interpreting the Second Psalm as Messianic did so on the authority of the New Testament, which quotes a number of its verses and treats them as prophetic of Christ. While a number of Psalms exist which speak of the kingship of the Messiah, the second Psalm is special, because it emphasizes His Sonship to the Father Yahweh. The Psalm begins with a prediction that enemies of Yahweh and His anointed are plotting against them. But Yahweh laughs them to scorn. The LORD announces: “I installed My King on Zion, My holy hill.” In verses 7-8 the Messiah speaks: “I will again and again tell the decree of Yahweh; He to me, My Son art Thou, I have begotten Thee.” (Hebrews 1:5).

Here then predicated the eternal begetting of the Son by the Father. Further, in Psalm 2 Yahweh says to His Son: “Ask of Me and I will give Thee the nations for Thy right of conquest.” The Father sent His Son, Jesus, and the latter came speaking, not His own words, but the words of the Father (cf. John 14:10). Further in Psalm 2 Yahweh’s Anointed One is portrayed as worthy of worship. The Psalmist calls upon all who read or hear the Psalm: “Kiss the Son, or He will get angry and you will perish on your way; because His anger can blaze quickly.” Verse 9 predicts this fact that Jesus some day will smash His enemies.

According to Luther the following Christological truths are taught by Psalm 2:1) The Messiah is eternal, begotten by the Father; 2) Christ is a King; 3) Messiah’s rule is universal; 4) God’s Anointed One must be worshipped and obeyed; and 5) The Messiah will act as Judge.

Psalm 8, not considered to be a Messianic Psalm by modern Lutheran scholars, was so adjudged, however, by the Reformer. Psalm 8 in a modern Luther’s German Bible has the title: “Von Christi Reich. Leiden und Herrlichkeit.” (Concerning Christ’s Kingdom. Suffering and Glorification). This heading represents Luther’s stance on Psalm 8. Of this Psalm Luther wrote: “This psalm is one of the most beautiful psalms and a glorious prophecy about Christ.”

When Luther interpreted Psalm 8 as a prediction about the Messiah, he was following the Epistle to the Hebrews, which quoted the words: “Thou hast made him a little lower than the angels,” as applying to Christ. The rendering in the Greek New Testament is from the Septuagint. The Hebrew text reads: “Thou has made Him to lack a little of God.” Hebrews 2:26 shows that only Jesus could be meant, because as God He assumed our human nature with all its weaknesses and lowliness, who has made in the likeness of man and was found in fashion as a man (Philippians 2:7-8). The humiliation and exultation of the Messiah are set forth in Psalm 8. Verse 5 contains a succinct assertion in which the two states are taught. “For thou has crowned Him with honor and glory” refers to the Messiah’s exaltation. David, by inspiration of the Spirit, was able to declare a truth, much later enunciated by Paul: “Thou has put all things under His feet.” Christ is Lord of Creation. In Jesus the Messiah, the Name of God has been revealed in all its glory.

Psalm 16 was interpreted by Luther as a Messianic Psalm. The title for it in a modern Luther’s German Bible was: “Weissagung von Christi Leiden and Sterben.” Luther was simply adopting the New Testament’s interpretation of this Davidic Psalm. Psalm 16 was employed by Peter in his Pentecost sermon as predicting truths about Christ’s death and resurrection. Peter told the people who had come from various parts of the Roman Empire: “The patriarch being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins he should set one upon his throne; he foreseeing this spake of the resurrection of the Christ, that neither was he left to Hades, nor did His flesh see corruption (Acts 2:25-31).” St. Paul in Acts 13:35 also applied this Psalm to Christ. Philippians 2:6-11 might be said to be an excellent commentary on Psalm 16.

Psalms 22, 40, and 69 were considered by Luther Passion Psalms. In 1521 Luther wrote an exposition of Psalm 22. Commenting on its contents, the Doctor said that Christ endured not merely a token of suffering but that the Messiah suffered what all men should have suffered. In the modern German Bible the heading for this Psalm is: “Concerning Christ’s Suffering and Kingdom.” This reflects Luther’s teaching on Psalm 22. Verses 1-21 describe prophetically the great suffering of Christ, while verses 22-31 portray the Messiah’s glory. In verse 10 the Messiah says: “But thou art He that took me out of my mother’s womb.” In this verse and others in Psalm 22 the Messiah’s mother is mentioned but not His earthly father, as is also the case in passages like Genesis 3:15; Isaiah 7:14 or Micah 5:2. The crucifixion of Jesus is virtually predicted in verse 16: “They pierced My hands and My feet.” When Psalm 22:1-2 is read as a Messianic Psalm it reads like an episode from the first Good Friday, and sets forth a Christological truth relative to Christ’s priestly office.

In Luther’s Summaries of the Psalms, published at the beginning of 1533, the Reformer recognized Psalm 40 as a prayer spoken by the preincarnate Christ in prophetic anticipation of His suffering. Luther once wrote verses seven and eight in someone’s book and gave these words the interpretation which follows:

Let the Holy Spirit Himself read this Book to His own if He desires to be understood. For it does not write about men or about making a living (vom Bauch), as all other books do, but about the fact that God’s Son was obedient to His Father for us and fulfilled His will. Whoever does not need this wisdom should let this Book lie; it does not benefit him anyway, It teaches another and eternal life, of which reason knows nothing and is able to comprehend nothing. Let him, then, who would study in this Book make up his mind to look for nothing in it except that of which the psalms speak: that the Son of God willingly and obediently became a burnt offering for us in order to appease God’s wrath.

Psalm 45 was interpreted Messianically by Luther. The title for this Psalm in the Modern German Bible is: “Prophecy concerning the Bridegroom, Christ, and the Bride, the Church.” That this Psalm made predictions about Christ is easily seen if Luther’s lectures on Psalm 45, begun in 1532, are read. According to the Reformer, verses 6-9 describe Christ and just no secular ruler.

Psalm 69 has the title: “The Messiah in His Suffering.” The reason why Luther considered this Psalm as Messianic, no doubt, was occasioned by the exegetical fact that it is found referred to no less than seven times in the New Testament, either by quotation or by unmistakable implication, as prophetical of Christ and the Messianic period (Cf. John 15:25; Matthew 27:34; John 19:29).

Psalm 68 in the modern Luther’s German Bible is entitled: “Prophecy of Christ’s Exaltation and His Glorious Power.” While on the surface the Psalm spoke about the celebration of God’s entry into the Sanctuary on Zion and His rule over the whole world, Luther considered the Psalm typical of the Messianic victories, certain citations being even directly prophetic, as Paul shows. Paul cited verse 18 as a prediction of Christ’s ascension.

Psalm 89, ascribed to Ethan the Esrahite, has the title in the modern Luther’s German Bible: “Concerning the Messiah and His Kingdom.” Luther believed that this Psalm substantiated the Messianic character of 2 Samuel 7:12-17. In verses 3-4 Ethan speaks of the eternal covenant God made with David with regard to the Messiah who would build the house of the Christian Church. Beginning at verse 19 Ethan depicts the rule of the Messiah.

In Psalm 109 Luther also found Messianic material. The heading given for the contents of this inspired poem is in a modern Luther’s German Bible: “Prophecy Concerning Judas and the Unfaithfulness against Christ by the Jews, and Their Curse.” Luther in a collection entitled: “The Four Psalms of Comfort,” dedicated to Queen Mary of Hungary, in the beginning of his exposition of this Psalm wrote: “David composed this psalm about Christ, who speaks the entire psalm in the first person against Judas, his betrayer, and against Judaism as a whole, describing their ultimate fate. In Acts 1:20 Peter applied this Psalm to Judas when they were selecting Matthias to replace him.” P. E. Kretzmann, a great admirer and user of Luther’s exegesis, does not follow the Reformer in his Messianic interpretation of Psalm 109.

Psalm 110, the most cited Psalm in the New Testament, was understood by Christ and the writer of Hebrews to speak about the Messiah, Christ Jesus. The title in a modern Luther’s German Bible reads: “A Psalm of Christ, Our King and High Priest.” This Psalm is totally prophetic, placing before the believers of the Old Testament the Messiah as Lord of David. No other Psalms, no other prophecy is cited so often as this poem. Cf. Matthew 22:44; Mark 12:36; Luke. 20:42; Acts 2:34; 1 Cor. 15:25; Hebrews 1:13; 1 Peter 3:22. According to Psalm 110:4, the Messiah as Priest purifies and blesses people. The chief of this Davidic prophecy rests upon the King and His Kingdom. On this rather short Psalm Luther wrote a lengthy exposition, which in the American edition occupies about 115 pages.

adapted from “Luther and the Christology of the Old Testament,” by Raymond F. Surburg.

See also:

Obliged to Keep the Whole Law

Gnesio — Fri, 30 Mar 2012 03:43:49 +0000

What does Christ do when He, though Lord of the Law, freely subjects Himself to circumcision? Paul says in galatians 5:3: “I testify to you that every one who allows himself to be circumcised is obliged to keep the whole law” [Luther Bibel]. Accordingly, the circumcision of Christ has the important significance for us that He thereby subjected Himself to the judgment of the Law. That means He took the curse of the Law upon Himself. He fulfilled for us the entire Law in the most perfect obedience of love. For us He received the wages of sin. He received our death and curse along with all distress and misery, which the Law casts upon the sinner and transgressor for time and eternity.

These drops of blood that the dear child Jesus sheds here at His circumcision are, as it were, the earnest money, the down payment, which our guarantor lays down against the judgment of god. Through it He pledges to pay the entire debt. As a real guarantor, He pledges to accomplish all this for us so that a thorough peace between us and god and His Law be established.

This was completed on the cross by His death. His life was a sin offering given for the sins of the lost children of Adam. His precious blood paid the full ransom and purchased us back from the curse of the Law. The Law can now no longer threaten you [with the phrase]: “Perfect obedience or death!” So you are redeemed from sin, death, and devil. The righteousness of god is absolutely fulfilled. He is now a reconciled Father, who, for the sake of Christ, forgives us our sins, receives us again as His children, and will give to us life and salvation. to this end, through the Holy Spirit, He grants repentance in faith that we become righteous and holy before God.

Do you see what Christ’s circumcision means! You have to admit it is of the highest importance and blessing for a lost sinner. Here the fearful yoke and the unbearable weight of the Law, with its unfulfillable demands and awful curses, was taken from your shoulders and laid upon this beloved little child. With great pains, the down payment for you was made with His drops of blood. He pledged Himself to pay your entire, great, horrible guilt. He freely relieved you of this burden. Moreover, through this guarantor and this deed, He obtained forgiveness of sins, life, and salvation.

Now what is the significance of the name Jesus for us? The angel who appeared to her already proclaimed to Mary that she should call the newborn child “Jesus.” Later an angel also appeared to Joseph in a dream. He commanded him to take Mary as his wife and to call the little child to be born, conceived of the Holy Spirit, “Jesus,” for He would save His people from their sins. At the circumcision, Christ began the work of redemption and salvation. Here this name was publicly given Him.

from Friedrich Wyneken, “A Sermon of Consolation on New Year’s Eve,” At Home in the House of My Fathers, CPH 2011.

See also:

All Christians Are Obliged To Missionary Witness

Small Groups or Small Catechism?

Gnesio — Thu, 15 Mar 2012 15:23:34 +0000

At my first congregation, one of the responsibilities that I was given was to create a vibrant and discipleship-oriented small group ministry. As this was not part of my seminary training, I (along with two other congregation members) went for a week long professionally led training course to become equipped in small group ministry.

Small group ministry had been one of the latest ministry movements among evangelical circles for some time, and, good or bad, it was making its way into a number of Lutheran circles. My congregation was one of them. It carried with it the claim that small groups were now the best way to create authentic disciples of Jesus Christ.

In short, my experience with the small group ministry had its ups and downs. Even though I was serving a Lutheran (LCMS) mega church, most folks were not that enthusiastic about. It was a struggle to get people to participate. The groups that were started did have some success in meeting regularly. But they, as well as the congregation in general, just did not have the discipleship turnabout that seemed to be promised by the small group ministry gurus who trained us.

The congregation I now serve does not have a small group ministry, though atone time we were considering it. We opted instead to give greater emphasis to our ministry of catechesis (family and individual), where the importance of passing on the faith, as shaped by Luther’s Small Catechism, was given priority.

What is ironic is that over the last few years evangelical churches have begun to methodically revoke small group ministry. Consider this January 24, 2011 post, titled, “Why Churches Should Euthanize Small Groups” by mega church pastor, speaker, and author, Brian Jones, at his website www.christianstandard.com. It is just one of many recent critiques. Nonetheless, he shares a revealing conversation that he had with a church consultant hired by his congregation:

A few years ago I brought in a nationally recognized pastor to do some consulting for our church. One of the things I remember most about my time with him was a side conversation we had about small groups.

“I haven’t really figured out the small group thing,” I confessed to him.

“Well, Brian, that’s because they don’t work. Small groups are things that trick us into believing we’re serious about making disciples. The problem is 90 percent of small groups never produce one single disciple. Ever. They help Christians make shallow friendships, for sure. They’re great at helping Christians feel a tenuous connection to their local church, and they do a bang-up job of teaching Christians how to act like other Christians in the Evangelical Christian subculture. But when it comes to creating the kind of holistic disciples Jesus envisioned, the jury’s decision came back a long time ago—small groups just aren’t working.”

Jones then continued on, offering his own biting criticism: Well-intentioned Christians, armed with the latest insights in organizational theory, let their pragmatic and utilitarian hearts delude them into thinking they could organize, measure, and control the mystical working of the Holy Spirit in community in order to consistently reproduce disciples in other contexts.

Curiously, confessional Lutherans have been known to make similar criticisms, emphasizing the nature of the Holy Spirit working faith, through the means of grace, when and where He pleases (AC V). At a minimum, it is a fascinating indictment that extends what is now beginning to be a long list of reevaluations that evangelicals are making regarding their theology and practice of ministry.

By contrast, along with the Divine Service and formal catechesis, confessional Lutherans have long recognized the nature of the family unit being the most natural and effective place to be serious about making disciples. Luther certainly recognized this. Each chief part of his Small Catechism begins with the following imperative: As the head of the family should teach in a simple way to his household. With the above admission, perhaps there is good cause for Lutherans to return to this model and indulge in the simplicity and versatility of the Small Catechism.

In the end, it would seem that the constant reappraisal, and even rejection of various recent ministry trends, by the denominational originators of these trends no less, should, if nothing else, continue to demonstrate to confessional Lutherans that their historic beliefs and practices do in fact have lasting significance, permanent relevance, and authentic effectiveness, and give ample reason to think twice about trading them in for the latest ministry fad.

As always, I invite your collegial and constructive comments as we seek to dialogue about what it means to be a 21st century Lutheran who “desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Timothy 2:4).

Yours,
Rev. Woodford

http://thisweconfess.wordpress.com/2011/10/17/small-groups-or-small-catechism/

See also:

He Who Dwells in the Secret Place of the Most High…

Gnesio — Sun, 04 Mar 2012 13:21:29 +0000

“He who dwells in the shelter of the Most High will abide in the shadow of the Almighty.” — Psalm 91:1

The Hebrew reads: “He who dwells in the secret place of the Most High will abide in the shadow of the Lord.” I ask you, for God’s sake, why does he add “in the aid” or “in the secret place of the Most High”? Why “in the protection” or “in the shadow”? Would it not have been enough to say “he who dwells in the Lord” and “who will abide in the God of heaven or in the Most High Himself”? Unless it is because there are those, indeed, because he sees that there will be the proud, the Jews and heretics, who would presume to dwell in God nakedly and want to be directed by God immediately, so to say, rejecting all forms of His aid and protection, with which they ought to have been directed by Him. For these oddballs want to be friends of God and be led by His special control. And so, since they made a shadow for themselves and chose the protection and aid for themselves by means of which they wished to be saved by God, they despise all other shadows and protections of God.

from Martin Luther, “Lectures on Psalm 91 (AE 12, 208-209)

See also:

The Performative Word

Gnesio — Mon, 27 Feb 2012 01:27:09 +0000

Luther also discovers this kind of performative word in the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, as well as in the Christmas story (“To you is born this day a Savior!”), the Easter story, and many other biblical passages. As we have said before, he regards these sentences as promises (promissiones). They are the concrete way in which Christ is present, and his presence with us is clear and certain: it clearly liberates us and makes us certain. I cannot remind myself of this freedom and certainty in isolation; I cannot have a monologue with myself. These gifts are given and received only by means of the promise spoken by another person (and not only by the official priest or preacher), who addresses it to me in the name of Jesus. I cannot speak the promise to myself. It must be spoken to me. For only in this way is it true. Only in this way does it give freedom and certainty.

