The pastor is then commanded to ask each penitent, “Do you also believe that my forgiveness is God’s forgiveness? Whereupon the penitent should answer with a confident, “Yes!” In the year 1530 Lutheran princes, lawyers, and theologians were called upon in the name of our Church to present their confession of faith in Augsburg before the emperor and the realm; even there they in no way denied the teaching of the power of the Church to forgive sins but openly confessed it as a precious treasure of the correct, true Evangelical teaching. We read in the 25th Article of the Augsburg Confession: Our people are taught that they should highly prize the absolution, as being the voice of God, and pronounced by God’s command. The power of the Keys is set forth in its beauty, and they are reminded what great consolation it brings to anxious consciences; also, that God requires faith to believe such absolution as a voice sounding from heaven, and that such faith in Christ truly obtains and receives the forgiveness of sins.

You see that our Church in her glorious basic confession attaches such great importance to the doctrine of absolution, that he who renounces this doctrine cannot possibly have the same spirit as our fathers who claim the name Lutheran.

from C.F.W. Walther, “They Err Who Deny Preachers the Power to Forgive Sins,” Sermon on John 20:19-31, First Sunday After Easter.

See also:

1. The Power to Forgive Sins

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:

1. Luther Addresses the Problems that Occur When Christians Misunderstand Predestination, pt. 1
2. Luther Addresses the Problems that Occur When Christians Misunderstand Predestination, pt. 2
3. Luther Addresses the Problems that Occur When Christians Misunderstand Predestination, pt. 4
4. Luther Addresses the Problems that Occur When Christians Misunderstand Predestination, pt. 3

The second requisite for effective preaching is that the preacher not only himself believe the things he preaches to others, but that his heart be full of the truths which he proclaims, so that he enters his pulpit with the ardent desire to pour out his heart to his hearers. He must have an enthusiastic grasp, in the right sense of the word, of his subject. Then his hearers get the impression that the words dropping from his lips are flames from a soul on fire. That does not mean that the Word of God must receive its power and life from the living faith of the preacher; for the Lord says distinctly: “The words that I speak, they are spirit, and they are life.” John 6, 63. Moreover, the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews says: “The Word of God is quick and powerful and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.” Heb. 4, 12. But when a preacher proclaims what he has ever so often experienced in his own heart, he easily finds the right words to speak convincingly to his hearers. Coming from the heart, his words, in turn, go to the hearts of his hearers, according to the good old saying: Pectus disertum facit, that is, it is the heart that makes eloquent. This does not mean the artificial eloquence acquired in a school of elocution, but the sane spiritual art of reaching the hearts of hearers. For when the hearers get the impression that the preacher is in full and dread earnest, they feel themselves drawn with an irresistible force to pay the closest attention to what the preacher is teaching in his sermon. That is the reason why many simple, less gifted, and less learned preachers accomplish more than the most highly gifted and profoundly learned men.

Would that you, my dear friends, were, first of all, real Christians, filled with ardent zeal for the truth. That is the equipment for becoming, in the course of time, powerful preachers, whose spirit seizes the hearers with irresistible force, as the example of the apostles evidences. The people could not tell why the preaching of these simple men made such a powerful impression on them.

from C.F.W. Walther, “Law and Gospel, Thirteenth Evening Lecture” (January 9, 1885).

See also:

1. Preaching Which Produces Nothing But Pharisees
2. Preaching Law & Gospel
3. The Office of Preaching
4. Of the Office of Preaching

We have only to look at the sentence Augustine penned to overthrow the Donatists: “When the whole world passes judgment, that judgment is sure” (Securus iudicat orbis terrarum). He refers to the church everywhere; the Donatists were to be found only in Africa. This is the sentence that began to shake Newman’s faith in the catholicity of the Church of England. Ever and again it has deeply impressed Catholics and high-church circles. It does not come, however, from Scripture, but from the religious thought of the non-Christian world, perhaps from very early forms of religion which are still alive within us or could become so. “The voice of the people is the voice of God” (Vox populi vox Dei. [Cf. Seneca the Elder, Controversia, 1,1,10;Homer, Odyssey, 3,214f.]). This is Stoic philosophy, and at the same time a piece of ancient wisdom – or foolishness. “My comunity will never agree in error” [Haddith. Muctamad. 458-76. Cf. Lammens, Islam (1968), p.93]. Thus from Mohammed the doctrine of ijma’, the consensus of all Moslims.

from Hermann Sasse, Apostolic Succession, Letters to Lutheran Pastors, No.41 (April 1956)
(Translation by Norman Nagel, published in We Confess The Church, Concordia, 1986, pp92-93.)

See also:

1. What Spirit? What Church?
2. Something Completely Other Than…
3. Apostolic Succession
4. His Almighty Voice Will Call Us From The Grave!

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:

1. Luther Addresses the Problems that Occur When Christians Misunderstand Predestination, pt. 1
2. Luther Addresses the Problems that Occur When Christians Misunderstand Predestination, pt. 2
3. Luther Addresses the Problems that Occur When Christians Misunderstand Predestination, pt. 3
4. Luther on Evolution: An Essay to All Faithful Christians, For Use Against the Epicurian Pigs, Those Enemies of Scripture, Who Attempt to Take Consciences Captive to Evolutionary “Truth”

What induces us to discuss this question is the fact that Pastor Roebbelen in connection with the glosses on the Revelation of St. John published in the Lutheraner also stated that with Luther he does not regard the Apocalypse as canonical. This has, we are informed, given great offense in some quarters. Now, we do not agree with our dear brother Roebbelen on this point; we are convinced that this precious book, so rich in comfort for the Christians and the Church, belongs to the canon. Still, we believe that it is not fair — probably it is due to ignorance of the facts of the case — to stamp an otherwise unimpeachable theologian as a dangerous false teacher, who renders the very Word of God suspect, one who sincerely receives as canonical all homologoumena (universally accepted books), but who has his doubts as to the canonicity of one or the other of the antilegomena (disputed books). This would be thoroughly un-Lutheran. For our dear fathers in the faith, with hardly an exception till after the time of the Formula of Concord, regarded and declared all or at least some of the antilegomena as not belonging to the canon; and they did that not from hastiness or levity toward the Word of God, but, on the contrary, because they were very conscientious with regard to the Word of God. Luther’s opinions on the antilegomena are not a “blot” on our Church, but they rather bear witness how careful our Church once was in determining the standard and norm of our faith and life. The summary decrees of the Papists and the Reformed that all the antilegomena must be received as canonical by all Christians on pain of losing their salvation are so little a testimony for the high regard of these denominations for the Word of God that they rather demonstrate how easy it is for those to add something to the canon who hold that the Scriptures are to be interpreted either, in a blind collier’s faith, according to the whim of the Church (that is, of the Pope) or according to the principles of reason. It will therefore not be improper to submit here the testimony of our fathers, particularly of the 16th and the first half of the 17th century; not that we personally hold these opinions, but in order to show that doubts as to the canonicity of the disputed books were held also by men whose orthodoxy no Lutheran would dare to deny, and thus to clear a man like Luther of the suspicion that he had brazenly, in his subjective pleasure, passed judgment on books which had been received into the New Testament Canon.

Walther concludes his article with the words:

If this question be treated in a Christian manner, if the poor laymen are not confused by a dishonest presentation of the real issue, by a partisan exploitation of a matter which the common people find it hard to grasp — which may easily be done here — the discussion of the question can only serve to arouse the Christians to a serious investigation and thus to deepen and strengthen their knowledge and their faith. If any periodical takes cognizance of this our discussion, we herewith state beforehand that we shall not deem any foolish babbling, parading in the guise of a defense, of God’s Word, worthy of an answer; but any pertinent ventilation of this important subject will receive our attention, even though it pronounce ever so sharp a verdict on our old teachers, Luther, Brenz, Chemnitz, Veit Dietrich, Conrad Dietrich, etc.

In this article, Walther quotes extensively from Chemnitz, who in his Examen Concilii Tridentini exposes, in clear and powerful language, the Antichristian and insane character of the above-mentioned papal decree with its appended anathema. Because this presentation is considered a “classic” even today, we here submit it in its salient points.

from Francis Pieper, “Christian Dogmatics,” Vol. I [Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1950], pp. 330-38.

See also:

1. The Witness of History for Scripture (Homologoumena and Antilegomena)
2. The Witness of History for Scripture
3. The Witness of History for Scripture
4. Resurrection History

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:

1. Luther Addresses the Problems that Occur When Christians Misunderstand Predestination, pt. 1
2. Luther Addresses the Problems that Occur When Christians Misunderstand Predestination, pt. 2
3. Luther on Evolution: An Essay to All Faithful Christians, For Use Against the Epicurian Pigs, Those Enemies of Scripture, Who Attempt to Take Consciences Captive to Evolutionary “Truth”
4. Why Don’t Christians Care?

from Hermann Sasse, ‘Mysteries of God’, a sermon on 1 Corinthians 4:1-5 preached in Erlangen on Advent 3, December 15, 1940.

http://sassedotalist.blogspot.com/

See also:

1. True & False Worship
2. Morning Prayer Before Worship – Psalm 5
3. Rebuke of Hypocritical Worship
4. Christian, Evangelical Worship

The parable of the prodigal is another illustration. The Lord pictures him to us, after he had wasted everything he had with harlots, as returning to his father with a contrite heart. The father receives him without a word of censure, but falls upon his neck, kisses him, and exclaims: “Let us be merry; for this my son was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.” A joyous banquet is prepared, but not a word of reproof is spoken.

This attitude the Lord maintains even while hanging on the cross. Next to Him hangs one who has led an infamous life. The patient suffering of Christ has given him a new understanding, which he voices in these words: “We, indeed, are justly in this condemnation; for we receive the due reward of our deeds; but this man hath done nothing amiss.” Turning finally to the Lord, he says: “Lord, remember me when Thou comest into Thy kingdom.” He recognizes in Jesus the Messiah. And now observe that the Lord does not reply, “What! Thee I am to remember? Thee, who hast done so many wicked things?” No, He does not cast up his sins to him at all, but simply says: “To-day shalt thou be with Me in paradise.”

from C.F.W. Walther, “Law and Gospel, Twelfth Evening Lecture” (December 12, 1884).

See also:

1. His Dead Shall Live
2. Dead & Deadly
3. If Anyone Rises Up From the Dead…
4. Dead To What Is Good

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:

1. Luther Addresses the Problems that Occur When Christians Misunderstand Predestination, pt. 1
2. Luther on Evolution: An Essay to All Faithful Christians, For Use Against the Epicurian Pigs, Those Enemies of Scripture, Who Attempt to Take Consciences Captive to Evolutionary “Truth”
3. How Christians Should Regard Moses
4. The Highest Art of Christians…

Here the evangelist with a formal stately preface declares how Christ disposed himself for the sermon he was about to deliver; that he went upon a mountain, and sat down, and opened his mouth; so that we see he was in earnest. These are the three things, it is commonly said, that mark a good preacher; first, that he take his place; secondly, that he open his mouth and say something; thirdly, that he know when to stop.

To take his place, that means that he assume a position as a master or preacher, who can and ought to do it, as one called for this purpose and not coming of his own accord, but to whom it is a matter of duty and obedience; so that he may say: “I come, not hurried hither by my own purpose and preference, but I must do it, by virtue of my office.

This is said as against those who have heretofore been causing us so much vexation and tribulation, and indeed are still doing it, namely the factious spirits and fanatics, that are running up and down through the country, poisoning the people, before the pastors or those in office and authority find it out, and thus befoul one family after another until they have poisoned a whole city, and from the city a whole country. To guard against such sneaking renegades one ought not to allow any one to preach who has not been duly and officially appointed; also no one should venture, though he should be a preacher, if he hears a lying preacher in a popish or other church, who is misleading the people, to preach against him; nor should any one go about into the houses and get up private preachings, but he should remain at home and mind his own official business, or keep silent, if he neither will or can publicly take his place in the pulpit.

For God does not want us to go wandering about with his word, as though we were impelled by the Holy Spirit and had to preach, and thus were seeking preaching places and corners, houses or pulpits, where we are not officially called. For even St. Paul himself, though called as an apostle by God, did not want to preach in those places where the other apostles had preached before. Therefore we are here told that Christ boldly and publicly goes up upon the mountain, when he begins his official ministry, and soon afterwards says to his disciples: “Ye are the light of the world;” and: “Neither do men light a candle and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light to all that are in the house”. For the office of the ministry and the word of God are hence to shine as the sun, and not go sneaking and plotting in the dark, as in the play of blind-man’s buff; but all must be done in broad daylight, that it may be clearly seen that both preacher and hearer are sure of this, that the teaching is rightly done, and that the office has been rightly conferred, so that there is no need for concealment. Do thou likewise. If you are in office, and are commissioned to preach, take your place openly and fear nobody, that you may glory with Christ: “I spake openly to the world, * * in secret have I said nothing.” John 18:20.