What this certainty is all about is clear from a short passage in the Lectures on Genesis that Luther virtually offers as a theological legacy: “I have been baptized. I have been absolved. In this faith I will die. No matter what trials and problems confront me, I will not waver in the least. For he who said: ‘The one who believes and is baptized will be saved’ (Mark 16:16), and ‘whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven’ (Matt. 16:19), and ‘this is my body; this is my blood which is shed for you for the forgiveness of sins’ (cf. Matt. 26:26,28), cannot lie or deceive. This is certainly true.” In the Lectures on Galatians (1535) Luther writes, “And this is the reason why our theology is certain: it snatches us away from ourselves and places us outside ourselves (nos extra nos), so that we depend not on our own strength, conscience, mind, person, or works but on what is outside ourselves (extra nos), that is, on the promise and truth of God, which cannot deceive.”"

from Oswald Bayer, Theology the Lutheran Way, trans. Jeffrey Silcock and Mark Mattes (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2007), 130.

See also:

Since all Scripture is God’s Word, His majesty is also in each word

The Gift of Preaching

Gnesio — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 14:50:57 +0000

Would to God that we could gradually train our hearts to believe that the preacher’s words are God’s Word and that the man addressing us is a scholar and a king. . . .

If someone announced: “I know of a place in the world where God speaks and anyone can hear God there”; if I had gone there and seen and heard a poor pastor baptizing and preaching, and if I had been assured: “This is the place; here God is speaking through the voice of the preacher who brings God’s Word” – I would have said: “Well, I have been duped! I see only a pastor. . . .”

In fact, we do not enjoy listening to any preacher unless he is gifted with a good and clear voice. If you look more at the pastor than at God; if you do not see God’s person but merely gape to see whether the pastor is learned and skilled . . . then you have already become half a Jacob. For a poor speaker may speak the Word of God just as well as he who is endowed with eloquence. A father speaks the Word of God as well as God does, and your neighbor speaks it as well as the angel Gabriel. There is no difference between the Word when uttered by a schoolboy and when uttered by the angel Gabriel; they vary only in rhetorical ability. It matters not that dishes are made of different material. . . . The same food may be prepared in silver as in dishes of tin. Venison, properly seasoned and prepared, tastes just as good in a wooden dish as in one of silver. . . .

People, however, do not recognize the person of God but only stare at the person of man. This is like a tired and hungry man who would refuse to eat unless the food is served on a silver platter. Such is the attitude that motivates many preachers today. Many, on the other hand, are forced to quit their office, are driven out and expelled.

That is done by those who do not know this gift, who assume that it is a mere man speaking to them, although, as a matter of fact, it is even more than an angel, namely, your dear God,

Martin Luther preaching on John 4:10 (LW 44, 526-529)

See also:

Preaching Is All About “You”

Gnesio — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 23:33:10 +0000

From LCMS President Matthew Harrison:

We need to preach more about the Gospel!” a well meaning pastor admonished his brothers at a pastoral conference. As he continued his speech, a little old man shuffled up to the microphone. It’s hard to believe that this old pastor, barely over five feet tall, had been among the very first in all the German churches to reject publicly the Nazi Party platform and then struggled against Hitler for the rest of the war. He declared to his brother pastors: “For more than 50 years I have never preached about the Gospel. I have only preached the Gospel!” Hermann Sasse put his finger on a perennial weakness in our preaching. The sermon is not mere information. The preacher must dare to speak the biblical “you!” in both Law and Gospel. “You killed the Lord of glory!” “Your righteous deeds are as filthy rags.” “You are the man!” (Nathan to David).

And the Gospel is proclaimed the same way: “Today is born for you a Savior.” “Your sins are forgiven.” “You are raised with Him in Baptism.” “The blood of
Christ, shed for you.”

Preaching is a finger-pointing business. It takes courage to stand in the pulpit and let fly, accusing full-on with all the force of the damning Law. ”The Law is to be preached in its full severity” (Walther). It takes even more skill to preach the full and sweet Gospel to sinners accused. Yet the Bible is packed to the brim with Christ’s full and free forgiveness, ready to be dished up and delivered by the lips of the preacher. “By killing he makes alive,” Luther emphasized again and again. And so our preaching must kill the old man, damn him thoroughly to hell and raise him up again with Christ and His free forgiveness.

Preachers, let’s sit at the feet of the apostles. Notice how many times “you” appears in Peter’s sermon: (Acts 3.:12a, 13-15, 17-26 ESV).

I love a bit of humor in a sermon, a rhetorical surprise. A story is great, even the occasional personal story. I’m a fan of all sorts of styles, of changing things up and “finding a new string to thump” on occasion (Luther). But through it all, let’s stop preaching limply and merely only about the Law and the Gospel. Let’s preach the Law in all its condemnation and the Gospel in all its sweetness.

-Pastor Matthew Harrison
President of the LCMS
Lutheran Witness June/July 2011
Vol. 130, No. 06/07

See also:

Luther Addresses the Problems that Occur When Christians Misunderstand Predestination, pt. 6

Gnesio — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 03:34:16 +0000

…how great would our first parent’s happiness have been if he had kept the Word of God carefully in sight and had eaten of all the other trees except the one from which he had been forbidden to eat! But he wanted to search out why God had forbidden him to enjoy the fruits from that one tree. In addition, there was Satan, the malicious teacher who increased and abetted this curiosity. Thus he was hurled headlong into sin and death.

Thus God reveals His will to us through Christ and the Gospel. But we loathe it and, in accordance with Adam’s example, take delight in the forbidden tree above all the others. This fault has been implanted in us by nature. When Paradise and heaven have been closed and the angel has been placed on guard there (cf. Gen. 3:24), we try in vain to enter. For Christ has truthfully said: “No one has ever seen God” (John 1:18). Nevertheless, God, in His boundless goodness, has revealed Himself to us in order to satisfy our desire. He has shown us a visible image. “Behold, you have My Son; he who hears Him and is baptized is written in the book of life. This I reveal through My Son, whom you can touch with your hands and look at with your eyes.”

I have wanted to teach and transmit this in such a painstaking and accurate way because after my death many will publish my books and will prove from them errors of every kind and their own delusions. Among other things, however, I have written that everything is absolute and unavoidable; but at the same time I have added that one must look at the revealed God, as we sing in the hymn: Er heist Jesu Christ, der HERR Zebaoth, und ist kein ander Gott, “Jesus Christ is the Lord of hosts, and there is no other God”—and also in very many other places. But they will pass over all these places and take only those that deal with the hidden God. Accordingly, you who are listening to me now should remember that I have taught that one should not inquire into the predestination of the hidden God but should be satisfied with what is revealed through the calling and through the ministry of the Word. For then you can be sure about your faith and salvation and say: “I believe in the Son of God, who said (John 3:36): ‘He who believes in the Son has eternal life.’ ” Hence no condemnation or wrath rests on him, but he enjoys the good pleasure of God the Father. But I have publicly stated these same things elsewhere in my books, and now I am also teaching them by word of mouth. Therefore I am excused.

from Martin Luther, Genesis Commentary, commenting on Genesis 29:9 (Luther’s Works 5:43-50).

See also:

Luther Addresses the Problems that Occur When Christians Misunderstand Predestination, pt. 5

Gnesio — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 11:57:16 +0000

Thus on other occasions I have often mentioned the noteworthy example of a nun who underwent the same trial. For under the papacy there were also many godly persons who experienced these spiritual trials, which are truly hellish and thoughts of the damned. For there is no difference at all between one who doubts and one who is damned. Therefore whenever the nun felt that she was being assailed with the fiery darts of Satan (cf. Eph. 6:16), she would say nothing else than this: “I am a Christian.”

We must do the same thing. One must refrain from debates and say: “I am a Christian; that is, the Son of God was made flesh and was born; He has redeemed me and is sitting at the right hand of the Father, and He is my Savior.” Thus you must drive Satan away from you with as few words as possible and say: “Begone, Satan! (Matt. 4:10.) Do not put doubt in me. The Son of God came into this world to destroy your work (1 John 3:8) and to destroy doubt.” Then the trial ceases, and the heart returns to peace, quiet, and the love of God.

Otherwise doubt about some person’s intention is no sin. Thus Isaac doubts that he will live or have a pious host. About a man I can be in doubt. Indeed, I should be in doubt. For he is not my Savior, and it is written (Ps. 146:3): “Put not your trust in princes.” For man is a liar (Ps. 116:11) and deceitful. But one cannot deal doubtfully with God. For He neither wants nor is able to be changeable or a liar. But the highest form of worship He requires is your conviction that He is truthful. For this is why He has given you the strongest proofs of His trustworthiness and truth. He has given His Son into the flesh and into death, and He has instituted the sacraments, in order that you may know that He does not want to be deceitful, but that He wants to be truthful. Nor does He confirm this with spiritual proofs; He confirms it with tangible proofs. For I see the water, I see the bread and the wine, and I see the minister. All this is physical, and in these material forms He reveals Himself. If you must deal with men, you may be in doubt as to the extent to which you may believe a person and as to how others may be disposed toward you; but concerning God you must maintain with assurance and without any doubt that He is well disposed toward you on account of Christ and that you have been redeemed and sanctified through the precious blood of the Son of God. And in this way you will be sure of your predestination, since all the prying and dangerous questions about GOD’S secret counsels have been removed—the questions to which Satan tries to drive us, just as he drove our first parents.

from Martin Luther, Genesis Commentary, commenting on Genesis 29:9 (Luther’s Works 5:43-50).

See also:

Luther Addresses the Problems that Occur When Christians Misunderstand Predestination, pt. 4

Gnesio — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 13:24:55 +0000

Staupitz used to comfort me with these words: “Why do you torture yourself with these speculations? Look at the wounds of Christ and at the blood that was shed for you. From these predestination will shine. Consequently, one must listen to the Son of God, who was sent into the flesh and appeared to destroy the work of the devil (1 John 3:8) and to make you sure about predestination. And for this reason He says to you: ‘You are My sheep because you hear My voice’ (cf. John 10:27). ‘No one shall snatch you out of My hands’ ” (cf. v. 28).

Many who did not resist this trial in such a manner were hurled headlong into destruction. Consequently, the hearts of the godly should be kept carefully fortified. Thus a certain hermit in The Lives of the Fathers advises his hearers against speculations of this kind. He says: “If you see that someone has put his foot in heaven, pull him back. For this is how saintly neophytes are wont to think about God apart from Christ. They are the ones who try to ascend into heaven and to place both feet there. But suddenly they are plunged into hell.” Therefore the godly should beware and be intent only on learning to cling to the Child and Son Jesus, who is your God and was made flesh for your sake. Acknowledge and hear Him; take pleasure in Him, and give thanks. If you have Him, then you also have the hidden God together with Him who has been revealed. And that is the only way, the truth, and the life (cf. John 14:6). Apart from it you will find nothing but destruction and death.

But He manifested himself in the flesh to snatch us from death, from the power of the devil. From this knowledge must come great joy and delight that God is unchangeable, that He works in accordance with unchangeable necessity, and that He cannot deny Himself (2 Tim. 2:13) but keeps His promises. Accordingly, one is not free to have such thoughts or doubts about predestination; but they are ungodly, vicious, and devilish. Therefore when the devil assails you with them, you should only say: “I believe in our Lord Jesus Christ, about whom I have no doubt that He was made flesh, suffered, and died for me. Into His death I have been baptized.” This answer will make the trial disappear, and Satan will turn his back.

from Martin Luther, Genesis Commentary, commenting on Genesis 29:9 (Luther’s Works 5:43-50).

See also:

Luther Addresses the Problems that Occur When Christians Misunderstand Predestination, pt. 3

Gnesio — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 14:21:46 +0000

But you will say: “I cannot believe.” Thus many are troubled by this trial, and I recall that at Torgau a little woman came to me and complained with tears in her eyes that she could not believe. Then, when I recited the articles of the Creed in order and asked about each one whether she was convinced that these things were true and had happened in this manner or not, she answered: “I certainly think that they are true, but I cannot believe.” This was a satanic illusion. Consequently, I kept saying: “If you think that all these things are true, there is no reason why you should complain about your unbelief; for if you do not doubt that the Son of God died for you, you surely believe, because to believe is nothing else than to regard these facts as the sure and unquestionable truth.”

God says to you: “Behold, you have My Son. Listen to Him, and receive Him. If you do this, you are already sure about your faith and salvation.” “But I do not know,” you will say, “whether I am remaining in faith.” At all events, accept the present promise and the predestination, and do not inquire too curiously about the secret counsels of God. If you believe in the revealed God and accept His Word, He will gradually also reveal the hidden God; for “He who sees Me also sees the Father,” as John 14:9 says. He who rejects the Son also loses the unrevealed God along with the revealed God. But if you cling to the revealed God with a firm faith, so that your heart is so minded that you will not lose Christ even if you are deprived of everything, then you are most assuredly predestined, and you will understand the hidden God. Indeed, you understand Him even now if you acknowledge the Son and His will, namely, that He wants to reveal Himself to you, that He wants to be your Lord and your Savior. Therefore you are sure that God is also your Lord and Father.

Observe how pleasantly and kindly God delivers you from this horrible trial with which Satan besets people today in strange ways in order to make them doubtful and uncertain, and eventually even to alienate them from the Word. “For why should you hear the Gospel,” they say, “since everything depends on predestination?” In this way he robs us of the predestination guaranteed through the Son of God and the sacraments. He makes us uncertain where we are completely certain. And if he attacks timid consciences with this trial, they die in despair, as would almost have happened to me if Staupitz had not delivered me from the same trial when I was troubled. But if they are despisers, they become the worst Epicureans. Therefore we should rather impress these statements on our hearts, such as John 6:44: “No one can come to Me unless the Father draws him.” Through whom? Through Me. “He who sees Me also sees the Father” (cf. John 14:9). And God says to Moses: “You cannot see My face, for man shall not see Me and live” (Ex. 33:20). And we read (Acts 1:7): “It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has fixed by His own authority. But go, and carry out what I command.” Likewise (Ecclus. 3:22): “Seek not the things that are too high for you, and search not into things above your ability; but the things that God has commanded you, think on them always, and in many of His works be not curious.” Listen to the incarnate Son, and predestination will present itself of its own accord.

from Martin Luther, Genesis Commentary, commenting on Genesis 29:9 (Luther’s Works 5:43-50).

See also:

Luther Addresses the Problems that Occur When Christians Misunderstand Predestination, pt. 2

Gnesio — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 14:32:33 +0000

Moses, too, asked God to show him His face; but the Lord replies: “You shall see My back, but you will not be able to see My face” (cf. Ex. 33:23). For this inquisitiveness is original sin itself, by which we are impelled to strive for a way to God through natural speculation. But this is a great sin and a useless and futile attempt; for this is what Christ says in John 6:65 (cf. John 14:6): “No one comes to the Father but by Me.” Therefore when we approach the unrevealed God, then there is no faith, no Word, and no knowledge; for He is an invisible God, and you will not make Him visible.

Furthermore, God has most sternly forbidden this investigation of the divinity. Thus when the apostles ask in Acts 1:6, “Has it not been predestined that at this time the kingdom should be restored?” Christ says to them: “It is not for you to know the times” (Acts 1:7). “Let Me be hidden where I have not revealed Myself to you,” says God, “or you will be the cause of your own destruction, just as Adam fell in a horrible manner; for he who investigates My majesty will be overwhelmed by My glory.”

And it is true that God wanted to counteract this curiosity at the very beginning; for this is how He set forth His will and counsel: “I will reveal My foreknowledge and predestination to you in an extraordinary manner, but not by this way of reason and carnal wisdom, as you imagine. This is how I will do so: From an unrevealed God I will become a revealed God. Nevertheless, I will remain the same God. I will be made flesh, or send My Son. He shall die for your sins and shall rise again from the dead. And in this way I will fulfill your desire, in order that you may be able to know whether you are predestined or not. Behold, this is My Son; listen to Him (cf. Matt. 17:5). Look at Him as He lies in the manger and on the lap of His mother, as He hangs on the cross. Observe what He does and what He says. There you will surely take hold of Me.” For “He who sees Me,” says Christ, “also sees the Father Himself” (cf. John 14:9). If you listen to Him, are baptized in His name, and love His Word, then you are surely predestined and are certain of your salvation. But if you revile or despise the Word, then you are damned; for he who does not believe is condemned (Mark 16:16).

You must kill the other thoughts and the ways of reason or of the flesh, for God detests them. The only thing you have to do is to receive the Son, so that Christ is welcome in your heart in His birth, miracles, and cross. For here is the book of life in which you have been written. And this is the only and the most efficacious remedy for that horrible disease because of which human beings in their investigation of God want to proceed in a speculative manner and eventually rush into despair or contempt. If you want to escape despair, hatred, and blasphemy of God, give up your speculation about the hidden God, and cease to strive in vain to see the face of God.

Otherwise you will have to remain perpetually in unbelief and damnation, and you will have to perish; for he who doubts does not believe, and he who does not believe is condemned (Mark 16:16).

Therefore we should detest and shun these vicious words which the Epicureans bandy about: “If this is how it must happen, let it happen.” For God did not come down from heaven to make you uncertain about predestination, to teach you to despise the sacraments, absolution, and the rest of the divine ordinances. Indeed, He instituted them to make you completely certain and to remove the disease of doubt from your heart, in order that you might not only believe with the heart but also see with your physical eyes and touch with your hands. Why, then, do you reject these and complain that you do not know whether you have been predestined? You have the Gospel; you have been baptized; you have absolution; you are a Christian. Nevertheless, you doubt and say that you do not know whether you believe or not, whether you regard as true what is preached about Christ in the Word and the sacraments.

from Martin Luther, Genesis Commentary, commenting on Genesis 29:9 (Luther’s Works 5:43-50).

See also:

Luther Addresses the Problems that Occur When Christians Misunderstand Predestination, pt. 1

Gnesio — Fri, 20 Jan 2012 13:20:44 +0000

But it pleases me to take from this passage the opportunity to discuss doubt, God, and the will of God; for I hear that here and there among the nobles and persons of importance vicious statements are being spread abroad concerning predestination or God’s foreknowledge. For this is what they say: “If I am predestined, I shall be saved, whether I do good or evil. If I am not predestined, I shall be condemned regardless of my works.” I would be glad to debate in detail against these wicked statements if the uncertain state of my health made it possible for me to do so. For if the statements are true, as they, of course, think, then the incarnation of the Son of God, His suffering and resurrection, and all that He did for the salvation of the world are done away with completely. What will the prophets and all Holy Scripture help? What will the sacraments help? Therefore let us reject all this and tread it underfoot.

These are devilish and poisoned darts and original sin itself, with which the devil led our first parents astray when he said (Gen. 3:5): “You will be like God.” They were not satisfied with the divinity that had been revealed and in the knowledge of which they were blessed, but they wanted to penetrate to the depth of the divinity. For they inferred that there was some secret reason why God had forbidden them to eat of the fruit of the tree which was in the middle of Paradise, and they wanted to know what this reason was, just as these people of our time say: “What God has determined beforehand must happen. Consequently, every concern about religion and about the salvation of souls is uncertain and useless.” Yet it has not been given to you to render a verdict that is inscrutable. Why do you doubt or thrust aside the faith that God has enjoined on you? For what end did it serve to send His Son to suffer and to be crucified for us? Of what use was it to institute the sacraments if they are uncertain or completely useless for our salvation? For otherwise, if someone had been predestined, he would have been saved without the Son and without the sacraments or Holy Scripture. Consequently, God, according to the blasphemy of these people, was horribly foolish when He sent His Son, promulgated the Law and the Gospel, and sent the apostles if the only thing He wanted was that we should be uncertain and in doubt whether we are to be saved or really to be damned.

But these are delusions of the devil with which he tries to cause us to doubt and disbelieve, although Christ came into this world to make us completely certain. For eventually either despair must follow or contempt for God, for the Holy Bible, for Baptism, and for all the blessings of God through which He wanted us to be strengthened over against uncertainty and doubt. For they will say with the Epicureans: “Let us live, eat, and drink; tomorrow we shall die” (cf. 1 Cor. 15:32). After the manner of the Turks they will rush rashly into the sword and fire, since the hour in which you either die or escape has been predetermined.

But to these thoughts one must oppose the true and firm knowledge of Christ, just as I often remind you that it is profitable and necessary above all that the knowledge of God be completely certain in us and that we cling to it with firm assent of the heart. Otherwise our faith is useless. For if God does not stand by His promises, then our salvation is lost, while, on the other hand, this is our comfort, that, although we change, we nevertheless flee for refuge to Him who is unchangeable. For in Mal. 3:6 He makes this assertion about Himself: “I the Lord do not change.” And Rom. 11:29 states: “The gifts and the call of God are irrevocable.” Accordingly, this is how I have taught in my book On the Bondage of the Will and elsewhere, namely, that a distinction must be made when one deals with the knowledge, or rather with the subject, of the divinity. For one must debate either about the hidden God or about the revealed God. With regard to God, insofar as He has not been revealed, there is no faith, no knowledge, and no understanding. And here one must hold to the statement that what is above us is none of our concern. For thoughts of this kind, which investigate something more sublime above or outside the revelation of God, are altogether devilish. With them nothing more is achieved than that we plunge ourselves into destruction; for they present an object that is inscrutable, namely, the unrevealed God. Why not rather let God keep His decisions and mysteries in secret? We have no reason to exert ourselves so much that these decisions and mysteries be revealed to us.

from Martin Luther, Genesis Commentary, commenting on Genesis 29:9 (Luther’s Works 5:43-50).

See also:

Why We Baptize Babies (The Case for Infant Baptism), pt. 2

Gnesio — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 20:20:43 +0000

by Dr. Richard P. Bucher

IV – Infants Can Believe

The most frequent objection to infant baptism is that babies cannot believe. They do not, says the objection, have the intellect necessary to repent and believe in Jesus.

If this is your opinion, Jesus disagrees with you. Luke 18 tells us that certain parents were bringing infants (Greek – brephe) to Jesus, that He might bless them. The disciples rebuked those who brought the babies. Jesus’ response is well known: “Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of God. Assuredly I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will by no means enter it” (Luke 18:15-17). Some have objected that it is “little children” and not infants that Jesus speaks of here. Yet the very little children that the disciples were forbidding were infants. The infants are the focus of the passage. Clearly on this occasion Jesus had babies in mind when He said what He did!

Does this passage speak of infant baptism? No, not directly. It does show that Jesus did not raise the objection that so many do today about babies not being able to believe. According to Jesus, these babies had what it took to be members of the kingdom of God, feeble intellect and all! “Do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of God.”

Now Jesus does not contradict Himself. The central message of His ministry (the Gospel) was that there was only way to enter God’s kingdom. There was only one way to be saved. “He who believes and is baptized shall be saved” (Mark 16:16). Repeatedly Christ taught that faith in Him was the one way to become a member of God’s kingdom (cf. John 3:16-18). Therefore, when He says about babies, “for of such is the kingdom of God,” He is telling us that babies can believe (for how else could they enter the kingdom?!).

So if Jesus maintained that babies can believe (though their faith is very simple), who are we to deny it? And who are we to deny baptism to those who can believe? For those still stumbling over infant faith, remember: it is purely by God’s grace that any person, adult or child, can believe. Faith is a gift of the Holy Spirit as much for the adult as for the child (see John 6:44; 1 Cor. 12:3; Eph. 2:1-4). When the adult believes in Christ it is only because the Holy Spirit, working through the Gospel, has worked the miracle of faith in his heart. So with the infant. If faith, then, is always a miracle, why can we not believe that God would work such miraculous faith in a baby?

Someone might ask, “If babies can believe then why do they need baptism?” Answer: it is through baptism that faith is created in the infant’s heart. Baptism, far from being the empty symbolism that many imagine it to be, is the visible Gospel, a powerful means of grace. According to Scripture, baptism “washes away sin” (Acts 22:16), “saves” (1 Peter 3:21; Mark 16:16), causes one to “die to sin, to be buried, and raised up with Christ” (Romans 6:3-4) causes one to be “clothed with Christ” (Galatians 3:27), and to be a member of the body of Christ: “for by one Spirit, were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit” (1 Cor. 12:13). It bears repeating: baptism is a special means of God’s grace by which He gives faith, forgiveness, and salvation to the infant.

V – The Practice of the Early Church

Those who deny infant baptism have a problem. They must explain why the fathers of the Church’s first centuries speak of infant baptism as a universal custom. The Fathers is what we now call Pastors who led the Church after the death of the apostles. When we examine the writings of Irenaeus (d. 202), Tertullian (d. 240), Origen (d. 254), Cyprian (d. 258), and Augustine (d. 430), we see that they all spoke of infant baptism as accepted custom (though Tertullian disagreed with it).

Irenaeus remarks, “For He came to save all through means of Himself all, I say, who through Him are born again to God, infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men” (Against Heresies, Book 1, Ch. 22.4).

In his commentary on Romans, Origin writes, “The Church has received from the apostles the custom of administering baptism even to infants. For those who have been entrusted with the secrets of divine mysteries, knew very well that all are tainted with the stain of original sin, which must be washed off by water and spirit” (Romans Commentary, 5.9).

Cyprian writes, “In respect of the case of infants, which you say ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after birth, and that the law of ancient circumcision should be regarded, so that you think that one who is just born should not be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day, we all thought very differently in our council. For in this course which you thought was to be taken, no one agreed; but we all rather judge that the mercy and grace of God is not to be refused to any one born of man… Spiritual circumcision ought not to be hindered by carnal circumcision… we ought to shrink from hindering an infant, who, being lately born, has not sinned, except in that, being born after the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of the ancient death at its earliest birth, who approaches the more easily on this very account to the reception of the forgiveness of sins – that to him are remitted, not his own sins, but the sins of another” (Letter 58 to Fidus).

And in his Enchiridion, Augustine declares, “For from the infant newly born to the old man bent with age, as there is none shut out from baptism, so there is none who in baptism does not die to sin” (Enchiridion; ch. 43).

Conclusion

For completeness sake, I have listed five reasons why Christians should baptize infants. The first reason should have been enough. Jesus has commanded His Church to “make disciples of all nations baptizing them . . ..” Christ made no exceptions. Infants are part of all nations, as are every other age group. We do not have to prove this. The burden of proof is on those who deny that infants are to be included in “all nations.” To deny the blessing of infant baptism because you can’t find the words “infant baptism” in the Bible makes as much sense as rejecting the teaching of the Trinity because you can’t find the words “Trinity” or “triune” in the Bible.

As to babies not being of the age of reason and therefore not able to believe, I have shown that Christ disagrees. So in a sense, the teaching of infant baptism reveals who your Lord is. Lord Jesus Christ has commanded us to baptize all nations, has declared that everyone who dies without faith is damned, and has taught us that infants can believe by God’s grace working through baptism. Lord Reason says, “I don’t understand how a baby can believe, therefore I reject infant baptism. It makes more sense to me to do it my way.” Which Lord will you obey? Will you obey Christ and baptize “all nations,” including infants, even though you don’t understand it? Or will you obey Reason and reject infant baptism because you don’t understand how babies can believe? Which Lord will you obey?

See also:

Why We Baptize Babies (The Case for Infant Baptism), pt. 1

Gnesio — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 20:15:47 +0000

by Dr. Richard P. Bucher

Should we baptize babies? The Christian Church continues to be sharply divided over this important question. Those who answer “yes” (Lutherans, Catholics, Episcopalians, Methodists, etc.) claim Biblical support for their position. Those who answer “no” (Baptists, Seventh Day Adventists, many “Bible” or “evangelical,” or “non-denominational” churches) say the Bible is on their side. The pro-infant baptism churches assert that Christ commanded infant baptism. The opposing side asserts that nowhere is such a thing commanded. They hold that at best it is useless and at worst harmful. It is their practice to rebaptize adults who were baptized as babies.

The Lutheran Church has always taught that baptism is for everyone, including infants. We believe that Jesus wants babies to be baptized. We do so for the following reasons.

I – Christ Has Commanded Us

Many raise the objection: “There is not a single example of infant baptism in the New Testament, nor is there any command to do so. Therefore Christians should not baptize babies.”

But Jesus has commanded infant baptism. In Matthew 28:19 He says, “Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit . . ..” Before He ascended, the Lord of the Church commanded us to baptize “all nations,” a phrase the Church has always understood to mean “everyone.” Matthew 25:31-32 also uses the phrase “all nations” in this way. All nations are to be baptized, regardless of race, color, sex, age, class, or education. Jesus makes no exceptions. He doesn’t say, “Baptize all nations except . . ..” Everyone is to be baptized, including infants. If we say that babies are not to be included in Christ’s Great Commission, then where will it stop? What other people will we exclude?

It is true that there is no example in Scripture of a baby being baptized. However, to conclude from this that babies are not to be baptized is absurd. Neither are there any specific examples of the elderly being baptized, or teenagers, or little children. Instead we read about men (Acts 2:41; 8:35) women (Acts 16:14-15), and entire households being baptized (Acts 10:24,47-48; 16:14-15; 16:30-33; 1 Co. 1:16). The authors of the New Testament documents didn’t feel compelled to give examples of every age group or category being baptized. Why should they have? Certainly they understood that “all nations” is all-inclusive.

II – Babies Need Forgiveness

The Bible teaches that infants are born sinful and are in need of forgiveness. Scripture says nothing about an “Age of Accountability” that begins at the age of reason. Its message is that accountability begins at conception. David confesses in Psalm 51:5, “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me.” The Bible teaches original sin, that the corruption and guilt of Adam’s sin is passed on to every human being at conception. Jesus affirms this teaching when He says, “Flesh gives birth to flesh” (John 3:5). Paul takes it up in Romans 5:18: “So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.”

Furthermore, Jesus said, “He who believes and is baptized shall be saved; he who believes not shall be damned” (Mark 16:16). According to Jesus, ANYONE who does not believe in Him will be damned. Jesus makes no exception for infants. Babies will not be saved without faith in Jesus. Parents who think they are placing their children under God’s grace by “dedicating” them are deceiving themselves. The only dedication that the New Testament knows of is the “dedication” that take place via baptism. That is why infants should be baptized. Like everyone else, they desperately need forgiveness. If infants die before they believe in Jesus, they will be eternally condemned. They, like everyone else, need to be baptized so that they can be born again. Jesus said, “unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” (John 3:5). We believe that baptism is God’s special means of grace for children by which He causes them to be born again. To keep them from baptism is to keep them from forgiveness and to endanger them with damnation.

III – Baptism Replaces Circumcision

God’s covenant with Abraham (Genesis 17:10-14) demanded that every male child was to be circumcised when eight days old. By circumcision, the baby entered into a covenant relationship with the true God.

St. Paul teaches us that in the New Testament baptism has replaced circumcision. “In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism . . .” (Col. 2:11-12).

Given this fact, it would have been natural for first century Jewish believers to baptize infants, since they were accustomed to circumcise their male children at eight days old. It is also logical that if God regarded eight day old male babies as members of His covenant people through circumcision, He will also regard newborn babies to be members of His kingdom through baptism, the “circumcision made without hands.”

See also:

Gnesio in 2011

Gnesio — Sat, 31 Dec 2011 22:58:43 +0000

Thank you to our readers for another great year at Gnesio. We pray the blessings of Christ Jesus will fill your cup to overflowing in the year to come.