But you say, “How? Is no one then to teach anything except in public? Or is the head of a family not to teach his servants in his house, or to have a scholar or some one about him who recites to him?” Answer: Certainly, that is all right, and all just in place. For every head of a family is in duty bound to teach his children and servants, or to have them taught. For he is in his house as a pastor or bishop over his household, and he is commanded to take heed what they learn, and he is responsible for them. But it is all wrong for you to do this away from your own house, and to force yourself into other houses or to neighbors, and you should not allow any such sneak to come to you and to carry on special preaching in your house for which he has no authorization. But if any one comes into a house or city let him be asked for the evidence that he is known, or let him show by letter and seal that he has been duly authorized. For one must not trust all the stragglers that boast of having the Holy Spirit, and insinuate themselves thereby here and there into the homes. In short, it means that the gospel, or the preaching of it, should not be heard in a corner, but up upon a mountain, and openly in the free daylight. That is one thing that Matthew wants to show here.

The next thing is that he opens his mouth. That belongs (as above said) also to a preacher, that he do not keep his mouth shut, and not only publicly perform his official duty so that every one must keep silence and let him take his proper place as one who is divinely authorized and commanded, but also that he briskly and confidently open his mouth, that is, to preach the truth and what has been committed to him; that he be not silent or merely mumble, but bear witness, fearless and unterrified, and speak the truth out frankly, without regarding or sparing any one, no matter who or what is struck by it.

For that hinders a preacher very much if he looks about him and concerns himself as to what the people do or do not like to hear, or what might occasion for him disfavor, harm or danger; but as he stands high up, upon a mountain, in a public place, and looks freely all around him, so he is also to speak freely and fear nobody, although he sees many sorts of people, and to hold no leaf before his mouth, nor to regard either gracious or wrathful lords and squires, either money, riches, honor, power, or disgrace, poverty or injury, and not to think of anything further than that he may speak what his office requires, even that for which he stands where he does.

For Christ did not institute and appoint the office of the ministry that it might serve to gain money, possession, favor, honor, friendship, or that one may seek his own advantage through it, but that one should openly, freely proclaim the truth, rebuke evil, and publish what belongs to the advantage, safety and salvation of souls. For the word of God is not here for the purpose of teaching how a maid or man servant is to work in the house and earn his or her bread, or how a burgomaster is to rules a farmer to plough or make hay. In short, it neither gives nor shows temporal good things by which one maintains this life, for reason has already taught all this to every one; but its purpose is to teach how we are to attain to thai life, and it teaches thee to use the present life, and to nourish the belly here as long as it lasts; yet, so that thou mayest know where thou art to abide and live when this must come to an end.

If now the time comes for preaching of another life that we are to be concerned about, and for the sake of which we are not to regard this one as if we wanted to remain here forever, then contention and strife begin, so that the world will not endure it. If then a preacher cares more for his belly and worldly living, he does not do his duty; he stands up indeed and babbles in the pulpit, but he does not preach the truth, does not really open his mouth; if there seems to be trouble ahead he keeps quiet and avoids hitting anybody. Observe, this is why Matthew prefaces his account with the statement that Christ, as a true preacher, ascends the mountain and cheerfully opens his mouth, teaches the truth, and rebukes both false teaching and living, as we shall hear in what follows.

Via Luther’s Commentary on the Sermon on the Mount

See also:

1. A True Preacher
2. The Miserable Moral Precepts of the Rationalist Preacher
3. Every Sincere Preacher & Minister of Jesus Christ…
4. Walther as Practical Preacher & Curate of Souls

For the Scriptures of the New Testament we have the historical witness of the Early Church (ecclesia primitiva). Its witness is unanimous as to the Four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, the thirteen Epistles of Paul, the First Epistle of John, and the First Epistle of Peter (homologoumena). But as to the canonicity of the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Second Epistle of Peter, the Second and Third Epistles of John, the Epistle of James, the Epistle of Jude, and the Apocalypse, doubts, more or less strongly expressed, were entertained (antilegomena). Eusebius in his Church History lists the homologoumena and the antilegomena. The historical fact that the Early Church differentiated between the homologoumena and the antilegomena cannot be changed by a resolution of the later Church. Luther, too, abides by this judgment of the primitive Church; he says, appealing to Eusebius (Church History III, 25), that in ancient times the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Epistles of James and Jude, and the Apocalypse “had a different reputation.” He finds much excellent instruction in the antilegomena, grants that the offensive passages may be explained acceptably by “glosses,” and will keep no one from appraising them as he sees fit. But he will not class them with the “right certain chief books of the New Testament.” As for himself, he will let the doubt entertained by the Early Church remain. Chemnitz denounced the action of the Roman Catholic Church in declaring the Apocrypha of the Old Testament and the antilegomena of the New Testament a part of the canon of Scripture by a mere decree and in anathematizing all those who refused to accept the canon fixed in the Vulgate, as anti-Christian.

from Francis Pieper, “Christian Dogmatics,” Vol. I [Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1950], pp. 330-38.

See also:

1. The Witness of History for Scripture
2. The Witness of History for Scripture
3. The Inspiration of Scripture
4. Scripture is Clear & Understandable

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:

1. Luther on Evolution: An Essay to All Faithful Christians, For Use Against the Epicurian Pigs, Those Enemies of Scripture, Who Attempt to Take Consciences Captive to Evolutionary “Truth”
2. Why Don’t Christians Care?
3. The Highest Art of Christians…
4. How Christians Should Regard Moses

Thou shalt have no other gods before Me.

1] That is: Thou shalt have [and worship] Me alone as thy God. What is the force of this, and how is it to be understood? What does it mean to have a god? or, what is God? 2] Answer: A god means that from which we are to expect all good and to which we are to take refuge in all distress, so that to have a God is nothing else than to trust and believe Him from the [whole] heart; as I have often said that the confidence and faith of the heart alone make both God and an idol. 3] If your faith and trust be right, then is your god also true; and, on the other hand, if your trust be false and wrong, then you have not the true God; for these two belong together, faith and God. That now, I say, upon which you set your heart and put your trust is properly your god.

4] Therefore it is the intent of this commandment to require true faith and trust of the heart which settles upon the only true God, and clings to Him alone. That is as much as to say: “See to it that you let Me alone be your God, and never seek another,” i.e.: Whatever you lack of good things, expect it of Me, and look to Me for it, and whenever you suffer misfortune and distress, creep and cling to Me. I, yes, I, will give you enough and help you out of every need; only let not your heart cleave to or rest in any other.

5] This I must unfold somewhat more plainly, that it may be understood and perceived by ordinary examples of the contrary. Many a one thinks that he has God and everything in abundance when he has money and, possessions; he trusts in them and boasts of them with such firmness and assurance as to care for no one. 6] Lo, such a man also has a god, Mammon by name, i.e., money and possessions, on which he sets all his heart, and which is also the most common idol on earth. 7] He who has money and possessions feels secure, and is joyful and undismayed as though he were sitting in the midst of Paradise. 8] On the other hand, he who has none doubts and is despondent, as though he knew of no God. 9] For very few are to be found who are of good cheer, and who neither mourn nor complain if they have not Mammon. This [care and desire for money] sticks and clings to our nature, even to the grave.

10] So, too, whoever trusts and boasts that he possesses great skill, prudence, power, favor, friendship, and honor has also a god, but not this true and only God. This appears again when you notice how presumptuous, secure, and proud people are because of such possessions, and how despondent when they no longer exist or are withdrawn. Therefore I repeat that the chief explanation of this point is that to have a god is to have something in which the heart entirely trusts.

11] Besides, consider what, in our blindness, we have hitherto been practising and doing under the Papacy. If any one had toothache, he fasted and honored St. Apollonia [macerated his flesh by voluntary fasting to the honor of St. Apollonia]; if he was afraid of fire, he chose St. Lawrence as his helper in need; if he dreaded pestilence, he made a vow to St. Sebastian or Rochio, and a countless number of such abominations, where every one selected his own saint, worshiped him, and called for help to him in distress. 12] Here belong those also, as, e. g., sorcerers and magicians, whose idolatry is most gross, and who make a covenant with the devil, in order that he may give them plenty of money or help them in love-affairs, preserve their cattle, restore to them lost possessions, etc. For all these place their heart and trust elsewhere than in the true God, look for nothing good to Him nor seek it from Him.

13] Thus you can easily understand what and how much this commandment requires, namely, that man’s entire heart and all his confidence be placed in God alone, and in no one else. For to have God, you can easily perceive, is not to lay hold of Him with our hands or to put Him in a bag [as money], or to lock Him in a chest [as silver vessels]. 14] But to apprehend Him means when the heart lays hold of Him and clings to Him. 15] But to cling to Him with the heart is nothing else than to trust in Him entirely. For this reason He wishes to turn us away from everything else that exists outside of Him, and to draw us to Himself, namely, because He is the only eternal good. As though He would say; Whatever you have heretofore sought of the saints, or for whatever [things] you have trusted in Mammon or anything else, expect it all of Me, and regard Me as the one who will help you and pour out upon you richly all good things.

16] Lo, here you have the meaning of the true honor and worship of God, which pleases God, and which He commands under penalty of eternal wrath, namely, that the heart know no other comfort or confidence than in Him, and do not suffer itself to be torn from Him, but, for Him, risk and disregard everything upon earth. 17] On the other hand, you can easily see and judge how the world practises only false worship and idolatry. For no people has ever been so reprobate as not to institute and observe some divine worship; every one has set up as his special god whatever he looked to for blessings, help, and comfort.

18] Thus, for example, the heathen who put their trust in power and dominion elevated Jupiter as the supreme god; the others, who were bent upon riches, happiness, or pleasure, and a life of ease, Hercules, Mercury, Venus, or others; women with child, Diana or Lucina, and so on; thus every one made that his god to which his heart was inclined, so that even in the mind of the heathen to have a god means to trust and believe. 19] But their error is this, that their trust is false and wrong; for it is not placed in the only God, besides whom there is truly no God in heaven or upon earth. 20] Therefore the heathen really make their self-invented notions and dreams of God an idol, and put their trust in that which is altogether nothing. 21] Thus it is with all idolatry; for it consists not merely in erecting an image and worshiping it, but rather in the heart, which stands gaping at something else, and seeks help and consolation from creatures, saints, or devils, and neither cares for God, nor looks to Him for so much good as to believe that He is willing to help, neither believes that whatever good it experiences comes from God.

22] Besides, there is also a false worship and extreme idolatry, which we have hitherto practised, and is still prevalent in the world, upon which also all ecclesiastical orders are founded, and which concerns the conscience alone, that seeks in its own works help, consolation, and salvation, presumes to wrest heaven from God, and reckons how many bequests it has made, how often it has fasted, celebrated Mass, etc. Upon such things it depends, and of them boasts, as though unwilling to receive anything from God as a gift, but desires itself to earn or merit it superabundantly, just as though He must serve us and were our debtor, and we His liege lords. 23] What is this but reducing God to an idol, yea, [a fig image or] an apple-god, and elevating and regarding ourselves as God? But this is slightly too subtile, and is not for young pupils.

24] But let this be said to the simple, that they may well note and remember the meaning of this commandment, namely, that we are to trust in God alone, and look to Him and expect from Him naught but good, as from one who gives us body, life, food, drink, nourishment, health, protection, peace, and all necessaries of both temporal and eternal things. He also preserves us from misfortune, and if any evil befall us, delivers and rescues us, so that it is God alone (as has been sufficiently said) from whom we receive all good, and by whom 25] we are delivered from all evil. Hence also, I think, we Germans from ancient times call God (more elegantly and appropriately than any other language) by that name from the word Good, as being an eternal fountain which gushes forth abundantly nothing but what is good, and from which flows forth all that is and is called good.

26] For even though otherwise we experience much good from men, still whatever we receive by His command or arrangement is all received from God. For our parents, and all rulers, and every one besides with respect to his neighbor, have received from God the command that they should do us all manner of good, so that we receive these blessings not from them, but, through them, from God. For creatures are only the hands, channels, and means whereby God gives all things, as He gives to the mother breasts and milk to offer to her child, and corn and all manner of produce from the earth for nourishment, none of which blessings could be produced by any creature of itself.

27] Therefore no man should presume to take or give anything except as God has commanded, in order that it may be acknowledged as God’s gift, and thanks may be rendered Him for it, as this commandment requires. On this account also these means of receiving good gifts through creatures are not to be rejected, neither should we in presumption seek other ways and means than God has commanded. For that would not be receiving from God, but seeking of ourselves.

28] Let every one, then, see to it that he esteem this commandment great and high above all things, and do not regard it as a joke. Ask and examine your heart diligently, and you will find whether it cleaves to God alone or not. If you have a heart that can expect of Him nothing but what is good, especially in want and distress, and that, moreover, renounces and forsakes everything that is not God, then you have the only true God. If, on the contrary, it cleaves to anything else, of which it expects more good and help than of God, and does not take refuge in Him, but in adversity flees from Him, then you have an idol, another god.