Here are the ten most read articles on Gnesio from 2011.

Bonus

Luther on Whether Soldiers too can be Saved

Psalm 90: A Prayer of Moses, the man of God

Lord, you have been our dwelling place
in all generations.
Before the mountains were brought forth,
or ever you had formed the earth and the world,
from everlasting to everlasting you are God.

You return man to dust
and say, “Return, O children of man!”
For a thousand years in your sight
are but as yesterday when it is past,
or as a watch in the night.

You sweep them away as with a flood; they are like a dream,
like grass that is renewed in the morning:
in the morning it flourishes and is renewed;
in the evening it fades and withers.

For we are brought to an end by your anger;
by your wrath we are dismayed.
You have set our iniquities before you,
our secret sins in the light of your presence.

For all our days pass away under your wrath;
we bring our years to an end like a sigh.
The years of our life are seventy,
or even by reason of strength eighty;
yet their span is but toil and trouble;
they are soon gone, and we fly away.
Who considers the power of your anger,
and your wrath according to the fear of you?

So teach us to number our days
that we may get a heart of wisdom.
Return, O LORD! How long?
Have pity on your servants!
Satisfy us in the morning with your steadfast love,
that we may rejoice and be glad all our days.
Make us glad for as many days as you have afflicted us,
and for as many years as we have seen evil.
Let your work be shown to your servants,
and your glorious power to their children.
Let the favor of the Lord our God be upon us,
and establish the work of our hands upon us;
yes, establish the work of our hands!

See also:

Are Our Best Days Behind Us?

Gnesio — Thu, 29 Dec 2011 14:23:25 +0000

H.C. Schwan was president of the LCMS Central District in 1865. As the Synod was approaching its twentieth anniversary, he honestly asked the question: Are our best days behind us? Schwan aludes to Luther’s comment that he gospel is like a “passing rain shower,” which does not return where it has passed. All five of the German born presidents of the Synod knew this passage of Luther, and all used it as a call to repentance for their day. Lord have mercy upon us. Matt H

It is a common experience, that kingdoms which quickly rise, become disconnected and soon again fall apart. Indeed the more the form is solidified and expanded, the spirit dwindles from the form. It is like a stone thrown in the water which forms ever widening circles of ripples. But the center, which stirred the water in the first place, loses its power.

The common experience of the world teaches this, and the history of the kingdom of God hardly demonstrates anything different. The quick blooming of the apostolic congregations did not last eternally. And where does the spirit remain which at the time of the blessed Reformation so powerfully united in love such a great number of quickly growing evangelical congregations? Truly, the closer we come to the last days, the more Luther’s statement appears to be proven that the word of God is like a passing rain shower [fahrenden Platzregen], which rarely remains more than a generation in one place and does not return to where it has been.

For this reason it would not be good, my brothers, if we would conceal from ourselves the fact that with the external growth of our Synod dangers will certainly increase which threaten the Synod’s internal prosperity; especially if God should now give us times of rest and peace.

It is not difficult to predict from which side the enemy will continue to threaten us.

Up until now the enemy has not been able to rob us of the precious Word of God. Indeed, he has not been able to hinder us in our struggle for pure doctrine, such that our opponents have progressively been silenced. The next thing the devil will seek is to make us satisfied and tired, to lull us into sleep and security and to fool us into arrogance, as though everything were well and good, if only the orthodox confession and good churchly order stands correct everywhere among us.

What he perhaps could not achieve through temptation to narrow minded legalism, because in that, by God’s grace, there remained an upright earnestness and diligence for God’s honor and the salvation of souls; will he from now on perhaps achieve through a false broadmindedness [Weitherzigkeit], with which he will certainly try to tempt us?

In the beginning all the storms and external attacks [Anfechtungen], which he hung about on our necks, against his very will, only helped force together the little flock to stand chest to chest on the rock of salvation. Through the bond of faith and love we were bound together all the more in inward purpose. It is certainly no wonder that now the devil would calculate to continually stretch and loosen these bonds until finally everyone goes his own way by himself.

from H.C. Schwann (1865) Verhandlungen der Elften Jahresversammlung des Mittleren Districts der deutschen ev.=luth. Synode von Missouri, Ohio u.a. Staaten im Jahre 1865. St. Louis, Mo., Druck von Aug. Wiebusch u. Sohn, 1865, pp. 7-10.
Translation by Matt Harrison.

See also:

Prosperity & Good Days

Beware of being drawn completely into the Strudel!

Gnesio — Mon, 26 Dec 2011 23:33:38 +0000

What would be left of us if the evil spirits, which rule the Zeitgeist, would be disposed to draw us completely into the Strudel, and if He were not truthful who promised not to tempt us beyond what we can bear and to keep us steadfast until the end? Truly, it is due to the goodness and mercy of the Lord that we are not completely at wits’ end. For His mercy is everlasting. It is new every morning, and great is Thy faithfulness! And this, this, my esteemed brothers, is what we will confess with loud honor and praise of our merciful and gracious God, especially as we humbly look back upon the course of time. It is the kindness of the Lord that we are not exhausted. It is the goodness of the Lord that our lamps still stand and our torches still burn. It is the goodness of the Lord that we are still together on the way.

So then, with all the more confidence, let’s look to the road ahead. Indeed, let’s not be deceived. The clouds on the horizon have not dispersed. No. In fact, they rise up all the darker and more threatening. It is quite possible that the most difficult blows are still to come. For the arm of the Lord is not yet extended. It is absolutely possible that we should still expect completely different tribulations and dangers. But we will not lose courage! The mercy of the Lord has no end! It is new every morning; and His faithfulness is great. We are but spiritual foreigners and pilgrims, who have no abiding home here below but seek the one to come. Only let us raise again the weary hand and tired knee. Only let us hold tight the staff, which is written of in Psalm 23. Then, come what may, with the holy psalm- ist, we will be able to say: “Though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil; for Thou art with me; Thy rod and Thy staff, they comfort me. Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies: Thou anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth over. Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the Lord forever” [Psalm 23:4–6 KJV]. Amen.

H.C. Schwan, At Home in the House of My Fathers, p. 482.

See also:

I dreamt in a most realistic way that uncle, while thinking about leaving San Francisco, had died from a stroke.

Gnesio — Mon, 26 Dec 2011 23:30:03 +0000

My good friend Ed Suelflow continues to translate very interesting documents pertaining to the early presidents of the LCMS. This letter gives an idea of how close President Heinrich C. Schwan was to his uncle, Friedrich Wyneken. Sihler was pastor at St. Paul, Ft. Wayne. By the way, Ed is now translating the biography by Sihler mentioned in the letter.
Pastor M. Harrison.

SCHWAN TO SIHLER
Translated by Ed Suelflow
Cleveland, May 9, 1876

Dear honored Doctor:

It is time to prepare proposals for our Synod. One of these should deal with the discussion we had last year concerning the internal condition of our congregations. I would ask you herewith to take over this project.

I am not familiar with the “whys” and the “wherefores.” Twice we had similar discussions, in 1856 and 1858, on the basis of reports that have been considered. The impression that remained with me is that, even though the discussions were fruitful, they were more personal opinion rather than substance based on the reports. The reports themselves were rather useless, because of the sheer volume of questionable judgments expressed by individual Pastors – an extraordinary disproportion. How can we avoid it this time? And is there a way to discuss the matter without these reports?

Further, it is likewise unclear to me which specific issues concerning the life of our congregations we are to discuss this time – the same ones, to prove progress or lack of it – or are there other issues? Some of these should not be included, even though this topic was deemed important by the Pastoral Conference: “Theses Concerning the Doctrine of Sin”. Certainly this was the cause of somewhat idle but interesting conversation at the Conference. (I will appoint Pastor Koehler as reporter and Carl Schmidt as co-reporter.)

I have no other counsel except to ask you to select both the subject matter as well as the way to handle it.

Your son, with whom I visited yesterday, shared with me the plan to wait for the beginning of the college semester until November, so the new arrivals might escape the unfortunate fever. Also all vacations and other free days would be cancelled. This seemed plausible to me. I asked him to draw up a memorial to that effect, that, if it were accepted by the teacher college board of regents (Aufsichtsbehoerde), to present it then to the Synod.

No doubt you already heard by telegram that the body of my uncle is on its way from St. Louis and will probably lie in state here next Sunday. The congregation has invited Walther to preach the funeral sermon. As far as I know Pastor Nieman has invited you to participate. If you cannot come, surely you will write Wyneken’s biography for Der Lutheraner. I dreamt in a most realistic way that uncle, while thinking about leaving San Francisco, had died from a stroke. I sat down then and wrote him a letter of encouragement. It appears that he actually died at that exact time. I am satisfied that he is at rest, which was his desire, but I miss him more than I had originally thought.

It has been necessary for my wife to be bed-ridden for months. I am waiting for the first warm days to take her into the country. It will be good medicine for her.

Yours truly,
H.C.Schwan

See also:

On Doctrine & Mission

Gnesio — Sat, 17 Dec 2011 00:06:25 +0000

When the synod had gathered at Jerusalem, they immediately began to deal with the matter of doctrine. The doctrine of Christian freedom was a burning question. The debate was very lively. Not merely a few spoke, but many did so, including congregation members. Peter, Paul, Barnabas, and James gave longer speeches. From God’s Word they convincingly demonstrated that one must not continue to lay the yoke of Moses upon the necks of the disciples. Salvation comes only through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ. All would be convinced, and they confessed the right doctrine by resolution. We, too, have long dealt chiefly with doctrine at synods. We have not decided doctrinal questions according to majority or in respect of persons, but according to God’s Word. At this synod, we will again deal chiefly with doctrine [Lehre trieben], and indeed together [we will] treat the Sixth Commandment. It will be the most earnest matter we deal with. We will acknowledge the deep corruption of original sin of all human nature and God’s abhorrence and horrible anger over all sins of impurity. Precisely because of the sins against the Sixth Commandment, God drowned the first world and destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah by fire. Precisely on account of these sins, the wrath of God will soon come upon the child of unbelief on the Last Day. Oh, how we should then faithfully warn church and school against the horrible sins of the Sixth Commandment. How we should keep body and soul chaste and unblemished and be blameless midst perverse generations of this world!

But the first synod at Jerusalem dealt not only with doctrine, it also dealt with mission. It says: “And they declared all that God had done with them” [Acts 15:4]. “And all the assembly fell silent, and they listened to Barnabas and Paul as they related what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles” [Acts 15:12]. Also at our sessions, the mission [of the Church], after the treatment of doctrine, takes the most time. Our dear traveling preachers [Reiseprediger] have given their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Suffering great deprivation out on our often inhospitable prairies and in solitude in the wild mountains of Montana, without making much fuss, they have done the most difficult work. They recount to us how the Lord has opened doors for them every- where, and congregations have sprouted up like gardens of God. By reporting this to us, they bring great joy to all the brethren. In so doing, they move us to holy determination to take the Word of God ever further and to work ever more diligently. Indeed, last year, we unanimously decided to assist in taking the Word into the land of the heathen [the American Indians]. It was the reports of our traveling preachers that warmed our hearts and have given us courage to implore God that He give still more because He already has given us so much. To be sure, it is our chief task to preach the Word to brethren in the faith who live in scattered places. But we have now done that beyond what anyone would have thought possible. From Winnipeg to New Orleans, there is a string of one congregation after another. Our missionaries carry the message from the east to the setting of the sun, to the Rocky Mountains and back. To be sure, we always lack the necessary workers. Thus the prayer of the Lord “The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few, pray the Lord of the harvest that He send workers into his fields” is applicable for the Church of the entire [era of the] New Testament. And so the workers will remain few until the Last Day. If we had enough workers, we wouldn’t need to pray what the Lord asks us to pray. God desires our prayer that He may give us what is needed.

Our Confessions also testify that along with the advancement of understanding of the pure doctrine, the mission should be the chief matter of a synod. Luther writes in the Smalcald Articles:

But let us return to the subject. I should be very happy to see a true council assemble in order that many things and many people might derive benefit from it. Not that we ourselves need such a council . . . we see so many vacant and desolate parishes everywhere that our hearts would break with grief. Yet neither the bishops nor the canons care how the poor people live or die, although Christ died for them too. Those people cannot hear Christ speak to them as the true shepherd speaking to His sheep. This horrifies me and makes me fear that He may cause a council of angels to descend on Germany and destroy us utterly, like Sodom and Gomorrah, because we mock Him so shamefully with the council [SA Preface 9–11; Tappert, 290].

Walther remarked on this at the synod of the Iowa District: “Behold, dear brothers, we should be so minded also. We come here not for the sake of ourselves. We stand in the faith and with this faith we hope to be saved! But how many millions are there still who have no faith! We exist and have founded a synod in order, as much as possible, to bring men to sal- vation, and thereby to check the misery in Christendom and the number of the lost in the poor blind heathen world. If we do not do this, if we fail to seek the honor of Christ and the salvation of souls, Luther fears, as he says, ‘then may the dear God convene a synod, namely a “council of angels” in order to carry out his judgment.’ ” (Iowa Synodal-Bericht, 1:113)

Friedrich Pfotenhauer, At Home in the House of My Fathers, p. 697

See also:

Preachers are you wasting your time?

Gnesio — Tue, 13 Dec 2011 07:21:24 +0000

To all preachers these words of the Savior have something very positive to say. We must not attempt to entertain men with all kinds of so-called sermons on social improvement. It brings no spiritual blessing to the hearts of sinners to hear discussions of political questions, of moral issues, of civic advancement, and, for that matter, any other temporal issue. What God wants sinners to hear is His Word. He tells preachers: “Preach the Word; be instant in season, out of season,” 2 Tim. 4:2. You and I are to expose the sin and guilt of our hearers. With the hammer of God’s holy Law we are to crush their hearts. We are to cause them to tremble that they may ask, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” Acts 16: 30. And then we must tell the story of Jesus and His love. We must lead poor sinners to the Cross of the Redeemer and tell them, “The Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all,” Is. 53:6. “The blood of Jesus Christ, His Son, cleanseth us from all sin,” I John 1:7. “He hath made Him to be sin for us who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him,” 2 Cor. 5:21. Are you proclaiming this message? Or are you wasting your own time and the time of your hearers with subject matter that does not belong into the pulpit? Unless we proclaim the Word of God, we miss the mark altogether. Only the Word of God is “the power unto salvation,” Rom. 1:16.

John Behnken, President of the LCMS 1945-1962, in “Mercies Manifold: Radio Messages Broadcast During the Summer of 1949, CPH 1950, pp. 117f.

See also:

F.C.D. Wyneken on Preserving Unity

Gnesio — Mon, 12 Dec 2011 20:03:12 +0000

All this should firmly and constantly move our hearts to pay close attention to the powerful enemies of this unity, external as much as internal. For we have the devil against us, the world around us, and the flesh upon us. And the flesh is not only remiss in and unwilling to maintain such unity; it harbors in itself the very things that destroy it unless they are powerfully opposed: darkness, envy, mistrust, bitterness, anger, sarcasm, hatred. The self-seeking, the disregard for the well-being and woe of others, only looks to itself and seeks its own benefit. kindled by the devil and his minions in the world, the hellfire of suffering breaks out, and the bond of peace and of unity is sunk. We must deny, crucify, and sacrifice all of this through the love of Christ. We must attend to and oppose it with the noble fruit of the Spirit—true humility that happily gives honor and seeks nothing. When we must fight and wound, we are only the more humbled. Heartfelt love, which is accommodating, peaceable, forgiving, gentle, patient, and longsuffering, keeps the little oil flask of mildness by its side at all times. Only by daily, serious renewal do we shed the old man and his works and put on the new man, who is created according to god in Christ Jesus. This is the only way one mind and true unity can be preserved among us. In daily repentance, the fire of divine love kindles anew in Christian hearts. Our fellowship of love is based upon and held together by this divine love. Through repentance, it is deepened and more firmly established, so that in matters of faith, no new, strange, and thus false view, explanation, and understanding of the truth of Scripture may be forced in. even under great pain and terrible suffering, our fellowship will not be torn.

Then why, beloved brothers, do we stand by one another? Why can’t we leave one another? It is because we cannot let go of the one truth that we, in fellowship with all the saints, have acknowledged, believe, and confess as it is in the Confessions of the Lutheran Church. These Confessions bear witness to the truth clearly, plainly, and powerfully on the basis of the Holy Scriptures, against all the desires of Satan, to the whole world. And why do we hold so firmly to our Confession such that we happily endure the hatred of the world and also of the rest of Christianity, which is difficult to bear? Why, with God’s help and grace, would we suffer persecution and death before we would give up even a small part of that Confession? We do so because we have come to make the truth set forth in that Confession our own, not in times of good leisure and rest, like we might appropriate other natural or historical truths. The Holy Spirit has revealed this truth to us in the midst of the burdens of troubled consciences as our only salvation. Through the Word, the Spirit has borne witness to the truth in broken and troubled hearts. Our consciences are bound to the Word and therefore to the Confession of the Church. As poor, forlorn, and condemned men, we have learned to believe in Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior. The peace of conscience, the peace of our souls, the hope of eternal blessedness, our very being and life hang on this truth. To surrender it would be to surrender our salvation and ourselves for time and eternity. Therefore, neither can we let go of the most insignificant portion of the Confession because the entire series of the individual teachings of the faith are for us one chain. This chain not only binds our understanding in the truth, it binds our consciences and lives. The loss of an individual part of the same would break this chain, and we would be torn loose from Christ, tumbling again into the abyss of anxiety, doubt, and eternal death.

Therefore we hold fast to our Confession, as to our very life’s life.

F.C.D. Wyneken, in At Home in the House of My Fathers, p. 287

See also:

Ambrose on Law and Gospel

Gnesio — Sun, 11 Dec 2011 19:00:24 +0000

…it is the Lord Jesus Himself who was prefigured in Jacob, a man of two marriages, that is, one who shares both in the law and in grace. He admired the virgin Rachel first; she was predetermined to marriage with him and he loved her with devoted affection [cf. Gen. 29:18,30]. But Lia, like the law, entered in secretly and took him by surprise [cf. Gen. 29:22-27], and her eyes were somewhat weak [cf. Gen. 29:17], like the synagogue, that could not see Christ from blindness of spirit. Holy Rachel possessed beauty in abundant measure, and Jacob sought her over and beyond the first marriage [cf. Gen. 29:26-30]. She was a sign even then by the interpretation of her name that the preference would belong to the Church. Happy was Rachel, who took away her reproach by bearing a child of her own [cf. Gen. 30:23]; happy was Rachel, who concealed the false idols of the Gentiles and declared that their images were full of uncleanness [cf. Gen. 31:34-35]. …

…holy Jacob…sees the camp of God nearby and says, “This is the encampment of God” [Gen. 32:3]; God’s help is generally with men of faith and men who have been perfected. Moreover, as one who had been perfected, he thought of reconciliation with his brother [cf. Gen. 32:4-21]. Accordingly he thought to invite Esau with humility and to prevail on him with kindnesses and considered that he could be won over with gifts as well. Therefore Jacob went along with his wives and children to meet his brother, so that even if Esau was angry at him, he would relent out of allegiance to ties of kinship [cf. Gen. 33:1-2]. “And he bowed down seven times on the ground” [Gen. 33:3]. … What does it mean, that he bowed down seven times? The answer would remain open if one did not remember Peter’s question in the Gospel, “If my brother sins against me, how often shall I forgive him? Up to seven times?” [Matt. 18:21] and the answer of the Lord Jesus, “not only seven times, but even seventy times seven” [Matt. 18:22]. And so the holy patriarch foreshadows this in prophetic spirit, since he is looking to Christ who is coming and who would command that pardon be extended to one’s brother not only to seven times but even to seventy times seven. Thus, in view of this meeting, Esau would forgive his brother the injury he thought he had received; although the offended party, Esau would return to friendship, because the Lord Jesus was going to take flesh and come upon the earth for that very reason, to give us manifold pardon for our offenses.

Then, intending to ask for peace from his brother, Jacob slept in the encampment [cf. Gen. 32:14]. Perfect virtue possesses tranquillity and a calm steadfastness; likewise the Lord has kept His gift for those who are more perfect and has said, “My peace I leave to you, my peace I give to you” [John 14:27]. It is the part of those who have been perfected not to be easily influenced by worldly things or to be troubled with fear or tormented with suspicion or stunned with dread or distressed with pain. Rather, as if on a shore of total safety, they ought to calm their spirit, immovable as it is in the anchorage of faith, against the rising waves and tempests of the world. Christ brought this support to the spirits of Christians when He brought an inner peace to the souls of those who had proved themselves, so that our heart should not be troubled or our spirit be distressed. That this peace is beyond all understanding our apostolic teacher proclaimed when he said, “And the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and feelings in Christ Jesus” [Phil. 4:7]. And so the fruit of peace is the absence of disturbance in the heart. In short, the life of the just man is calm, but the unjust man is filled with disquiet and disturbance. Therefore the ungodly man is struck down more by his own suspicions than most men are by the blows of others, and the stripes of the wounds in his soul are greater than those in the bodies of men who are lashed by others. …

Therefore Jacob, who had purified his heart of all pretense and was manifesting a peaceable disposition, first cast off all that was his, then remained behind alone and wrestled with God [cf. Gen. 32:23-25]. For whoever forsakes worldly things comes nearer to the image and likeness of God. What is it to wrestle with God, other than to enter upon the struggle for virtue, to contend with one who is stronger and to become a better imitator of God than the others are? Because Jacob’s faith and devotion were unconquerable, the Lord revealed His hidden mysteries to him by touching the side of his thigh [cf. Gen. 32:26]. For it was by descent from him that the Lord Jesus was to be born of a virgin, and Jesus would be neither unlike nor unequal to God. The numbness in the side of Jacob’s thigh foreshadowed the cross of Christ, who would bring salvation to all men by spreading the forgiveness of sins throughout the whole world and would give resurrection to the departed by the numbness and torpidity of His own body. On this account the sun rightly rose on holy Jacob [cf. Gen. 32:32], for the saving cross of the Lord shone brightly on his lineage, and at the same time the Sun of Justice rises on the man who recognizes God [cf. Mal. 4:2], because He is Himself the Everlasting Light. But Jacob limped because of his thigh [cf. Gen. 32:32]. “On account of this the children of Israel do not eat the sinew even to the present day” [Gen. 32:33]. Would that they had eaten it and had believed! But because they were not about to do the will of God, therefore they did not eat. There are those, too, who take the passage in the following sense, that Jacob limped from one thigh. Two peoples flowed from his lineage, and there was then being revealed the numbness which one of them would presently exhibit toward the grace of faith. And so it is the people itself that limped by reason of the numbness of its unbelief.

Indeed, not long after the preceding revelation, Dina, Jacob’s daughter, was violated and deflowered of her modesty and virginity by the son of a stranger [cf. Gen. 34:1-5]. Her brothers, who did not understand the mystery, first offered the strangers an alliance in faith through intermarriage [cf. Gen. 34:13-17] and then killed them [cf. Gen. 34:25-29], out of a zealous desire for vengeance. But Jacob esteemed compassion with a forbearance that was moral, or he foresaw, with an understanding that was mystical, the mystery of the Church that would be gathered together from the nations. Therefore it was with reluctance and sorrow that he learned of that spectacle of the vengeance that had been taken [cf. Gen. 34:30]. On this account God’s answer was given to Jacob, who prophesied the coming of the Lord Jesus: “Arise and go up to Bethel” [Gen. 35:1], that is, to the house of bread, where Christ was born, as the prophet Michea gives testimony when he says, “And you, Bethlehem, house of Ephrata, are not too little to be among the first of Juda. For out of you will come forth the ruler in Israel, and his going forth is from the beginning, from the days of eternity” [Mich. 5:2]. Truly that is the house of bread, which is the house of Christ, who came to us from heaven as the bread of salvation [cf. John 6:51] so that now no one may be hungry, but each one may gain for himself the food of immortality. There the patriarch was commanded to dwell; there he was commanded to make an altar to God, who appeared to him [cf. Gen. 35:1]. There he took the strange gods and buried them under a turpentine tree [cf. Gen. 35:2-4]; there also Rachel was buried on the way to Ephrata, that is, Bethlehem [cf. Gen. 35:19]; and there Jacob set up a column over her grave [cf. Gen. 35:20].

What great mysteries these are! There, there is the Church of God, in which God appears and speaks with His humble servants. There the idols of the nations are taken away and buried, for the faith of the Church has destroyed every practice of paganism. But why, I ask, did he bury them under a turpentine tree? Assuredly that is an unproductive species. And so the gods of the nations are there, where no fruit is. There the earrings of the pagans are buried, and they gave them to Jacob [cf. Gen. 35:4] so that now they could grow used to hearing a new language and could forget the old sleep of unbelief, and so that their ears could become deaf to sacrilege and be purified for grace. …

But the truth of the Church did not shelter unbelief; rather it buried it and blocked the ears of the pagans. It is appropriate, too, that the holy Rachel was buried there, for all those who are baptized in Christ are buried together with Him. So we are taught by the Apostle, who says, “For we were buried with him by means of baptism into death, in order that, just as he has arisen from the dead, raised up through his own power, so we also may rise up by his grace” [Rom. 6:4]. Every deceit of the pagans really is buried at the time when someone has been washed free of his vices, because our old man, fastened to the cross, now does not know how to be a slave to the old sin. It is appropriate as well that a column is set up over Rachel’s grave, because the Church is the column and mainstay of the truth [cf. 1 Tim. 3:15]. (“Jacob and the Happy Life,” II:25-28,30-34, pp. 160-66)

from Ambrose on Law and Gospel.

These are the words of Ambrose, which clearly support our position; he denies justification to works and ascribes it to faith, which liberates us through the blood of Christ. If you pile up all the commentators on the Sentences with all their magnificent titles – for some are called “angelic,” others “subtle,” and others “irrefutable” – read them and reread them, they contribute less to an understanding of Paul than this one sentence from Ambrose. (Apology of the Augsburg Confession IV:104-05, The Book of Concord, edited by Theodore G. Tappert [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1959], p. 122)

See also:

Ambrose on Justification: A Study in the Catholicity of Lutheran Theology

Gnesio — Thu, 08 Dec 2011 15:23:18 +0000

by DAVID JAY WEBBER

The Lutherans of the sixteenth century consistently maintained that their cultus and confession were truly catholic: “…nothing has been received among us, in doctrine or in ceremonies, that is contrary to Scripture or to the church catholic”;1 “…No novelty has been introduced which did not exist in the church from ancient times…”;2 “…our churches dissent from the church catholic in no article of faith but only omit some few abuses which are new and have been adopted by the fault of the times…”3 According to the Lutherans it was Rome, and not Wittenberg, that had departed from the authentic catholic faith of the apostles and Fathers of the Church.

One of the most significant assertions of the Lutheran reformers was that sinners are justified before God by grace through faith alone, and not by human works or merits of any kind. In regard to the Lutheran doctrine of justification, the Apology of the Augsburg Confession makes the following statement:

We know that what we have said agrees with the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures, with the holy Fathers Ambrose, Augustine, and many others, and with the whole church of Christ, which certainly confesses that Christ is the propitiator and the justifier.4

Was this claim valid? Was the Lutheran doctrine of justification truly catholic, or was it (as the Pope and his followers claimed) a sectarian innovation? Since the Lutherans appealed explicitly to the ancient Father St. Ambrose (among others) as one who taught what they were teaching, it will be helpful to examine Ambrose’s writings on justification to determine if the Lutherans really understood his position and if his teaching did in fact confirm theirs.

St. Ambrose (c.338-397), Bishop of Milan, has always been remembered as a courageous churchman, an able teacher, and a faithful shepherd. Christendom has also counted him as one of the eight “Doctors of the Church,” and an examination of his writings readily confirms the appropriateness of this honor.

Ambrose’s theology is first and foremost a Christ-centered theology. According to Ambrose, “where Christ is, there are all things, there is his teaching, there forgiveness of sins, there grace, there the separation of the dead and the living.”5 Ambrose accordingly focuses on the saving work of Christ as the only hope for sinners: “He gave himself to be offered for our sins, that by his blood he might cleanse the world, whose sin could not be abolished in any other way.”6 “The Lord’s death is my redemption, for we are redeemed by his precious blood.”7 Ambrose’s doctrine of the atonement actually includes two facets. The significance of Christ’s suffering and death as an expiatory sacrifice to God is explained in the following words:

Jesus took on himself even death, that the sentence of condemnation might be carried out, that he might satisfy the judgment that sinful flesh should be cursed even unto death. Nothing therefore was done contrary to the sentence of God, since the condition of God’s sentence was fulfilled.8

The significance of Christ’s suffering and death as a ransom to the devil is explained thus:

If we were redeemed not with perishable things – with silver and gold – but with the precious blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, surely the one who sold us had a right to our service in the coin of a now sinful race. And, undoubtedly, to release from slavery those whom he held bound he demanded a price. The price of our freedom was the blood of our Lord Jesus, and it had to be paid necessarily to the one to whom we had been sold by our sins.9

As might be expected, the grace of God has a central place in Ambrose’s theology. He asks,

What can we do worthy of heavenly rewards? By what labours, by what sufferings, can we wash away our sins? Not according to our merits, but according to the mercy of God, the heavenly decrees concerning men are issued.10

According to Ambrose, “the grace of the Lord is given not as a reward which has been earned, but simply according to the will of the giver.”11 Ambrose also writes: “Let no one arrogate aught to himself, let no one boast of his merits or his power, but let us all hope to find mercy through the Lord Jesus.”12 It is indeed God’s gracious call that alone sets the sinner free, and Ambrose therefore prays to his Lord:

Call forth thy servant. Although I am bound with the chains of my sins, being now buried in dead thoughts and works, yet at thy call I shall go forth free and be found one of those sitting at thy feast.13

And how, exactly, is God’s gracious salvation actually received by each individual Christian? According to Ambrose, “God chose that man should seek salvation by faith rather than by works, lest any should glory in his deeds and should thereby incur sin.”14 The evangelical character of Ambrose’s theology is also evident in what he writes in regard to John 3:36:

Let us consider another similar passage: “He that believeth on the Son hath eternal life, but he that believeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him.” That which abideth has certainly had a commencement, and that from some offense, viz., that first he not believe. When, then, anyone believes, the wrath of God departs and life comes. To believe, then, in Christ is to gain life, for “he that believeth in him is not judged” [John 3:18].15

The following comparison that Ambrose makes between the woman with the issue of blood (Luke 8:43-48) and the Christian clearly demonstrates that he understands “faith” to be much more than a mere mental acceptance of certain doctrines and facts:

The woman was immediately healed, because she drew to him in faith. And do you with faith touch but the hem of his garment. The torrential flow of worldly passions will be dried up by the warmth of the saving Word, if you but draw near to him with faith, if with like devotion you grasp at least the hem of his garment. O faith richer than all treasures! A faith stronger than all the powers of the body, more health-giving than all the physicians!16

In examining Ambrose’s use of the terms “justification” and “justified,” it becomes clear that he connects justification with forgiveness. Ambrose states that “he is justified from sin to whom all sins are remitted through baptism.”17 According to Ambrose, good works cannot be a cause of forgiveness and justification because in our sinful condition we are simply incapable of producing works that are truly good. He writes that “we are not justified by works but by faith, because the infirmity of our flesh is an impediment to works; but the brightness of faith overshadows the error of works and merits forgiveness of our faults.”18 Again, “Not of works, but of faith, each is justified by the Lord.”19

Sanctification and good works naturally follow justification and are necessary as the fruits of a true justifying faith. However, Ambrose makes it clear that these fruits must not be relied on as in any way earning God’s favor:

I will glory not because I am righteous but because I am redeemed; I will glory not because I am free from sins but because my sins are forgiven me. I will glory not because I have done good nor because someone has done good to me but because Christ is my advocate with the Father and because the blood of Christ has been shed for me.20

The Pauline emphasis on justification as the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to the sinner is reflected in the following statement by Ambrose:

In Adam I fell, in Adam I was cast out of Paradise, in Adam I died. How shall God call me back, except he find me in the Second Adam – justified in Christ, even as in the first Adam I was made subject to guilt and destined to death?21

Ambrose’s most thorough treatment of the doctrine of justification is found in a letter to a layman named Irenaeus,22 which is quoted at length in the Apology of the Augsburg Confession.23 This letter, in which Ambrose also outlines the proper distinction between Law and Gospel, deserves to be quoted at length here as well:

Sin abounded by the Law because through the Law came knowledge of sin and it became harmful for me to know what through my weakness I could not avoid. It is good to know beforehand what one is to avoid, but, if I cannot avoid something, it is harmful to have known about it. Thus was the Law changed to its opposite, yet it became useful to me by the very increase of sin, for I was humbled. And David therefore says: “It is good for me that I have been humbled” [Psalm 119:71]. By humbling myself I have broken the bonds of that ancient transgression by which Adam and Eve had bound the whole line of their succession. Hence, too, the Lord came as an obedient man to loose the knot of man’s disobedience and deception. And as through disobedience sin entered, so through obedience sin was remitted. Therefore, the Apostle says: “For just as by the disobedience of one man the many were constituted sinners, so also by the obedience of the one the many will be constituted just” [Romans 5:19].