29] In order that it may be seen that God will not have this commandment thrown to the winds, but will most strictly enforce it, He has attached to it first a terrible threat, and then a beautiful, comforting promise which is also to be urged and impressed upon young people, that they may take it to heart and retain it:

[Exposition of the Appendix to the First Commandment.]

30] For I am the Lord, thy God, strong and jealous, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate Me; and showing mercy unto thousands of them that love Me and keep My commandments.

31] Although these words relate to all the commandments (as we shall hereafter learn), yet they are joined to this chief commandment because it is of first importance that men have a right head; for where the head is right, the whole life must be right, and vice versa. 32] Learn, therefore, from these words how angry God is with those who trust in anything but Him, and again, how good and gracious He is to those who trust and believe in Him alone with the whole heart; so that His anger does not cease until the fourth generation, while, on the other hand, His blessing and goodness extend to many thousands, 33] lest you live in such security and commit yourself to chance, as men of brutal heart, who think that it makes no great difference [how they live]. 34] He is a God who will not leave it unavenged if men turn from Him, and will not cease to be angry until the fourth generation, even until they are utterly exterminated. Therefore He is to be feared, and not to be despised.

35] He has also demonstrated this in all history, as the Scriptures abundantly show and daily experience still teaches. For from the beginning He has utterly extirpated all idolatry, and, on account of it, both heathen and Jews; even as at the present day He overthrows all false worship, so that all who remain therein must finally perish. 36] Therefore, although proud, powerful, and rich worldlings [Sardanapaluses and Phalarides, who surpass even the Persians in wealth] are now to be found, who boast defiantly of their Mammon, with utter disregard whether God is angry at or smiles on them, and dare to withstand His wrath, yet they shall not succeed, but before they are aware, they shall be wrecked, with all in which they trusted; as all others have perished who have thought themselves more secure or powerful.

37] And just because of such hardened heads who imagine because God connives and allows them to rest in security, that He either is entirely ignorant or cares nothing about such matters, He must deal a smashing blow and punish them, so that He cannot forget it unto children’s children; so that every one may take note and see that this is no joke to Him. 38] For they are those whom He means when He says: Who hate Me, i.e., those who persist in their defiance and pride; whatever is preached or said to them, they will not listen; when they are reproved, in order that they may learn to know themselves and amend before the punishment begins, they become mad and foolish so as to fairly merit wrath, as now we see daily in bishops and princes.

39] But terrible as are these threatenings, so much the more powerful is the consolation in the promise, that those who cling to God alone should be sure that He will show them mercy, that is, show them pure goodness and blessing, not only for themselves, but also to their children and children’s children, even to the thousandth generation and beyond that. 40] This ought certainly to move and impel us to risk our hearts in all confidence with God, if we wish all temporal and eternal good, since the Supreme Majesty makes such sublime offers and presents such cordial inducements and such rich promises.

41] Therefore let every one seriously take this to heart, lest it be regarded as though a man had spoken it. For to you it is a question either of eternal blessing, happiness, and salvation, or of eternal wrath, misery, and woe. What more would you have or desire than that He so kindly promises to be yours with every blessing, and to protect and help you in all need?

42] But, alas! here is the failure, that the world believes nothing of this, nor regards it as God’s Word because it sees that those who trust in God and not in Mammon suffer care and want, and the devil opposes and resists them, that they have neither money, favor, nor honor, and, besides, can scarcely support life; while, on the other hand, those who serve Mammon have power, favor, honor, possessions, and every comfort in the eyes of the world. For this reason, these words must be grasped as being directed against such appearances; and we must consider that they do not lie or deceive, but must come true.

43] Reflect for yourself or make inquiry and tell me: Those who have employed all their care and diligence to accumulate great possessions and wealth, what have they finally attained? You will find that they have wasted their toil and labor, or even though they have amassed great treasures, they have been dispersed and scattered, so that they themselves have never found happiness in their wealth, and afterwards it never reached the third generation.

44] Instances of this you will find a plenty in all histories, also in the memory of aged and experienced people. Only observe and ponder them.

45] Saul was a great king, chosen of God, and a godly man; but when he was established on his throne, and let his heart decline from God, and put his trust in his crown and power, he had to perish with all that he had, so that none even of his children remained.

46] David, on the other hand, was a poor, despised man, hunted down and chased, so that he nowhere felt secure of his life; yet he had to remain in spite of Saul, and become king. For these words had to abide and come true, since God cannot lie or deceive. Only let not the devil and the world deceive you with their show, which indeed remains for a time, but finally is nothing.

47] Let us, then, learn well the First Commandment, that we may see how God will tolerate no presumption nor any trust in any other object, and how He requires nothing higher of us than confidence from the heart for everything good, so that we may proceed right and straightforward and use all the blessings which God gives no farther than as a shoemaker uses his needle, awl, and thread for work, and then lays them aside, or as a traveler uses an inn, and food, and his bed only for temporal necessity, each one in his station, according to God’s order, and without allowing any of these things to be our lord or idol. 48] Let this suffice with respect to the First Commandment, which we have had to explain at length, since it is of chief importance, because, as before said, where the heart is rightly disposed toward God and this commandment is observed, all the others follow.

Via the Book of Concord, “The Large Catechism,” The Ten Commandments.

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:

1. Why We Baptize Babies (The Case for Infant Baptism), pt. 1
2. Infant Baptism
3. The Early Church on Infant Baptism
4. Luther’s Sermon On Infant Baptism

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:

1. Infant Baptism
2. The Early Church on Infant Baptism
3. Luther’s Sermon On Infant Baptism
4. Baptism Is Putting On Christ

from Hermann Sasse, “This Is My Body, Luther’s Contention for the Real Presence in the Sacrament of the Altar,” footnote 10, p 21 (Revised Australian Edition, 1977, Lutheran Publishing House, Adelaide).

See also:

1. The Unity of the Lutheran Church
2. Concerning the Unity of the Lutheran Church
3. “The Evangelical Lutheran Church observes the unity of confession and love toward all who share with it the one faith.”
4. Lutheran Unity without the Lutheran Confession?

In the opening lecture on our series of theses we got acquainted with the six points of difference between the Law and the Gospel. They differ 1) as regards the manner of their being revealed to men; 2) as regards their contents; 3) as regards the promises held out by either doctrine; 4) as regards their threatenings; 5) as regards the function and the effect of either doctrine; 6) as regards the persons to whom either the one or the other doctrine must be preached. As a rule, point No. 6 is named last. The reason is not that it is less important; for this point introduces a difference of especially great importance. It is this: the Gospel must be preached only to bruised, contrite, miserable sinners; the Law, to secure sinners. Inverting this order means confounding both and, by confounding them, commingling both in the most dangerous manner. Of the truth of this we became convinced in our first lecture, from the statement in 1 Tim. 1, 8–10: We know that the Law is good if a man use it lawfully. Knowing this, that the Law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there by any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine. No law is given to a person who is made righteous by Christ, but to the unrighteous and disobedient. These are the persons to whom the Law must be preached. To make a miserable, contrite sinner the subject of Law-preaching is to commit a grievous sin against him; for the Gospel ought to be preached to him.

Isaiah says, chap. 61, 1–3: The Spirit of the Lord God is upon Me, because the Lord hath anointed Me to preach good tidings unto the meek. He hath sent Me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives and the opening of the prison to them that are bound; to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn; to appoint unto them that mourn in Zion, to give unto them beauty for ashes, the oil of joy for mourning, the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness. The phrase “day of vengeance” does not signify a day of judgment on men; for to proclaim such a day would not be proclaiming an acceptable year. The meaning is this: The Son of God meant to take vengeance on Satan, who had hurled the human race into misery. For this reason the proclamation of “the day of vengeance” is a cheering, comforting message to us. If God had not avenged our Fall upon Satan, we should be lost. If Christ had not redeemed us from the devil, we could not rejoice, but would have to remain in sadness. The picturesque phrases which follow in this text must all be understood figuratively, as pointing to spiritual gifts of grace.

These texts show us that according to God’s Word not a drop of evangelical consolation is to be brought to those who are still living securely in their sins. On the other hand, to the broken-hearted not a syllable containing a threat or a rebuke is to be addressed, but only promises conveying consolation and grace, forgiveness of sin and righteousness, life and salvation.

from C.F.W. Walther, “Law and Gospel, Twelfth Evening Lecture” (December 12, 1884)

See also:

1. Preaching Repentance from the Gospel?
2. And The Crowd Goes Wild… Without The Preaching of the Gospel!
3. The Gospel, then, is nothing else than preaching concerning Christ
4. The Preaching of the Cross Alone is Gospel

These texts show us that according to God’s Word not a drop of evangelical consolation is to be brought to those who are still living securely in their sins. On the other hand, to the broken-hearted not a syllable containing a threat or a rebuke is to be addressed, but only promises conveying consolation and grace, forgiveness of sin and righteousness, life and salvation.

That was the practise of our Lord and Savior. One day He was approached by a woman “which was a sinner” (Luke 7, 37), who in the presence of self-righteous Pharisees knelt down, washed His feet with her hot tears, and dried them with her hair, with which in former days, no doubt, she had frequently made a display of vanity. She was crushed when she came to Jesus; there was no one to comfort her. But she turned to Jesus, for she had realized that where He was, there was the throne of grace. What did the Lord do on that occasion? He did not utter one word of reproof because of the sins she had committed in darkness, – for she had, no doubt, lived in the wost sins of fornication, — no, not a word. He simply said to her: “Thy sins are forgiven.” In another, a similar instance He dismissed the guilty woman with the assurance: “Neither do I condemn thee,” and with the brief admonition: “Go and sin no more.”

from C.F.W. Walther, “Law and Gospel, Twelfth Evening Lecture” (December 12, 1884).

See also:

1. Beautiful Feet Mission Conference

Why do neither the church historians nor the dogmaticians nor the practical theologians examine these claims? Why does no one ask, in an age of alleged deeper Biblical studies, what the New Testament teaches on Church, church unity, the ministry? Why do we all take modern concepts of the ecumenical movement for granted? Who tells us that God wants all who call themselves Christians to be united in one big visible church? Certainly not our Lord and His Apostles. We read that into the New Testament. Who has invented the idea that the Church as the Body of Christ consists of churches and that this body is unfortunately divided? The body of Christ cannot be divided, neither the sacramental nor the spiritual body. “A sumente non concisus / non confractus, non divisus / Integer accipitur.” Who has invented the myth of an “Ancient undivided Church” which must be “reunited” into the “Future Reunited Church”? Who has invented the idea that by means of a dialog we can attain unity? In some cases it may be possible, in others not. Most certainly it will not be possible if this dialog aims at a minimum of doctrine and at formulas of compromise. A lot of these have been written in our time to overcome the doctrinal differences concerning the sacraments. No formula has been found yet to overcome the contrast between those who teach that the consecrated bread is the body of Christ and those who teach that it is not. Even if in Holland, the home of Cornelis Hoen from whom Zwingli took over his doctrine, Roman Catholics now try their hands at a compromise by suggesting a new doctrine of “transsignification” (“In Holland everything changes in the Church except bread and wine”), the alternative remains. And all compromises on the Eucharist and the Sacrament of Baptism are marred by the fact that when unity seems to be reached the representative of the Quakers and the Salvation Army rises and states that all is nice and good, but that external sacraments are not necessary. Then you may try to convince him that this is wrong. In the very moment when the Quaker admits, he ceases to be a Quaker and must be replaced by another Quaker. So the dialog must be continued until the last member of the Society of Friends has accepted the sacraments. And the dialog itself? We already hear alarming statements that our separated brethren in Rome, after they have converted the other churches to a renewed Catholic Church wish to extend the dialog to the Jews, the Mohammedans, the Buddhists, the Marxists and atheists.

But it may then happen that not only the walls between the Christian denominations become transparent (Edmund Schlink), but also other walls. We quote only one example. At the meeting of the International Missionary Council at Tambaram, Madras, in 1938 Walter Marshall Horton spoke of his friendship with “a Buddhist priest whom to this day I persist in regarding as my brother in Christ. He gave me a picture of a Bodhisattva . . . which to him perfectly symbolized the spirit and attitude required by his simple creed: ‘to cleanse the heart of evil, and endeavour to make this world a kingdom of God.’ There is a faint smile of self-congratulation on that picture face, which reminds me of the great gulf that remains forever fixed between Buddhist self-discipline and the Christian sense of grace toward sinners; but when I talked with the priest who gave me the picture, that gulf was not there. Differences of tradition seemed to vanish between us, as I often felt them melting away between Christians of different communions at ecumenical gatherings, and our souls met in something less tangible and definable than forms of speech and thought, but infinitely more real and authoritative. If I belong in any sense to the Body of Christ,-then he does too. It would be blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, the Wind of God that bloweth where it listeth, for me to deny my Buddhist brother his place in that Body. When I ventured to say as much to a group of Christians in Kobe the next day, I was sternly reminded that ‘There is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved’; but I thought to myself that I have rather have the Spirit without the Name, than the Name without the Spirit” (Tambaram Series vol. I, “The authority of Faith,” London 1939, p. 149f.; emphasis added). This is the end of the dialog, if consistently carried on. We all should love our pagan brother in Adam. He is a sinner, as I am a sinner. But to make him my Brother in Christ, this is the denial of Christ, the only Saviour of sinners, of the Holy Spirit, of the Living God and His eternal Word.

from Hermann Sasse, “Confessional Churches in the Ecumenical Movement,” The Springfielder, XXXI:1 (Spring, 1967), 25-27.