Here is one reason that the Law was unnecessary and became necessary, unnecessary in that it would not have been needed if we had been able to keep the natural law; but, as we did not keep it, the Law of Moses became needful to teach me obedience and loosen that bond of Adam’s deception which had ensnared his whole posterity. Yes, guilt grew by the Law, but pride, the source of guilt, was loosed, and this was an advantage to me. Pride discovered the guilt and the guilt brought grace.

Consider another reason. The Law of Moses was not needful; hence, it entered secretly. Its entrance seems not of an ordinary kind, but like something clandestine because it entered secretly into the place of the natural law. Thus, if she had but kept her place, this written law would never have entered it, but, since deception had banished that law and nearly blotted it out of the human breast, pride reigned and disobedience was rampant. Therefore, that other took its place so that by its written expression it might challenge us and shut our mouth, in order to make the whole world subject to God. The world,24 however, became subject to him through the Law, because all are brought to trial by the prescript of the Law, and no one is justified by the works of the Law; in other words, because the knowledge of sin comes from the Law, but guilt is not remitted, the Law, therefore, which has made all men sinners, seems to have caused harm.

But, when the Lord Jesus came he forgave all men the sin they could not escape, and canceled the decree against us by shedding his blood [Colossians 2:14]. This is what he says: “By the Law sin abounded, but grace abounded by Jesus” [Romans 5:20], since after the whole world became subject he took away the sins of the whole world, as John bears witness, saying: “Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!” [John 1:29] Let no one glory, then, in his own works, since no one is justified by his deeds, but one who is just has received a gift, being justified by Baptism. It is faith, therefore, which sets us free by the blood of Christ, for he is blessed whose sin is forgiven and to whom pardon is granted [Psalm 32:1].25

It seems fair to conclude that the sixteenth-century Lutheran doctrine of justification was fully congruent with the teaching of St. Ambrose on this subject, and that the Lutherans’ appeals to him were both legitimate and accurate. In those writings in which Ambrose dealt with this matter deliberately and carefully, he taught on the basis of Holy Scripture that sinners are justified before God by grace through faith alone, and not by human works or merits of any kind. On this central article of the Christian faith, the Lutherans were thoroughly “Ambrosian,” and if Ambrose’s views are a reflection of the authentic catholic position, the Lutherans were also thoroughly “catholic.”26

ENDNOTES:

1. Augsburg Confession, epilogue to XXVIII, 5 (Latin), in The Book of Concord, translated and edited by Theodore G. Tappert (Fortress Press, 1959), p. 95.

2. Augsburg Confession XXIV:40 (German), Tappert pp. 60-61.

3. Augsburg Confession, prologue to XXII, 1 (Latin), Tappert p. 48.

4. Apology of the Augsburg Confession IV:389, Tappert p. 166.

5. Epistle 4, The Fathers of the Church, Vol. 26 (Washington: Catholic University of America Press, 1954), p. 104.

6. In ps. 47 enarr. 17; quoted in F. Holmes Dudden, The Life and Times of St. Ambrose (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1935), Vol. II, p. 606.

7. De fide III:36; quoted in Dudden II, p. 607.

8. De Fuga 44; quoted in Dudden II, pp. 608-09.

9. Epistle 72, The Fathers of the Church 26, pp. 93-93.

10. Expos. ps. 118, 20:42; quoted in Dudden II, p. 631.

11. Exhort. virginitatis 43; quoted in Dudden II, p. 632.

12. Expos. ps. 118, 20:42; quoted in Dudden II, p. 631.

13. De Poenitentia II:72; quoted in Dudden II, p. 626.

14. In ps. 43 enarr. 14; quoted in Dudden II, p. 627.

15. De Poenitentia I:53, The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. X (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans reprint, 1983), p. 338.

16. De Virginitate 100; quoted in Dudden II, p. 628.

17. Quoted by Augustine in Contra Julianum II:8:23; quoted in turn in Martin Chemnitz, Examination of the Council of Trent, Part I (Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1971), p. 475.

18. Liber de Jacob et Vita Beata, ch. 2; quoted in Chemnitz, Examination I, p. 508.

19. Exhort. Virginitatis 43; quoted in Dudden II, p. 627.

20. Liber de Jacob et Vita Beata, ch. 6; quoted in Chemnitz, Examination I, p. 507.

21. De Excessu Sat. 11:6; quoted in Dudden II, p. 610.

22. Not to be confused with the second-century church Father St. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons.

23. Apology IV:103, Tappert pp. 121-22. In the text of the Apology, immediately after the appearance of this quotation, we read: “These are the words of Ambrose, which clearly support our position; he denies justification to works and ascribes it to faith, which liberates us through the blood of Christ. If you pile up all the commentators on the Sentences with all their magnificent titles – for some are called ‘angelic’ [Thomas Aquinas], others ‘subtle’ [John Duns Scotus], and others ‘irrefutable’ [Alexander of Hales] – read them and reread them, they contribute less to an understanding of Paul than this one sentence from Ambrose.” (Apology IV:104-05, Tappert p. 122.)

24. It is at this point that the Apology begins its quotations from this letter.

25. Epistle 73, in The Fathers of the Church 26, pp. 466-68. In the translation of Epistle 73 that is found in that source, Ambrose’s Latin phrase “quia ex praescripto legis omnes conveniuntur et ex operibus legis nemo iustificatur” is rendered inaccurately as “because all are brought to trial by the prescript of the Law, and no one is justified without the works of the Law.” This is corrected in the quotation that appears in this essay.

26. In his “Treatise on the Reading of the Fathers or Doctors of the Church,” Martin Chemnitz offers these very interesting comments about the writings of St. Ambrose in general: “He wrote many things, but best are the commentaries which he wrote on all the epistles of Paul, which can be of great help to the reader. There also is extant his commentary on Luke. He wrote on Isaiah, a work which antiquity held in the highest authority of all his writings. But it no longer is extant. In his Pauline commentaries he speaks most accurately about justification. There are also some other writings by him which are definitely doctrinal. Yet he has some statements which are not so satisfactory, particularly on free will and original sin. These were seized upon by the Pelagians as being his firm opinion. But Augustine, in his Contra Julianum, Bk. 1, shows clearly how these statements are to be understood. Ambrose was held in great authority even among the easterners, who criticized Jerome because in speaking of him he gave him too little honor.” (Chemnitz, Loci Theologici (Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1989), Vol. I, p. 32.) We now know that the Pauline commentaries to which Chemnitz refers were not actually written by Ambrose. Chemnitz’s positive analysis of Ambrose’s teaching on justification would also apply, however, to many of Ambrose’s genuine writings (such as the ones from which the quotations in this essay are taken), where he does indeed speak “most accurately about justification.”

This essay was published in Lutheran Synod Quarterly, Vol. 28, No. 3 (September 1988), pp. 71-80. The printed version differs slightly from the online version that appears here.

See also:

Propositions on Unevangelical Practice

Gnesio — Sat, 19 Nov 2011 15:38:45 +0000

Propositions on Unevangelical Practice
H. C. Schwan, President of the LCMS 1878-1899
Translated by Everette Meier

1. Evangelical practice consists not in this, that we teach and treat nothing except the evangelical message (the Gospel), but in this, that we treat everything in evangelical fashion.

2. This means that since we expect justification before God, the renewal of the heart, and the fruits of the Spirit only through the Gospel, we have this one thing in mind in everything that we do, to give free course and sway to the Gospel.

3. For this very reason, when we follow evangelical practice, we do not discard the Law or make its edges dull through bringing in the Gospel, but we rather preach it with all the more seriousness in its full severity, however, in evangelical fashion.

4. The Law is used in an evangelical way if it is employed solely for the purpose of preparing the soil for the evangelical message (the Gospel) and of submitting a divine norm for the manifestations of the new life that spontaneously arises through the evangelical message.

5. It is not evangelical practice to cast the pearls before the swine, but much less is it evangelical practice to keep them in one’s own pocket.

6. Evangelical practice drops not one iota of the things that God demands, but it demands
nothing else and no more than faith and love.

7. Evangelical practice demands manifestation of faith and love if we desire to be saved, but
it does not issue commands about their various manifestations as far as aim, amount,
and mode are concerned.

8. Evangelical practice demands fulfillment of even the smallest letter of the Law, but it
does not make the state of grace dependent on the keeping of the Law.

9. Evangelical practice endeavors indeed to prepare the way for the operations of the Gospel by the Law; but it does not endeavor to aid the Gospel in its real functions by the Law; and since it expects the fruits of the Spirit to be produced solely by the Gospel, it is willing to wait for them, too.

10. Evangelical practice considers nothing an essential gain that does not come through the Gospel, that is, through faith; therefore it bears with all manner of defects, imperfections, and sins rather than to remove them merely in an external manner.

11. Evangelical practice limits pastoral care [Seelsorge] to specific applications of the Law and the Gospel; the scrutiny and judging of the hearts it leaves to God, the searcher of hearts.

12. Evangelical practice insists on good human order, but still more does it insist on Christian liberty, and for that reason it lets adiaphora remain real adiaphora; that is, it leaves the decision concerning them to the conscience of the individual.

13. Evangelical practice is faithful in little things; yet it considers matters in their larger aspects and totality more important than individual details.

14. To be wise as serpents; to redeem the time; not to let Satan gain an advantage over us; [and] to become all things to all men in order that by all means some might be saved are likewise elements of evangelical practice.

15. Evangelical practice is equally far removed from antinomian and from legalistic practice.

16. Evangelical knowledge and disposition should issue in evangelical practice, but do so rather seldom and slowly.

17. Usually we do not advance beyond legalism, or we fall into antinomian laxity; to such
an extent, the Gospel is foreign to our nature.

18. There is danger in both directions. For us at present, the greater danger is still in the
direction of legalism.

19. Apart from the natural tendency of the old Adam and our origin in pietistic circles, etc.,
our present situation and the necessary reaction against the prevailing moral laxity in
principles and in life are responsible for this state of affairs.

20. Or how many are there not who secretly fear more to give the blessings of the Gospel
to an unworthy person than to deny them to a poor sinner or to curtail them? Whose conscience is not hindering him to follow the example of Paul and to become all things to all men? But where this is the case, one surely still finds legalistic practice.

21. Legalistic practice does not consist in this, that one does not treat anything except the Law; but in this, that one treats everything in a legalistic manner, that is, in such a way that one’s main aim is to see to it that the Law gets its due and that one tries to accomplish through the Law or even through laws what only the Gospel can accomplish.

22. In addition (as is often the case where the inner motive power really still is the Law), the more fiery zeal asserts itself which does not even permit love to be the queen of all commandments; which spurns Christian wisdom as its counselor; and which, even when it appears merely to teach, to reprove, or to admonish, in reality applies coercion—and for that matter the worst kind, namely, moral coercion—all the more unevangelical [does] our practice become.

23. Unevangelical, legalistic practice is found not only in Churches and congregations, but likewise in schools and in the homes, and besides in our fraternal intercourse.

24. The instances of unevangelical practice that are still most frequent with us in the realm of ministerial work, the cure of souls, and congregational government are perhaps the following:

In sermons: Overabundant castigation [durchgeisseln] of individual sins, un-wholesome conditions, or perhaps even of matters of personal dislike; the portraying of well-known sins of well-known persons instead of laying bare the bitter roots out of which all evil fruits grow; mere so-called “testifying” without real instruction and admonition; unnecessary or premature or un- edifying polemics; urging that repentance and faith be manifested instead of preaching that which produces repentance and faith; a pietistic classification of the hearers; attaching conditions to the Gospel promises [Verklausulierung des Evangelii]; preaching faith predominantly as to its sanctifying power; pre- sentation of the grace of God only to build demands on such presentation.

With respect to Confession and the Lord’s Supper: Demanding more for admission than is absolutely required for its salutary use; schoolroom catechizing and inquisitorial searching of the heart of those announcing; postponing reproof till announcement for Communion or Confession; using refusal of Holy Communion as a coercive, terrifying, or disciplinary means; refusing [admission to the Lord’s Supper] even when a state of unrepentance cannot be provided.

With respect to Baptism: Being either entirely unwilling to baptize children of heretics or unbelieving people who nonetheless are in contact with the Word [die unter dem Schall des Wortes leben], even if there is no intrusion in somebody else’s domain [in ein fremd Amt greifen], or [being willing to do so] only after various human guarantees have been given; putting acceptance of sponsors on a level with admission toHoly Communion.

At marriages: Refusing to perform marriages of people who are outside the congregation, even if they are not manifestly wicked; a meticulous insistence on a certain form of parental consent and of engagement.

At funerals: Absolute refusal of burial in the case of all who did not somehow belong to the congregation or at least requested the visit of the pastor; adherence to the principle that at every funeral, the salvation or damnation of the deceased must be asserted publicly, that sins have to be castigated, and the occasion must be used to take a fling [anzustechen] at the sins and failings of the survivor.

In the care of souls: Constant trimming and pressing [hobeln und feilen] on everybody till all wrinkles have been removed; acceptance of every kind of gossip [Zuträgereien]; mixing into house, family, and matrimonial matters, even if no public offense has been given; judging one’s attitude of heart on the basis of a few words and works; applying moral coercion through exaggeration, and so on.

In congregational government and Church discipline: Exaggerated demands at the reception of new members; a denial of, or peremptory fixing of time limits for, participation in the spiritual treasures of the Church as a guest, especially for attendance at the Lord’s Table; mandatory imposition of dues on church members, requiring the same amount from all, or coercive taxing of the individuals; use of church discipline as a measure against matters that are not evident, mortal sins, or even against self-provoked sins; to consider a person as convicted in his own mind or as opposing maliciously because he is not able to reply to the arguments and charges uttered against him, or even assents; to lay more weight on the correct form of the proceedings than on the achieving of the purpose of the discipline; to demand the same form and the same degree of publicity for all confessions of sins that may have to be made; the endeavor to make the chasm between those who are in and those who are outside the congregation really large, instead of building bridges for the opponents and for those who are on the outside.

25. Legalistic practice in itself makes the Gospel into Law, the Law a taskmaster (but not unto Christ); it makes confession a torture, the cure of souls hypocritical fawning, the Sacrament a testimony and seal that one is acceptable (to the pastor); it makes Christian liberty a mere pretense, church discipline an oppression of consciences, the people painfully meticulous, self-righteously pharisaical, and the Church a police institution.

26. Legalistic practice has the appearance of greater conscientiousness, courage, and quicker success only for the blind. Looked at carefully, it lacks true courage to allow God to reign and His Word to work. Its conscientiousness is that of an erring conscience and [is] in itself one of the greatest hindrances of the working of the Law as well as of the Gospel.

27. Legalistic practice behooves no church less than the Evangelical Lutheran [Church].

28. To make the fine customs of old established churches the standard for such as are in the process of establishment is not Lutheran.

29. There are plenty of things in which we cannot avoid giving offense; let us not give it by
unnecessary severity in practice.

30. Let us courageously make an end of all unevangelical practice; but let us not forget that
there is but one step from legalistic to antinomian practice.

31. Antinomian practice would beware of legalism and would bring about everything only
by the Gospel. But, since it lacks the severity of the Law, it also lacks the fervor of the
Gospel. Therefore it will result in laxity and undisciplined conduct.

32. If we fall from legalistic into antinomian practice, evil has become worse.

From “At Home in the House of My Fathers.”

See also:

Th Fruits and Consequences of Pietism

Gnesio — Sat, 19 Nov 2011 15:29:27 +0000

Prolegomena & Authority

a Epistemology

Pietism fostered a shift in epistemology, that is, how we “know” things, especially, but not limited to, the area of religion.

Its subjective epistemology served to justify freedom from ideology (civil or religious) and from external cultural restraints and gave primacy to the authority of the individual’s perceptions and intuitions, all of which was in harmony with the developing cultural ethos of America.

This analysis has been supported by Hägglund.

The new way of thinking was expressed in epistemology. According to Spener, experience is the ground of all certainty, both on the natural level and on the level of revelation. As a result the personal experience of the pious is the ground of certainty for theological knowledge. Only the regenerate Christian can be a true theologian and possess real knowledge of revealed truth.

b Word of God

While the Pietists gave great emphasis to Bible reading, nevertheless the Scriptures were viewed differently than had been in the church of the Lutheran Reformation.

i The Word of God was no longer formal principle. It may have been a norm but not the sole, nor indeed, the preeminent norm.

ii It was replaced by conversion, the experience of regeneration, the norm of an inner experience or feeling.

iii There is a tendency to encourage a “private and individual” study, and even interpretation, of the Bible.

iv While the sermon is good, it is certainly insufficient. The sermon, like the Scriptures, is an external authority and thus not as effective.

c Confessions

In Lutheranism, the confessions have a role of authority second only to the Scriptures. But like the Scriptures, they too are an external authority. Furthermore, the Confessions, as fides quae creditur, are seen as marginal in importance, especially as they also confess negative propositions about the declarations of others.

The anxious adherence to the letter of the Lutheran Confessions which had marked Orthodoxism was also relaxed…. Besides calling attention to a few instances in the Confessions of mistaken biblical exegesis, such pietists as Spener raised questions about the Confessions’ treatment of absolution, prayers for the dead, and other topics.

d Authority of Doctrine & Theology:

The Pietist view of doctrine may be understood as very modern. Once again, doctrine is an external thing; furthermore, it and the theological endeavor in general are perceived are intellectual activities which had little appeal for the Pietists.

The pietists were never too concerned over theological differences; in their concern for Christian living they tended to gloss over or ignore doctrine, and caused no divisions with anyone because of doctrinal variations. Unlike Lutheranism, both Pietism and the Reformed Church made doctrine a secondary consideration.

The turn towards the subject meant, however, a fateful turn from theology as doctrinal truth claim to theology as an account of faith’s experience and its practical and ethical consequences.

e Consciousness

There have been various theologies based on consciousness; Pietism has been one. It, for instance, had a marked influence on Friedrich Schleiermacher, called the “Father of Modern Theology,” and a Pietist of a “higher order.”

The role assigned to the consciousness brings us up against the fact that it has only a limited capacity, so that when one thing is dominant in it, it cannot absorb others. In Pietism this may be seen grotesquely in Zinzendorf, and partially in Spener, with regard to the sexual libido. The capacity of consciousness does not allow love of the Lord to exit side by side with sexual desire in our emotional potential. Hence for the Savior’s sake the libido has to be excluded from sexual intercourse and new children of God have to be conceived without desire. The starting point in the pious consciousness necessitates a strict control of what is received into the heart because of its limited capacity. Believers must seek to exercise apathia even in marriage.

2 Consequences
a Rationalism & the Aufklärung (Enlightenment), e.g. Halle University

It can be said that Pietism prepared the way for rationalism and the Enlightenment. Bengt Hägglund has observed this.

Thus it was that conservative Pietism inaugurated, in a variety of ways, the modern way of thinking in the field of theology and ecclesiology. In its subjective concept of knowledge and in its interest in morality and the empirical facts of religion, Pietism bore within itself tendencies which came into full bloom in the thought world of the Enlightenment, in the secular area as well as in the theological sphere.

In fact, by its emphasis on the subject (away from the objective), it became the fertile soil “for several modern movements: Neology, rationalism, Enlightenment, romanticism.” This was illustrated at the Pietist University of Halle; as Pietism had cleared the dogmatic spirits of the day out of Halle, so they left the doors open for the even more evil spirits of Rationalism. “Pietism broke the hold of orthodoxy, but in so doing left the intellectual field in Germany and Scandinavia open to the inroads of English deism and French skepticism.”

Robert Handy stated this in a very similar way:

“Pietism broke the grasp of confessional orthodoxy, but it raised up no theological leaders to take the place of the older dogmatic theologians. The critical, rationalist spirit of the eighteenth century…invaded Germany and found the intellectual field largely barren.”

b Prussian Union

Pietism also fostered the Prussian Union. It was among three movements which “allowed” the Union to be effected, Nationalism, Rationalism and Pietism.

Union of the Lutherans and Reformed was in part the outcome of the Aufklrung and Pietism. The one with its rationalism minimized the doctrinal differences between the confessions, and in the other the quality of religious experience and the methods employed for nourishing and giving effect to the Christian life overpassed confessional boundaries.

This was also observed by Hermann Sasse in one of his most forceful critiques of the Reformed influences on Lutheranism.

The unions of 1817 and the following years were possible because Pietism and the Enlightenment had not only undermined the doctrinal basis of the church, but, along with that, had destroyed the understanding for confessional differences.

c Ecumenism

Pietism’s dissolution of Orthodoxy’s confessional consciousness is directly related to its own self-understanding as an international and interconfessional movement. Thus Pietism was a decisive preparation for the modern, ecumenical movement.

It was clear that Christian experience was not limited to Lutherans, and since experience was stressed rather than doctrine, denominational differences tended to be disregarded.

3 Theology
a Church

There were three features of pietistic ecclesiology which are prominent.

i collegia pietatis & ecclesiolae in ecclesia

ii fellowship

iii individualism

Less importance was attached to the church; it was viewed as an mere institution. The organized church was often criticized as “Babylon, as corrupt, and the formation of conventicles (ecclesiolae in ecclesia) had the effect of taking individuals or groups of individuals out of the larger community of Christians.

One of the chief characteristics of pietism as it took institutional form in Germany and Scandinavia was the conventicle, a small group of Christians who met apart from the regular worship of the congregation for Bible study, prayer, and mutual edification. In these groups the externals of liturgical worship as well as the sacramental means of grace were subordinate to the experience of awakening and conversion.

b Baptism & Confirmation

In his Pia Desideria, Spener made a very Lutheran confession of baptism.

Nor do I know how to praise Baptism and its power highly enough. I believe that it is the real “washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit” (Tit. 3:5), or as Luther says in the catechism, “it effects forgiveness of sins, delivers from death and the devil, and grants” (not merely promises) “eternal salvation.”

On the other hand, infant baptism had less meaning. Pietists stressed the need for a conversion experience; baptism continued to be observed but was supplanted by the rite of confirmation.

c Confession & Absolution

I assume that Dr. Krispin will be dwelling on this topic. I therefore offer only this summary description and comments on it.

Private confession, which had for the most part become an empty formality [!], was gradually supplanted in may places by general confession, but was more meaningfully replaced by a new emphasis on the cure of individual souls.

There was a move, then, away private to a general, public confession. Even here we can note evidences of Pietist influence. This can be observed in some forms of Confession and Absolution, e.g.:

I now ask you before God, Is this your sincere confession, that you heartily repent of your sins, believe on Jesus Christ, and sincerely and earnestly purpose, by the assistance of God the Holy Ghost, henceforth to amend your sinful life? Then declare so by saying: Yes.”

Perhaps an even more telling form of pietistic practice is found in the following form of absolution [?]; it begins in the declarative statement, no uncommon in Lutheran rites:

Upon this your confession, I, as a called and ordained servant of the Word, announce the grace of God to all of you. On behalf of my Lord Jesus Christ and by his command, I forgive you all your sins, in the name of the Father and of the + Son and of the Holy Spirit.

Now notice what is added immediately in the very next sentence:

God forbid that any of you reject his grace and forgiveness by refusing to repent and believe, and your sins therefore remain unforgiven.

The words following seem a weak attempt to recover the full promise and joy of the absolution offered so recently.

My he comfort you with his holy absolution, and strengthen you with his Sacrament, that your joy may be full.

Here the Pietists may have attempted to address a concern even expressed by “more orthodox” Lutherans: “Can the pastor responsibly pronounce the forgiveness of sins in such a blanket manner or in such a public (contra private) setting?” The problem became real when the church lost the practice of private confession and absolution.

d Lord’s Supper

In the same way that Spener had offered a Lutheran confession of baptism (above), so he also spoke of the Sacrament of the Altar.

Nor less gladly do I acknowledge the glorious power in the sacramental, oral, and not merely spiritual eating and drinking of the body and blood of the Lord in the Holy Supper. On this account I heartily reject the position of the Reformed when they deny that we receive such a pledge of our salvation in, with, and under the bread and wine, when they weaken its power, and when they see in it no more than exists outside the holy sacrament in spiritual eating and drinking.

“Occasionally pietists showed reluctance to receive Communion, either because they felt that they were themselves unworthy or because they were unwilling to receive it with unworthy people or at the hands of unworthy ministers.” The reluctance could perhaps explain that in parts of Estonia and Latvia it has been customary to commune only once a year.

e The Office

Pietism sought to transform the minister’s office, “making him a shepherd of souls and a preacher of salvation, not simply an administrator of sacraments and a protector of pure doctrine.” This conforms with the overall aims of Pietism: an emphasis on the internal will detract from, neglect and reshape the theology and practice especially of the holy office and sacraments. For these are external gifts of God.

f Repentance

Repentance occupied a dominant place in the theology and life of the pietists. The emphasis on the inner life encouraged, even demanded, serious and constant self-examination. This “self-analysis…cast them on the iron couch of introspection.”

Constant probing of the inner life often led to morbid introspection and gave great vogue to diaries, autobiographies, and other accounts of spiritual struggles. Weeping, wailing, and groaning were regarded as sure signs of true repentance, and people belabored themselves, even in their hymns, as “rotten carcasses” and “stinking worms.”

This was very indicative of a shift in theology which in turn had practical consequences, i.e. that it placed the believers right back under the law.

Repentance was reduced to remorse, and in time a sort of routine was devised artificially to excite appropriate feelings. This sometimes led to self-deception, hypocrisy, and an affected mouthing of pious clichés, the “language of Canaan.” The consequence, theologically, was that what man does in repentance was placed in the foreground rather than what God has done and does in Christ. This inevitably carried with it a change in the understanding of justification.

All of these changes reflect the shift of accent from institution to individual, from outward act to inner experience.

g Forensic Justification – Regeneration

Pietism expressed many of its concerns in what I describe as an “adverbial” manner: e.g., ” Do you really repent?” This question was especially with reference to confession itself. (See above) “Are you really saved? The same may be observed in much “Evangelical” piety today. Arthur Repp noted that Spener “looked for some means by which he as pastor could deal with the individual to assure himself that his parishioner was truly converted.”

Pietism was not content with criticizing the orthodox institutional church and demanding the introduction of reforms. It also–and this constitutes its real church historical significance–focused chief attention upon a different biblical-theological subject. The reformers and the orthodox theologians had given central place to the Word of God and the doctrine of justification. But Pietism’s central subject was regeneration (conversion, rebirth).

Spener fostered a tradition of mystical spiritualism.

Characteristic of this tradition is the central place given to regeneration (a biological image) instead of justification (a forensic image). The language of “rebirth,” “new man,” “inner man,” “illumination,” “edification,” and “union of Christ with the soul” is common to Spener and to the older mystics.

Thus there was a shift away from forensic, justification talk. This came under the influence of Eastern Christian ascetic tradition and elements of mysticism in the West.

Forensic terminology gave way to organic terms implying growth and development. The popularity of the language of “rebirth,” “new man,” “inner man,” “inner prayer,” “illumination,” “sanctification” or “godliness,” “partaking of the divine nature,” “union with Christ” and “union with God” was illustrative of shifting theological emphases. Most important was the shift from justification to regeneration (conversion, rebirth) as the central theological theme and a parallel shift from faith to love.

This “most important” shift is further explained in the following:

Major emphasis was placed on regeneration, which Spener thought of as the granting of a new life. Justification is the fruit of regeneration. The doctrine of imputation was therefore replaced by the idea that justification and sanctification form a unity. This unity is expressed by the term “regeneration” (or “new birth”), which no longer–as in the older tradition–coincides with the concept of the forgiveness of sins but designates an inner transformation which in turn is the source of the new life that characterizes the Christian man.

h Luther & the Pietists on Regeneration:

On an important point which separated Luther from the Pietists, Martin Schmidt, a leading German scholar on Pietism, wrote the following:

They [the Pietists] liked to deal with regenerate man as a fixed quantity and therefore spoke of the fruits of regeneration. The Reformer [Luther] remained engaged in the struggle between the old and the new man. The (Pietist) problem of attainability he [Luther] deferred in favor of the state of affairs which he described strikingly with the word “temptation” [Anfechtung]. This state of affairs taught the “heeding of the word” (Isaiah 28:19) and the consolation of divine grace in the forgiveness of sins. Out of the liberating message that Jesus Christ had done everything for him, the new man came forth. Thus the Christian, who was always becoming, looked never to himself nor to the rank of his being a child of God. ‘Flesh’ and ‘spirit,’ as they are harshly contrasted to one another in the seventh and eighth chapter of Romans, remained for him irreconcilable opposites…. [ellipsis original] The believer did not progress beyond Anfechtung and Luther judged a condition without it to be of gravest danger. That is why a Christian never fixed his eyes upon himself, but upon his Lord and depended upon his Word… [ellipsis mine] The pietists sought to advance again the importance of Luther’s teaching of a living faith. In so doing, however, they shifted the emphasis: the vivacity, which made itself recognizable in good works, was valued more by them than faith itself. Yet Luther understood faith to cling to the divine promise and to depend upon the promise itself, so that the believer was acceptable to God with his entire being… [ellipsis mine] The fruits of faith became more important for the pietists than their source, faith, on which everything was dependent for Luther.

from Ronald Feuerhan, THE PIEPER LECTURES 1998, Concordia Historical Institute & the Luther Academy, September 17-18, 1998, “THE ROOTS AND FRUITS OF PIETISM.”

for the full essay: http://www.mtio.com/articles/aissar3.htm

See also:

The Psalms and the Theology of the Cross – They are one in the same…

Gnesio — Mon, 14 Nov 2011 13:24:09 +0000

It would certainly not be saying too much if one asserted that he who wants to understand Luther’s theology of the cross rightly must read the Operationes in Psalmos. This commentary on the Psalms is the genuine interpretation of Luther’s understanding of this theological principle. The Psalms and the theology of the cross—they are one and the same. Here it was lived, confessed, and expounded. Here it was made known in Scripture. If one wanted to decode the Psalms, if one wanted to bring the prayers of those who had spoken here to sound anew, if one wanted to enter the circle of this people of God, then he would have to begin from the theology of the cross; better yet, he would have to begin from the cross of Jesus Christ. In this suffering all were justified—in view of their persecutors and mockers—all who had hoped in God alone. Only in him. Luther contrasts the active and passive life of the pious. The way goes from doing to suffering, and first in suffering—so he thinks—is it shown whether I trust in God alone. “Activa sane vita, in qua multi satis temere confidunt, quam intelligunt quoque per merita, non producit nec operatur spem, sed praesumtionem, non secus ac scientia inflat.” ( “An active life, on which many place their trust without basis and which they look at only according to things merited, truly brings and works no hope, but presumption; it puffs up no less than knowledge.”)

from Hans Iwand, Lecture on the Theology of the Cross.