See also:

1. Ecumenism or Unionism?
2. A Confession of Faith Against Ecumenism
3. The Unity of the Lutheran Church
4. Concerning the Unity of the Lutheran Church

First, when pressed by The temporal power, they have made decrees and said that the temporal power has no jurisdiction over them, but, on the other hand, that the spiritual is above the temporal power. Second, when the attempt is made to reprove them out of the Scriptures, they raise the objection that the interpretation of the Scriptures belongs to no one except the pope. Third, if threatened with a council, they answer with the fable that no one can call a council but the pope.

In this wise they have slyly stolen from us our three rods[2], that they may go unpunished, and have ensconced themselves within the safe stronghold of these three walls, that they may practice all the knavery and wickedness which we now see. Even when they have been compelled to hold a council they have weakened its power in advance by previously binding the princes with an oath to let them remain as they are. Moreover, they have given the pope full authority over all the decisions of the council, so that it is all one whether there are many councils or no councils, — except that they deceive us with puppet-shows and sham-battles. So terribly do they fear for their skin in a really free council! And they have intimidated kings and princes by making them believe it would be an offense against God not to obey them in all these knavish, crafty deceptions.[3]

Josh. 6:20 Now God help us, and give us one of the trumpets with which the walls of Jericho were overthrown, that we may blow down these walls of straw and paper, and may set free the Christian rods for the punishment of sin, bringing to light the craft and deceit of the devil, to the end that through punishment we may reform ourselves, and once more attain God’s favor.

Against the first wall we will direct our first attack.

It is pure invention that pope, bishops, priests and monks are to be called the “spiritual estate”; princes, lords, artisans, and farmers the “temporal estate.” That is indeed a fine bit of lying and hypocrisy. Yet no one should be frightened by it; and for this reason — viz., that all Christians are truly of the “spiritual estate,” and there is among them no difference at all but that of office, as Paul says in I Corinthians 12:12, We are all one body, yet every member has its own work, where by it serves every other, all because we have one baptism, one Gospel, one faith, and are all alike Christians; for baptism, Gospel and faith alone make us “spiritual” and a Christian people.

But that a pope or a bishop anoints, confers tonsures; ordains, consecrates, or prescribes dress unlike that of the laity, this may make hypocrites and graven images,[4] but it never makes a Christian or “spiritual” man. Through baptism all of us are consecrated to the priesthood, as St. Peter says in I Peter 2:9, “Ye are a royal priesthood, a priestly kingdom,” and the book of Revelation says, Rev. 5:10 “Thou hast made us by Thy blood to be priests and kings.” For if we had no higher consecration than pope or bishop gives, the consecration by pope or bishop would never make a priest, nor might anyone either say mass or preach a sermon or give absolution. Therefore when the bishop consecrates it is the same thing as if he, in the place and stead of the whole congregation, all of whom have like power, were to take one out of their number and charge him to use this power for the others; just as though ten brothers, all king’s sons and equal heirs, were to choose one of themselves to rule the inheritance for them all, — they would all be kings and equal in power, though one of them would be charged with the duty of ruling.

To make it still clearer. If a little group of pious Christian laymen were taken captive and set down in a wilderness , and had among them no priest consecrated by a bishop, and if there in the wilderness they were to agree in choosing one of themselves, married or unmarried, and were to charge him with the office of baptizing, saying mass, absolving and preaching, such a man would be as truly a priest as though all bishops and popes had consecrated him. That is why in cases of necessity any one can baptize and give absolution,[5] which would be impossible unless we were all priests. This great grace and power of baptism and of the Christian Estate they have well-nigh destroyed and caused us to forget through The canon law.[6] It was in the manner aforesaid that Christians in olden days chose from their number bishops and priests, who were afterwards confirmed by other bishops, without all the show which now obtains. It was Thus that Sts. Augustine,[7] Ambrose[8] and Cyprian[9] became bishops.

Since, then, the temporal authorities are baptized with the same baptism and have the same faith and Gospel as we, we must grant that they are priests and bishops, and count their office one which has a proper and a useful place in the Christian community. For whoever comes out the water of baptism[10] can boast that he is already consecrated priest, bishop and pope, though it is not seemly that every one should exercise the office. Nay, just because we are all in like manner priests, no one must put himself forward and undertake, without our consent and election, to do what is in the power of all of us. For what is common to all, no one dare take upon himself without the will and the command of the community; and should it happen that one chosen for such an office were deposed for malfeasance, he would then be just what he was before he held office. Therefore a priest in Christendom is nothing else than an office-holder. While he is in office, he has precedence; when deposed, he is a peasant or a townsman like the rest. Beyond all doubt, then, a priest is no longer a priest when he is deposed. But now they have invented characters indelebilis,[11] and prate that a deposed priest is nevertheless something different from a mere layman. They even dream that a priest can never become a layman, or be anything else than a priest. All this is mere talk and man-made law.

From all this it follows that there is really no difference between laymen and priests, princes and bishops, “spirituals” and “temporals,” as they call them, except that of office and work, but not of “estate”; for they are all of the same estate,[12] — true priests, bishops and popes, — though they are not all engaged in the same work, just as all priests and monks have not the same work. This is the teaching of St. Paul in Romans 12:4 and I Corinthians 12:12, and of St. Peter in I Peter 2:9, as I have said above, viz., that we are all one body of Christ, the Head, all members one of another. Christ has not two different bodies, one “temporal ,” the other “spiritual.” He is one Head, and He has One body.

Therefore, just as Those who are now called “spiritual” — priests, bishops or popes — are neither different from other Christians nor superior to them, except that they are charged with the administration of the Word of God and the sacraments, which is their work and office, so it is with the temporal authorities, — they bear sword and rod with which to punish the evil and to protect die good. A cobbler, a smith, a farmer, each has the work and office of his trade, and yet they are all alike consecrated priests and bishops, and every one by means of his own work or office must benefit and serve every other, that in this way many kinds of work may be done for the bodily and spiritual welfare of the community, even as all the members of the body serve one another.

See, now, how Christian is the decree which says that the temporal power is not above the “spiritual estate” and may not punish it.[13] That is as much as to say that the hand shall lend no aid when the eye is suffering. Is it not unnatural, not to say unchristian, that one member should not help another and prevent its destruction? Verily, the more honorable the member, the more should the others help. I say then, since the temporal power is ordained of God to punish evil-doers and to protect them that do well, it should therefore be left free to perform it office without hindrance through the whole body of Christendom without respect of persons, whether it affect pope, bishops, priests, monks, nuns or anybody else. For if the mere fact that the temporal power has a smaller place among The Christian offices than has the office of preachers or confessors, or of the clergy, then the tailors, cobblers, masons, carpenters, pot-boys, tapsters, farmers, and all the secular tradesmen, should also be prevented from providing pope, bishops, priests and monks with shoes, clothing, houses, meat and drink, and from paying them tribute. But if these laymen are allowed to do their work unhindered, what do the Roman scribes mean by their laws, with which they withdraw themselves from the jurisdiction of the temporal Christian power, only so that the may be free to do evil and to fulfill what St. Peter has said: 2. Peter 2:1 “There shall be false teachers among you, and through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you.”

On this account the Christian temporal power should exercise its office without let or hindrance, regardless whether it be pope, bishop or priest whom it affects; whoever is guilty, let him suffer. All that the canon law has said to the contrary is sheer invention of Roman presumption. For Thus saith St. Paul to all Christians: Roman 13:1, 4 “Let every soul (I take that to mean the pope’s soul also) be subject unto the higher powers; for they bear not the sword in vain, but are the ministers of God for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.” St. Peter also says: 1 Peter 2:13, 15 “Submit yourselves unto every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake, for so is the will of God” He has also prophesied that such men shall come as will despise the temporal authorities; and this has come to pass through the canon law.

So then, I think this first paper-wall is overthrown, since the temporal power has become a member of the body of Christendom, and is of the “spiritual estate,” though its work is of a temporal nature. Therefore its work should extend freely and without hindrance to all the members of the whole body; it should punish and use force whenever guilt deserves or necessity demands, without regard to pope, bishops and priests,-let them hail threats and bans as much as they will.

Again, it is intolerable that in the canon law so much importance is attached to the freedom, life and property of the clergy, as though the laity were not also as spiritual as good Christians as they, or did not belong to the Church. Why are your life and limb, your property and honor so free, and mine not? We are all alike Christians, and have baptism, faith, Spirit and all things alike. If a priest is killed, the land is laid under interdict,[15] — why not when a peasant is killed? Whence comes this great distinction between those who are equally Christians? Only from human laws and inventions!

Moreover, it can be no good spirit who has invented such exceptions and granted to sin such license and impunity. For if we are bound to strive against the works and words of the evil spirit, and to drive him out in whatever way we can, as Christ commands and His Apostles, ought we, then to suffer it in silence when the pope or his satellites are bent on devilish words and works? Ought we for the sake of men to allow the suppression of divine commandments and truths which we have sworn in baptism to support with life and limb? Of a truth we should then have to answer all the souls that would thereby be abandoned and it astray.

It must therefore have been the very prince of devils who said what is written in the canon law: “If the pope were so scandalously bad as to lead souls in crowds to the devil, yet he could not be deposed.”[16] On this accursed and devilish foundation they build at Rome, and think that we should let all the world go to the devil, rather than resist their knavery. If the fact that one man is set over others were sufficient reason why he should escape punishment, then no Christian could punish another, since Christ commands that every man shall esteem himself the lowliest and the least.

Where sin is, there is no escape from punishment; as St. Gregory[17] also writes that we are indeed all equal, but guilt puts us in subjection one to another. Now we see how they whom God and the Apostles have made subject to the temporal sword deal with Christendom, depriving it of its liberty by their own wickedness, without warrant of Scripture. It is to be feared that this is a game of Antichrist[18] or a sign that he is close at hand.

The second wall[19] is still more flimsy and worthless. They wish to be the only Masters of The Holy Scriptures,[20] even though in all their lives they learn nothing from them. They assume for themselves sole authority, and with insolent juggling of words they would persuade us that the pope, whether he be a bad man or a good man, cannot err in matters of faith,[21] and yet they cannot prove a single letter of it. Hence it comes that so many heretical and unchristian, nay, even unnatural ordinances have a place in the canon law, of which, however, there is no present need to speak. For since they think that the Holy Spirit never leaves them, be they never so unlearned and wicked, they make bold to decree whatever they will. And if it were true, where would be the need or use of Holy Scriptures? Let us burn them, and be satisfied with the unlearned lords at Rome, who are possessed of the Holy Spirit, — although He can possess only pious hearts! Unless I had read it myself,[22] I could not have believed that the devil would make such clumsy pretensions at Rome, and find a following.

But not to fight them with mere words, we will quote the Scriptures. St. Paul says in I Corinthians 14:30: “If to anyone something better is revealed, though he be sitting and listening to another in God’s Word, then the first, who is speaking, shall hold his peace and give place.” What would be the use of this commandment, if we were only to believe him who does the talking or who has the highest seat? Christ also says in John 6:45, that all Christians shall be taught of God. Thus it may well happen that the pope and his followers are wicked men, and no true Christians, not taught of God, not having true understanding. On the other hand, an ordinary man may have true understanding; why then should we not follow him? Has not the pope erred many times? Who would help Christendom when the pope errs, if we were not to believe another, who had the Scriptures on his side, more than the pope?

Therefore it is a wickedly invented fable, and they cannot produce a letter in defense of it, that the interpretation of Scripture or the confirmation of its interpretation belongs to the pope alone. They have themselves usurped this power; and although they allege that this power was given to Peter when the keys were given to him, it is plain enough that the keys were not given to Peter alone, but to the whole community.[23] Moreover, the keys were not ordained for doctrine or government, but only for the binding and loosing of they arrogate to themselves is mere invention But Christ’s word to Peter, Luke 22:32 “I have prayed for thee that thy faith fall not,” cannot be applied to the pope, since the majority of the popes have been without faith, as they must themselves confess. Besides, it is not only for Peter that Christ prayed, but also for all Apostles and Christians, as he says in John 17:9, 20: “Father, I pray for those whom Thou hast given Me, and not for these only, but for all who believe on Me through their word.” Is not this clear enough?

Only think of it yourself! They must confess that there are pious Christians among us, who have the true faith, Spirit, understanding, word and mind of Christ. Why, then, should we reject their word and understanding and follow the pope, who has neither faith nor Spirit? That would be to deny the whole faith and the Christian Church. Moreover, it is not the pope alone who is always in the right, if the article of The Creed is correct: “I believe one holy Christian Church”; otherwise the prayer must run: “I believe in the pope at Rome,” and so reduce the Christian Church to one man, — which would be nothing else than a devilish and hellish error.

Besides, if we are all priests, as was said above, [24] and all have one faith, one Gospel, one sacrament, why should we not also have the power to test and judge what is correct or incorrect in matters of faith? What becomes of the words of Paul in I Corinthians 2:15: “He that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man,” II Corinthians 4:13: “We have all the same Spirit of faith”? Why, then, should not we perceive what squares with faith and what does not, as well as does an unbelieving pope?

All these and many other texts should make us bold and free, and we should not allow the Spirit of liberty, as Paul calls Him, to be frightened off by the fabrications of the popes, but we ought to go boldly forward to test all that they do or leave undone, according to our interpretation of the Scriptures, which rests on faith, and compel them to follow not their own interpretation, but the one that is better. In the olden days Abraham had to listen to Sarah, although she was in more complete subjection to him than we are to anyone on earth. Balaam’s ass, also, was wiser than the prophet himself. If God then spoke an ass against a prophet, why should He not be able even now to speak by a righteous man against the pope? In like manner St. Paul rebukes St. Peter as a man in error. Therefore it behooves every Christian to espouse the cause of the faith, to understand and defend it, and to rebuke errors.

The third wall falls of itself when the first two are down. For when the pope acts contrary to the Scriptures, it is our duty to stand by the Scriptures, to reprove him, and to constrain him, according to the word of Christ in Matthew 18:15: “If thy brother sin against thee, go and tell it him between thee and him alone; if he hear thee not, then take with thee one or two more; if he hear them not, tell it to the Church; if he hear not the Church, consider him a heathen.” Here every member is commanded to care for every other. How much rather should we do this when the member that does evil is a ruling member, and by his evil-doing is the cause of much harm and offense to the rest! But if I am to accuse him before the Church, I must bring the Church together.

They have no basis in Scripture for their contention that it belongs to the pope alone to call a council or confirm its actions;[25] for this is based merely upon their own laws, which are valid only in so far as they are not injurious to Christendom or contrary to the laws of God. When the pope deserves punishment, such laws go out of force, since it is injurious to Christendom not to punish him by means of a council.

Thus we read in Acts 15:6 that it was not St. Peter who called the Apostolic Council, but the Apostles and elders. If, then, that right had belonged to St. Peter alone, the council would not have been a Christian council, but an heretical conciliabulum.[26] Even the Council of Nicaea — the most famous of all-was neither called nor confirmed by the Bishop of Rome, but by the Emperor Constantine,[27] and many other emperors after him did the like, yet these councils were the most Christian of all.[28] But if the pope alone had the right to call councils, then all then all councils must have been heretical. Moreover, if I consider the councils which the pope has created, I find that they have done nothing of special importance.

Therefore, when necessity demands, and the pope is an offense to Christendom, the first man who is able should, a faithful member of the whole body, do what he can to bring about a truly free council.[29] No one can do this so well as the temporal authorities, especially since now they also are fellow-Christians, fellow-priests, “fellow-spirituals,”[30] fellow-lords over all things, and whenever it is needful or profitable, they should give free course to office and work in which God has put them above every man. Would it not be an unnatural thing, if a fire broke out in a city, and everybody were to stand by and it burn on and on and consume everything that could burn, for the sole reason that nobody had the authority of the burgomaster, or because, perhaps, the fire broke in the burgomaster’s house? In such case is it not the duty of every citizen to arouse and call the rest? How much more should this be done in the spiritual city of Christ, if a fire of offense breaks out, whether in the papal government, or anywhere else? In the same way, if the enemy attacks a city, he who first rouses the others deserves honor and thanks; why then should he not deserve honor who makes known the presence of the enemy from hell, awakens the Christians, and calls them together?

But all their boasts of an authority which dare not opposed amount to nothing after all. No one in Christendom has authority to do injury, or to forbid the resisting of injury. There is no authority in the Church save edification. Therefore, if the pope were to use his authority to prevent the calling of a free council, and thus became a hindrance to the edification of the Church, we should have regard neither for him nor for his authority; and if he were to hurl his bans and thunderbolts, we should despise his conduct as that of a madman, and relying on God, hurl back the ban on him, and coerce him as best we could. For this presumptuous authority of his is nothing; he has no such authority, and he is quickly overthrown by a text of Scripture; for Paul says to the Corinthians, II Corinthians 10:8 “God has given us authority not for the destruction, but for the edification of Christendom.” Who is ready to overleap this text? It is only the power of the devil and of Antichrist which resists the things that serve for the edification of Christendom; it is, therefore, in no wise to be obeyed, but is to be opposed with life and goods and all our strength.

Even though a miracle were to be done in the pope’s behalf against the temporal powers, or though someone were to be stricken with a plague — which they boast has sometimes happened — it should be considered only the work of the devil, because of the weakness of our faith in God. Christ Himself prophesied in Matthew 24:24: “There shall come in My Name false Christs and false prophets, and do signs and wonders, so as to deceive even the elect,” and Paul says in II Thessalonians 2:9, that Antichrist shall, through the power of Satan, be mighty in lying wonders.

Let us, therefore, hold fast to this: No Christian authority can do anything against Christ; as St. Paul says, II Corinthians 13:8: “We can do nothing against Christ, but for Christ.” Whatever does aught against Christ is the power of Antichrist and of the devil, even though it were to rain and hail wonders and plagues. Wonders and plagues prove nothing, especially in these last evil times, for which all the Scriptures prophesy false wonders. Therefore we must cling with firm faith to the words of God, and then the devil will cease from wonders.

Thus I hope that the false, lying terror with which the Romans have this long time made our conscience timid and stupid, has been allayed. They, like all of us, are subject to the temporal sword; they have no power to interpret the Scriptures by mere authority, without learning; they have no authority to prevent a council or, in sheer wantonness, to pledge it, bind it, or take away its liberty; but if they do this, they are in truth the communion of Antichrist and of the devil, and have nothing at all of Christ except the name.

Notes

[1] The term “Romanist” is applied by Luther to the champions of the extreme form of papal supremacy, Cf. Vol. I, p. 343 f.

[2] i.e., The three rods for the punishment of an evil pope. Vol. II, — 5.

[3] Spuknisse, literally “ghosts.” The gist of the sentence is, “the Romanists have frightened the world with ghost-stories.”

[4] Oelgotze – “an image anointed with holy oil to make it sacred”; in modern German, “a blockhead.”

[5] Lay-baptism in view of imminent death is a practice as old as the Christian Church. The right of the laity to administer baptism in such cases was expressly recognized by the Council of Elvira, in the year 306, and the decree of that Council became a part of the law of the Church. The right of the laity to give absolution in such cases rests on the principle that in the absence of the appointed official of the Church any Christian can do for any other Christian the things that are absolutely necessary for salvation, for “necessity knows no law.” Cf. Vol. I, p. 30, note 2.

[6] The canon law, called by Luther throughout this treatise and elsewhere, the “spiritual law,” is a general name for the decrees of councils (“cannons” in the strict sense) and decisions of the popes (“decretals,” “constitutions,” etc.), promulgated by authority of the popes, and collected in the so-called Corpus juriscanonici. It comprised the whole body of Church law, and embodied in legal forms the medieval theory of papal absolutism, which accounts for the bitterness with which Luther speaks of it, especially in this treatise. The Corpus includes the following collections of cannons and decretals: The Decretum of Gratian (1142), the Liber Extra (1234), the Liber Sextus (1298), the Constitutiones Clementinae (1318 or 1317), and the two books of Extravagantes, — the Extravagantes of John XXIV, and the Extravagantes Communes. The last pope whose decrees are included is Sixths IV (died 1484). See Catholic Encyclo., IV, pp. 391 ff.

[7] Augustine, the master-theologian of the Ancient Church, bishop of Hippo in Africa from 395-430.

[8] Ambrose, bishop of Milan from 374-397, had not yet been baptized at the time of his election to the episcopate, which was forced upon him by the unanimous voice of the people of the city.

[9] Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, 247-258, is said to have consented to accept the office only when the congregation surrounded his house and besought him to yield to their entreaties.

[10] Was ausz der Tauff krochen ist.

[11] The character indelebilis, or “indelible mark,” received authoritative statement in the bull Exultate Deo (1439). Eugenius IV, summing up the Decrees of the Council of Florence, says: “Among these sacraments there are three — baptism, confirmation, and orders — which indelibly impress upon the soul a character, i.e., a certain spiritual mark which distinguishes them from the rest.” (MIRBT, Quellen, 2d ed., No. 150). The Council of Trent in its XXIII. Session, July 15, 1563. (MIRBT, No. 312), defined the correct Roman teaching as follows: “Since in the sacrament of orders, as in baptism and confirmation, a character is impressed which cannot be destroyed or taken away, the Holy Synod justly condemns the opinion of those who assert that the priests of the New Testament have only temporary power, and that those once rightly ordained can again be made laymen, if they do not exercise the ministry of the Word of God.”

[12] i.e., They are all Christians, among whom there can be no essential difference.

[13] The sharp distinction which the Roman Church drew between clergy and laity found practical application in the contention that the clergy should be exempt from the jurisdiction of the civil courts, This is the so-called privilegium fori, “benefit of clergy.” It was further claimed that the government of the clergy and the administration of Church property must be entirely in the hands of the Church authorities, and that no lay rulers might either make or enforce laws which in any way affected the Church. See LEA, Studies in Church History, 169-219 and Prot. Realencyk., Vi, 594.

[14] It was the contention of the Church authorities that priests charged with infraction of the laws of the state should first be tried in the ecclesiastical courts. If found guilty, they were degraded from the priesthood and handed over to the state authorities for punishment. Formula for degradation in the canon law, c. 2 in VI, de poen. (V, 9). See Prot. Realencyk., VI, 589.

[15] The interdict is the prohibition of the administration of the sacraments and of the other rites of the Church within the territory upon which the interdict is laid (Realencyk., IX, 208 f.). Its use was not uncommon in the Middle Ages, and during the time that the power of the popes was at its height it proved an effective means of bringing refractory rulers to terms. A famous instance is the interdict laid upon the Kingdom of England by Innocent III in 1208. Interdicts of more limited local extent were quite frequent. The use of the interdict as punishment for trifling infractions of church law was a subject of complaint at the diets of Worms (1521) and Nurnberg (1524). See A. WREDE, Deutsche Reichstagsaktenn unter Kaiser Karl V., II, pp. 685 f, III, 665.

[16] The statement of which Luther here complains is found in the Decretum of Gratian, Dist. XL, c. 6, Si papa. In his Epitome (see Introduction, p. 58), Prierias had quoted this canon against Luther, as follows: “A Pontifex indubitatus (i.e., a pope who is not accused of heresy or schism) cannot lawfully be deposed or judged either by a council or by the whole world, even if he is so scandalous as to lead people with him by crowds into the possession of hell.” Luther’s comment is: “Be astonished, O heaven; shudder, O earth! Behold, O Christians, what Rome is!” (Weimar Ed., VI, 336).

[17] Gregory the Great, pope 590-604. The passage is found in MIGEN, LXXVI, 203; LXXVII, 34.

[18] Antichrist, the incarnation of all that is hostile to Christ and His Kingdom. His appearance is prophesied in 2 Thess. 2:3-10 (the “man of sin, sitting in the temple of God”); 1 John 2:18, 22:4:3, and Rev. 13. In the early Church the Fathers sometimes thought the prophecies fulfilled in the person of some especially pestilent heretic. Wyclif applied the term to the pope, — “the pope would seem to be not the vicar of Christ, but the vicar of Antichrist” (see LOOFS, Dogmengeschichte, 4th ed., p. 649).

[19] See above, p. 65.

[20] According to academic usage, the holder of a Master’s degree was authorized to expound the subject named in the degree.

[21] The doctrine of papal infallibility was never officially sanctioned in the Middle Ages, but the claim of infallibility was repeatedly made by the champions of the more extreme view of papal power, e.g., Augustinus Triumphus (died 1328) in his Summa de potestate Papae. In his attack upon the XCV Theses (Dialogus de potestate Papae, Dec., 1517) Prierias had asserted, “The supreme pontiff (i.e., the pope) cannot err when giving a decision as pontiff, i.e., speaking officially (ex officio), and doing what in him lies to learn the truth”; and again, “Whoever does not rest upon the teaching of the Roman Church and the supreme pontiff as an infallible rule of faith, from which even Holy Scripture draws its vigor and authority, is a heretic” (Erl. Ed., op. Var./ arg., I, 348). In the Epitome he had said: “Even though the pope as an individual (singularis persona) can do wrong and hold a wrong faith, nevertheless as pope he cannot give a wrong decision” (Weimar Ed., VI, 337).

[22] Most recently in Prierias’s Epitome. See preceding note.

[23] Luther had discussed the whole subject of the power of the keys in the Latin treatise, Resolutio super propositione xiii. De potestate papae, of 1519 (Weimar Ed., II, pp. 185 ff., and in the German treatise The Papacy at Rome (Vol. I, pp. 337-394).

[24] Pp. 66 ff.

[25] Another contention of Prierias. In 1518 (Nov. 28th) Luther had appealed his cause from the decision of the pope, which he foresaw would be adverse, to the decision of a council to be held at some future time. In the Epitome Prierias discusses this appeal, asserting, among other things, that “when there is one undisputed pontiff, it belongs to him alone to call a council.”, and that “the decrees of councils neither bind nor hold (nullum ligant vel astringunt) unless they are confirmed by authority of the Roman pontiff” (Weimar Ed., Vi, 335).

[26] i.e., A mere gathering of people.

[27] The council of Nicaea, the first of the great councils of the Church, assembled in 325 for the settlement of the Arian controversy. Luther’s statement that it was called by the Emperor Constantine, and that its decisions did not derive their validity from any papal confirmation, is historically correct. On Luther’s statements about this council, see SCHAFER, Luther als Kirchenhistoriker, pp. 291 ff.; KOHLER, Luther und die Kg., pp. 148 ff.

[28] Luther is here referring to the earlier so-called “ecumenical” councils.

[29] i.e., A council which will not be subject to the pope. Cf. Erl. Ed., xxvi, III

[30] i.e., They belong to the “spiritual estate”; see above, p.69.

From Martin Luther, An Open Letter to The Christian Nobility, Part I. Via Project Wittenberg.

See also:

1. The Three Walls of the Romanists
2. The Obstinacy w/which the Romanists Cling to Their Traditions

The “Everlasting Father” is and was, according to our text, He Who was twelve years old. Even so, the truth of his name “Wonderful” comes before our eyes. But this happens even more when we hear that He also increased in age with wisdom.

a. Who is He Who grows in wisdom? The Christ Child, the God-Man, He “in Whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge of God”: Who was like another Man. He, Who knows everything, had divested Himself of the use of communicated by omniscience and divine wisdom according to His human nature and trod the path to learn wisdom, as other people like Him, His brothers, must go. We cannot draw down Christ too deeply in our flesh. He endeavored to learn; He went to teachers, listened to them and questioned them.He made use of human learning resources. And He learned with success, His circle of knowledge became gradually larger, He went on, and His growth was revealed.

b. He increased in wisdom. He did not fill His brain with all sorts of vain,useless, purposeless knowledge, but He grew in such knowledge that made Him wise, it evermore equipped Him to be useful all the more and better to serve His brothers and sisters according to the flesh. Not only did He grow in γνῶσις,1 Colossians 2:3.2 Luke 2:46.3 Luke 2:47. cognitio, but also in σοφία, sapentia; He learned to apply His acquired knowledge ever better for good, salutary purposes for this life, but chiefly for that life. He would serve men. In particular, He increased in heavenly wisdom, in knowledge of the Divine Word, counsel, and will through diligent study of God’s written revelation. Wonderful! The One Who knows everything, learned, learned more and more, was always wise.

c. Why did this happen, for what reason is this reported? An example for us, particularly the dear youth, as an example for imitation. This is welcome praise of Christian youth, if it can be said of them that they are growing in wisdom, that that they are not about appropriating all sorts of useless or even dangerous and harmful knowledge, but useful knowledge, primarily that they may grow in Christian, divine knowledge and thus always better become capable to believe rightly, to live a godly life, to serve one’s neighbor, and evento die blessed. The example of the Child Jesus should be a strong inducement for them. What is praised by Christ, is certainly also welcome praise of our youth.

See also:

1. Christ the Wonderful Person

Since our opponents alleged with shameless mouths, and decried throughout all the world our churches and their teachers, claiming that not two preachers are found who agree in each and every article of the Augsburg Confession, but that they are rent asunder and separated from one another to such an extent that they themselves no longer know what is the Augsburg Confession and its proper [true, genuine, and germane] sense; we have not made a joint confession only in brief words or names, but wished to make a pure, clear, distinct declaration concerning all the disputed articles which have been discussed and controverted only among the theologians of the Augsburg Confession, in order that every one may see that we do not wish in a cunning manner to dissemble or cover up all this, or to come to an agreement only in appearance; but to remedy the matter thoroughly, and have wished to set forth our opinion of these matters in such a manner that even our adversaries themselves must confess that in all this we abide by the true, simple, natural, and proper sense of the Augsburg Confession, in which we desire, moreover, by God’s grace, to persevere constantly until our end; and so far as it depends on our service, we will not connive at or be silent, lest anything contrary to the same [the genuine and sacred sense of the Augsburg Confession] is introduced into our churches and schools, in which the almighty God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ has appointed us teachers and pastors.

However, lest there be silently ascribed to us the condemned errors of the above enumerated factions and sects ["of which evil the papistic tyranny, which persecutes the pure doctrine is the chief cause"], – which as is the nature of such spirits, for the most part, secretly stole in at localities, and especially at a time when no place or room was given to the pure Word of the holy Gospel, but all its sincere teachers and confessors were persecuted, and the deep darkness of the Papacy still prevailed, and poor simple men who could not help but feel the manifest idolatry and false faith of the Papacy, in their simplicity, alas! embraced whatever was called the Gospel, and was not papistic, – we could not forbear testifying also against them publicly, before all Christendom, that we have neither part nor fellowship with their errors, be they many or few, but reject and condemn them, one and all, as wrong and heretical, and contrary to the Scriptures of the prophets and apostles, and to our Christian Augsburg Confession, well grounded in God’s Word.

Erroneous Articles of the Anabaptists.

Namely, for instance, the erroneous, heretical doctrines of the Anabaptists, which are to be tolerated and allowed neither in the Church, nor in the commonwealth, nor in domestic life, when they teach:

1. That our righteousness before God consists not only in the sole obedience and merit of Christ, but in our renewal and our own piety in which we walk before God; which they, for the most part, base upon their own peculiar ordinances and self-chosen spirituality, as upon a new sort of monkery.

2. That children who are not baptized are not sinners before God, but righteous and innocent, and thus are saved in their innocency without Baptism, which they do not need. Accordingly, they deny and reject the entire doctrine concerning original sin and what belongs to it.

3. That children are not to be baptized until they have attained the use of reason and can confess their faith themselves.

4. That the children of Christians, since they have been born of Christian and believing parents, are holy and the children of God even without and before Baptism; and for this reason they neither attach much importance to the baptism of children nor encourage it, contrary to the express words of the promise, which extends only to those who keep God’s covenant and do not despise it, Gen. 17:9.

5. That a congregation [church] in which sinners are still found is no true Christian assembly.

6. That no sermon should be heard or attended in those churches in which the papal masses have previously been said.

7. That no one should have anything to do with those ministers of the Church who preach the holy Gospel according to the Confession, and rebuke the errors of baptists; also, that no one should serve or in any way labor for them, but should flee from and shun them as perverters of God’s Word.

8. That under the New Testament the magistracy is not a godly estate.

9. That a Christian cannot with a good, inviolate conscience hold the office of magistrate.

10. That a Christian cannot without injury to conscience use the office of the magistracy in matters that may occur [when the matter so demands] against the wicked, neither can its subjects appeal to its power.

11. That a Christian cannot with a good conscience take an oath before a court, nor with an oath do homage to his prince or hereditary sovereign.

12. That magistrates cannot without injury to conscience inflict capital punishment upon evil-doers.

13. That a Christian cannot with a good conscience hold or possess any property, but is in duty bound to devote it to the common treasury.

14. That a Christian cannot with a good conscience be an inn-keeper, merchant, or cutler.

15. That married persons may be divorced on account of faith [diversity of religion], and that the one may abandon the other, and be married to another of his own faith.

16. That Christ did not assume His flesh and blood of the Virgin Mary, but brought them with Him from heaven.

17. That He is not true, essential God either, but only has more and higher gifts and glory than other men.

And still more articles of like kind; for they are divided among themselves into many bands [sects], and one has more and another fewer errors, and thus their entire sect is in reality nothing but a new kind of monkery.

Erroneous Articles of the Schwenckfeldians.

Likewise, when the Schwenckfeldians assert:

1. First, that all those have no knowledge of the reigning King of heaven, Christ, who regard Christ according to the flesh, or His assumed humanity, as a creature, and that the flesh of Christ has by exaltation so assumed all divine properties that in might, power, majesty, and glory He is in every respect, in degree and position of essence, equal to the Father and the eternal Word, so that there is the same essence, properties, will, and glory of both natures in Christ, and that the flesh of Christ belongs to the essence of the Holy Trinity.

2. That the ministry of the Church, the Word preached and heard, is not a means whereby God the Holy Ghost teaches men, and works in them saving knowledge of Christ, conversion, repentance, faith, and new obedience.

3. That the water of Baptism is not a means by which God the Lord seals adoption and works regeneration.

4. That bread and wine in the Holy Supper are not means by which Christ distributes His body and blood.

5. That a Christian man who is truly regenerated by God’s Spirit can in this life keep and fulfil the Law of God perfectly.

6. That a congregation in which no public excommunication or regular process of the ban is observed, is no true Christian congregation [church].

7. That the minister of the Church who is not on his part truly renewed, righteous, and godly cannot teach other men with profit or administer real, true sacraments.

Erroneous Articles of the New Arians.

Also, when the New Arians teach that Christ is not a true, essential, natural God, of one eternal divine essence with God the Father, but is only adorned with divine majesty inferior to, and beside, God the Father.

Erroneous Articles of the New Anti-Trinitarians.

1. Also, when some Anti-Trinitarians reject and condemn the ancient approved symbola, Nicaenum et Athanasianum (the Nicene and Athanasian creeds), as regards both their sense and words, and teach that there is not only one eternal divine essence of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, but as there are three distinct persons, God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, so each person has also its essence distinct and separate from the other persons; yet that all three are either as otherwise three men, distinct and separate in their essence, of the same power, wisdom, majesty, and glory [as some imagine], or in essence and properties unequal [as others think].

2. That the Father alone is true God.

These and like articles, one and all, with what pertains to them and follows from them, we reject and condemn as wrong, false, heretical, and contrary to the Word of God, the three Creeds, the Augsburg, Confession and Apology, the Smalcald Articles, and the Catechisms of Luther. Of these articles all godly Christians should and ought to beware, as much as the welfare and salvation of their souls is dear to them.

Since now, in the sight of God and of all Christendom [the entire Church of Christ], we wish to testify to those now living and those who shall come after us that this declaration herewith presented concerning all the controverted articles aforementioned and explained, and no other, is our faith, doctrine, and confession, in which we are also willing, by God’s grace, to appear with intrepid hearts before the judgment-seat of Jesus Christ, and give an account of it; and that we will neither privately nor publicly speak or write anything contrary to it, but, by the help of God’s grace, intend to abide thereby: therefore, after mature deliberation, we have, in God’s fear and with the invocation of His name, attached our signatures with our own hands.

The Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord, Article XII. Other Factions, Heresies and Sects. Which Never Embraced the Augsburg Confession.

See also:

1. Erroneous Articles of the Anabaptists
2. Erroneous Articles of the Schwenckfeldians
3. Articles that Cannot be Tolerated in the Church
4. True Articles of Faith

Neither Christ nor the holy apostles preached in that fashion. When they had finished preaching, every hearer knew: He meant me, even when the sermon had contained no personal hints or insinuations. For instance, when our Lord Christ had delivered the powerful, awful parable of the murderous vine-dressers, the high priests and scribes confessed to themselves: He means us. When the holy Apostles Paul, on a certain occasion, had preached before the profligate and unjust Governor Felix concerning righteousness, temperance, and the Judgment to come, Felix perceived immediately that Paul was aiming his remarks ant him. He trembled, but being unwilling to be converted, he said to Paul: “Go thy way for this time; when I have a convenient season, I will call for thee.” But he never did call him. He had heard the sermon suited to his spiritual condition, and Paul’s well-aimed remarks had struck home.

The reason, then, my dear friends, why in the Lutheran congregations of our former home country Germany unbelieving preachers are nearly always in the ascendancy is unquestionably this: the sermons of the Christian preachers are aimless efforts. Unbelievers are increasing in the congregations about as fast as the Christian preachers are increasing, of whom there are considerably more now than when I was young. Why do they accomplish nothing? Oh, would to God that these dear men had the humility to sit down at Luther’s feet and study his postils! They would learn how to preach effectively. For the Word of God, when preached as it should be, never returns void.

from C.F.W. Walther, “Law and Gospel, Twelfth Evening Lecture” (December 12, 1884)

See also:

1. The Worst Fault in Modern Preaching…
2. Advent Preaching Seminar
3. Reflections on Modern Lutheranism c.1962
4. Reflections on Modern Lutheranism, circa 1962

The great rediscovery of the Confession of the church, which was the most joyous experience of the German Lutherans in the years between the two world wars, was not shared by our American brethren in the faith. For this reason even where, as is the case in Missouri, the unshakable authority of the Confession is held in complete earnest, there is nevertheless lacking in the affirmation of the Confession the great joy which should accompany genuine confession­al loyalty. To confess, exhomologeisthai, confiteri always includes praise to God. Therefore Luther rightly counted the “Te Deum laudamus, te Dominum confitemur . . .” [in Kurzes Bekenntnis vom … Sakrament 1545; WA 54.141-167; LW 38.279; Aland no. 661] among the Confessions.

Are we mistaken if we miss this joy with our brethren in the Missouri Synod when they speak of the Confession? Are we mistaken in believing that their understanding of the doctrine is wholly orthodox, but only in the sense of correct doctrine, while real orthodoxy includes a joyous praise to God? In the case of the old Missouri of Walther it is still plainly noticeable that here even as in the classical time of Orthodoxy, dogma and liturgy belong togeth­er—how greatly St. Louis formerly influenced liturgy in America! If it were still so today would not then orthodox Lutheranism in particular have something of importance to say to the liturgical movement in America? Christian America, more than many Lutherans sense, waits today for a word from Lutheranism. Members of the Protestant churches in the United States sense the fact that the surrender of the confession of the fathers which has taken place in all these churches during the past century, consti­tutes an irreparable loss of something that is essential for church and for Christianity. The so-called new orthodoxy (neo orthodoxy) of Reinhold Niebuhr[1] and of the American adherents of Barth is only a weak substitute for what has been lost. But Lutheranism keeps silence. It appears about to follow the Reformed Churches on the way to confessionless-ness and with this step to lose its mission to all of Christendom, even as European Lutheranism missed every great opportunity during its history.

Notes

[1] Reinhold Niebuhr 1892-1971, born in Wright City, Missouri. Attended Eden Theological Seminary, Webster Groves (St. Louis), professor at Union Theological Seminary, N.Y.C. 1928-1960, lectured and wrote on ethics, political liberalism, dialectical theology. LC p. 577. MH

Hermann Sasse, Letters to Lutheran Pastors 20, 1951

See also:

1. Confessional Churches in the Ecumenical Movement
2. What Makes a Church a “Missionary Church”?
3. The dying of the confessional church began in the Reformed Churches.
4. Confessional Subscription

April 7, 1516.

Grace and peace in God and the Lord Jesus Christ! Dearest Brother George! I write to let you know that I have realized two gulden and a half, for what I sold for you. One florin for the Brussels robe, half a florin for the Eisenach volume, and one for the cowl, etc. We cannot dispose of the rest, so have handed the money to the honored Prior for you. Regarding the half-gulden you still owe him, you must see to the paying of it, or let him remit the debt. This will not be difficult, as the esteemed father is well disposed to you. Now I would like to know how it is with your soul, if it has at length learned to despise its own righteousness and seek comfort and joy in Christ’s.

For, at present, the temptation to rest in one’s own works is very powerful, especially with those who long to be good and pious. They are ignorant of God’s righteousness, which has been so richly bestowed on us in Christ without money and price, and try to do good of themselves, till they fancy they can appear before God adorned with every grace. But they never get thus far. You, yourself, when with us in Erfurt suffered from this illusion, or rather delusion, and I also was a martyr to it, and even yet I have not overcome it. Therefore, dear brother, learn Christ and Him crucified. Praise and laud His name, and despairing of self, say to Him, “Thou, Lord Jesus, art my righteousness, but I am Thy sin. Thou hast taken what is mine, and given me what is Thine. Thou hast assumed that which Thou wert not, and given me what I had not.”

Beware, my brother, at aiming at a purity which rebels against being classed with sinners. For Christ only dwells among sinners. For this He came from heaven, where He dwelt among saints, so that He might also sojourn with the sinful. Strive after such love, and thou wilt experience His sweetest consolation. For if by our own efforts we are to attain peace of conscience, why then did Christ die? Therefore thou wilt only find peace in Him when thou despairest of self and thine own works. He, Himself, will teach thee how in receiving thee He makes thy sins His, and His righteousness thine. When thou believest this firmly (for he is damned who does not believe) then bear patiently with erring brothers, making their sins thine. If there be any good in thee, then receive ye one another, even as Christ received us, to the glory of God. “Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.” Be thou the same. If thou esteem thyself better than others, do not pride thyself on that, but be as one of them, bearing their burdens. For he is a pitiable saint who will not bear patiently with those worse than himself, and longs only for solitude, when he, through patience, prayer, and example, might be exercising a salutary influence over others. This is burying his Lord’s talent, and not giving his fellow-servants their due. Therefore, be thou a lily or rose of Christ, knowing that thy walk must be among thorns.

Only see that through impatience, hasty judgments, or secret pride, thou dost not thyself become a thorn! “Christ’s kingdom,” says the psalmist, “subsists in the midst of its enemies.” Why then rejoice in being surrounded only by faithful friends? If He, thy Lord, had only lived among the good, or had died only for His friends, for whom then would He have died, or with whom could He have lived? Remember this, brother, and pray for me. The Lord be with thee. Farewell, in the Lord!

Your brother, MARTIN LUTHER, Augustinian.

See also:

1. He Who Would Be Called True Christian
2. The Lord is Now My Shepherd True
3. Christian Righteousness
4. The Ground of All Righteousness

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

1. The Offerings of Cain & Abel
2. The Birth of Jesus and the Angel’s Song
3. Sermon on the Good Shepherd
4. Faith in Shakespeare
5. Sermon for Palm Sunday
6. Nero
7. Sermon Preached by Martin Luther at Erfurt in 1521
8. Jesus is Your Good Shepherd
9. Christ: The Center of the Old Testament
10. Paul, Apostle

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:

1. Rev. Dr. C.F.W. Walther Bicentennial (1811 – 2011)
2. Upcoming Changes at Gnesio

Therefore, if we wish to think or speak correctly and profitably concerning eternal election, or the predestination and ordination of the children of God to eternal life, we should accustom ourselves not to speculate concerning the bare, secret, concealed, inscrutable foreknowledge of God, but how the counsel, purpose, and ordination of God in Christ Jesus, who is the true Book of Life, is revealed to us through the Word, namely, that the entire doctrine concerning the purpose, counsel, will, and ordination of God pertaining to our redemption, call, justification, and salvation should be taken together; as Paul treats and has explained this article Rom. 8:29f ; Eph. 1:4f , as also Christ in the parable, Matt. 22:1ff , namely, that God in His purpose and counsel ordained [decreed]:

1. That the human race is truly redeemed and reconciled with God through Christ, who, by His faultless [innocency] obedience, suffering, and death, has merited for us the righteousness which avails before God, and eternal life.

2. That such merit and benefits of Christ shall be presented, offered, and distributed to us through His Word and Sacraments.

3. That by His Holy Ghost, through the Word, when it is preached, heard, and pondered, He will be efficacious and active in us, convert hearts to true repentance, and preserve them in the true faith.

4. That He will justify all those who in true repentance receive Christ by a true faith, and will receive them into grace, the adoption of sons, and the inheritance of eternal life.

5. That He will also sanctify in love those who are thus justified, as St. Paul says, Eph. 1:4.

6. That He also will protect them in their great weakness against the devil, the world, and the flesh, and rule and lead them in His ways, raise them again [place His hand beneath them], when they stumble, comfort them under the cross and in temptation, and preserve them [for life eternal].

7. That He will also strengthen, increase, and support to the end the good work which He has begun in them, if they adhere to God’s Word, pray diligently, abide in God’s goodness [grace], and faithfully use the gifts received.

8. That finally He will eternally save and glorify in life eternal those whom He has elected, called, and justified.

And [indeed] in this His counsel, purpose, and ordination God has prepared salvation not only in general, but has in grace considered and chosen to salvation each and every person of the elect who are to be saved through Christ, also ordained that in the way just mentioned He will, by His grace, gifts, and efficacy, bring them thereto [make them participants of eternal salvation], aid, promote, strengthen, and preserve them.

All this, according to the Scriptures, is comprised in the doctrine concerning the eternal election of God to adoption and eternal salvation, and is to be understood by it, and never excluded nor omitted, when we speak of God’s purpose, predestination, election, and ordination to salvation. And when our thoughts concerning this article are thus formed according to the Scriptures, we can by God’s grace simply [and correctly] adapt ourselves to it [and advantageously treat of it].

This also belongs to the further explanation and salutary use of the doctrine concerning God’s foreknowledge [predestination] to salvation: Since only the elect, whose names are written in the book of life, are saved, how, we can know, whence and whereby we can perceive who are the elect that can and should receive this doctrine for comfort.

And of this we should not judge according to our reason, nor according to the Law or from any external appearance. Neither should we attempt to investigate the secret, concealed abyss of divine predestination, but should give heed to the revealed will of God. For He has made known unto us the mystery of His will, and made it manifest through Christ that it might be preached, Eph. 1:9ff ; 2 Tim. 1:9f.

This, however, is revealed to us in the manner as Paul says, Rom. 8:29f : Whom God predestinated, elected, and foreordained, He also called. Now, God does not call without means, but through the Word, as He has commanded repentance and remission of sins to be preached in His name, Luke 24:47. St. Paul also testifies to like effect when he writes: We are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us; we pray you in Christ’s stead, Be ye reconciled to God. 2 Cor. 5:20. And the guests whom the King will have at the wedding of His Son He calls through His ministers sent forth, Matt. 22:2ff , some at the first and some at the second, third, sixth, ninth, and even at the eleventh hour, Matt. 20:3ff

Therefore, if we wish to consider our eternal election to salvation with profit, we must in every way hold sturdily and firmly to this, that, as the preaching of repentance, so also the promise of the Gospel is universalis (universal), that is, it pertains to all men, Luke 24:47. For this reason Christ has commanded that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name among all nations. For God loved the world and gave His Son, John 3:16. Christ bore the sins of the world, John 1:29, gave His flesh for the life of the world, John 6:51; His blood is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world, 1 John 1:7; 2:2. Christ says: Come unto Me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest, Matt. 11:28. God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that He might have mercy upon all, Rom. 11:32. The Lord is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance, 2 Pet. 3:9. The same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon Him, Rom. 10:12. The righteousness of God, which is by faith of Jesus Christ, unto all and upon all them that believe, Rom. 3:22. This is the will of Him that sent Me, that every one that seeth the Son and believeth on Him may have everlasting life, John 6:40. Likewise it is Christ’s command that to all in common to whom repentance is preached this promise of the Gospel also should be offered Luke 24:47; Mark 16:15.

And this call of God, which is made through the preaching of the Word, we should not regard as jugglery, but know that thereby God reveals His will, that in those whom He thus calls He will work through the Word, that they may be enlightened, converted, and saved. For the Word, whereby we are called, is a ministration of the Spirit, that gives the Spirit, or whereby the Spirit is given, 2 Cor. 3:8, and a power of God unto salvation, Rom. 1:16. And since the Holy Ghost wishes to be efficacious through the Word, and to strengthen and give power and ability, it is God’s will that we should receive the Word, believe and obey it.

For this reason the elect are described thus, John 10:27f : My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me, and I give unto them eternal life. And Eph. 1:11. 13: Those who according to the purpose are predestinated to an inheritance hear the Gospel, believe in Christ, pray and give thanks, are sanctified in love, have hope, patience, and comfort under the cross, Rom. 8:25; and although all this is very weak in them, yet they hunger and thirst after righteousness, Matt. 5:6.

Thus the Spirit of God gives to the elect the testimony that they are children of God, and when they do not know for what they should pray as they ought, He intercedes for them with groanings that cannot be uttered, Rom. 8:16. 26.

Thus, also, Holy Scripture testifies that God, who has called us, is so faithful that, when He has begun the good work in us, He also will preserve it to the end and perfect it, if we ourselves do not turn from Him, but firmly retain to the end the work begun, for which He has promised His grace, 1 Cor. 1:9; Phil. 1:6 [1 Pet. 5:10]; 2 Pet. 3:9; Heb. 3:2.

With this revealed will of God we should concern ourselves, follow and be diligently engaged upon [eagerly con] it, because through the Word, whereby He calls us, the Holy Ghost bestows grace, power, and ability to this end, and should not [attempt to] sound the abyss of God’s hidden predestination, as it is written in Luke 13:24, where one asks: Lord, are there few that be saved? and Christ answers: Strive to enter in at the strait gate. Accordingly, Luther says [in the Preface to the Epistle to the Romans]: Follow the Epistle to the Romans in its order, concern yourself first with Christ and His Gospel, that you may recognize your sins and His grace; next, that you contend with sin, as Paul teaches from the first to the eighth chapter; then, when in the eighth chapter you will come into [will have been exercised by] temptation under the cross and afflictions, this will teach you in the ninth, tenth, and eleventh chapters how consolatory predestination is, etc.

However, that many are called and few chosen is not owing to the fact that the call of God, which is made through the Word, had the meaning as though God said: Outwardly, through the Word, I indeed call to My kingdom all of you to whom I give My Word; however, in My heart I do not mean this with respect to all, but only with respect to a few; for it is My will that the greatest part of those whom I call through the Word shall not be enlightened nor converted, but be and remain damned, although through the Word, in the call, I declare Myself to them otherwise. Hoc enim esset Deo contradictorias voluntates affingere, that is: For this would be to assign contradictory wills to God. That is, in this way it would be taught that God, who surely is Eternal Truth, would be contrary to Himself [or say one thing, but revolve another in His heart], while, on the contrary, God [rebukes and] punishes also in men this wickedness [this wantonness, this dishonesty] when a person declares himself to one purpose, and thinks and means another in the heart, Ps. 5:9; 12:2f.

Thereby also the necessary consolatory foundation is rendered altogether uncertain and void, as we are daily reminded and admonished that only from God’s Word, through which He treats with us and calls us, we are to learn and conclude what His will towards us is, and that we should believe and not doubt what it affirms to us and promises.

For this reason also Christ causes the promise of the Gospel not only to be offered in general, but He seals it through the Sacraments which He attaches as seals of the promise, and thereby confirms it [the certainty of the promise of the Gospel] to every believer in particular.

Via The Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord, Article XI. Election

See also:

1. God preached & not preached… of His revealed & secret will.
2. The Word of Law is not preached…and the Gospel is not preached…
3. God Preached and Not Preached…
4. God Preached and God Hidden

This is the wish of many on this day: a means that prevents misfortune and brings good luck. Many have their opinion. Some have, according to their opinion, such an agent (relics, amulets, shamrock, etc.). These are foolish talk and evil. Whoever relies on them, has no luck, but bad luck. He draws down God’s wrath and punishment upon himself. This means is the dear Name of Jesus. Our Gospel entices us to the right use of the Name of Jesus. God has admonished us about this in particular through Paul.

Do everything in the Name of the Lord Jesus! because

1. for this purpose has God given us this name.

a. God has given us this name. α. The little Child received this Name in His circumcision. God has given to Him the same. β. But yet this Name is given to us. It is for our use and benefit. This shows the name of Jesus, Savior, Redeemer, Sanctifier.

b. God has given it to us for this purpose, that we should do everything in the Name of Jesus. In other words α. nothing, that one merely says with the mouth, “In the Name of Jesus!”, or that one strikes a cross with the hand with all sorts of plans, or that one uses the Name of Jesus externally as a magical cure. This is all superstition and an abomination before God. In other words β. Rather, to orient everything in reliance on His healing, in invoking His help, in the certainty of his good pleasure, in the desire for his glorification. We Christians should do everything with Christ’s power, from Christ’s Spirit. Jesus’ Spirit and power is acquired only through confidence in Jesus, the Savior. What is done in such power, in such confidence, this we do in Jesus’ Name. Actually, we do not do this, Jesus does this in us.

c. God has given this Name to us for this purpose, that we do everything in Him. Everything that we do in the new year should be done in His Name, in confidence in Him, under His invocation, to His glory: our church going, our prayer, our suffering, our work as businessmen, workers, house fathers, house mothers, teachers and preachers, our dying. Everything that is not done in the Name of Jesus is displeasing to God and sinful. Jesus is the only One with Whom the Father is well-pleased. All works that are not done in the Name of Jesus are therefore condemnable. Only when our works are done in Jesus’ Name can they be pleasing to God.
Truly, that should move us to do everything in Jesus’ Name. God, the careful, compassionate Father, has given this Name to us for this purpose. Should we also not make use of it now? What does a true son with the legacy of his father, a daughter with the gift of mother? Yes, we do everything in Jesus’ Name, because

2. we have nothing but blessings from this.

a. This Name is a powerful Word of God, a divine promise. Jesus means Savior, etc. Everything that God has promised in Scripture about grace, salvation, etc., about physical, spiritual, and heavenly possessions is certain and firm, thus in particular this Name. Everything that is located in the Name of Jesus must be to him who does everything in His Name.

b. Jesus Himself is in His Name. Whoever does everything in Jesus’ Name has Jesus himself in all his ways, the all-powerful, living, acting Jesus. Since everything must go well, nothing but blessing is there.

c. What delightful promises God has attached to this name: answering our prayers; life; being justified; health. (The apostles have done miracles in Jesus’ Name. In so doing they certainly have a particular mandate. Still, this proves the power of that Name.) The devil gives way before the Name of Jesus; enemies have fear before this Name. If one who has such promises does everything in the Name, one has nothing but happiness in everything he does.

d. How confidently we can begin the new year with this Name. If we believe in this Name, then we have forgiveness, righteousness, then our prayer will always be heard; then our work is not lacking in strength and blessing; then we have protection and guardian angels during rest and sleep; patience in suffering, strength, rescue; then death is easy for us and leads to glory.

Who even now can leave this house of God today without firm determination and to cherish the certain confidence:

Now, Lord, may all our doings ever
Be done in Thy good name each day,
And with Thine Amen may Thou never
Forsake our house, but with us stay!
Thy glorious name our hope let be,
Our shield and our prosperity!

Translated by David Juhl

See also:

1. Macau Ministry Center Celebrates 10 Years
2. 15 Congregations Celebrate 25 Years of Partnership

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:

1. Prosperity & Good Days

Smalcald Articles, Art. I., Appendix: “In addition it must be confessed that the keys do not belong merely to one person but to the whole church [ganzen Kirchen] this can be proved sufficiently by clear and convincing arguments. For just as the promise of the Gospel belongs surely and without means to the whole church [ganzen Kirchen], so also the keys belong without means (in the Latin original: principaliter et immediate, i.e., originally and immediately) to the whole church [ganzen Kirchen]. For the keys are nothing else than the ministry [Amt], by which the promise is distributed to everyone who desires it, as indeed it is obvious that the church [Kirche] has the power to ordain ministers [Kirchendiener]. When Christ said: ‘Whatever you bind,’ etc. [Matt. 18:18], He indicated at once to whom the keys were given, namely, to the church [Kirchen], by adding: ‘where two or three are gathered together in My name’ [v. 20]” (Of the Power and Primacy of the Pope, 24; German text, Triglot 510; Mueller 333; BSLK 478).

Our church confesses here that the whole church [ganze Kirche] not only [allein] as a great, populous whole, but also its smallest parts, has the keys and so also the ministry [Amt] of the Gospel, just as a whole face reflected in a mirror appears in every single part of it, though it may be smashed into a thousand pieces. Therefore, the church has the power to elect and ordain ministers [Kirchendiener]. Hence, the power of the public preaching office [Predigtamt] rests and is rooted in the church [Kirche] and is conferred [uebertragene] by the church [Kirche] according to Christ’s express direction on certain persons specifically called to the ministry of the Word [Dienst am Wort]. This power the church [Kirche] does not have mediately through the incumbents of the office entrusted with it for the benefit of the church, but the church possesses it immediately, while on the contrary the incumbents of the office [Amstraeger] have it mediately, for they received it from the church [Kirche], in which it dwells originally.

See also:

1. The Keys of Death and Hell
2. On Church Governance
3. The Call
4. On the Office of Apostolic Ministry

If 25 years ago the secularization of culture was recognized as the great illness of the time, then it is soberly to be asserted today that secularism is now the illness of the church. It is gripping to see that, in order to fulfill the missiological goal of calling the peoples of the west back to the Christian faith, the church itself must first be turned back to this faith. “Sweden’s people are God’ people.” That was the solution a generation ago. Today the question is to what extent the Church of Sweden is still the church of God? And so it is in all nations.

Great missionary endeavors and evangelization efforts will still be carried out, but it is precisely the most serious evangelists who are coming to the conviction that the gospel preaching church must be the first object of their evangelization. This understanding was already once given as a gift to German evangelical churchdom. The consequence of the theology of Karl Barth in the time of his great influence in the first half of the 1930’s was based upon this recognition. That was the meaning of his struggle against Otto Dibelius [1880-1967] and his “Century of the Church.” That was the most profound power of the “Confessing Churches” of all persuasions in Germany, however they may have differed from each other as Lutherans, Reformed, or United [Churches]. That was really the renewal of the Reformation; for Reformation is indeed the repentance of the church. The end of this repentance meant the end of the “Confessing Church.” What then followed was mere restoration. Every revolution ends with collapse and the convulsive efforts to restore everything to what it was before. That is an inborn propensity of natural man. From the far southern and eastern portion of the world, one has the impression that the Japanese people have been struck at the very core of their existence in a more profound way, and that there are more penitent men, men who have heard the New Testament summons to repentance, than among us Germans. One need simply glance at Lilje’s[1] “Sunday Paper” [Sonntagsblatt] or the propaganda paper broadcast throughout the world, “Christ and World” [Christ und Welt] with the following in mind: What remains here of the Stuttgart confession of guilt which was at least true in 1945?

Where the church, however, loses and surrenders the authority to preach repentance, neither can she preach justification. There she loses the Gospel. There she does not experience that repentance which makes the church the church of Christ. There she can still proclaim a Christian worldview; she can train scholars and workers, doctors and philosophers, engineers and journalists at evangelical academies. There her theologians can still proclaim a theory of the forgiveness of sins, but she no longer has the authority to call sinners to repentance. Karl Holl once made an excellent statement regarding the sermons of Schleiermacher from the years after the collapse of Prussia: “One gets the impression that Schleiermacher too perceived the deepening of the understanding of sin in the sense of strict Christianity at that time as a certain hindrance to the necessary ascendance of the father land” (Ges. Aufsatze [Umlaut over “a”] III, p. 357). That is Prussian Christianity, the Christianity of the “German Christians” and their kindred spirits in all nations of the earth: One reckons one’s own sins against those of others, and quickly forgets his own. But God forgets not. He forgives, but only the truly repentant.

Nowhere is the secularization of the Lutheran Church more visible than in the loss of her confessional conscience. In these letters we have often recounted that and why the Lutheran Church is a confessional church kat exochen [i.e. in the proper sense of the term]. The confession means for her more than it does for the Reformed, indeed, in many respect even more than for the [Roman] Catholics. The Reformed Churches can survive if the confession is relativized, when it is stated: “We do not know precisely whether next Sunday we will continue to interpret Scripture in the way we do today.” Catholicism actually celebrates a triumph when a dogma is proclaimed by the pope, the correctness of which is doubted by many of the best Catholics and which they then in worthy obedience accept, though they themselves know that the proof of tradition is defective and therefore doubtful. Both these groups [Reformed and Roman] lack that ultimate seriousness regarding the question of truth, which was the proprium [the essential point] of the Lutheran Reformation. We Lutherans are quite happy to boast about this virtue, but perhaps no longer with justification, just as the Swiss still boast of the bravery which their fathers showed on the battle fields of Europe centuries ago. Indeed, the church does not live on from the faith of the fathers. The confession can have a purely historical significance like the flags and uniforms of Hannover. If it is correct that the confessio, the confession of the faith, is indissolubly connected with confessio in the sense of the confession of sin and of the praise of God, is not then our lack of repentance and our lack of joyful praise of God in newer hymns a notable parallel to the regression of the dogmatic confession [of the faith]? Allow me to cite the following sentence from the Christmas letter of an American friend as an illustration of this state of affairs:

I am afraid we have come to a point in American Lutheranism where we no longer dare discuss controversial doctrines. There is a deep concern in all hearts for outward unity, but with that there often goes, as you know, doctrinal differences (read “indifference”) and even compromise on truth. The concern for truth has lost its power in our country, not least because of the philosophy of government and the corruption in government that we have seen for the last two decades. It reaches all the way down into the church because the young people are educated into this kind of a philosophy. God help us to be fearless in our presentation of the truth and in our battle against falsehood.[2]

Thus the great secularization process, which is today passing through all churches, affects in Lutheranism a troubling regression of confessional consciousness and with this also of dogmatic substance.

from Hermann Sasse, Letters to Lutheran Pastors XXII, 1952
[1] Hans Lilje, bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Hanover, Council of the EKiD, leading bishop of the United Evangelical Lutheran Church in Germany or VELKD, president of the LWF 1952-1957. RGG3 IV.378. MH

[2] Probably Herman Amberg Preus of Luther Seminary, St.Paul. Uncle of Robert and J.A.O. MH

See also:

1. How has the economy affected churches?
2. Orthodox and Heterodox Churches
3. Hankering After Sectarian Churches
4. Confessional Churches in the Ecumenical Movement

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:

1. Beware of False Prophets
2. Something Completely Other Than…
3. The Long Drawn-out Trumpet Blast of a Herald