See also:

Rev. Dr. C.F.W. Walther Bicentennial (1811 – 2011)

Gnesio — Tue, 25 Oct 2011 13:19:22 +0000

Celebrate, study and discover the ministry and the legacy of the Rev. Dr. C.F.W. Walther, the first president of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod (LCMS), during the Walther Bicentennial. Many LCMS entities and congregations will recognize the bicentennial of Walther’s birth with special events, activities and resources starting in 2011 and extending through the 125th anniversary of his death in 2012.

Walther joined the Saxon Germans who immigrated to the United States in 1839 (the date of arrival), and at the age of 27 found himself leader of the group that settled in Perry County, Missouri. In 1847, Walther played a key role in the founding of the LCMS, which now ranks as one of the largest Christian denominations in the United States with more than 2.3 million baptized members in some 6,200 congregations and more than 9,000 pastors.

Find out more about Walther, “The Father of the Missouri Synod,” and his lasting leadership. Join the celebration.

http://www.lcms.org/walther200

See also:

Excerpt from the Babylonian Captivity of the Church ~ The Sacrament of Baptism

Gnesio — Tue, 25 Oct 2011 12:20:08 +0000

3.10 What is the good, then, of writing much on baptism and yet not teaching this faith in the promise? All the sacraments were instituted for the purpose of nourishing faith, but these godless men so completely pass over this faith that they even assert a man dare not be certain of the forgiveness of sins, that is, of the grace of the sacraments. With such wicked teachings they delude the world, and not only take captive but altogether destroy the sacrament of baptism, in which the chief glory of our conscience consists. Meanwhile they madly rage against the miserable souls of men with their contritions, anxious confessions, circumstances, satisfactions, works and endless other absurdities. Read, therefore, with great caution the Master of the Sentences in his fourth book, or, better yet, despise him together with all his commentators, who at their best write only of the material and form of the sacraments, that is, they discuss the dead and death-dealing letter of the sacraments, but pass over in utter silence the spirit, life and use, that is, the truth of the divine promise and our faith.

3.11 So be careful, that the external pomp of works and the deceits of human traditions mislead you, so that you may not wrong the divine truth and your faith. If you would be saved, you must begin with the faith of the sacraments, without any works whatever. But on faith the works will follow. Only do not think lightly of faith, which is a work, and of all works the most excellent and the most difficult to do. Through it alone you will be saved, even if you should be compelled to do without any other works. For it is a work of God, not of man, as Paul teaches. The other works He works through us and with our help, but this one He works in us and without our help.

3.12 From this we can clearly see the difference, in baptism, between man the minister and God the Doer. For man baptises and does not baptise. He baptises, for he performs the work, immersing the person to be baptised. He does not baptise, for in that act he officiates not by his own authority, but as God’s representative. Hence, we ought to receive baptism at the hands of a man just as if Christ Himself, no, God Himself, were baptising us with His own hands. For it is not man’s baptism, but Christ’s and God’s baptism, which we receive by the hand of a man, just as every other created thing that we make use of by the hand of another, is God’s alone. Therefore beware of dividing baptism in such a way as to ascribe the outward part to man and the inward part to God. Ascribe both to God alone, and look upon the person administering it as the instrument in God’s hands, by which the Lord sitting in heaven thrusts you under the water with His own hands, and speaking by the mouth of His minister promises you, on earth with a human voice, the forgiveness of your sins.

3.13 This the words themselves indicate, when the priest says: ” I baptise you in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen,” and not: “I baptise you in my own name.” It is as though he said: ” What I do, I do not by my own authority, but in the name and as God’s representative, so that you should regard it just as if our Lord Himself had done it in a visible manner. The Doer and the minister are different persons, but the work of both is the same work, or, rather, it is the work of the Doer alone, through my ministry.” For I hold that “in the name of” refers to the person of the Doer, so that the name of the Lord is not only to be uttered and invoked while the work is being done, but the work itself is to be done not as one’s own work, but in the name and as another’s representative. In this sense, in Matthew 24, Christ says, “Many shall come in my name,” and in Romans 1 it is said, “By whom we have received grace and apostleship for obedience to the faith, in all nations, for His name.”

3.14 This view I freely endorse. It is very comforting and greatly aids faith to know that one has been baptised not by man, but by the Triune God Himself through a man acting among us in His name. This will dispose of that fruitless quarrel about the “form” of baptism, as these words are called. The Greeks say: “May the servant of Christ be baptised,” while the Latins say: “I baptise.” Others again, pedantic triflers, condemn the use of the words, “I baptise you in the name of Jesus Christ” – although it is certain that the Apostles used this formula in baptising, as we read in the Acts of the Apostles – they would allow no other form to be valid than this: ” I baptise you in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” But their contention is in vain, for they bring no proof, but merely assert their own dreams. Baptism truly saves in whatever way it is administered, as long as it is not administered in the name of man but in the name of God. No, I have no doubt that if one received baptism in the name of the Lord, even though the wicked minister should not give it in the name of the Lord, he would yet be truly baptised in the name of the Lord. For the effect of baptism depends not so much on the faith or practice of him that confers it as on the faith or practice of the one who receives it – of which we have an illustration in the case of the play-actor who was baptised as a joke. Such anxious disputings and questionings are aroused in us by those who ascribe nothing to faith and everything to works and forms, while we owe everything to faith alone and nothing to forms, and faith makes us free in spirit from all those scruples and fancies.

from Martin Luther, “The Babylonian Captivity of the Church, A Prelude” (1520).

See also:

Excerpt from The Babylonian Captivity of the Church ~ The Sacrament of the Altar

Gnesio — Sun, 23 Oct 2011 13:20:42 +0000

2.5 Now there are two passages that do clearly bear upon this matter – the Gospel narratives of the institution of the Lord’s Supper, and Paul in 1 Corinthians 11. Let us examine these. Matthew, Mark and Luke agree that Christ gave the whole sacrament to all the disciples, and it is certain that Paul delivered both kinds. No one has ever had the temerity to assert the contrary. Further, Matthew reports that Christ did not say of the bread, “All of you, eat of it,” but of the cup, ” Drink of it all of you.” Mark likewise does not say, “They all ate from it,” but, ” They all drank from it.”

Both Matthew and Mark attach the note of universality to the cup, not to the bread, as though the Spirit saw this schism coming, by which some would be forbidden to partake of the cup, which Christ desired should be common to all. How furiously, do you think, would they rave against us, if they had found the word “all” attached to the bread instead of the cup! They would not leave us a loophole to escape, they would cry out against us and set us down as heretics, they would damn us for schismatics. But now, since it stands on our side and against them, they will not be bound by any force of logic – these men of the most free will, who change and change again even the things that are God’s, and throw everything into confusion.

2.6 But imagine me standing over against them and interrogating my lords the papists. In the Lord’s Supper, I say, the whole sacrament, or communion in both kinds, is given only to the priests or else it is given also to the laity. If it is given only to the priests, as they would have it, then it is not right to give it to the laity in either kind. It must not be rashly given to any to whom Christ did not give it when He instituted it. For if we permit one institution of Christ to be changed, we make all of His laws invalid, and every one will boldly claim that he is not bound by any law or institution of His. For a single exception, especially in the Scriptures, invalidates the whole. But if it is given also to the laity, then it inevitably follows that it ought not to be withheld from them in either form. And if any do withhold it from them when they desire it, they act impiously and contrary to the work, example and institution of Christ.

2.7 I confess that I am conquered by this, to me, unanswerable argument, and that I have neither read nor heard nor found anything to advance against it. For here the word and example of Christ stand firm, when He says, not by way of permission but of command, “All of you, drink from it.” For if all are to drink, and the words cannot be understood as addressed to the priests alone, then it is certainly an impious act to withhold the cup from laymen who desire it, even though an angel from heaven were to do it. For when they say that the distribution of both kinds was left to the judgment of the Church, they make this assertion without giving any reason for it and put it forth without any authority. It is ignored just as readily as it is proved, and does not stand up against an opponent who confronts us with the word and work of Christ. such a one must be refuted with a word of Christ, but this we do not possess.

2.8 But if one kind may be withheld from the laity, then with equal right and reason a portion of baptism and penance might also be taken from them by this same authority of the Church. Therefore, just as baptism and absolution must be administered in their entirety, so the Sacrament of the Bread must be given in its entirety to all laymen, if they desire it. I am amazed to find them asserting that the priests may never receive only the one kind, in the mass, on pain of committing a mortal sin – that for no other reason, as they unanimously say, than that both kinds constitute the one complete sacrament, which may not be divided. I beg them to tell me why it may be divided in the case of the laity, and why to them alone the whole sacrament may not be given. Do they not acknowledge, by their own testimony, either that both kinds are to be given to the laity, or that it is not a valid sacrament when only one kind is given to them? How can the one kind be a complete sacrament for the laity and not a complete sacrament for the priests? Why do they flaunt the authority of the Church and the power of the pope in my face? These do not make void the Word of God and the testimony of the truth.

2.9 But further, if the Church can withhold the wine from the laity, it can also withhold the bread from them. It could, therefore, withhold the entire Sacrament of the Altar from the laity and completely annul Christ’s institution so far as they are concerned. I ask, by what authority? But if the Church cannot withhold the bread, or both kinds, neither can it withhold the wine. This cannot possibly be contradicted. For the Church’s power must be the same over either kind as over both kinds, and if she has no power over both kinds, she has none over either kind. I am curious to hear what the Roman flatterers will have to say to this.

2.10 What carries most weight with me, however, and quite decides the matter for me is this. Christ says: “This is my blood, which is shed for you and for many for the remission of sins.” Here we see very plainly that the blood is given to all those for whose sins it was shed. But who will dare to say it was not shed for the laity? Do you not see whom He addresses when He gives the cup? Doesn’t He give it to all? Doesn’t He say that it is shed for all? “For you,” He says – Well, we will let these be the priests– “and for many” – these cannot be priests. Yet He says, “All of you, drink of it.” I too could easily trifle here and with my words make a mockery of Christ’s words, as my dear trifler does. But they who rely on the Scriptures in opposing us, must be refuted by the Scriptures.

from Martin Luther, “Babylonian Captivity of the Church, A Prelude” (1520).

See also:

Excerpt from the Babylonian Captivity of the Church ~ The Sacrament of Baptism

Gnesio — Sat, 22 Oct 2011 04:14:10 +0000

3.4 Now, the first thing in baptism to be considered is the divine promise, which says: ” He that believes and is baptised shall be saved.” This promise must be set far above all the glitter of works, vows, religious orders, and whatever man has added to it. For on it all our salvation depends. We must consider this promise, exercise our faith in it and never doubt that we are saved when we are baptised. For unless this faith be present or be conferred in baptism, we gain nothing from baptism. No, it becomes a hindrance to us, not only in the moment of its reception, but all the days of our life. For such lack of faith calls God’s promise a lie, and this is the blackest of all sins. When we try to exercise this faith, we shall at once perceive how difficult it is to believe this promise of God. For our human weakness, conscious of its sins, finds nothing more difficult to believe than that it is saved or will be saved. Yet unless it does believe this, it cannot be saved, because it does not believe the truth of God that promises salvation.

3.5 This message should have been persistently impressed upon the people and this promise diligently repeated to them. Their baptism should have been called again and again to their mind, and faith constantly awakened and nourished. Just as the truth of this divine promise, once pronounced over us, continues to death, so our faith in the same ought never to cease, but to be nourished and strengthened until death, by the continual remembrance of this promise made to us in baptism. Therefore, when we rise from sins, or repent, we are only returning to the power and the faith of baptism from this we fell, and find our way back to the promise then made to us, from which we departed when we sinned. For the truth of the promise once made remains steadfast, ever ready to receive us back with open arms when we return. This, if I am not mistaken, is the real meaning of the obscure saying, that baptism is the beginning and foundation of all the sacraments, without which none of the others may be received.

3.6 Therefore a penitent will gain much by laying hold of the memory of his baptism above all else, confidently calling to mind the promise of God, which he has forsaken. He should plead it with His Lord, rejoicing that he is baptised and therefore is yet within the fortress of salvation. He should detest his wicked ingratitude in falling away from its faith and truth. His soul will find wondrous comfort, and will be encouraged to hope for mercy, when he considers that the divine promise which God made to him and which cannot possibly lie, still stands unbroken and unchanged, yes, unchangeable by any sins, as Paul says in 2 Timothy 2. “If we do not believe, He continues to be faithful, He cannot deny Himself.” Yes, this truth of God will sustain him, so that if all else should sink in ruins, this truth, if he believes it, will not fail him. For in it he has a shield against all assaults of the enemy, an answer to the sins that disturb his conscience, an antidote for the dread of death and judgment, and a comfort in every temptation – namely, this one truth – he can say, ” God is faithful that promised, Whose sign I have received in my baptism. If God be for me, who is against me?”

3.7 The children of Israel, whenever they repented of their sins, turned their thoughts first of all to the exodus from Egypt, and, remembering this, returned to God Who had brought them out. This memory and this refuge were many times impressed upon them by Moses, and afterward repeated by David. How much rather ought we to call to mind our exodus from Egypt, and, remembering, turn back again to Him Who led us forth through the washing of regeneration, which we are bidden remember for this very purpose. And this we can do most fittingly in the sacrament of bread and wine. Indeed, in ancient times these three sacraments –penance, baptism and the bread – were all celebrated at the same service, and one supplemented and assisted the other. We read also of a certain holy virgin who in every time of temptation made baptism her sole defense, saying simply, “I am a Christian.” Immediately the adversary fled from her, for he knew the power of her baptism and of her faith which clung to the truth of God’s promise.

3.8 See, how rich therefore is a Christian, the one who is baptised! Even if he wants to, he cannot lose his salvation, however much he sin, unless he will not believe. For no sin can condemn him save unbelief alone. All other sins – so long as the faith in God’s promise made in baptism returns or remains –all other sins, I say, are immediately blotted out through that same faith, or rather through the truth of God, because He cannot deny Himself. If only you confess Him and cling believing to Him that promises. But as for contrition, confession of sins, and satisfaction – along with all those carefully thought out exercises of men – if you turn your attention to them and neglect this truth of God, they will suddenly fail you and leave you more wretched than before. For whatever is done without faith in the truth of God, is vanity of vanities and vexation of spirit.

from Martin Luther, “The Babylonian Captivity of the Church – A prelude 1520.”

See also:

Cyril of Jerusalem on Scripture and Tradition

Gnesio — Thu, 13 Oct 2011 02:11:16 +0000

But in learning the Faith and in professing it, acquire and keep that only, which is now delivered to thee by the Church, and which has been built up strongly out of all the Scriptures. For since all cannot read the Scriptures, some being hindered as to the knowledge of them by want of learning, and others by a want of leisure, in order that the soul may not perish from ignorance, we comprise the whole doctrine of the Faith in a few lines. This summary I wish you both to commit to memory when I recite it, and to rehearse it with all diligence among yourselves, not writing it out on paper, but engraving it by the memory upon your heart, taking care while you rehearse it that no Catechumen chance to overhear the things which have been delivered to you.

I wish you also to keep this as a provision through the whole course of your life, and beside this to receive no other, neither if we ourselves should change and contradict our present teaching, nor if an adverse angel, transformed into an angel of light should wish to lead you astray. For though we or an angel from heaven preach to you any other gospel than that ye have received, let him be to you anathema. So for the present listen while I simply say the Creed, and commit it to memory; but at the proper season expect the confirmation out of Holy Scripture of each part of the contents. For the articles of the Faith were not composed as seemed good to men; but the most important points collected out of all the Scripture make up one complete teaching of the Faith. And just as the mustard seed in one small grain contains many branches, so also this Faith has embraced in few words all the knowledge of godliness in the Old and New Testaments. Take heed then, brethren, and hold fast the traditions which ye now receive, and write them an the table of your heart. Guard them with reverence, lest per chance the enemy despoil any who have grown slack; or lest some heretic pervert any of the truths delivered to you.

Cyril of Jerusalem (313-386), Catechetical Lectures, 5:12-13.

See also: