Intrepid Lutherans

Impressions from My Visit with ELDoNA at their 2013 Colloquium and Synod – PART II

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Douglas Lindee) — Tue, 18 Jun 2013 19:00:00 +0000

(Continued from PART I, yesterday.)

PART II
Conscientiously Lutheran Liturgical Worship
A relatively new member of the WELS congregation I attend, who is a recent convert to confessional Lutheranism, told me not long ago, “I never thought that I would enjoy liturgical worship. In fact, two years ago, I would have rejected the notion out of hand as Roman heresy in practice... But... then I tried it. And there is only one word I have had for it since: Heavenly.” Not long after that, he confessed further: “That wasn't from the hymnal we use here, though. Don't tell pastor, but I think it was a Missouri Synod congregation. They are a small rural congregation and have a smaller hymnal, it was red, and used the King James... It was amazing... We always go there when we are in that part of Wisconsin.” He is a former Evangelical, and a very intelligent and thoughtful person whose company I enjoy immensely.

Of course, he was talking about the orders of service contained in the old The Lutheran Hymnal (TLH) published by the Synodical Conference in 1941, a hymnal which is still in wide use among confessional Lutherans, which seems to be the standard among congregations affiliated with ELDoNA (though they don't all use it, nor are they required to), and which was used during Matins, Vespers, and Divine Service (Wednesday Morning) during the Colloquium.

To quote from Rev. Rydecki's Dresden paper, “I am WELS, for now.” This means that, at present, “I am WELS.” Endeavoring to maintain integrity to this fact during the worship services of the Colloquium translated to a posture of non-participant status during these worship services, though I will admit to humming along with the hymns and liturgical music, while singing the words in my head. No, I didn't resent them so much for not being WELS that I also refused to internally participate in manifestly orthodox worship. My outward non-participation was only a testimony of my non-fellowship status – though I highly doubt anyone there noticed or cared. So much for the testimony. However, I will also admit to reciting the Creed aloud, since the TLH used the text “I believe” rather than the “We believe” phraseology contained in the versions printed in the more contemporary WELS hymnal, Christian Worship (CW), and reasoning that, since the phrase, “under God,” can be properly understood I can therefore recite the Pledge of Allegiance alongside heterodox Christians, Muslims, Jews, pagans, agnostics and atheists, as long as I mean to do so as an individual pledge (i.e., I pledge allegiance... under God...) without necessarily meaning to offer it in unity with whatever aberrant significance anyone else may assign to it, then I can also publicly recite an accepted and embraced Ecumenical Creed versed in personal rather than collective terms without the risk of making a false confession or insinuating full agreement in all matters of doctrine and practice with those individuals reciting the same personally versed Creed alongside me. (Yes, legalism often begets long sentences... but most often they're just fun to write.).

All of this preamble to introduce the fact that this was the first time I had observed or in any way experienced a conscientious public execution of any order of service from the TLH, much less the the Divine Service on Wednesday Morning. To quote my friend, “It was heavenly.”

I had been liturgically reared in WELS on its hymnal Christian Worship, which, when executed with the utmost reverence and musical integrity (as I had been introduced to it and often experience it), is sufficient to assist the congregation in their worship by reminding them of who they are, who Christ is, where He is, and what they are doing together in that worship chamber. But it is definitely a comparatively diminished impact. Its contemporary language patterns and pop-folksy key changes alter the ambiance created by the liturgy and hymnody to such a degree that it appreciably reduces the gravity it would otherwise have, reducing its impact to that of the relatively inconsequential vulgar, or common everyday, speech patterns we all use to order a beer at the local bar and grill, ask for assistance at the hardware store, give instructions to our employees, or greet our customers and clients – and this is especially the case with the WELS CW Supplement, which for me has never been anything other than a manic ride through levity and fury (in fact, it's so distracting, I now simply refrain from participating when Supplement orders of service are used). That is, the word and tonal patterns employed in contemporary orders of service, coming from the same common stock of words and sounds we hear in everyday life, are not sufficient to assist the worshiper out of the worldly frame of mind in which he has thought, acted and spoken all week, and into a distinctly “other-worldly” and reverential Ecclesiastical frame of mind instead.

The fact is, an important aspect of “worshiping in spirit and Truth,” is endeavoring to function under God's command to be “in the World but not of it;” we are not of the world, but of the Body of Christ, that is, of the Church – this is fundamental, and the visible church simply fails in its aspirations to represent the Church Universal on Earth if it aspires to worldliness in its practice rather than the “other-worldliness” to which it is commanded. And this is recognized among most conscientious Lutherans, I think – if not in these same explicit terms, then at least implicitly. Thus, if the word and tonal patterns employed in contemporary orders of service are not sufficient to appreciably assist the worshiper out of his worldly frame of mind, the task falls entirely upon the shoulders of the liturgist (usually the Pastor), the organist (and/or other musicians), and upon the intellect of the worshiper. That is to say, though the words may be easier for the modern liturgist to say, the overall tasks of the liturgist and organist are made inordinately more difficult, while the worship of the congregation necessarily becomes more cerebral. Often, neither the liturgist, nor the organist nor the worshipers are up to the task, and the congregation becomes increasingly comfortable with the creeping invasion of worldliness into the church's worship practice.

These are the thoughts that began to percolate as I sat through Matins and Vespers on Monday and Tuesday of the 2013 Colloquium and Synod of the ELDoNA, and struck me squarely as I sat through Divine Service on Wednesday. Having now finally sat through the liturgies of the TLH, I can confidently and emphatically say, “No one talks like that any more; no one hears music like that anymore; it is entirely out of place in the world of today.” And this is precisely the reason we should want to use these older liturgies. Though prior to this I'd understood and defended this fact primarily from the standpoint of reason (also extrapolating from experience with WELS CW), I now have first-hand experience with which to positively assert it.

No one talks that way anymore! – but everyone understands what the words are saying. Moreover, when people, especially Christians, hear the old Elizabethan language patterns, their first thought is not, “Oh, Shakespeare! Bunyan! Milton!” – nobody reads that stuff anymore, nor do they associate these language forms with an era of history, a nation, a queen, or a genre of English literature. Indeed, there are exponentially more readers of the King James Bible in the world today than there are readers of classic literature. On the contrary, when Elizabethan language forms are heard, especially when they are heard by Christians, those forms carry with them a sense of gravity, being immediately associated with the Church and the Teaching and Authority of Scripture as it comes to us from far in the past into the present – the Christian's thoughts are immediately carried away from the cares of this world, and set to dwell upon, and find solace in, the constancy and historicity of his cherished religion. Though Christians no longer use these language forms in the conduct of their everyday affairs, they nevertheless understand them and automatically associate them with the Church, its weighty tasks, and the authority with which Christ has charged her. For the Christian in today's world, Elizabethan language patterns in the context of worship carry the sounds of True and Enduring Religion, immediately grab the attention of the conscientious Christian, and set his mind in order.

As I sat through these TLH liturgies, listening to the distinctive form of language that in our era is exclusively associated with the Church, recognizing the precision and efficiency of Ecclesiastical terms spoken only by the Church, and hearing the unique sounds that only the Church makes, my mind was transported to a place far away from the world outside the walls of that building, to an “other place,” a place where God Himself comes to me with His Gospel and ministers to me, a place where the personal Word of Forgiveness is spoken directly to me by His ambassador, who was by Him given the authority to do so “in His stead and by His command.” That is, my mind was brought to center on the place where I had brought my body – God's Sanctuary – and it was the old liturgy of the TLH, with its old words that no one outside the Church really uses anymore, and with its old musical forms that no one outside the Church really uses anymore, that did most of the work of bringing my mind to that place. It wasn't the perfect execution of the liturgists and musicians, nor was it by exercise of “highly disciplined intellect” – but, almost immediately upon its opening sounds, the old liturgy more thoroughly assisted my worship in a way that more contemporary liturgies, with their vulgar language patterns and pop-folksy tonal progressions are simply unable.

Informal discussion with a few of the ELDoNA pastors left me with several impressions regarding worship practice among them.

In every case, there is a palpable respect for the incarnational, sacramental, evangelical, historical liturgical practice of genuine confessional Lutheranism.
There was nothing that struck me as “out of balance” about these men with respect to their views regarding the practice of Lutheran liturgical worship. One hears from certain quarters of the internet about these “Gottesdienst types” who supposedly affix “soteriological significance” to the position of the celebrant's fingers on the communion chalice, etc... I perceived none of this while at the Colloquium.
While the TLH seems to be the preferred hymnal, not all congregations affiliated with the ELDoNA have moved back to using it yet, though that does seem to be the desire among those pastors whose congregations' move to the TLH is still pending. There was no indication that I could discern that such a move was mandated, but that it was, rather, a voluntary desire.
While nearly all of the liturgy was chanted or sung at the Colloquium, not all congregations affiliated with the ELDoNA chant or sing the entire liturgy, nor are they required to. Some do, some don't, as the local circumstances warrant. But in all cases, the aspiration seems to be directed toward a reverent decorum and wholesome catholicity.
At one point in time in the recent past, there was an internet rumour circulating that the ELDoNA “leaned pointedly East” in its worship practice. I don't recall the source, but I think it had something to do with the colours and patterns in the chasubles some of them chose to wear. Though I don't recall the source, or all the facts cited by that source, I'd been under that impression ever since. And I know I'm not the only one, as I have been contacted more than a few times in the past year, on Facebook and other IM tools, by people I've never met, expressing the same opinion and wanting to know what I thought about the ELDoNA in this regard. I could only confirm “what I'd heard.” So, while at the Colloquium, I asked. Now I know. The rumour is hogwash. Apparently, the rumour started the year that all of the pastors of the ELDoNA were pictured together having – purely by coincidence – grown heavy beards. This was also about the time that “a couple of Gottesdienst pastors defected East” – so the rumour was that the ELDoNA, with its beards and Gottesdienst connections (and, perhaps, with Eastern rather than Western patterns on their chasubles...), was tinged with Eastern Orthodoxy. Nope. They're not.

Those are some general observations. Overall, with respect to worship practice, I think it is important to conclude this: the ELDoNA are normal Lutherans having respect for and emphasizing historical liturgical Lutheran practice, as our Confessions enjoin us (AC:XXIV:1ff, AP:XXIV:1ff), allowing freedom within that emphasis, while also studiously rejecting the sectarian practices and worldly encroachments of the Church Growth Movement (CGM), or any worship practices which would dilute the public Confession that Lutherans ought to exhibit, if not entirely dispossess them of it (FC:X, SD:X:5ff). While I am always encouraged to find Lutheran pastors and congregations exhibiting these same Confessional characteristics, I was especially encouraged to observe them as defining characteristics of an entire Lutheran church body.

More to come, tomorrow...

Impressions from My Visit with ELDoNA at their 2013 Colloquium and Synod – PART I

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Douglas Lindee) — Tue, 18 Jun 2013 00:00:00 +0000

Well, it's been over a month since my last post, announcing a visit to the 2013 Colloquium and Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Diocese of North America (ELDoNA), which was held the last week of April, and promising a report on its proceedings. A lot has happened in the intervening time: business and other travel, an avalanche of business financial issues (nothing big, just a mountain of little things that wouldn't be postponed), computer and network crashes, a severe car accident, critical home maintenance issues, and over the past few weeks, serious illness – enough so that I hadn't been able to even check my email until just recently. But those are just excuses. The fact is, I'm delinquent in making my report.

I'll start by emphasizing the very positive impression I was left with as a result of my observations and experiences and the extended conversations I had with pastors of ELDoNA, and also as a result of the variety of scholarship I was privileged to take in. Over the following four or five days, I will provide a report of my impressions in parts. I hope that you will find it as intriguing as I did.

PART I
A Warmly Welcomed Visitor
A visitor at an intimate gathering, I was nevertheless welcomed from the start and treated that way throughout. Of course, Lutherans are stereotypically friendly. Too friendly, some would say – almost a weird manifestation of eager confidence, I would say. But that's okay. I like that kind of weird. I expect it of Christians – especially confessional Lutherans. It's not a “niceness” in the sense of being cautiously or fearfully inoffensive, but a “niceness” wrought of such assurance in one's Confession as to be totally unthreatened by challenges to it, and to be genuinely motivated to share it for the sake of its inestimable value to others.

In fact, there has only been twice that I was treated otherwise at any Lutheran event, that I can recall. Because they are so odd, those experiences stand out to me. One was a large evangelism event sponsored by the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS), that turned out to be little more than a mutual admiration rally, at which my wife and I were treated like leather-clad bikers caught crashing someone else's family reunion. The only conversations we had went something like this: “Who are you? ...Oh. Who's your pastor? Oh yeah, didn't he marry one of the Heutenschleutermacher gals? They're my cousins... They're my wife's cousins, too... (gigglegiggle) Don't worry, we're legal! Our kids are normal... mostly... Hahahahah!” (No! I'm not making that up!)

The second was the Lutheran Free Conference in November 2011, at Martin Luther College in New Ulm, MN. Although I was greeted by, and enjoyed delightful conversation with a number of pastors and laymen from the Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod (LCMS), my reception from the half-dozen or so WELS pastors and professors who I recognized, with whom I had established eye-contact in a way that displayed an intention to engage them in conversation, who, therefore, I know recognized me, was quite the opposite: a turning away of the head, or a turning up of the heels as they walked away. One WELS pastor I knew, however, was happy to see me; we had a nice, though brief, conversation – that hallway meeting was definitely a highlight of the conference for me.

So, a warm reception at an intimate gathering of ELDoNA pastors and laymen at their Colloquium and Synod means something, though little more than this: they're friendly Lutherans who are confident enough not to be suspicious of outsiders. In other words, nothing out of the ordinary, no red flags, just what I was expecting from good Lutherans.

More to come, tomorrow...

An Essay on the Article of Justification: The Forensic Appeal to the Throne of Grace

noreply@blogger.com (Rev. Paul A. Rydecki) — Wed, 29 May 2013 00:56:00 +0000

The Forensic Appeal to the Throne of Grace
in the Theology of the Lutheran Age of Orthodoxy:
A Reflection on Atonement and Its Relationship to Justification

by Rev. Paul A. Rydecki
presented at the colloquium of the
Evangelical Lutheran Diocese of North America
Malone, Texas
April 30, 2013

The Christian article of the sinner’s justification before God is explained in countless tomes of theological writings, and with good reason. This chief article of the Christian faith is the thick trunk of the tree that is the Christian faith. Like the deeds of Christ Himself, the points of doctrine that sprout from this tree and the applications of it are so numerous that, “if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written” (Jn. 21:25).

And yet, the article of justification itself has been condensed down to a single (divinely inspired) Volume for us. It is further encapsulated, both eloquently and abundantly, in the first of the Pauline Epistles to grace our Bibles. And it can be summarized so briefly and so simply that a child can grasp it.

“For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God” (Jn. 3:16-18 - NKJV).

The Lutherans from the age of orthodoxy [1] understood the simplicity of the article of justification. While that understanding did not curtail their verbosity, all of their writings on the chief article were nothing more than elaborations on a common theme, the fleshing out of a few points of a common outline that remained unchanged from the time of Luther through the time of Gerhard.

The problem in the Lutheran Church in our age is not that too little has been said since the age of Lutheran orthodoxy, but too much. The outline has, in some cases, been supplanted; the concept, blurred. I hope to demonstrate in this essay the level of clarity, consistency and precision that once characterized the Lutheran presentation of the doctrine of justification. My contribution here will be minimal, as I intend to let the Blessed Fathers speak for themselves through their writings, in which we will explore their concept of the Biblical teaching of justification, noting especially the distinctions they make between the atonement that Christ has accomplished for all sinners and the justification of the sinner that only takes place as a result of a forensic appeal to the Throne of Grace.

The Common Outline of Forensic Justification

A “common outline” was mentioned above. One may speak of points of an outline, constituent elements, essential components, or simply the “causes” that are necessary and belonging to the article of justification. In any case, it is presented succinctly in FC:SD:III:24-25:

If the article of justification is to remain pure, the greatest attention must be given with special diligence. Otherwise, what comes before faith, and what follows after it, will be mixed together or inserted into the article of justification as necessary and belonging to it. For it is not one and the same thing to talk about conversion and to talk about justification.

Not everything that belongs to conversion also belongs to the article of justification. Only God’s grace, Christ’s merit, and faith belong and are necessary to the article of justification. Faith receives these blessings in the promise of the Gospel, by which Christ’s righteousness is credited to us. From this we receive and have forgiveness of sins, reconciliation with God, sonship, and are made heirs of eternal life.

From these words, one can identify four necessary components in the basic outline of a sinner’s justification: 1) God’s grace, 2) Christ’s merit, 3) faith, through which the righteousness of Christ is imputed to the sinner, and 4) the promise of the Gospel, since faith is only kindled in the heart by the Holy Spirit working through the Word.

The role of each of these components is described by all of the principal writers in the age of orthodoxy in “forensic,” that is, “judicial” or “courtroom” terminology, as they unfold the Biblical concept of “justification.”

Luther combines the analogy of the sinner standing before God’s judgment seat with the sinner taking shelter under Christ, as a chick takes shelter under a mother-hen:

I mentioned above in an Epistle that it was not enough for us to be pious, do good works, and live in grace; not even our righteousness, much less our unrighteousness, may stand up before the eyes of God and his judgment. Therefore I have said: faith, if it is true faith, is such that it does not rely on itself, on its believing, but it holds on to Christ and shelters itself under his righteousness; it lets this righteousness be its shelter and shield, even as the chick does not rely on its life and speed, but seeks shelter under the mother-hen’s body and wings. To survive before God’s judgment seat, it is not enough for one to say: I believe and have received grace; for everything within him is unable to protect him sufficiently. Rather he holds up to this judgment Christ’s own righteousness; he lets it deal with God’s judgment and it stands up for him forever with all honors, as Psalms 111[:3] and 112[:3, 9] say: “His righteousness endures forever.” Under this righteousness he creeps, snuggles, and crouches; he trusts and believes and does not doubt that it will keep him protected. Then it also comes to pass that way, and he is preserved through this same faith, not for the sake of faith, but for the sake of Christ and his righteousness, under whose protection he is living. It also follows that faith which does not act in this manner is not the true faith. (Luther’s Works, Vol. 52, 96)

Melanchthon, writing in the Apology:

Furthermore, in this passage, to justify means (according to court language) to acquit a guilty person and declare him righteous. But this happens because of the righteousness of another, namely, of Christ. This righteousness is communicated to us through faith. Therefore, since our righteousness in this passage is the credit of the righteousness of another, we must here speak about righteousness in a way different than in philosophy or in a civil court. (There we seek after the righteousness of one’s own work, which certainly is in the will.) So Paul says in 1 Corinthians 1:30, “He is the source of your life in Christ Jesus, whom God made our wisdom and our righteousness and sanctification and redemption.” And in 2 Corinthians 5:21, “For our sake He made Him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God.” But because Christ’s righteousness is given to us through faith, faith is righteousness credited to us. In other words, it is that by which we are made acceptable to God on account of the credit and ordinance of God, as Paul says, “Faith is counted as righteousness” (Romans 4:3, 5). (Ap:V:184-186)

The Formula of Concord:

A person cannot stand with and ‹on the ground of this righteousness› [that is, the righteousness of new obedience] before God’s court. Before God’s court only the righteousness of Christ’s obedience, suffering, and death—which is credited to faith—can stand. So only for the sake of this obedience is the person pleasing and acceptable to God and received into adoption and made an heir of eternal life. (FC:SD:III:32)

Chemnitz:

The meaning of the word “justify” in this article is judicial, namely, that the sinner, accused by the Law of God, convicted, and subjected to the sentence of eternal damnation, fleeing in faith to the throne of grace, is absolved for Christ’s sake, reckoned and declared righteous, received into grace, and accepted to eternal life. And although John does not employ the word “justify,” yet he describes the doctrine in judicial terms: “He that believes is not judged; he does not come into judgment.” “He sent His Son into the world, not that He should judge the world.” And 1 John 3: “We have passed from death to life.” In Acts 3 Peter says that “sins are blotted out.” Paul explains this when he says, Col. 2, that the hand writing which was against us has been blotted out. (Examination, Vol. 1, 474).

Gerhard:

The verb δικαιοῦσθαι has a forensic meaning, to be pronounced righteous, to be absolved, since the whole act of our justification is described with forensic terms. The defendant is man the sinner; the plaintiff, or the accuser, is the law and the devil; the witness is the conscience; the advocate is Christ; the judge is God. Both accusation and condemnation are contrasted with this justification. (Adnotationes ad priora capita Epistolae D. Pauli ad Romanos, Romans 3:24)

(5) The contrast is evident in this apostolic text between justification and condemnation, v. 16 and v.18. But since they are contrasted under the same genre, and condemnation is, to be sure, a judicial act, from which it follows that justification is also a judicial act, and hence it consists, not in the infusion of righteousness, but in the absolution from sins. Undoubtedly, as through the sin of Adam sin is propagated to all men, for it results in condemnation for them, that is, because of it they are damned by the righteous judgment of God unless reconciliation and remission take place, so through the merit of Christ righteousness and salvation have been obtained for all, so that they may be justified by faith, that is, that they may be pronounced righteous, absolved from sins and freed from condemnation.

(6) To be made righteous and to be justified are considered by the Apostle to be equivalent expressions. Therefore, to be made righteous is contrasted with “for condemnation” in v.19; so also “to be justified” in v.18; and hence each has a forensic meaning. The verb “they will be made” indicates that these things are carried out before the tribunal of God’s righteous judgment, who condemns Adam’s posterity on account of sin, but absolves believers in Christ from that damnation and makes them righteous (Rom. 10:3, 2 Cor. 5:21). (Adnotationes, Rom. 5:19)

Aegidius Hunnius, in his Articulus de iustificatione hominis peccatoris gratuita:

What does the word “justify” mean in the present discussion?

In a human judgment, they are said “to be justified” who are pronounced free from the guilt of the crimes of which they were accused. (The Scripture speaks in this sense in Deut. 25: If a case arises and they go to judgment, the righteous man should be justified and the ungodly man condemned, as this word “justifying” is understood in both Proverbs 17 and Is. 5). In the same way, understanding the word in the same forensic usage, they are said to be justified before God who, fleeing to the Throne of Grace [2], are absolved from the guilt of sin and from damnation, and are reckoned as righteous by the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, which consists in His obedience.

A Common Analogy to Explain the Common Outline

The last citation above from Aegidius Hunnius briefly expresses an analogy that was commonly used among the Lutheran Fathers to describe forensic justification. Gerhard used it [3]. Luther used it as well [4]. It is essentially an expansion of Romans 3:22-26. Chemnitz offers this analogy in its most extended form, depicting the various aspects of this courtroom setting. He alludes to it in his Examination, but fleshes out the presentation more thoroughly in his Loci Theologici and his Enchiridion. It is presented here at length, because it expresses so clearly the Lutheran concept of justification in relation to the atonement.

Thus, the use of the legal term “justification” refutes the ideas of the Epicureans. For it shows that the justification of the sinner is not some insignificant or perfunctory thing, but that the whole human being stands before the judgment of God and is examined both with respect to his nature as well as his works, and this according to the norm of the divine law. But because after the entrance of sin a human being in this life does not have true and perfect conformity with the law of God, nothing is found in this examination, whether in the person’s nature or in his works, that he can use to justify himself before God; rather the Law pronounces the sentence of condemnation, written by the very finger of God Himself.

Now God does not justify the ungodly by some kind of mistake, as a judge often makes a faulty decision by failure to examine the evidence sufficiently or by wrong thinking; nor through indifference, as if He did not care about the transgression of His law; nor through wickedness, as if He approved of our iniquity, connived with it, or were in collusion with the impious. A justification of this kind God Himself pronounces to be an abomination, Ex. 23:1; Is. 5:23; Prov. 17:15. God cannot retract the sentence of condemnation revealed in the Law, unless it is perfectly satisfied or fulfilled, Matt. 5:18.

Thus righteousness and satisfaction are required where God is to justify. Luther is correct when he says that God remits no sin unless the Law has been satisfied with regard to it. In the case of human judgment, to be sure, guilt is absolved either because of some preceding merit (for they are accounted worthy who deserve to be forgiven), or with respect to present righteousness and innocence either of the cause or of the person, or with respect to a satisfaction which the guilty party promises to make either to the judge or to his opponent in the case. But before God’s judgment man can put up nothing in his own defense in order that he might be justified, as many very clear Scripture passages declare.

Therefore, because God does not justify out of frivolity, unconcern, error, or iniquity, nor because He finds anything in man whereby he might be justified before God; and yet the just requirement of the Law must be fulfilled in those who are to be justified [5], Rom. 8:4, therefore a foreign righteousness must intervene—the kind of righteousness which not only with payment of penalties but also with perfect obedience to the divine law made satisfaction in such a way that it could be a propitiation for the sins of the whole world.

To this the terrified sinner, condemned by the voice of the Law, flees in true faith. This he desires, begs for, lays hold of; to this he submits himself; this he uses as his defense before the judgment seat of God and against the accusation of the Law. By regard for this and by its imputation he is justified, that is, he is absolved from the comprehensive sentence of condemnation and receives the promise of eternal life. This is what Paul is saying in Rom. 3:31 : “The doctrine of the righteousness of faith does not destroy the Law but upholds it.”

Paul clearly describes the act of justification in this way in Romans 3:

1. The conscience of the sinner is through the Law placed before the judgment tribunal of God (who is a consuming fire and in whose sight not even the stars are pure), is accused, convicted, and condemned, so that it is afflicted and pressed down by a terrifying sense of the wrath of God, Rom. 3:19: “… that every mouth may be stopped and all the world may become guilty before God” [KJV].

2. The heart thus contrite does not entertain Epicurean thoughts but anxiously seeks whether and how it can be freed from the comprehensive sentence of condemnation. From such thoughts come such passages as Ps. 130:3: “If You should mark iniquities ….”; Ps. 143:2: “Enter not into judgment …”; Rom. 7:24: “Who shall deliver me …?” …

3. Therefore God, “who is rich in mercy” [Eph. 2:4], has had mercy upon us and has set forth a propitiation through faith in the blood of Christ, and those who flee as suppliants to this throne of grace He absolves from the comprehensive sentence of condemnation, and by the imputation of the righteousness of His Son, which they grasp in faith, He pronounces them righteous, receives them into grace, and adjudges them to be heirs of eternal life.

This is certainly the judicial meaning of the word “justification,” in almost the same way that a guilty man who has been sentenced before the bar of justice is acquitted.

It is manifest how much clarity this gives to the discussion of justification. The fathers in disputing this matter often spoke inadequately about justification. But in their devotional writings, when they were looking at the picture of the divine judgment or the divine judicial process, they handled the doctrine of this article very well.

The example of Bernard [of Clairvaux, 1091–1153] shows this clearly, because he was not involved in idle speculations but was exercising himself in the serious matter of repentance based on the doctrine and testimony of Paul. Gerson has some wonderful thoughts about the tribunal of God’s justice and the throne of His grace. For if we are discussing our common position before the tribunal of God, we are all subject to the tribunal of His justice; and because before Him no living person can be justified but all are condemned, therefore God has also set up another tribunal, the throne of grace. And the Son of God pleads for us the benefit of being called away from the tribunal of justice to the throne of grace. Therefore the Pharisee, because he was not willing to use the benefit of this calling, but wanted to enter into judgment before the tribunal of justice, was condemned. But the publican, who was first accused at the tribunal of justice, convicted and condemned there, later by faith called out to the throne of grace and was justified [Luke 18:9–14]. (Loci Theologici, p.481-482)

And this is the process or act of the justification of a sinner before the judgment seat of God, so that he appeals from the throne of the strict justice of God to the throne of grace in the blood of the Son of God, as Gerson describes the matter of justification by the apt simile of forensic appeal. (Enchiridion, Q. 146)

All these points so beautifully illustrating the doctrine of justification come from the correct linguistic understanding of the word “justification.” (Loci Theologici, p.482)

Several things must be noted here. First, that, on account of the satisfaction Christ made to the divine law, there exists, objectively, a Throne of Grace to which all sinners are invited (in the Gospel) to flee, an alternate place of judgment opened up as a result of God’s grace and the obedience, suffering, death, and resurrection of Christ. It is “another tribunal,” apart from the Law, where God is propitious, where absolution is pronounced, justification is declared, and eternal life is bestowed for the sake of Christ. The “atonement” made by Christ has opened up this Throne of Grace, which is actually Christ Himself, the “atonement cover” or “Mercy Seat,” sprinkled with His own blood [6], the “Atoner” or “Reconciler.”

Second, that justification occurs in the divine courtroom, not without the accused fleeing in faith to the Throne of Grace, not before the accused flees in faith to the Throne of Grace, but simultaneously with this “fleeing” or this “forensic appeal.” This present-tense (that is, concurrent with faith) absolution and justification is perfectly in keeping with the language of the Augsburg Confession:

Also they teach that men cannot be justified before God by their own strength, merits, or works, but are freely justified for Christ’s sake, through faith, when they believe that they are received into favor, and that their sins are forgiven for Christ’s sake, who, by His death, has made satisfaction for our sins. This faith God imputes for righteousness in His sight. Rom. 3 and 4.[7] (AC:IV)

…in them that hear the Gospel, to wit, that God, not for our own merits, but for Christ’s sake, justifies those who believe that they are received into grace for Christ’s sake (AC:V)

Scripture teaches that we are justified before God, through faith in Christ, when we believe that our sins are forgiven for Christ’s sake (AC:XXIV:28).

Third, that, although the foreign righteousness of Christ has made satisfaction to the divine law so that it is a “propitiation for the sins of the whole world,” only those who appeal to this Propitiator actually escape condemnation under the divine law and are justified. The act of justification is not simultaneous with the atonement made by Christ.

Fourth, since “the just requirement of the Law must be fulfilled in those who are to be justified,” and since the only way in which that just requirement can be fulfilled for any sinner is if the accused pleads the “foreign righteousness” of Christ as his defense, then it would actually be contrary to God’s justice for Him to absolve or acquit the guilty man who is not using the “foreign righteousness” of Christ as his defense before the judgment seat of God.

Fifth, Chemnitz says that his analogy presents the article of justification as clearly expressed by St. Paul in Romans 3. The burden is on those who wish to read an already-pronounced justification of all unbelievers into Romans 3:24 either to demonstrate how such an interpretation is compatible with Chemnitz’ analogy, or admit that their own interpretation is at odds with Lutheran orthodoxy.

Sixth, note that Chemnitz refers this analogy to the “correct linguistic understanding of the word ‘justification.’” He is not seeking to offer an arbitrary, partial or ad hoc definition of the word, but to faithfully convey the meaning of the word as used throughout the Holy Scripture. As he says elsewhere, “Our question is in what sense the Holy Spirit employs the word ‘justify’ in those passages of the Scripture in which He treats and teaches the doctrine of justification, as we have already shown it most clearly.” (Examination, Vol. 1, 476)

Chemnitz’ analogy illustrates that the concept of forensic justification, as described by the Lutheran Fathers, is not a piecemeal justification that already “happened” for all sinners, whether or not they appeal to the foreign righteousness of Christ, and then later “happens” again through the Word and faith. Instead, it is the culmination of the four “causes” that comprise the article of justification, each of which is a sine qua non in forensic justification. There can be no forensic justification of the sinner without God’s grace, or without the merit of Christ, or without the sinner being clothed by faith in the foreign righteousness of Christ, or without the promise of the Gospel that kindles faith.

The Lutheran Fathers have much to say about the unique role that each of these four components plays in forensic justification.

The grace of God

The grace of God is sometimes spoken of by the Lutheran Fathers as the “efficient cause” of justification. The “efficient cause” is the “doer” of something, the person (or the thing) responsible for effecting something. Gerhard says that “the chief efficient cause is the grace of God, that is, God’s free favor that takes our misery into account.” Leyser names God Himself as the “efficient cause” of justification, while identifying God’s grace as the “interior motivating cause.” (See Appendix 1, Leyser)

The grace of God is behind every step of the sinner’s justification. It was grace that moved God in eternity to make the decree that the human race, which would plunge itself into ruin, would be “redeemed and reconciled to God through Christ [8].” It was grace that moved God to send the Son of God into the world to offer His life as a sacrifice for the sins of His enemies. It is God’s grace that moves God to permit sinners to plead the foreign righteousness of His Son. It is grace that moves God to send His Spirit and cause the Gospel to be preached in a hostile world, and it is grace that still moves God to kindle faith in the hearts of those who, by nature, despise God’s grace, so that they may be received into grace and adopted as His children.

Without the grace of God, sinners would be abandoned to the tribunal of the Law as the only tribunal at which they could be judged. Their works have already been examined according to the Law and found wanting. Their condemnation before the Law has already been in place from the moment of their conception. But because God is rich in mercy, He “does not desire the death of anyone, but that all should come to repentance.” Because of the abundance of the grace of God, who “wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth,” He sent His Son to fulfill the Law’s demands, to “satisfy” the Law vicariously, in the place of all sinners, and so to merit the setting up of this alternate place of judgment called the “Throne of Grace,” or the “righteousness of faith.”

The merit of Christ

The merit of Christ includes “the entire Christ according to both natures, in His obedience alone, which as God and man He rendered to the Father even unto death, and thereby merited for us the forgiveness of sins and eternal life.[9]” It refers to all the benefits that Christ has merited—earned and deserved—for the whole world of sinners by His perfect obedience to the Law and by His innocent sufferings and death. The merits of Christ (and often, Christ Himself [10]) are called “the price, or propitiation,[11]” that is, that which causes God to be favorable. Christ’s obedience and death have made “satisfaction [12]” (also called “atonement” or “expiation [13]”) to the demands of God’s holy Law that required obedience from mankind, as well as the death and eternal condemnation of all who sin. Thus Christ has “merited” (or “won, achieved [14],” “acquired, obtained [15]”) for all people the benefits of redemption, reconciliation, forgiveness of sins, remission of sins, righteousness, eternal life, salvation, regeneration, adoption as God’s children, an eternal inheritance, the giving of the Holy Spirit, renewal. Christ is said to have “redeemed” the human race in that He has paid the ransom price for the human race with His holy, precious blood. Christ is said to have “made reconciliation” for the human race by opening up a point of “access [16]” between sinners and God, namely, “in His blood.”

The Formula of Concord summarizes it like this:

But the Gospel is properly such a doctrine as teaches what man who has not observed the Law, and therefore is condemned by it, is to believe, namely, that Christ has expiated and made satisfaction for all sins, and has obtained and acquired for him, without any merit of his [no merit of the sinner intervening], forgiveness of sins, righteousness that avails before God, and eternal life. (FC:Ep:V:5)

Note here what man is to believe. First, that Christ has “expiated and made satisfaction for all sins.” Second, that in so doing, Christ has obtained and acquired for him “forgiveness…righteousness…and eternal life.”

Chemnitz:

We have cited these testimonies to demonstrate that Christ alone has made satisfaction for all our sins, for guilt, and for punishment, so that there is nothing remaining for us to suffer or to make satisfaction for in expiating our sins. The passion of Christ and His being made a curse for us are substituted for our punishment, Gal. 3:13. The obedience of Christ is substituted for our guilt, for “He was made sin for us,” 2 Cor. 5:21. We should carefully note this division of these points, Is. 53:6: “The sins of all were laid upon Him”; John 1:29: “He takes away the sins of the world”; Rom. 8:32; 1 John 2:2; Rom. 5:15; Titus 2:14. 2 Cor. 5:14: “If one died for all, then were all dead.” (Loci Theologici, p. 550)

(See also Appendix 1, Leyser and Gerhard on the “meritorious cause” of justification.)

The “time” of the atonement made by Christ and the earning of benefits for the human race began with the conception and birth of the Son of God, who was “born under Law to redeem those under the Law” (Gal. 4:4-5), and was brought to completion or “finished” on the cross (John 19:30). Christ “made satisfaction for our sins” (AC:IV). And with regard to the scope of the atonement and the merit of Christ, the Lutheran Fathers readily acknowledged the universality of it and insisted in all their writings, especially against the Calvinist error, that Christ suffered and died for all.

Hunnius: “This notwithstanding, we most willingly grant that there is a righteousness that avails before God for the entire human race, a righteousness that has been gained and acquired through Christ” (Theses Opposed to Huberianism, Thesis 5 on Justification).

Hunnius in A Clear Explanation of the Controversy among the Wittenberg Theologians Concerning Regeneration and Election (pp. 7-8):

Outside the controversy are these things:

1) That God seriously “wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth,” 1 Tim. 2. We want this to be understood on both sides concerning the entire human race over against the blasphemies of the Calvinists, as also the rest of the Holy Spirit’s testimonies say: “As I live, I do not desire the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn and live” (Ezek. 33). “I do not desire the death of the one who dies” (Ezek. 18). “The Lord does not want anyone to perish, but that all should be turned back to repentance” (2 Pet. 3).

2) That God sent His Son for the whole world, and that the Son was made the propitiation not only for our sins, but also for the sins of the whole world, 1 John 2. And that He is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world (John 1). Therefore, there never was nor will there be in the future any man for whose sins Christ did not shed His blood, to such an extent that the Scripture plainly affirms that His death was also for the reprobate and perishing (1 Cor. 8, 2 Pet. 2).

3) That the merit of the Son is seriously offered to all men. “Preach the Gospel to every creature” (Mark 16). “Now God commands men that all people everywhere should come to their senses” (Acts 17). “Turn to me and you will all be saved—all the ends of the earth” (Isaiah 45). “Come to me, all you who labor and are burdened” (Matt. 11).

Indeed, that Christ died for all is said to be the singular object of justifying faith.

From that general faith that believes that Christ has suffered and died for the human race is born that special faith by which any believer says with the Apostle, Christ loved me (Gal. 2:20). Therefore, he does not doubt that the benefits of Christ pertain also to him and that they are offered to him in the word of the Gospel, and consequently he applies them to himself in hope. From this special application of the benefits of Christ is born that “access to God.” (Gerhard, Adnotationes, Rom. 5:2)

The resurrection of Christ is also said to be the object of justifying faith in this sense:

One asks, why is Christ’s resurrection from the dead declared specifically to be the object of justifying faith? We reply: (1) Because by raising His Son, our bondsman, who was put to death for our sins, God made manifest by that very act that full satisfaction has been made to Him by His death. (2) Consideration is given at the same time to the power of God which He exerted in the raising of Christ (Eph. 1:20). This is how that statement is applied to the example of Abraham, whose faith is commended in 4:20 for the fact that he gave praise to God. (3) The summary of the entire Gospel is contained in this article of the resurrection of Christ, and this single article encompasses all the rest (1 Cor. 15:1 ff.). For it is understood from the fact that Christ rose from the dead that He truly died. And since He truly died, He was therefore also truly conceived and born, and truly suffered for our sins. (Gerhard, Adnotationes, Rom. 4:24)

Without the grace of God and the merit of Christ, sinners would have no righteousness to plead before God, no sacrifice to hold up before God, no Mediator, no Propitiator or Reconciler, no Throne of Grace. They would, again, be left appealing only to the Law. But since the merit of Christ is in place, since “the work of redemption is done and accomplished” and “Christ has acquired and gained the treasure for us by His suffering, death, resurrection, and so on,” there is indeed a Righteous One to whom sinners can flee for refuge in God’s judgment.

Faith

But neither the grace of God nor the merit of Christ, without this “fleeing for refuge,” results in the justification of sinners. That Christ has earned or acquired the benefits of forgiveness, life, salvation, righteousness and adoption for someone, is not the same thing as saying that a person (much less the entire world) has already been “forgiven” or “made alive” or “saved” or “declared righteous” or “adopted.” As Chemnitz explained in his courtroom analogy, Christ with His merit stands as a Throne of Grace to which all sinners are invited to appeal. But the merits of Christ do not benefit the sinner in the courtroom without such an appeal, because the merits of Christ must be applied or “counted” or “credited” to the sinner. The merit of Christ is applied to sinners through imputation, and imputation takes place by faith. Faith may be called “using Christ as a Mediator.”

Numerous testimonies from the Lutheran Fathers can be adduced.

Now we will show that faith justifies ‹and nothing else›. Here, in the first place, readers must be taught about this point: Just as it is necessary to keep this statement—Christ is Mediator—so is it necessary to defend that faith justifies. For how will Christ be Mediator if we do not use Him as Mediator in justification, if we do not hold that we are counted righteous for His sake? To believe is to trust in Christ’s merits, that for His sake God certainly wishes to be reconciled with us. Here is a similar point: Just as we should defend that the promise of Christ is necessary apart from the Law, so also we should defend that faith justifies. (Ap:IV:69-70)

But in justification we have to treat with God; His wrath must be appeased and conscience must be pacified with respect to God. None of these occur through the works of the Second Table [by love, but only by faith, which apprehends Christ and the promise of God. (Ap:V:103)

The entire third article of the Solid Declaration portrays the justification of the sinner in these terms, in perfect harmony with Chemnitz’ courtroom analogy. A few sections will be cited here.

We unanimously believe, teach, and confess the following about the righteousness of faith before God, in accordance with the comprehensive summary of our faith and confession presented above. A poor sinful person is justified before God, that is, absolved and declared free and exempt from all his sins and from the sentence of well-deserved condemnation, and is adopted into sonship and inheritance of eternal life, without any merit or worth of his own. This happens without any preceding, present, or subsequent works, out of pure grace, because of the sole merit, complete obedience, bitter suffering, death, and resurrection of our Lord Christ alone. His obedience is credited to us for righteousness.

These treasures are brought to us by the Holy Spirit in the promise of the Holy Gospel. Faith alone is the only means through which we lay hold on, accept, apply, and take them for ourselves. This faith is God’s gift [Ephesians 2:8–9], by which we truly learn to know Christ, our Redeemer, in the Word of the Gospel and trust in Him. We trust that for the sake of His obedience alone we have the forgiveness of sins by grace, are regarded as godly and righteous by God the Father, and are eternally saved. Therefore, it is considered and understood to be the same thing when Paul says (a) we are “justified by faith” (Romans 3:28) or (b) “faith is counted as righteousness” (Romans 4:5) and when he says (c) “by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous” (Romans 5:19) or (d) “so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men” (Romans 5:18). Faith justifies not because it is such a good work or because it is so beautiful a virtue. It justifies because it lays hold of and accepts Christ’s merit in the promise of the Holy Gospel. For this merit must be applied and become ours through faith, if we are to be justified by it. Therefore, the righteousness that is credited to faith or to the believer out of pure grace is Christ’s obedience, suffering, and resurrection, since He has made satisfaction for us to the Law and paid for ‹expiated› our sins. (FC:SD:III:9-14)

This righteousness [of Christ] is offered us by the Holy Ghost through the Gospel and in the Sacraments, and is applied, appropriated, and received through faith, whence believers have reconciliation with God, forgiveness of sins, the grace of God sonship, and heirship of eternal life. Accordingly, the word justify here means to declare righteous and free from sins, and to absolve one from eternal punishment for the sake of Christ’s righteousness, which is imputed by God to faith, Phil. 3:9. For this use and understanding of this word is common in the Holy Scriptures of the Old and the New Testament. (FC:SD:III:16-17)

This remains the office and property of faith alone. It alone, and nothing else, is the means or instrument with and through which God’s grace and Christ’s merit in the Gospel promise are received, apprehended, accepted, applied to us, and appropriated. (FC:SD:III:38)

Chemnitz describes in detail in his Examination and Loci that justification is the end result of the application of the merit of Christ, which is made by imputation of the righteousness of Christ to believers. This section from his Enchiridion also states the matter concisely:

   145 In What, Then, Does Justification of Man the Sinner Before God Consist According to the Statement of the Gospel?

In this very thing, that God imputes to us the righteousness of the obedience and death of Christ the Mediator and thus justifies us freely out of grace, without our works or merits, alone by faith that apprehends the grace of God the Father and the merit of Christ; that is, He forgives us [our] sins, receives [us] into grace, adopts [us] as [His] sons, and receives [us] to the inheritance of life eternal. Ro 4:24–25, 28; 4:5; 10:4; Gl 3:24; Eph 2:8–9; Tts 3:5–7.

149   Are All Men Justified and Saved Because of This Righteousness of the Son of God?

The way is broad that leads to damnation, and there are many that walk in it. Mt 7:13.

150   What, Then is the Reason? Did Christ Not Make Satisfaction for All? or Does the Heavenly Father Not Want This Benefit to Be Common to All?

The cause or fault of damnation is by no means to be ascribed to God. For Christ is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world, 1 Jn 2:2. And the will of God is that no one should perish, but that all be saved. 1 Ti 2:4; 2 Pet 3:9; Eze 18:23; Mt 18:14. But it is by the fault of men that not all are saved, because not all accept that benefit. Jn 1:5, 10–11; 3:19. For it is necessary that the benefit or merit of Christ become ours (Ro 8:32), that is, that it be applied to us, so that each one accept and apprehend it (Jn 1:12), and thus Christ be in us (Jn 6:56) and we be found in Him (Phil. 3:8–9).

    151      By What Means is Christ, or the Merit of Christ, Applied to Us?

For that application two things are absolutely required: First, that God, through the Holy Spirit set forth, offer, present, and give to us that benefit. For this purpose God has established a certain means or instrument, namely the word of the Gospel and the Sacraments. That means is, as it were, the hand of God, which He extends and opens to us, offering and presenting to us the merit and benefits of His Son for our salvation. Ro 10:17; 2 Co 5:19–20; Tts 3:5.

The other thing that is required for application is that we apprehend, receive, and apply to ourselves the benefit of the sons of God that is offered and presented to us in the Word and the Sacraments; this is done by no other means or instruments than faith. Ro 1:17; 3:28; 4:5; Jn 3:15–16; Gal. 3:22, 24. For faith is, as it were, our hand with which we take, apprehend, and accept the benefits of Christ. Jn 1:12. And it is a kind of bond by which we are bound to Christ, that He might be and dwell in us (Eph 3:17) and that we might be found in Him (Phil. 3:8–9).

Hunnius teaches the same thing:

We interpret those things that the Scripture contains regarding the redemption and reconciliation of the world (or of the human race) concerning the benefit gained and acquired through the death of Christ, and concerning the sufficiency of that merit of Christ—that it is sufficient for the whole world to be reconciled, justified and saved, if the whole world were to believe; that it was also intended for the world and acquired to this end, that all men should thence obtain salvation through faith. Meanwhile, God has never intended it to mean that it avails for justifying or for remitting sins without faith, through some sort of general remission of sins or justification, which is also supposedly done among those who never have faith, never had faith, or never will have faith. He who does not believe, says John the Baptist, will not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him (John 3). Therefore, regarding those who never believe in the Son of God, from them also the wrath of God was never withdrawn (not even for a moment). However much the treasure of the expiation of sins has been obtained for them and offered to them in the Gospel, nevertheless, it was never conferred on them through unbelief, nor was it ever received by them, since faith was lacking to them, which is the only organ for receiving the remission of sins. (A Clear Explanation of the Controversy among the Wittenberg Theologians Concerning Regeneration and Election, p. 60).

Hunnius concludes, as did Chemnitz, that it would be contrary to God’s justice to justify anyone who is not clothed by faith in the foreign righteousness of Christ:

But Proverbs 17 says that it is an abomination before God if someone justifies an ungodly man. Knowing this, how, then, shall we attribute this to God Himself?

There is a great difference between the two. To be sure, in a human judgment (where the imputation of a foreign righteousness has no place), it is called “justifying the ungodly” when he who is neither righteous by his own nor by a foreign righteousness is reckoned and pronounced righteous, without respect to or intervention of any righteousness—that is, by a false and unjust sentence. But in God’s judgment, where a foreign righteousness is valid, the ungodly is justified, not without any righteousness at all, but, since he lacks his own righteousness (and is for this very reason “ungodly” by nature), nonetheless, he is clothed by faith with a foreign righteousness which most certainly can be and is imputed to believers by God, as was just demonstrated. (Articulus de Justificatione)

Polycarp Leyser describes the role of faith as a “cause of application” in embracing the treasures of God hidden in Christ (see Appendix 1) and concludes: “And since no works of the Law, neither preceding nor present nor subsequent, constitute any cause (either of merit or of application), therefore we rightly and piously declare that man is justified by faith alone in Christ.”

Gerhard likewise insists, in Adnotationes on Rom. 3:26, that “The object of justification is man the sinner, but only such a one as believes in Christ, that is, who acknowledges his sins from the Law, who seriously grieves over them, and who by faith applies to himself the promise of the remission of sins for the sake of Christ.”

He then answers the following question in discussing Romans 5:18, taking it for granted that everyone knows that “not all men are justified”:

But how did the righteousness of Christ overflow to all men for justification, since not all men are justified? We reply: The Apostle is not talking about the application of the benefit, but about the acquisition of the benefit. If we want to descend to the application, that universality must be restricted to those who are grafted into Christ by faith. For as the unrighteousness of Adam is communicated to all those who are descended from him by carnal generation, so the righteousness of Christ is communicated to all those who are grafted into Him through faith and spiritual regeneration.

(See also Appendix 2, Gerhard on Romans 5:18)

Luther draws the same conclusion in his Galatians commentary. Throughout he assumes the same outline that Chemnitz expressed in his analogy. There is a Throne of Grace to which all sinners are invited to flee. But only those who flee to Him in faith (that is, those who are “in Him” by faith [17]), and thus receive the application of His merit, are justified. A few examples are cited here. (See Appendix 3 for more citations from Luther’s Galatians commentary.)

[Paraphrasing the Apostle Paul:] “Therefore my doctrine is true, pure, sure, and divine. Nor can there be any doctrine that is different from mine, much less better. Therefore any doctrine at all that does not teach as mine does—that all men are sinners and are justified solely by faith in Christ—must be false, uncertain, evil, blasphemous, accursed, and demonic. And so are those who either teach or accept such a doctrine.” (Luther's works, vol. 26: Lectures on Galatians, 59)

Therefore faith justifies because it takes hold of and possesses this treasure, the present Christ. But how He is present—this is beyond our thought; for there is darkness, as I have said. Where the confidence of the heart is present, therefore, there Christ is present, in that very cloud and faith. This is the formal righteousness on account of which a man is justified; it is not on account of love, as the sophists say. In short, just as the sophists say that love forms and trains faith, so we say that it is Christ who forms and trains faith or who is the form of faith. Therefore the Christ who is grasped by faith and who lives in the heart is the true Christian righteousness, on account of which God counts us righteous and grants us eternal life. (Luther's works, vol. 26, 59)

Here it is to be noted that these three things are joined together: faith, Christ, and acceptance or imputation. Faith takes hold of Christ and has Him present, enclosing Him as the ring encloses the gem. And whoever is found having this faith in the Christ who is grasped in the heart, him God accounts as righteous. This is the means and the merit by which we obtain the forgiveness of sins and righteousness. “Because you believe in Me,” God says, “and your faith takes hold of Christ, whom I have freely given to you as your Justifier and Savior, therefore be righteous.” Thus God accepts you or accounts you righteous only on account of Christ, in whom you believe. (Luther's works, vol. 26, 132)

This does not mean that there is no sin in us, as the sophists have taught when they said that we must go on doing good until we are no longer conscious of any sin; but sin is always present, and the godly feel it. But it is ignored and hidden in the sight of God, because Christ the Mediator stands between; because we take hold of Him by faith, all our sins are sins no longer. But where Christ and faith are not present, here there is no forgiveness of sins or hiding of sins. On the contrary, here there is the sheer imputation and condemnation of sins. Thus God wants to glorify His Son, and He Himself wants to be glorified in us through Him. (Luther's works, vol. 26, 133)

But the true theology teaches that there is no more sin in the world, because Christ, on whom, according to Is. 53:6, the Father has laid the sins of the entire world, has conquered, destroyed, and killed it in His own body. Having died to sin once, He has truly been raised from the dead and will not die any more (Rom. 6:9). Therefore wherever there is faith in Christ, there sin has in fact been abolished, put to death, and buried. But where there is no faith in Christ, there sin remains. And although there are still remnants of sin in the saints because they do not believe perfectly, nevertheless these remnants are dead; for on account of faith in Christ they are not imputed. (Luther's works, vol. 26, 286)[18]

Luther also writes in his Bondage of the Will:

This pair of statements by Paul, that “the righteous lives by faith” (Rom. 1:17), and that “whatsoever is not of faith, is sin” (Rom. 14:23), stand confirmed. The latter follows from the former; for if it is only by faith that we are justified, it is evident that they who are without faith are not yet justified; and those who are not justified are sinners; and sinners are evil trees, and can only sin and bear evil fruit (The Bondage of the Will, 301).

Without faith, by which a sinner flees to the Throne of Grace for mercy and through which the foreign righteousness of Christ is imputed, the sinner remains in his natural-born condition of appealing to the Law. But all who seek to be justified by works of the Law stand condemned before God, not justified, not absolved, not declared righteous. There are only two possibilities. A person is either appealing to the Law in unbelief or he is appealing in faith to the Throne of Grace for mercy. The former stands condemned before God, not justified; the latter stands justified before God, not condemned.

The Promise of the Gospel

But faith is an utter impossibility for sinners, who are, by nature, hostile to God, blind to spiritual things and dead in sins and transgressions. No one can know about the mercy of God or the Throne of Grace by nature, and even after learning about its existence, no one would want it, no one would flee to it willingly, except for the promise of the Gospel.

That we may obtain this faith, the Ministry of Teaching the Gospel and administering the Sacraments was instituted. For through the Word and Sacraments, as through instruments, 2] the Holy Ghost is given, who works faith; where and when it pleases God, in them that hear 3] the Gospel, to wit, that God, not for our own merits, but for Christ’s sake, justifies those who believe that they are received into grace for Christ’s sake. (AC:V)

The Holy Spirit, working through the means of grace, is the Person of the Holy Trinity who “gives to the unbelievers the gift of faith, and makes willing men out of those that were unwilling,[19]” as St. Augustine says, so that believers are justified in the divine courtroom. Hence Polycarp Leyser can refer to the entire Holy Trinity as the “efficient cause” or the “doer” of justification, because sinners are not justified by the Father’s work alone, nor by the Son’s work alone, but by the combined working of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. “The efficient cause of justification is the entire Holy Trinity. For the Father justifies us, in His Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, through the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 6)” (De Iustificatione Hominis—see Appendix 1).

This is also the reason why the article on the forgiveness of sins is treated in the Third Article of the Apostles Creed (not to mention the Nicene Creed, which confesses “one Baptism for the remission of sins”). It is not that forgiveness is earned for us as the Holy Spirit works through Word and Sacrament, even as ministers do not pronounce absolution by saying, “I make atonement for your sins.” Atonement was made; the earning was accomplished at the cross. Absolution is pronounced; the merit is applied through the ministry of the Word. It is through the application of what Christ has earned that sinners are actually forgiven, absolved and acquitted, so that justification “happens” through the Word:

God cannot be interacted with, God cannot be grasped, except through the Word. So justification happens through the Word, just as Paul says in Romans 1:16, ‘[The Gospel] is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes.’ Likewise, he says in 10:17, ‘Faith comes from hearing.’ Proof can be derived even from this: faith justifies because, if justification happens only through the Word, and the Word is understood only by faith, it follows that faith justifies. (Ap:IV:67)

What, then, is “the Gospel” through which the Holy Spirit applies the righteousness of Christ to sinners? It is a promise, a promise that God will do something, namely, that He will “save everyone who believes.” The promise, to refer back to Chemnitz’ analogy, is not, “Everyone in the world has already been absolved.” The promise is not, “Everyone in the world has already been declared righteous.” That is neither true, nor is it a promise. The promise of the Gospel, rather, is that the poor sinner who flees for refuge to the Throne of Grace receives forgiveness, is absolved, is justified, is received into God’s grace and eternal life for the sake of the merit of Christ. The promise is that Christ’s righteousness affords a dependable shelter from the accusations of the law, so that “he who believes on Him will by no means be put to shame” (1 Pet. 2:6). The promise is that, although mercy is found nowhere else in the universe, it will surely be found at the Throne of Grace.

The Apology states: “And, again, as often as we speak of faith, we wish an object to be understood, namely, the promised mercy. For faith justifies and saves, not on the ground that it is a work in itself worthy, but only because it receives the promised mercy” (Ap:IV:55-56). And again, “Christ Himself, since He has appeared, promises the remission of sins, justification, and life eternal” (Ap:IV:5).

Chemnitz summarizes it as follows: “The Gospel (as the Apology says) is properly the promise of remission of sins and of justification for the sake of Christ, preaching the righteousness of faith in Christ” (Enchiridion, 69). And in this longer section from the Enchiridion:

136 What are the Chief Parts in Which the Doctrine of the Gospel is Comprehended and Set Forth?

The Gospel is properly the doctrine of the person and office or benefits of Christ. But this doctrine consists most of all in these chief parts:

I. That the Son of God, before the world of time, was, by a wonderful decree made in the hidden counsel of the Trinity, appointed to be our Mediator, Redeemer, Reconciler, and Savior.

II. That this decree was revealed by the word of promise immediately after the Fall, and the promise of the coming Messiah gradually renewed and repeated to the fathers during the whole time of the Old Testament.

III. Likewise that the Son of God, according to the promise, was made man in the fullness of time and most perfectly completed the work of redemption and reconciliation by His obedience, passion, and death, and thus gained righteousness and life eternal, by His resurrection and ascension, for those who believe in Him.

IV. The Gospel does not only set forth the account of Christ in story form, but the proper doctrine of Him is the promise of grace, by which God, in the Word and the Sacraments, sets before and offers to miserable sinners—thoroughly terrified by the knowledge of sins and of divine wrath and damnation—grace, remission of sins, adoption, and the inheritance of life eternal freely and out of pure mercy or grace, without our merit, only for the sake of the obedience, passion, death, and merit of Christ.

V. The Gospel teaches that these benefits of Christ the Mediator are to be apprehended and applied by faith.

VI. The Gospel declares those who believe righteous and saved.

The Gospel tells about the goodness and mercy of Christ, and that He helps all who come to Him for help. This is how Luther most often speaks in his sermons, describing how people came to Jesus with their maladies and diseases because they had heard the “good report” about Christ. This believing the good report about Christ is already identified by Luther as “faith.”

Now this confidence of faith or knowledge of the goodness of Christ would never have originated in this leper by virtue of his own reason, if he had not first heard a good report about Christ, namely, how kind, gracious and merciful he is, ready to help and befriend, comfort and counsel every one that comes to him. Such a report must undoubtedly have come to his ears, and from this fame he derived courage, and turned and interpreted the report to his own advantage. He applied this goodness to his own need and concluded with all confidence: To me also he will be as kind as his fame and good report declare. His faith therefore did not grow out of his reason, but out of the report he heard of Christ, as St. Paul says: "Belief cometh of hearing, and hearing by the Word (or report) of Christ." Rom 10, 17. (Luther’s Sermons, Volume 2. “Sermon for Third Sunday after Epiphany, Matthew 8:1-13.”)

But what does it look like in practice? Where is Christ to be found, now that He is ascended into heaven? Where is the Throne of Grace located and how are sinners to flee to it for mercy?

The Throne of Grace is not to be sought in heaven. Rather, it is to be sought in the Church, where “the Gospel is rightly taught and the Sacraments are rightly administered.” (AC:VII) So Luther can say in the Large Catechism, “For we are in the Christian Church, where there is nothing but continuous, uninterrupted forgiveness of sin. This is because God forgives us and because we forgive, bear with, and help one another. But outside of this Christian Church, where the Gospel is not found, there is no forgiveness, as also there can be no holiness” (Creed, Third Article, par. 55).

How does one flee for refuge to the Throne of Grace? One flees for refuge, first, to Holy Baptism where the Throne of Grace is to be found. This is where the Apostle Peter told the convicted crowds on the Day of Pentecost to flee: “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38). It is in Holy Baptism that sinners are “buried with Christ into death” and raised to new life and new birth. It is for good reason that the Book of Concord so often equates “remission of sins” and “justification” with “regeneration”[20] and locates them both in Baptism:

What does Baptism give or profit? —Answer: It works forgiveness of sins, delivers from death and the devil, and gives eternal salvation to all who believe this, as the words and promises of God declare. (Small Catechism: Baptism Second)

Augustine speaks in the same way when he says, “Sin is forgiven in Baptism, not in such a way that it no longer exists, but so that it is not charged.” (Ap:II:36)

And on this account let no one boast of works, because no one is justified by his deeds. But he who is righteous has it given him because he was justified after the laver [of Baptism]. Faith, therefore, is that which frees through the blood of Christ, because he is blessed “whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered,” Ps. 32, 1. These are the words of Ambrose, which clearly favor our doctrine; he denies justification to works, and ascribes to faith that it sets us free through the blood of Christ. (Ap:IV:103-105)

Luther offers this vivid picture in one of his sermons:

Likewise in the last chapter of his epistle he says of Christ, “This is he who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ, not with the water only but with the water and the blood” [I John 5:6]. Thus he is always wanting to mingle the blood in the baptism in order that we may see in it the innocent, rosy-red blood of Christ. For human eyes, it is true, there appears to be nothing there but pure white water, but St. John wants us to open the inward and spiritual eyes of faith in order that we may see, not only water, but also the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Why? Because this holy baptism was purchased for us through this same blood, which he shed for us and with which he paid for sin. This blood and its merit and power he put into baptism, in order that in baptism we might receive it. For whenever a person receives baptism in faith this is the same as if he were visibly washed and cleansed of sin with the blood of Christ. For we do not attain the forgiveness of sins through our work, but rather through the death and the shedding of the blood of the Son of God. But he takes this forgiveness of sin and tucks it into baptism. (Luther’s Works, Vol. 51, 325)

Gerhard, too, sends the troubled sinner back to his Baptism:

Therefore, if you are baptized, you can by no means doubt that you have the grace of God, remission of sins, and the promise of eternal life. Where there is regeneration, there is remission of sins, the grace of God, perfect righteousness, renewal, the gift of the Holy Spirit, adoption, and the inheritance of eternal life." (Handbook of Consolations, 30).

One flees for refuge to the Throne of Grace in the Sacrament of the Altar, where He finds Christ handing out, together with His very body and blood, forgiveness of sins, life and salvation.

What is the benefit of such eating and drinking?—Answer. That is shown us in these words: Given, and shed for you, for the remission of sins; namely, that in the Sacrament forgiveness of sins, life, and salvation are given us through these words. For where there is forgiveness of sins, there is also life and salvation. (Small Catechism: Sacrament of the Altar)

In the second place, there is besides this command also a promise, as we heard above, which ought most strongly to incite and encourage us. For here stand the kind and precious words: This is My body, given for you. This is My blood, shed for you, for the remission of sins…For here He offers to us the entire treasure which He has brought for us from heaven, and to which He invites us also in other places with the greatest kindness, as when He says in St. Matthew 11, 28: Come unto Me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. (LC:Sacrament of the Altar:64,66)

Finally, one flees for refuge to the Throne of Grace in Holy Absolution, where the sentence is delivered from the Throne of Grace through the mouth of the pastor, as penitent sinners “flee for refuge to Thine infinite mercy, seeking and imploring Thy grace for the sake of our Lord Jesus Christ…”[21] As Gerhard urges:

DOUBT CONCERNING THE APPLICATION OF THE MERIT OF CHRIST

TEMPTED. Yes, of course, it is stated plainly that the merit of Christ is universal, but, at the same time, I do not see that the benefit of Christ has been offered and applied to me in particular or individually. Many things are offered universally that nevertheless do not extend to the individual.

COMFORTER. No! The species is rightly taken from the genus; it rightly proceeds from the universal to the particular. As such, because God desires all to be saved, you may rightly and most firmly believe that He wants you to be saved. Because it is said that Christ died for all, you may rightly and most firmly believe that He died on the Cross for you and He wants to cleanse you from all your sins by His own blood. Moreover, what is offered by the Word of the Gospel for all in general is offered, presented, and applied by the Word of absolution to you in particular. Indeed, when the pastor of your church announces the remission of your sins in the name of God, you are to be certain that it is so established in heaven before God. This is how Christ arranged the matter: whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven (Matt 18:18) and anyone's sins you forgive, they are forgiven for that person (John 20:23). This is that salutary ministry of reconciliation (2 Cor 5:18) that God has entrusted to the pastors of the Church. These are the salutary keys that He committed to them in good faith. This is the salutary office of ambassadors that they perform in the name of Christ and by which God exhorts us and, as it were, implores us through them. What therefore is offered to you in particular, you must not doubt that it pertains to you in particular.

When your heart is gravely distressed and you hear the voice of the pastor announcing the remission of sins in the name of Christ, know that you have heard Christ Himself. Whatever the pastor does in the name of Christ before you, Christ Himself does. It is Christ who announces the remission of sins to you. The pastor, in his own voice, speaks on behalf of Christ. If uncertainty wants to creep into your heart concerning this, listen carefully to the words of Christ saying to the Apostles and their successors, He that hears you, hears me (Luke 10:16). It is not you that speak, but the Spirit of my Father (Matt 10:20). Listen to the words of John the Baptist, I am the voice of one crying (John 1:23). Truly I tell you, it is another that preaches and cries by me. The office is mine but the force and benefit of the office depends on another. Listen to the words of the Apostle, We are ambassadors for Christ (2 Cor 5:20). That is, in Christ's name and stead, as though God exhorts you by us. We pray on behalf of Christ that you be reconciled to God (2 Cor 5:20). Therefore he who despises this, despises not man but God, who gives to us His Holy Spirit (1 Thess 4:8).

Believe, therefore, that even now, indeed today, Christ says to you as He did once to the paralytic and to the woman who was a sinner, Your sins are forgiven (Matt 9:2; Luke 7:48). There is, of course, no difference between these words of absolution and those uttered by the pastor; it matters not that one is spoken by man and the other by Christ. Therefore, when you hear the pastor announce to you the remission of sins, do not think that it is the voice of the pastor you hear but know that it is the voice of Christ. (Gerhard, Handbook of Consolations, 26-27).

And so the old outline remains intact for the Lutheran Church throughout the age of orthodoxy, from Luther to Gerhard. Justification is the result of (1) the grace of God who sent Christ to save the world and wants all men to be saved; (2) the merit of Christ, who was obedient for all, suffered and died for all, and made atonement for all; (3) faith that lays hold of the merit of Christ and through which the righteousness of Christ is imputed to sinners; and (4) the promise of the Gospel, in Word and Sacrament, that kindles and sustains faith, and furnishes for sinners a place on earth where the Throne of Grace is to be found.

Huber’s Deviation from the Common Outline

This common outline, this “justification by faith alone in Christ” was the only concept of justification espoused by the Lutherans in the age of orthodoxy. No other justification was known in the Lutheran Church—until Samuel Huber (1547-1624) arrived on the scene.

Huber was brought to Wittenberg from Switzerland, via Tübingen, in 1592. In 1590, while still in Tübingen, Huber, fighting against the Calvinists, wrote a book comprised of 1185 theses entitled, “That Christ Jesus died for the sins of all men.” This orthodox title and Huber’s steadfast confession against the Calvinists of the universal atonement made by Christ served to convince the Lutheran theologians in Wittenberg that Huber would be a staunch ally as they sought to rid the German lands of Calvinism in all of its forms.

But within three years, the Wittenberg faculty noticed that Huber was straying from the “common (and Scriptural) outline” of justification. He was teaching a justification that “happened” for all men apart from the Word and apart from faith. It was a “general justification,” a “universal justification” that was supposedly pronounced at some time on all men. As they dug back into his book of 1185 theses, the Wittenberg theologians found that he had already been teaching this false doctrine there.

Our Churches have always taught and still teach the justification that is by faith and that pertains to believers, but that by no means extends to the whole world.

Besides this justification by faith, Dr. Huber teaches some other justification that is equally common to the entire human race.

…Hence he writes in his Tübingen Theses, Thesis 270: “Moreover, this is the status and the condition of our redemption, that sins have been forgiven to all men equally, since the handwriting that was against us has been blotted out (Col. 2). Theses 59 & 60: “But meanwhile, no less truly, properly, actually and effectively has Christ conferred redemption on the entire human race—just as truly, properly, actually and effectively as Adam brought ruin upon each and every man. And lest anything remain in doubt, we are saying that, by the death and satisfaction of Christ for our sins, all judgment and divine wrath upon all men has been rightly, truly and properly removed and blotted out.”

From these and many other examples from his own published books and writings, we are unable to come to any other conclusion but that Dr. Huber is clearly persuaded that, at some time (whether in eternity, or when God made the first promise in Paradise, or when Christ was sacrificed on the altar of the cross), the entire human race was—was, I say!— for the sake of the merit of Christ, truly received into grace, into the bosom and embrace of God; and that all men were loved in the Beloved through some general adoption; and that, through a justification that is just as general and extends just as widely as the condemnation from Adam extends widely upon all men equally, sins were forgiven to all men equally through a general remission of sins ; redemption was conferred on the entire human race in that very act and deed; and Adam’s guilt has been truly and properly washed away in all men, so much so that all judgment and wrath of God has been removed and blotted out in all men—truly and properly. These are Huber’s own words, faithfully transcribed from his books…

Here one may ask Dr. Huber when he thinks all this took place. When were all sins remitted equally to the entire human race? He has to confess one or the other—that this took place either from eternity, or in time. But it will be clearly demonstrated shortly that neither of these options can be true.

In addition, since this general justification, according to Dr. Huber’s hypothesis, embraces also unbelievers, let him respond to this: Were sins forgiven to them through the imputation of the obedience of Christ, or apart from it? If it was without the imputation of the obedience of Christ, then the eternal justice of God will be endangered, since He remits sins without regard for a mediating satisfaction. But if it is through the imputation of the merit of Christ, then let him explain: Does the Scripture ever, anywhere, mention any bare, simple imputation that is considered without respect to faith? And what need is there for several, since the Apostle teaches one method and one way alone for obtaining remission of sins, and that is through faith, so that he exclaims that, “We are not justified except through faith in Jesus Christ” (Gal. 2). There are a great many sermons on the justification of men before God in our published writings—in the Augsburg Confession, the Apology, the Smalcald Articles, in both Catechisms of Luther, in the Epitome and the Formula of Concord—indeed, in the entire controversy with the papists that has gone on now for more than 70 years. But regarding this general justification by which all men were supposedly justified at some time, received into the embrace of divine grace, adopted, with sin having been forgiven to all men equally—truly, properly and by the deed itself—of this, I say, in all of these published writings and in all of Holy Scripture, there is nothing but eternal silence. (Hunnius, A Clear Explanation, 57-62)

It can easily be determined, both from Huber’s writings (especially his Tübingen Theses) and from Hunnius’ writings against him, that Huber was by no means a “Universalist” in the modern sense of the word; he did not teach that all people go to heaven. Nor did Hunnius ever bring that accusation against him. In fact, Hunnius expressly states that Huber denied teaching such a thing [22]. What Huber did teach was that, although God had justified the whole world, people could reject this general justification and fall back under God’s condemnation. But he taught that baptismal regeneration was necessary for salvation. He also taught that justification by faith was necessary for a person to be eternally saved.

Huber’s problem was not that he was a Universalist. It was that he strayed from proper Biblical exegesis of certain passages, including Romans 5:12-20 (See Appendix 2, Hunnius on Romans 5:18). It was that he strayed from the common outline of forensic justification that requires the imputation, by faith, of Christ’s righteousness in order for any sinner to be justified. It was that he strayed from the confessional Lutheran teaching that “restricts justification to believers only, as prescribed by all prophetic and apostolic Scriptures” (Hunnius, Theses Opposed to Huberianism, Thesis 20 Concerning Justification).

Conclusion

In conclusion, though much has been written, what was said in the introduction holds true. The article of justification, as taught in Scripture and in the Lutheran age of orthodoxy, can be fully grasped and appreciated with a statement as simple as John 3:16-18.

“For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God” (Jn. 3:16-18).

It really is just that simple, and the Lutherans in the age of orthodoxy got it right. God loved the world in such a way that He gave His Son so that the whole world might be saved through Him. Whoever believes in Him is saved, justified (not condemned), and has eternal life. Whoever does not believe in Him is neither saved, nor justified, nor made an heir of eternal life.

Christ, the Throne of Grace, has made atonement for the sins of the whole world. But only the forensic appeal to the Throne of Grace justifies. In other words, faith alone justifies.

Lord, let at last Thine angels come,
To Abram’s bosom bear me home,
That I may die unfearing;
And in its narrow chamber keep
My body safe in peaceful sleep
Until Thy reappearing.
And then from death awaken me
That these mine eyes with joy may see,
O Son of God, Thy glorious face,
My Savior and my Throne of Grace.^{^[23]}
Lord Jesus Christ, My prayer attend, my prayer attend,
And I will praise Thee without end.

+ Rev. Paul A. Rydecki
Las Cruces, New Mexico
Jubilate, A.D. 2013

__________________________________________________________________________

Appendix 1: The “Causes” of Justification

Polycarp Leyser

Theological Assertions Concerning the Justification of Man before God

The efficient cause of justification is the entire Holy Trinity. For the Father justifies us, in His Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, through the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 6).

The interior motivating cause is not any preceding merit of ours, nor any subsequent satisfaction, but only the free and infallible mercy of God, who sees the miseries of the human race, procures their redemption, and freely justifies us without any condition of the law having been fulfilled by us.

The exterior motivating or meritorious cause is the obedience, suffering, death and resurrection of Christ, the Son of God and of Man, by which He has perfectly made satisfaction to the Law for us, has made atonement for sins, has defeated death, has conquered Satan, and with the gates of Hades having been broken, has freed us for the freedom of the sons of God.

The formal cause is no inhering quality in us, nor is it the essential righteousness of God dwelling in us. But it is the remission of our sins and the righteousness of Christ alone which the heavenly Father imputes to us as our own, and by this He pronounces us to be righteous.

The instrumental cause with regard to God is the ministry of Word and Sacrament, in which God opens His heavenly treasures, hidden in the Son, and offers them to all men without discrimination or condition.

The instrumental cause with regard to us is faith, which acknowledges the fullness of the divine promise about Christ, offered in the Word and sealed in the Sacraments; embraces it with firm assent; and rests in it with great confidence that has no doubt concerning its salvation.

And since no works of the Law, neither preceding nor present nor subsequent, constitute any cause (either of merit or of application), therefore we rightly and piously declare that man is justified by faith alone in Christ.

The final cause of this free justification is not only that the dignity of God’s righteousness may be acknowledged, but also that our consciences, afflicted by sin in general, may have peace before God.

The effects are: adoption as sons of God, regeneration, the indwelling of God, vivification, eternal life, and innumerable other things.

Aegidius Hunnius

In order that each part may be examined in order, give me such a definition of justification that embraces the sum of the whole treatment that will follow.

Justification is the act of God by which He deigns to consider the man who is frightened by the awareness of sins and who flees to the Throne of Grace with pure mercy, through and for the sake of the merit of Christ, apprehended by faith; and, having forgiven him his sins, He reckons him as righteous, free from damnation, and also an heir of eternal life, without any human merit and without any view of God toward the virtues or the works of man.

What kind of definition is this?

It is a causal definition, seeing that the true causes are being enumerated and the false causes removed.

How many causes of justification are there?

Three. First is grace, that is, the gracious favor of God. Second: The obedience of Christ. Third: Faith.

Why do you number the causes in this order?

I put the grace of God in first place because this was given to us, as the Apostle testifies, before times of eternity, and it is also the source and beginning of the remaining causes, since it occurred by the mercy and grace of God that the Son was sent into the world to satisfy God in our place. Faith, on the other hand, since it is considered relatively to the obedience of Christ as the instrument that apprehends the thing that is apprehended, necessarily presupposes that which is apprehended, namely, the merit of Christ. In the order of causes, the merit of Christ comes before our faith, although in the case of the fathers, who lived before the Messiah was born and suffered, their faith (temporally speaking) existed prior to the suffering of the Lord, as they were naturally looking forward toward that which was to come. Still, if you consider the order of causes, the suffering of the Son comes first before God, who justifies (who views the merit of His Son outside the realm of time). Similarly, if you weigh the order of causes and effects, the suffering of Christ, is naturally prior to the salvation of the patriarchs (for this depends on the suffering of Christ as the effect brought about by the cause), although if you view the priority of time, the fathers gained that salvation before the Lord suffered—indeed, before He was born into the world.

Johann Gerhard

In this passage the causes and the object of our justification before God are expressed.

1. The chief efficient cause is the grace of God, that is, God’s free favor that takes our misery into account.

2. The meritorious cause is Christ in the office of redemption which the Apostle describes with three very significant words. First, with the word ἀπολύτρωσιν, which regards the spiritual captivity in Satan’s kingdom, from which we have been redeemed by the precious λύτρῳ of Christ. Second, with the word ἱλαστήριον, which regards the lid of the ark of the covenant in the Old Testament. Third, with the phrase the αἷμα τοῦ χριστοῦ, which, by way of synecdoche, signifies the entire obedience of Christ, active as well as passive.

3. The instrumental cause is faith, that receiving (ληπτικόν) means that embraces the benefits of Christ offered in Word and Sacraments, those imparting (δοτικοῖς) means.

4. The formal cause is πάρεσις, the remission of sins, which is joined by an indivisible connection with the imputation of the righteousness of Christ. (Rom. 4:3).

5. The final cause with respect to God is ἔνδειξις τῆς δικαιοσύνης αὐτοῦ. In justification or the remission of sins, God remains just in that He justly punishes our sins in Christ, who received them upon Himself; and He justifies believers by means of the righteousness of Christ that has been imputed to them.

The object of justification is man the sinner, but only such a one as believes in Christ, that is, who acknowledges his sins from the Law, who seriously grieves over them, and who by faith applies to himself the promise of the remission of sins for the sake of Christ.

Appendix 2: The Lutheran Fathers on Specific Bible Passages

John 1:29

Chemnitz, HARMONY OF THE FOUR EVANGELISTS

We noted a little earlier what we must observe from the fact that he says "sin of the world." To that let me add only this: That the Baptist is showing in this way that the Messiah's kingdom was not political, for it is not like that ram and he-goat of Dan. 8:20, but a lamb that takes away the sin of the world. There is a silent antithesis in the phrase "of the world," for they used to place the sins only of the people of Israel on the Levitic sacrificial victims, but this Lamb takes away the sins of the entire world. Therefore, he is affirming that Christ's blessings have to do with not only the Jews but the entire world, and that from these blessings no one who is in this world is excluded if only they should wish to accept them by faith.

Next, Chrysostom observes eruditely that the Baptist is not saying "who will take away" or "who takes away our sins" but "who takes away" or "taking away," signifying that the continuous act or unending office of Christ is to take away our sins so long as we are in this life, and this in three ways.

First, the effective force of the expiation which took place once on the cross flourishes and is effective for ever for taking away sins, for He has found an eternal redemption. In fact, according to Rev. 13:8, it is valid from the beginning of the world.

Second, whenever we are reconciled to God, the Lamb of God is taking away our sins, not by dying again but by applying the merit of His expiation to believers through the ministry of the Word and Sacraments. Also, although sin may dwell in our flesh, nevertheless, before the judgment of God upon those who are in Christ sin is covered up by Christ's intercession and is not imputed but taken or lifted away, as Psa. 32:1 says.

Third, Christ also takes away sins in us by mortification and sanctification through the Holy Spirit which begin in this life and should increase therein but are not completed except in eternal life. Because the Baptist seems to speak principally about the expiation made on the cross when Christ bore our sins upon His body on the cross (1 Pet. 2:24), others explain the wording with this simile, as when people say that hellebore purges, they are not indicating a single act nor some specific time but signify that this is the inherent and constant power that exists in hellebore. Erasmus thinks that this "who takes away the sin of the world" was said by the same logic. Just as an herb does not heal a sick person unless he uses and applies it correctly, so the power of Christ's passion is sufficient to take away the sins of the whole world but it benefits those alone who accept this Lamb, John 1:12. Moreover, the Baptist is saying in this passage not "who remits" (something which is attributed to Christ elsewhere) but "who takes away sin." He is, after all, speaking about the office of the Mediator to the extent that He became a sacrifice for us. Sin is not remitted unless it should be taken away because of the expiation of Christ. (The Harmony of the Four Evangelists, Vol. 1, Book 2, 63)

Romans 3:24

Chemnitz:

(See above in the essay Chemnitz’ “Common Analogy” describing the forensic justification that, he says, is “clearly described” by Paul in Romans 3.)

Hunnius:

Hence Paul, when he expressly discusses justification in Romans 3 and 4, does not know of a justification apart from faith, and especially as Galatians 2 plainly says, “Man is not justified except by faith in Jesus Christ.” (Theses Opposed to Huberianism, Concerning Justification, Thesis 6)

Luther, Smalcald Articles:

Likewise: All have sinned and are justified (German: “werden gerecht” “become righteous”) without merit [freely, and without their own works or merits] by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, in His blood, Rom. 3, 23f.

Now, since it is necessary to believe this, and it cannot be otherwise acquired or apprehended by any work, law, or merit, it is clear and certain that this faith alone justifies us as St. Paul says, Rom. 3, 28: For we conclude that a man is justified by faith, without the deeds of the Law. Likewise 3, 26: That He might be just, and the Justifier of him which believeth in Christ.

Romans 4:5

Hunnius

As I understand your thinking, you believe that a man who is righteous by nature is justified?

When God justifies a man, He does not justify one who is righteous by nature. For He finds none, in that all have sinned, all have become useless and unrighteous, and fall short of the glory of God. Indeed, Christ did not come for the sake of righteous people, but to save sinners, to seek and to save what was lost. Paul does not hesitate to affirm in this regard that God justifies the ungodly (Rom. 4)—not the ungodly as he continues in his ungodliness, but as he acknowledges it and turns to the Throne of Grace, Jesus Christ.

Gerhard:

With ἀσεβῆ [ungodly], the ungodly is not understood as remaining securely in his ungodliness without repentance (Prov. 17:15), but as he comes out of it through repentance and faith. This one is judged as righteous before the judgment of God through the imputed righteousness of Christ and is absolved from sins, since compensation has been made for his sins through the satisfaction of Christ. Therefore, such a penitent and believing man, who is certainly ungodly and sinful in himself, is nonetheless righteous in Christ through faith.

Romans 4:25

Paraphrase from the Apology indicating the justification of believers as the final cause of Christ’s resurrection:

The adversaries approve Article III, in which we confess that there are two natures in Christ. The human nature was assumed by the Word into the unity of His person [John 1:14]. Christ suffered and died to reconcile the Father to us and was raised again to reign, to justify, and to sanctify believers according to the Apostles’ Creed and the Nicene Creed. (Ap:III:52)

Luther:

Thus St. Paul declares that “Christ died for our sin and rose for our justification” [Rom. 4:25]. That is to say, in his suffering Christ makes our sin known and thus destroys it, but through his resurrection he justifies us and delivers us from all sin, if we believe this. (Luther’s Works, Vol. 42, 12)

Chemnitz:

Rom. 4:24,25: “It was written for our sakes. It will be reckoned to us who believe in Him that raised up from the dead Jesus our Lord, who was put to death for our trespasses and raised for our justification.”

You hear both things, that God imputes something to the believers, and what it is He imputes; namely, that Christ was put to death for our sins and that He was raised for our righteousness. Rom. 5:21: “Grace reigns through righteousness to eternal life through Christ Jesus our Lord.” Christ is, however, our righteousness. (Jer. 23:6; 1 Cor. 1:30; Rom. 10:4)

But how can we be justified to life eternal through this foreign righteousness? I reply, as Paul says, Gal. 3:27: “As many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” At the same time we have been clothed also with His righteousness. Rom. 8:32: “With His Son God gives us all things.” But Christ has a perfect fulfillment of the Law, or righteousness, for us. Therefore the Father gives that to the believers that they may be justified on account of it. 7 What I have here briefly related is the constant teaching of the prophetic and the apostolic Scripture in the Old and in the New Testament concerning the justification of man before God to life eternal. On this we should, and safely can, place our trust that we may be justified on its account, that is, that we may receive remission of sins, be absolved from the deserved sentence of damnation, be received by God into grace, be adopted as sons, and finally be received to eternal life. (Examination, Vol. 1, 503-504)

When, therefore, Paul wanted to explain, Rom. 4:24–25, what that righteousness is which is imputed to the believers without their own works, or what faith must apprehend that it may be imputed for righteousness, he says: To those who believe in Him who raised Jesus from the dead, who was delivered to death for our transgressions and was raised again for our justification. For that is our righteousness: (1) that the Son of God became a Mediator for us, being obedient to the Father to death; (2) that the Father accepted that satisfaction and obedience of the Son for our reconciliation and propitiation, which He showed by His resurrection. (Examination, Vol. 1, 529-530)

Gerhard, on Romans 4:24:

One asks, why is Christ’s resurrection from the dead declared specifically to be the object of justifying faith? We reply: (1) Because by raising His Son, our bondsman, who was put to death for our sins, God made manifest by that very act that full satisfaction has been made to Him by His death. (2) Consideration is given at the same time to the power of God which He exerted in the raising of Christ (Eph. 1:20). This is how that statement is applied to the example of Abraham, whose faith is commended in 4:20 for the fact that he gave praise to God. (3) The summary of the entire Gospel is contained in this article of the resurrection of Christ, and this single article encompasses all the rest (1 Cor. 15:1 ff.). For it is understood from the fact that Christ rose from the dead that He truly died. And since He truly died, He was therefore also truly conceived and born, and truly suffered for our sins.

Gerhard, in a separate pamphlet on Romans 4:25, says that the resurrection of Christ provides a “clear demonstration and manifestation” that Christ….

…is the Savior; that payment for our sins has now been made and perfect redemption accomplished; and that salvation and righteousness have been prepared (see Rom. 8:34, 1 Cor. 15:17, etc.). The resurrection of Christ was indeed necessary, both on account of the clear proof and on account of the application of our justification. For if Christ had not been raised, then death would not have been conquered; rather, He would have been conquered by death. In that case, He would not have merited for us life and righteousness. And even if He had merited them, He still would not be able to confer and apply them if He had remained in death. Having stated these things briefly, there emerges this sense of the passage:

PARAPHRASE:

Christ Jesus our Lord subjected Himself to death for our sake and was delivered over to it in order that He might make satisfaction for the sins of the whole world and atone for them. He was, however, raised from the dead in order that He might testify and demonstrate that, with death now fully defeated and destroyed, righteousness and life have been provided for men; and that He might apply these things to those who believe in Him. (Summae Evangelii, hoc est, Aphorismi Apostolici Rom. 4 v.25 Consideratio)

(See also Appendix 4, Gerhard’s “absolved us in Him”)

Romans 5:18

Luther

Thus here, too, the evangelist did not intend that John or any other human being or any creature should be the light, but that there is only one light which illumines all men and that not a single human being could come upon the earth who could be illumined by anybody else. I do not know how to disagree with this interpretation; for in the same manner also St. Paul writes in Romans 5[:18]: “As through one man’s sin condemnation has come over all men, so through one man’s righteousness justification has come over all men.” Yet not all men are justified through Christ, nevertheless he is the man through whom all justification comes. It is the same here. Even if not all men are illumined, yet this is the light from which alone all illumination comes. The evangelist has freely used this manner of speaking; he did not avoid it even though some would stumble over the fact that he speaks of all men. He thought he would take care of such offense by explaining before and after and by saying that “the darkness has not comprehended it,” and that the world has never recognized him and his own have never accepted him. Such passages should have been strong enough so that nobody could say he had intended to say that all men are enlightened, but that he alone is the light which enlightens everybody and that, without him, nobody is enlightened. (Luther’s Works, Vol. 52, 71)

Hunnius

This notwithstanding, we most willingly grant that there is a righteousness that avails before God for the entire human race, a righteousness that has been gained and acquired through Christ, so that if the whole world were to believe in Christ, then the whole world would be justified. With respect to this, Paul writes in Romans 5 that “through one man’s justification (δικαίωμα), the gift has spread toward all men for justification (δικαίωσις) of life.” Nevertheless, no one is justified nor does anyone obtain remission of sins from this acquired universal righteousness without the imputation of this acquired righteousness of Christ . But the imputation of righteousness does not take place except through faith. (Theses Opposed to Huberianism, Concerning Justification, Thesis 5)

For when it says in Romans 5, “Just as through the sin of one man, evil spread to all men for condemnation, so through the righteousness of one man, good spreads to all men for justification of life,” this is clearly what Paul means, that just as through the transgression of Adam, sin spread to all those who came after him resulting in their condemnation, so through the obedience of Christ, righteousness was acquired and obtained, which is more than sufficient for all men to be justified and made alive, if the whole world were to embrace it by faith. For this is how Romans 3 explains this sentence: “The righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ to all and upon all those who believe.” One should not look to the Huberian dogma in order to confirm the true sense of the Pauline saying. For it is true that the Apostle, in each passage, mentions the established antithesis of propagation between Adam and Christ, not only of evil for condemnation, but also of good for justification. Now, certainly if one should press each and every aspect of the antithesis, wouldn’t we fall into the heresy of the papists, so that, just as sin was propagated from Adam to men through the indwelling of sin, so the righteousness of the Second Adam likewise must be transmitted and propagated to us by way of indwelling? But if we condemn this mode of propagation of the one , then it follows that no other mode exists for propagating in us the righteousness that avails before God, except for imputation. For salvation and the righteousness obtained for the whole world are apprehended through faith, so that those who believe apply that to themselves which would have been propagated through imputation by faith to all men, if all men had believed.

Therefore, although on account of a lack of faith, all men at once are by no means justified, nor were they ever justified, nevertheless the apostolic antithesis remains unshaken. Nor is the good or the benefit that is conferred on us through Christ rendered weaker than the evil that was transmitted to us by Adam’s sin. For Christ surpasses Adam in this, that, since through one sin death reigned, Christ, for His part, obtained full justification from many sins for all those who believe in His name.

He also surpasses Adam in this, that Adam killed those who came after him, that is, he delivered death and condemnation to them by the propagation of sin. Christ, on the other hand, brings us back from condemnation to justification of life. Now, just as it is a much greater work to bring to life one who is by nature dead than it is to kill someone (since anyone can kill, while no one is able to bring to life except for God, with His omnipotent power), so also Christ is to be regarded as having surpassed Adam by bringing to life those whom Adam, through sin, had made subject to death.

And if Dr. Huber were teachable, the learned and vigorous response of the Wittenberg theologians could have abundantly satisfied him. This is how they respond to Huber regarding that passage championed by Huber, Romans 5: “On the contrary, isn’t your conclusion manifestly overthrown by that very passage that you cite, clearly demonstrating that there is no valid reason for your opposition? To be sure, just as the condemnation pertained to all men by guilt , and nevertheless actually pertains only to the impenitent and unbelieving, so also the gift of the grace of God and the merit of Christ is certainly universal. Nevertheless, it is actually restricted to believers only—those who are released from condemnation by the benefit of Christ, who is apprehended by faith.” Thus far the Wittenberg theologians.

And what will Dr. Huber reply to the Book of Concord, which, in citing these very words from Romans, explicitly confirms that those things mean nothing other than that we are justified by faith? This is what the Book of Concord says in the Latin edition, page 666: “Therefore, these statements are equivalent and clearly mean the same thing, when Paul says that we are justified by faith; or that faith is imputed to us for righteousness; and when he teaches that we are justified by the obedience of one Mediator, who is Christ; or that through the righteousness of one man, justification of life comes upon all men. For faith does not justify on account of this, that it is such a good work, or that it is such a splendid virtue, but because it apprehends and embraces the merit of Christ in the promise of the Gospel.” Thus far the Book of Concord .

If the Pauline phrase (that “through the righteousness of One Man justification of life comes upon all men”) clearly means the same thing as that other statement, “We are justified by faith” (as the Book of Concord clearly and emphatically asserts), then the interpretation is rejected by the sentence of the Book of Concord that imagines from these words of Paul a justification apart from faith—one that extends also to those who have never had faith and never will. Dr. Luther says it even better in [his lectures on] the second chapter to the Galatians: “Where Christ and faith are not present, there is no remission of sins, no refuge, nothing but pure imputation of sins and condemnation.” (A Clear Explanation, 62-65)

Gerhard

This verse is a summary of everything that came before. That I may briefly summarize, he says, what I have said thus far concerning the comparison between Adam and Christ, the matter comes down to this: Just as the guilt that was contracted from one transgression of Adam sentences all men to death, so the righteousness of Christ that is imputed to believers by faith justifies them, so that they are again made participants in the eternal life that had been lost in Adam and through Adam.

ὡς διʼ ἑνὸς παραπτώματος, εἰς πάντας ἀνθρώπους, εἰς κατάκριμα. Just as through one offense, namely, guilt came upon all men for condemnation. The Syriac translates: Just as through sin, condemnation was to all the children of men. The Apostle contrasts τὸ παράπτωμα of Adam and τὸ δικαίωμα of Christ. Likewise, he contrasts the κατάκριμα that was propagated to all from Adam’s transgression with the δικαίωσιν ζωῆς that deduces its origin from the δικαιώματι of Christ and flows down to all.

Οὕτω καὶ διʼ ἑνὸς δικαιώματος εἰς πάντας ἀνθρώπους, εἰς δικαίωσιν ζωῆς. So through one Man’s righteousness, namely, the benefit overflowed to all men for justification of life, that is, salvific justification. For it is called “justification of life” because the goal and consequence of it is life and eternal salvation.

But how did the righteousness of Christ overflow to all men for justification, since not all men are justified? We reply: The Apostle is not talking about the application of the benefit, but about the acquisition of the benefit. If we want to descend to the application, that universality must be restricted to those who are grafted into Christ by faith. For as the unrighteousness of Adam is communicated to all those who are descended from him by carnal generation, so the righteousness of Christ is communicated to all those who are grafted into Him through faith and spiritual regeneration.

He demonstrates the basis for the preceding comparison, which consists in this, that these two men have been set up as two stocks from which righteousness and life are propagated to others. For Adam was set up in the first creation as the stock from which righteousness and life should be propagated to all his posterity. But since he turned away from God through sin, unrighteousness and death are propagated from him to all his posterity. Therefore, God out of grace took pity on the human race and opened up to us another source of righteousness and life. He sent Christ the Mediator, from whom as a stock and a tree of life, righteousness and life should be communicated to all who are grafted into Him by faith. (Adnotationes, on Rom. 5:18)

We reply:

1) The comparison between the disobedience of Adam and the obedience of Christ is not instituted simply and absolutely, but according to something in particular . For the Apostle is considering at that time the causes of our salvation and condemnation, for just as the condemnation draws its origin from Adam’s disobedience, so our salvation draws its origin from Christ’s obedience. Then, the Apostle considers the propagation and effects of Christ’s obedience and of Adam’ disobedience, for just as through the disobedience of one man, many were made sinners, so through the obedience of Christ they are made righteous.

2) But by no means is this comparison to be extended to the mode of propagation and communication, which the Apostle is obviously not treating in this passage; but he dealt with that in the preceding passages, teaching that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us by faith, but that Adam’s sin is propagated to us by carnal generation.

3) If we wanted to go beyond the limits of the Apostolic comparison, someone could infer from the same that the righteousness of Christ is propagated to us through carnal generation, since the unrighteousness of Adam is communicated to us in that manner. Likewise, one could infer that the righteousness of Christ is propagated to all men together, without any regard for faith or unbelief, since the sin of Adam is propagated to all through carnal generation.

4) But since that is absurd, a distinction must fully be made between the acquisition and the application of the merit of Christ; or between the benefit itself and participation in the benefit. The acquisition of the merit, or the benefit itself obtained by the death of Christ is general. For as Adam, by his disobedience, enveloped all of his posterity in the guilt of sin, so Christ, who suffered and died for the sins of all, also merited and acquired righteousness for all. But this benefit is only applied to those who are grafted into Christ by faith, and only they become participants in this benefit.

5) The contrast is evident in this Apostolic text between justification and condemnation, v. 16 and v.18. But since they are contrasted under the same genre, and condemnation is, to be sure, a judicial act, from that it follows that justification is also a judicial act, and hence it consists, not in the infusion of righteousness, but in the absolution from sins. Undoubtedly, as through the sin of Adam sin is propagated to all men, for it results in condemnation for them, that is, because of it they are damned by the righteous judgment of God unless reconciliation and remission take place, so through the merit of Christ righteousness and salvation have been obtained for all, so that they may be justified by faith, that is, that they may be pronounced righteous, absolved from sins and freed from condemnation.

6) To be made righteous and to be justified are considered by the Apostle to be equivalent expressions (ἰσοδυναμοῦσι). Therefore, to be made righteous is contrasted with for condemnation in v.19; so also to be justified in v.18; and hence each has a forensic meaning. The verb they will be made (κατασταθήσονται) indicates that these things are carried out before the tribunal of God’s righteous judgment, who condemns Adam’s posterity on account of sin, but absolves believers in Christ from that damnation and makes them righteous (Rom. 10:3, 2 Cor. 5:21). (Adnotationes, Rom. 5:19)

2 Corinthians 5:19

Melanchthon

2 Corinthians 5:19

…not imputing their sins to them.

This demonstrates what the effect is of the reconciliation made by the Son. For since God the Father transferred the sins of us all from us to the Son so that He might pay for us the penalty for sins and in this way reconcile again the offended Father, the eternal Father now does not impute sins to those who believe in His Son; He regards them as righteous on account of the obedience and intercession of His Son. For the righteousness of man which God regards as righteousness is that sins are remitted, are not imputed and are covered, as Paul defines righteousness in Romans 4, citing Psalm 32. Therefore, the effect of reconciliation is that sins are not imputed; instead, the faith that embraces Christ the Reconciler is imputed for righteousness.

And He placed among us, etc.

That is, He instituted the ministry of teaching about the reconciliation made through the death of the Son. For God wants it announced to the entire human race that reconciliation has been made by the Son, so that sins are not imputed to believers; instead, righteousness is imputed to them, and thus believers are saved. For this reason, among the ruins of the empires and so many sects and heresies, God has to this day wondrously preserved this ministry, and will continue to preserve it until the end of the world and the advent of His Son, as Paul says, “You shall announce the death of the Lord until He comes.” (Annotationes Philippi Melanchthonis in Epistolam Pauli ad Rhomanos unam Et ad Corinthios duas, 2 Cor. 5:19)

Chemnitz

Now this power of forgiving sin must not be understood to have been given to the priests in such a way that God had renounced it for Himself and had simply transferred it to the priests, with the result that in absolution it is not God Himself but the priest who remits sin. For Paul expressly distinguishes between the power and efficacy of reconciliation which belongs to God, and the ministry which was given to the apostles, so that it is God who reconciles the world to Himself (2 Cor. 5:19) and forgives sins (Is. 43:25), not however without means but in and through the ministry of Word and sacrament.

Ministers indeed are said to loose and remit sins on account of the keys, that is, because they have the ministry through which God reconciles the world to Himself and remits sins. Thus Paul says (2 Cor. 1:24) that although he has authority, he nevertheless does not lord it over their faith but is a servant and steward of the mysteries of Christ (1 Cor. 4:1), so that he who plants and he who waters is nothing, but He who gives the increase, namely God (1 Cor. 3:7). Nevertheless, he shows that the use of the ministry is useful and necessary, for, says he, we are co-workers, that is, assistants, whose labors God uses in the ministry, but where nevertheless all the efficacy belongs to Him. We are servants, says he, through whom you have believed. Likewise: “I became your father in Christ Jesus through the Gospel” (1 Cor. 4:15). Paul treats this distinction clearest of all in 2 Cor. 5:18–20. It is God who reconciles us to Himself through Christ, not counting our sins against us. To the apostles, however, He gave the ministry of reconciliation. But how so? “He entrusted to us,” says Paul, “the message of reconciliation. So we are ambassadors for Christ, God making His appeal through us. We beseech you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.”

Thus this distinction honors God and gives Him the glory that properly belongs to Him; it also claims for the ministry the honor and authority it has according to the Word of God. For even as it is Christ who baptizes through the ministry and also imparts His body and blood, so also it is Christ who through the ministry absolves and remits sins. (Examination, Vol. 2, 559-560)

Appendix 3: Citations from Luther’s Commentary on Galatians

Therefore the afflicted conscience has no remedy against despair and eternal death except to take hold of the promise of grace offered in Christ, that is, this righteousness of faith, this passive or Christian righteousness, which says with confidence: “I do not seek active righteousness. I ought to have and perform it; but I declare that even if I did have it and perform it, I cannot trust in it or stand up before the judgment of God on the basis of it. Thus I put myself beyond all active righteousness, all righteousness of my own or of the divine Law, and I embrace only that passive righteousness which is the righteousness of grace, mercy, and the forgiveness of sins.” In other words, this is the righteousness of Christ and of the Holy Spirit, which we do not perform but receive, which we do not have but accept, when God the Father grants it to us through Jesus Christ. (Luther’s Works, Vol. 26, 5)

If here we cannot distinguish between these two kinds of righteousness; if here by faith we do not take hold of Christ, who is sitting at the right hand of God, who is our life and our righteousness, and who makes intercession for us miserable sinners before the Father (Heb. 7:25), then we are under the Law and not under grace, and Christ is no longer a Savior. Then He is a lawgiver. Then there can be no salvation left, but sure despair and eternal death will follow. (Luther’s Works, Vol. 26, 11)

[Paraphrasing the Apostle Paul:] “Therefore my doctrine is true, pure, sure, and divine. Nor can there be any doctrine that is different from mine, much less better. Therefore any doctrine at all that does not teach as mine does—that all men are sinners and are justified solely by faith in Christ—must be false, uncertain, evil, blasphemous, accursed, and demonic. And so are those who either teach or accept such a doctrine.” (Luther’s Works, Vol. 26, 59)

For the faith that takes hold of Christ, the Son of God, and is adorned by Him is the faith that justifies, not a faith that includes love. For if faith is to be sure and firm, it must take hold of nothing but Christ alone; and in the agony and terror of conscience it has nothing else to lean on than this pearl of great value (Matt. 13:45–46). Therefore whoever takes hold of Christ by faith, no matter how terrified by the Law and oppressed by the burden of his sins he may be, has the right to boast that he is righteous. How has he this right? By that jewel, Christ, whom he possesses by faith. (Luther’s Works, Vol. 26, 88)

Therefore faith justifies because it takes hold of and possesses this treasure, the present Christ. But how He is present—this is beyond our thought; for there is darkness, as I have said. Where the confidence of the heart is present, therefore, there Christ is present, in that very cloud and faith. This is the formal righteousness on account of which a man is justified; it is not on account of love, as the sophists say. In short, just as the sophists say that love forms and trains faith, so we say that it is Christ who forms and trains faith or who is the form of faith. Therefore the Christ who is grasped by faith and who lives in the heart is the true Christian righteousness, on account of which God counts us righteous and grants us eternal life. Here there is no work of the Law, no love; but there is an entirely different kind of righteousness, a new world above and beyond the Law. For Christ or faith is neither the Law nor the work of the Law. (Luther’s Works, Vol. 26, 130)

But by the true definition Christ is not a lawgiver; He is a Propitiator and a Savior. Faith takes hold of this and believes without doubting that He has performed a superabundance of works and merits of congruity and condignity. He might have made satisfaction for all the sins of the world with only one drop of His blood, but now He has made abundant satisfaction. Heb. 9:12: “With His own blood He entered once for all into the Holy Place.” And Rom. 3:24–25: “Justified by His grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as an expiation by His blood.” Therefore it is something great to take hold, by faith, of Christ, who bears the sins of the world (John 1:29). And this faith alone is counted for righteousness (Rom. 3–4).

Here it is to be noted that these three things are joined together: faith, Christ, and acceptance or imputation. Faith takes hold of Christ and has Him present, enclosing Him as the ring encloses the gem. And whoever is found having this faith in the Christ who is grasped in the heart, him God accounts as righteous. This is the means and the merit by which we obtain the forgiveness of sins and righteousness. “Because you believe in Me,” God says, “and your faith takes hold of Christ, whom I have freely given to you as your Justifier and Savior, therefore be righteous.” Thus God accepts you or accounts you righteous only on account of Christ, in whom you believe. (Luther’s Works, Vol. 26, 132)

Now acceptance or imputation is extremely necessary, first, because we are not yet purely righteous, but sin is still clinging to our flesh during this life. God cleanses this remnant of sin in our flesh. In addition, we are sometimes forsaken by the Holy Spirit, and we fall into sins, as did Peter, David, and other saints. Nevertheless, we always have recourse to this doctrine, that our sins are covered and that God does not want to hold us accountable for them (Rom. 4). This does not mean that there is no sin in us, as the sophists have taught when they said that we must go on doing good until we are no longer conscious of any sin; but sin is always present, and the godly feel it. But it is ignored and hidden in the sight of God, because Christ the Mediator stands between; because we take hold of Him by faith, all our sins are sins no longer. But where Christ and faith are not present, here there is no forgiveness of sins or hiding of sins. On the contrary, here there is the sheer imputation and condemnation of sins. Thus God wants to glorify His Son, and He Himself wants to be glorified in us through Him. (Luther’s Works, Vol. 26, 132)

Therefore we define a Christian as follows: A Christian is not someone who has no sin or feels no sin; he is someone to whom, because of his faith in Christ, God does not impute his sin. This doctrine brings firm consolation to troubled consciences amid genuine terrors. It is not in vain, therefore, that so often and so diligently we inculcate the doctrine of the forgiveness of sins and of the imputation of righteousness for the sake of Christ, as well as the doctrine that a Christian does not have anything to do with the Law and sin, especially in a time of temptation. For to the extent that he is a Christian, he is above the Law and sin, because in his heart he has Christ, the Lord of the Law, as a ring has a gem. Therefore when the Law accuses and sin troubles, he looks to Christ; and when he has taken hold of Him by faith, he has present with him the Victor over the Law, sin, death, and the devil—the Victor whose rule over all these prevents them from harming him. (Luther’s Works, Vol. 26, 133)

When this doctrine, which pacifies consciences, remains pure and intact, Christians are constituted as judges over all kinds of doctrine and become lords over all the laws of the entire world. Then they can freely judge that the Turk with his Koran is damned, because he does not follow the right way; that is, he does not acknowledge that he is a miserable and damned sinner, and he does not take hold of Christ by faith, for whose sake he could believe that his sins are forgiven. With similar confidence they can pronounce sentence against the pope. He is damned with all his kingdom, because he, with all his monks and universities, acts as though we came to grace through the merit of congruity and as though we were then received into heaven by the merit of condignity. Here the Christian says: “That is not the right way to justify. This is not the road to the stars. For through my works preceding grace I cannot merit grace by congruity, nor can I deserve eternal life by condignity through my merits following grace; but sin is forgiven and righteousness is imputed to him who believes in Christ. This confidence makes him a son and heir of God, who in hope possesses the promise of eternal life. Through faith in Christ, therefore, and not through the merit of congruity and of condignity, everything is granted to us—grace, peace, the forgiveness of sins, salvation, and eternal life.” (Luther’s Works, Vol. 26, 134)

By faith alone, not by faith formed by love, are we justified. We must not attribute the power of justifying to a “form” that makes a man pleasing to God; we must attribute it to faith, which takes hold of Christ the Savior Himself and possesses Him in the heart. This faith justifies without love and before love. (Luther’s Works, Vol. 26, 137)

We are pronounced righteous solely by faith in Christ, not by the works of the Law or by love. (Luther’s Works, Vol. 26, 137)

The question is what Christ is and what blessing He has brought us. Christ is not the Law; He is not my work or that of the Law; He is not my love or that of the Law; He is not my chastity, obedience, or poverty. But He is the Lord of life and death, the Mediator and Savior of sinners, the Redeemer of those who are under the Law. By faith we are in Him, and He is in us (John 6:56). (Luther’s Works, Vol. 26, 137)

The only thing necessary is that we accept the treasure that is Christ, grasped by faith in our hearts, even though we feel that we are completely filled with sins. (Luther’s Works, Vol. 26, 139)

By this fortunate exchange with us He took upon Himself our sinful person and granted us His innocent and victorious Person. Clothed and dressed in this, we are freed from the curse of the Law, because Christ Himself voluntarily became a curse for us, saying: "For My own Person of humanity and divinity I am blessed, and I am in need of nothing whatever. But I shall empty Myself (Phil. 2:7); I shall assume your clothing and mask; and in this I shall walk about and suffer death, in order to set you free from death." Therefore when, inside our mask, He was carrying the sin of the whole world, He was captured, He suffered, He was crucified, He died; and for us He became a curse. But because He was a divine and eternal Person, it was impossible for death to hold Him. Therefore He arose from death on the third day, and now He lives eternally; nor can sin, death, and our mask be found in Him any longer; but there is sheer righteousness, life, and eternal blessing.

We must look at this image and take hold of it with a firm faith. He who does this has the innocence and the victory of Christ, no matter how great a sinner he is. But this cannot be grasped by loving will; it can be grasped only by reason illumined by faith. Therefore we are justified by faith alone, because faith alone grasps this victory of Christ. To the extent that you believe this, to that extent you have it. If you believe that sin, death, and the curse have been abolished, they have been abolished, because Christ conquered and overcame them in Himself; and He wants us to believe that just as in His Person there is no longer the mask of the sinner or any vestige of death, so this is no longer in our person, since He has done everything for us. (Luther’s Works, Vol. 26, 284)

Now that Christ reigns, there is in fact no more sin, death, or curse—this we confess every day in the Apostles’ Creed when we say: "I believe in the holy church." This is plainly nothing else than if we were to say: "I believe that there is no sin and no death in the church. For believers in Christ are not sinners and are not sentenced to death but are altogether holy and righteous, lords over sin and death who live eternally." But it is faith alone that discerns this, because we say: "I believe in the holy church." (Luther’s Works, Vol. 26, 285)

But the true theology teaches that there is no more sin in the world, because Christ, on whom, according to Is. 53:6, the Father has laid the sins of the entire world, has conquered, destroyed, and killed it in His own body. Having died to sin once, He has truly been raised from the dead and will not die any more (Rom. 6:9). Therefore wherever there is faith in Christ, there sin has in fact been abolished, put to death, and buried. But where there is no faith in Christ, there sin remains. And although there are still remnants of sin in the saints because they do not believe perfectly, nevertheless these remnants are dead; for on account of faith in Christ they are not imputed. (Luther’s Works, Vol. 26, 286)

On the other hand, Christ did not come for the smug hypocrites and the openly wicked despisers; nor did He come for the despairing, who think that there is nothing left but the terrors of the Law which they are experiencing. He was not given for such people, and He is useless to both groups. But He is useful to those who have been troubled and terrified by the Law for a time; for they do not despair amid the grave terrors caused by the Law, but they confidently draw near to Christ, the throne of grace, who has redeemed them from the curse of the Law by being made a curse for them; and here they obtain mercy and find grace. (Luther’s Works, Vol. 26, 362)

Appendix 4: Answering Some Questions Concerning Specific Citations from the Lutheran Fathers

Luther’s “the king gives you a castle” analogy

Question: Luther says, “Even he who does not believe that he is free and his sins forgiven shall also learn, in due time, how assuredly his sins were forgiven, even though he did not believe it. …A king gives you a castle. If you do not accept it, then it is not the king’s fault, nor is he guilty of a lie. But you have deceived yourself and the fault is yours. The king certainly gave it.” Isn’t he saying that God has already forgiven all men their sins, whether they believe it or not?

Answer: On the contrary. This statement from Luther is taken from his discourse on the power and efficacy of the Keys—the same discourse in which he says about a minister’s spoken absolution: “Rely on the words of Christ and be assured that God has no other way to forgive sins than through the spoken Word, as he has commanded us.” Luther is teaching that the Keys are effective, and that the spoken word of forgiveness is a valid object of faith. Indeed, the spoken Word is the only means God has of interacting with men and forgiving sins (Ap:IV:67). He says the same thing in his formula of Confession: “What is Confession?—Answer. Confession embraces two parts: the one is, that we confess our sins; the other, that we receive absolution, or forgiveness, from the confessor, as from God Himself, and in no wise doubt, but firmly believe, that our sins are thereby forgiven before God in heaven.”

Therefore, to assert that “the king gave the castle” apart from His Word, or that the whole world has already been absolved apart from the use of the “loosing Key” is diametrically opposed to Luther’s words.

Here we have the true significance of the keys. They are an office, a power or command given by God through Christ to all of Christendom for the retaining and remitting of the sins of men. For so Christ says in Matt. 9[:6], “But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority to forgive sins,” and he says to the paralytic, “arise,” etc. And soon thereafter, “When the crowd saw it … they praised God who had given such authority to men” [Matt. 9:8]. Do not allow yourself to be led astray by this Pharisaic babbling by which some deceive themselves, saying, “How can a man forgive sins when he can bestow neither grace nor the Holy Spirit?” Rely on the words of Christ and be assured that God has no other way to forgive sins than through the spoken Word, as he has commanded us. If you do not look for forgiveness through the Word, you will gape toward heaven in vain for grace, or (as they say), for a sense of inner forgiveness.

But if you speak as the factious spirits and sophists do: “After all, many hear of the binding and loosing of the keys, yet it makes no impression on them and they remain unbound and without being loosed. Hence, there must exist something else beside the Word and the keys. It is the spirit, the spirit, yes, the spirit that does it!” Do you believe he is not bound who does not believe in the key which binds? Indeed, he shall learn, in due time, that his unbelief did not make the binding vain, nor did it fail in its purpose. Even he who does not believe that he is free and his sins forgiven shall also learn, in due time, how assuredly his sins were forgiven, even though he did not believe it. St. Paul says in Rom. 3[:3]: “Their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God.” We are not talking here either about people’s belief or disbelief regarding the efficacy of the keys. We realize that few believe. We are speaking of what the keys accomplish and give. He who does not accept what the keys give receives, of course, nothing. But this is not the key’s fault. Many do not believe the gospel, but this does not mean that the gospel is not true or effective. A king gives you a castle. If you do not accept it, then it is not the king’s fault, nor is he guilty of a lie. But you have deceived yourself and the fault is yours. The king certainly gave it. (Luther’s Works, Vol. 40, 366-367)

Luther’s “forgiven before our prayer” from the Large Catechism

Question: Luther says in the Large Catechism, on the Lord’s Prayer, par. 88: “Therefore there is here again great need to call upon God and to pray: Dear Father, forgive us our trespasses. Not as though He did not forgive sin without and even before our prayer (for He has given us the Gospel, in which is pure forgiveness before we prayed or ever thought about it). But this is to the intent that we may recognize and accept such forgiveness.” Isn’t he saying that God has already forgiven all sinners?

Answer: No. Luther here is speaking about Christians who pray the Lord’s Prayer, and therefore, have been baptized and incorporated into the Church through faith in Christ. He is in no way speaking about the Jews and Turks who do not pray the Lord’s Prayer. He connects God’s forgiveness “without and even before our prayer” to “the Gospel,” “for He has given us the Gospel, in which is pure forgiveness.”

Luther also says:

The year of the release of debt is the whole time of grace, because the kingdom of Christ is nothing but the constant forgiveness of debts, so that they are forgiven. But that a debt is not forgiven to a stranger denotes that outside the church of God there is no remission of sins. For forgiveness cannot be granted to those who do not want it, who justify themselves and despise the church. Therefore repayment is to be demanded from them until they pay; that is, one must not yield to them but must always demand in order that they may think and act differently, until they repent. But to the repenting brother everything is to be forgiven. For where faith remains, there are no sins that are not forgivable and not to be remitted; but where unbelief remains, there are no sins that are not to be condemned and that should go unpunished. (Luther's Works, vol. 9, on Dt. 15:19)

And Melanchthon says in his Loci Communes, p.144:

This also is certain, that outside the church, that is, among those on whom the name of God has not been invoked through Baptism and who are without the Gospel, there is no remission of sins and a share in eternal life, as among the enemies of Christ, blasphemers, Jews, Mohammedans, and the like. This is clearly proved by this statement, “There is no other name given to mankind whereby [we] must be saved,” except the name of Jesus Christ [Acts 4:12].

Ambrose’s “forgave to all” statement from the Apology

Question: Ambrose is cited in the Apology (Apology IV, 103-105), stating that “He forgave to all sin which no one could avoid.” Is Ambrose (or Melanchthon) stating that God has already absolved and justified all sinners, whether they believe and have been baptized or not?”

Answer: No. Such an interpretation ignores the context of the whole Article IV (“The Righteousness of Faith”), as well as the immediate context, the stated conclusion of Melanchthon, and also the Scriptural context.

Here and there among the Fathers similar testimonies are extant. For Ambrose says in his letter to a certain Irenaeus: Moreover, the world was subject to Him by the Law for the reason that, according to the command of the Law, all are indicted, and yet, by the works of the Law, no one is justified, i.e., because, by the Law, sin is perceived, but guilt is not discharged. The Law, which made all sinners, seemed to have done injury, but when the Lord Jesus Christ came, He forgave to all sin which no one could avoid, and, by the shedding of His own blood, blotted out the handwriting which was against us. This is what he says in Rom. 5, 20: “The Law entered that the offense might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound.” Because after the whole world became subject, He took away the sin of the whole world, as he [John] testified, saying John 1, 29: “Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.” And on this account let no one boast of works, because no one is justified by his deeds. But he who is righteous has it given him because he was justified after the laver [of Baptism]. Faith, therefore, is that which frees through the blood of Christ, because he is blessed “whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered,” Ps. 32, 1. These are the words of Ambrose, which clearly favor our doctrine; he denies justification to works, and ascribes to faith that it sets us free through the blood of Christ.

Both Ambrose and the Lutheran Reformers who cite him explain where and how exactly Christ “forgave to all sin which no one could avoid.” He forgave to all and continues to forgive to all “after the laver of Baptism,” so that “faith is that which frees through the blood of Christ, because he is blessed whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered.” Here Ambrose clearly states that the “all” whose transgression is forgiven are the same “all” who have been justified through Holy Baptism and faith. Melanchthon summarizes this teaching of Ambrose in the words that follow, “He denies justification to works, and ascribes to faith that it sets us free through the blood of Christ.”

The Apostle Paul speaks in exactly the same way in Romans 3:20-26, where he puts all (namely, all people) under the condemnation of the Law, but then goes on to demonstrate that “all are justified” who believe in Christ as the Mercy Seat (Throne of Grace).

Likewise, Ambrose is clearly paraphrasing Colossians 2:12-14, where the Apostle Paul locates the forgiveness of sins in Holy Baptism, which links believers to Christ’s death, burial and resurrection. He is not placing our forgiveness at the time of the crucifixion, but at the time of our Baptism, which links us to the crucifixion: “Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross” (KJV).

Gerhard’s “absolved us in Him” phrase

Question: Gerhard is often cited to prove that all sinners have already been absolved “in Christ.” Did Gerhard teach that all sinners are “in Christ,” and have already been absolved and justified?

Answer: Not at all. Following is Gerhard’s entire section on Romans 4:25 from his commentary on Romans 1-6, from which this testimony is often cited. One should take into account his whole argument rather than focus on one phrase, as some have done. I will interject my own comments along the way.

Gerhard, Adnotationes ad priora capita Epistolae D. Pauli ad Romanos, the entire section on Rom. 4:25:

v.25 ὃς παρεδόθη διὰ τὰ παραπτώματα ἡμῶν, καὶ ἠγέρθη διὰ τὴν δικαίωσιν ἡμῶν.

The papists conclude from this passage that our justification does not consist solely in the remission of sins, but also in inner renewal. Pererius, disp. 10 in cap. 4 Rom. Th. 48: Paul distinguishes in this passage between the remission of sins and justification, saying that “Christ died for our sins and rose for our justification,” clearly indicating that our justification does not consist solely in the remission of sins, but that the principal part of justification is renewal of life and uprightness of mind. The resurrection of Christ was an example of this. Bellarmine, lib. 2 de Justif. Cap. 6: The Apostle attributes the word “justification” to the inner renewal rather than to justification, etc. For neither can it be doubted that the Apostle meant that the death of Christ was a model for the death of sins, while resurrection is a model for inner renewal and regeneration by which we walk in newness of life.

We reply:

(1) The argument depends on this hypothesis, that Paul does not attribute our justification to the death and resurrection of Christ for any other reason except that the death of Christ was a model for the death of sins, and the resurrection of Christ a model for inner renewal. But the following points show that this hypothesis is false.

(2) In this same chapter the Apostle expressly teaches that our justification before God consists in the gracious imputation of the righteousness of Christ and the non-imputation, or the remission, of sins; it does not consist in our works. He cannot be stating in the conclusion of this chapter the opposite of what is deduced from the things said above.

As he does throughout his commentary, Gerhard consistently defines justification as “the gracious imputation of the righteousness of Christ/the non-imputation of sins.” Both Paul and Gerhard iterate repeatedly that this imputation only takes place through faith. And as Gerhard says in the last sentence above, “He cannot be stating in the conclusion of this chapter the opposite of what is deduced from the things said above.” But what has the Apostle been proving throughout Romans chapter 4? That “faith is imputed for righteousness.”

(3) The Apostle, in this chapter, is not yet dealing with the effects and fruits of justification, to which renewal also pertains. Rather, he is dealing both with the cause and merit of justification, as is concluded from the particle διὰ, because of; and with the form and method of justification, which consists in the remission of sins which have been atoned for through Christ; and with the proper object of justifying faith, which is Christ, who died for our sins and was raised for our justification.

Gerhard emphasizes throughout his commentary that Christ has merited justification for all, but that does not mean that all have been pronounced righteous. Only when Christ’s merit is applied through faith is any sinner “declared righteous” before God. Notice, too, the distinction between the remission of sins and the atonement, as well as the proper object of justifying faith. This “proper object” is not a general absolution pronounced on Easter, but Christ Himself, who died, etc.

(4) Although we do not disapprove of the goal of treating the death and resurrection of Christ as a model, when explained according to the analogy of faith, nevertheless the Apostle is not yet dealing with that in this passage, although he does later, in Chapter Six and following. Here, however, he explains the other, and indeed, the principal goal of the death and resurrection of Christ, which is the expiation of our sins and our justification before God—indeed, the merit of our righteousness and salvation.

(5) We grant that the resurrection of Christ is not only a model and a figure, but also the cause of our renewal, just as the death of Christ is not only the model of spiritual mortification, but is also the efficient cause of it (2 Cor. 4:12). But it cannot be inferred from that that our justification formally consists in that very renewal, because one must deal differently with different benefits, and it is proved in its place that renewal is not part of justification, but a consequence and fruit of it.

(6) The Apostle neither in this passage nor ever, anywhere, attributes the word “justification” to renewal. Rather, he asserts that faith, which lays hold of Christ who died for our sins and was raised for our justification, is imputed to us for righteousness.

Gerhard explicitly describes, in connection with this verse, how sinners are justified. Faith…is imputed to us for righteousness.

But if someone further inquires: In what sense and respect, then, is our justification, which consists in the remission of sins, attributed to the resurrection of Christ?

We reply: It should be taken in this way.

(1) With respect to the manifestation, demonstration and confirmation, because the resurrection of Christ is the clear testimony that full satisfaction has been made for our sins and that perfect righteousness has been procured. Jerome on this passage: Christ rose in order that He might confirm righteousness to believers. Chrysostom, hom. 9 ad Rom.: In the resurrection it is demonstrated that Christ died, not for His own sins, but for our sins. For how could He rise again if He were a sinner? But if He was not a sinner, then He was crucified for the sake of others.

This is Gerhard’s first explanation of how “our justification” is attributed to the resurrection of Christ, based on Rom. 4:25. He emphasizes it as proof that “full satisfaction has been made” and “perfect righteousness procured.” This is not a “pronouncement” that all men are righteous. This is the righteousness of Christ that would serve to justify the whole world of sinners, if the whole world of sinners would believe in Christ. It belongs to Christ alone, who distributes it in the Means of Grace and applies it through faith, so that those who are “ungodly” with respect to their own works are counted as “godly” through faith in the Righteous One. This is far different from the assertion that “all mankind has been declared righteous.” In fact, Gerhard even quotes Jerome approvingly on this passage, saying that Christ rose in order that He might confirm righteousness to believers.

(2) With respect to the application. If Christ had remained in death, He would not be the conqueror of death, nor could He apply to us the righteousness that was obtained at such a high price (Rom. 5:10, 8:34). But since He rose from the dead and ascended into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God, He thus also offers to the world, through the Word of the Gospel, the benefits obtained by His suffering and death, applies them to believers, and in this way justifies them. With respect to this application, Cardinal Toletus (in his commentary on this passage, and Suarez tom. 2, in part 3, Thom. disp. 44, p.478) acknowledges that our justification is attributed to the resurrection of Christ, writing thus: Christ, by His suffering, sufficiently destroyed sin. Nevertheless, in order that we might be justified and that sin might be effectively remitted to us, it was necessary for the suffering of Christ to be applied to us through a living faith. Christ arose, therefore, for the sake of our righteousness, that is, so that our faith might be confirmed, and in this way we might be effectively justified. The Apostle notably says that Christ died for our sins and was raised, not for the sake of δικαιοσύνην, which is contrasted with sins in general, but διὰ τὴν δικαίωσιν ἡμῶν, for the sake of our justification, which consists in absolution from sins.

This is Gerhard’s second explanation of how “our justification” is attributed to the resurrection of Christ, based on Rom. 4:25. He unequivocally refers to the application of the benefits obtained by Christ to believers as the way in which we are justified. It could not be more clearly stated than that “He thus also offers to the world, through the Word of the Gospel, the benefits obtained by His suffering and death, applies them to believers, and in this way justifies them.” The application of the righteousness obtained by Christ is the manner in which God justifies a person. And we are only effectively justified and sins are only effectively remitted to us when “the suffering of Christ is applied to us through a living faith.” Note: he does not say “when the general justification is applied to us,” but “when the suffering of Christ is applied to us.” The suffering, death and resurrection of Christ + the application of the same through the Word of the Gospel, through faith = justification.

Incidentally, among the “benefits obtained” by the suffering and death of Christ, Gerhard also includes elsewhere in his Romans commentary: adoption, the remission of sins, eternal life, salvation, regeneration, and even the giving of the Holy Spirit. From these, it is clear that the “benefits obtained” by Christ do not refer to things that occurred or were “declared” or “pronounced” at a single point in time (i.e., either on the cross or on Easter Sunday), unless one wishes to claim that the Holy Spirit was given to all men on Easter Sunday, apart from the Word. Rather, all these benefits belong to Christ. They do not belong to all men indiscriminately. They are only distributed and applied through the Word and only received through faith, so that sinners can only be said to be declared righteous, adopted, forgiven, made alive, saved, regenerated, and given the gift of the Holy Spirit on an individual basis, “when they believe” (cf. Augsburg Confession:IV).

(3) With respect to the actual placement under Christ’s protection from sin. Just as the heavenly Father, by delivering Christ into death for the sake of our sins, condemned sin in His flesh through sin (Rom. 8:3)—that is, condemned it because it had sinned against Christ by causing death for Him, even though He was innocent, and so He withdrew from sin its legal right against believers so that it cannot condemn them any longer; or He also condemned it, that is, punished our sins in Christ, which were imposed on Him and imputed to Him as to a bondsman—so also, by raising Him from the dead, by that very deed He absolved Him from our sins that were imputed to Him, and consequently has also absolved us in Him, so that, in this way, the resurrection of Christ may be both the cause and the pledge and the complement of our justification. The following passages pertain to this: 1 Cor. 15:17, 2 Cor. 5:21, Eph. 2:5, Col. 2:12-13, Phil. 3:8-10, 1 Pet. 1:3.

Finally, after discussing Romans 4:25 at great length and after offering several interpretations that unequivocally refer to the remission of sins and justification of believers only, we come to the final paragraph of Gerhard’s exposition of this verse, of which half of a sentence is quoted by some to assert that Gerhard “clearly” taught that “absolution has been pronounced upon all sinners.”

The key question in this paragraph is whether anything in Gerhard’s words supports the conclusion “that all mankind is now regarded as righteous before His divine tribunal,” or that “the resurrection of Christ from the dead is the actual absolution pronounced upon all sinners.” The answer is clearly revealed in Gerhard’s words.

First, let it be noted again that this explanatory paragraph is the last in a series of explanations Gerhard has given. In all of them, and in all the preceding commentary, he has connected absolution with faith in Christ alone.

Secondly, even the first part of this paragraph makes clear that, in condemning sin, the Father “withdrew from sin its legal right against believers so that it cannot condemn them any longer.” Gerhard clearly does not have all unbelievers in view as those who are declared free from the law.

Thirdly, in calling Christ’s resurrection the “cause (causa) and the pledge (pignus) and the complement (complementum)” of our justification, he does not at all indicate thereby that our justification occurred simultaneously with Christ’s resurrection, but that our justification is inextricably linked with the resurrection of Christ. The sense of this statement remains perfectly intact if Gerhard is referring to “our justification” as we are brought, as individuals, to faith in Christ.

Finally, that Gerhard, when he asserts that God “consequently has also absolved us in Him,” is speaking only of the absolution of believers in Christ, and not of an “absolution pronounced upon all sinners,” is proved by the supporting passages cited by Gerhard. “The following passages pertain to this: 1 Cor. 15:17, 2 Cor. 5:21, Eph. 2:5, Col. 2:12-13, Phil. 3:8-10, 1 Pet. 1:3.”

1 Cor. 15:17 And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins! Christ told the Jews who did not believe in Him that “if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins” (John 8:24). According to Scripture, all unbelievers are “still in their sins” (c.f. also Eph. 2:1). But the Apostle is here speaking to the believers in Christ in Corinth who are no longer “still in their sins,” because they have been “washed… sanctified…justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God” (1 Cor. 6:11). Yet according to the Apostle Paul, his preaching would be in vain and their faith in Christ would be useless if Christ were still dead. This indicates an inextricable link between the resurrection of Christ and justification by faith. It does not, however, indicate a simultaneous justification of all unbelievers, or of all the souls in hell, at the moment of Christ’s resurrection.

2 Cor. 5:21 For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him. This passage speaks of what Luther called the “blessed exchange.” The sin of all men was imputed to Christ on the cross and he was punished for the sins of all men. But the exchange is not completed on the cross. Christ Himself is our righteousness, and we become the righteousness of God when we are grafted into Him by faith. We could not be grafted into a dead man, or covered in the righteousness of a dead man, or given eternal life by a dead man. Furthermore, if Christ had been left in death, then Christ Himself would not have been righteous, but a liar, and would have no righteousness to impart to anyone. Christ’s resurrection is essential for our justification. But in no way can it be said that all unbelievers have already “become the righteousness of God in Christ” when Christ was raised from the dead. To be “in Christ” is to have faith in Christ. (cf. Gal. 2:16-17, Rom. 6:23, Rom. 8:1, Rom. 12:5, 1 Cor. 1:2, 1 Cor. 15:18.)

Eph. 2:5(-6) even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, This passage makes it clear in what sense Gerhard meant that “we have been absolved in Christ.” These verses from Ephesians are a clear reference to conversion, not to the “objective justification (or vivification)” of all men at once. In no way can one assert that “all men” have been “made alive together with Christ,” “raised up together with Him,” and “made to sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus.” This refers only to the vivification that took place for believers when the Holy Spirit brought us out of the spiritual death of unbelief into the spiritual life of faith. Paul concludes this grand section with the climactic, “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith.” In the same way in which faith links a person to Christ’s death, burial, resurrection and session at God’s right hand, Gerhard also asserts the link between believers and Christ’s resurrection as an “absolution” from the sins that were imputed to Him. We believers have been “absolved” in Christ in the same sense in which we have been made alive together with Him and seated in the heavenly places in Him.

Col. 2:12-13 buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, It is equally clear from this passage that Gerhard connects the justification of Rom. 4:25 with our baptismal regeneration, which is entirely consistent with the Apology of the Augsburg Confession and the Formula of Concord, which consistently link “justification” with “regeneration.” Gerhard connects “our being raised with Christ” and “our absolution in Christ,” not to the time of Christ’s resurrection, but to the time of our baptism, when we were grafted into Christ, so that His death became our death, His life became our life, and His “absolution” became ours. Since the unbaptized/unbelieving have never been grafted into Christ through Holy Baptism and faith, they cannot be said to have been raised with Him, or absolved in Him.

Phil. 3:8-10 Yet indeed I also count all things loss for the excellence of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as rubbish, that I may gain Christ and be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith; that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection, and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death, Again, the fellowship with the sufferings of Christ and with the resurrection of Christ and with the righteousness of Christ is only “through faith in Christ,” according to the Apostle. Gerhard is not talking about any absolution of the unbelieving world, but of believers in Christ as they are connected to Him by faith.

1 Pet. 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His abundant mercy has begotten us again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, This final passage cited by Gerhard as “pertaining” to what he had said about “our being absolved in Christ” is the final piece of evidence that he was not referring to an absolution of unbelievers, nor was he asserting that all unbelievers are “in Him.” Peter’s words are clearly addressed to believers who have been “begotten again,” or “born again” through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The resurrection of Jesus Christ is, indeed, the “cause” of our rebirth. But our rebirth was not simultaneous with the resurrection of Christ, nor can it be said that all men have been “reborn” through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Unless Gerhard was asserting that all mankind has been objectively “reborn” or “regenerated” (which would be absurd), he was only talking about believers being “in Christ,” and therefore being “absolved” in Christ.

Works Cited

Augustine of Hippo. P. Schaff (Ed.), A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series, Volume V: Saint Augustin: Anti-Pelagian Writings. New York: Christian Literature Company, 1887.

Chemnitz, Martin. Harmony of the Four Evangelists, Vol. 1, Book 2. Translated by Rev. Dr. Richard J. Dinda. Malone, TX: The Center for the Study of Lutheran Orthodoxy, 2011.

Chemnitz, M., & Kramer, F. Vol. 1 & 2: Examination of the Council of Trent (electronic ed.). St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1999.

Chemnitz, Martin. Loci Theologici. Translated by J.A.O. Preus. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1989.

Chemnitz, M., & Poellot, L. Ministry, word, and sacraments: An enchiridion (electronic ed.). St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1999.

Concordia Triglotta—English, Latin, German: The Symbolical Books of the Evangelical Lutheran Church (electronic ed.). Milwaukee, WI: Northwestern Publishing House, 1996.

Gerhard, Johann. Adnotationes ad priora capita Epistolae D. Pauli ad Romanos. Jena: Christian von Saher, 1644.

Gerhard, Johann. Handbook of Consolations. Translated by Carl L. Beckwith. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2009.

Gerhard, Johann. Summae Evangelii, hoc est, Aphorismi Apostolici Rom. 4 v.25 Consideratio. Wittenberg: M. Baltasar, 1635.

Huber, Samuel. Theses, Christum Jesum esse mortuum pro peccatis omnium hominum: Contra novum horrendum, atque. Tübingen: Stephan Gerlach, 1590.

Hunnius, Aegidius. Theses Opposed to Huberianism. Translated by Paul A. Rydecki. Malone, TX: Repristination Press, 2012.

Hunnius, Aegidius. A Clear Explanation of the Controversy among the Wittenberg Theologians Concerning Regeneration and Election. Translated by Paul A. Rydecki. Malone, TX: Repristination Press, 2013.

Hunnius, Aegidius. Articulus de iustificatione hominis peccatoris gratuita. Helenopolia ad Moenum, 1589.

Leyser, Polycarp. De Iustificatione Hominis Coram Deo: Assertiones Theologicae. Wittenberg, 1581.

Luther, Martin. Luther’s Sermons, Volume 2. http://www.orlutheran.com/html/mlsema08.html.

Luther, Martin. Luther's Works, vol. 9: Lectures on Deuteronomy (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald & H. T. Lehmann, Ed.). Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1999.

Luther, Martin. Luther's works, vol. 26: Lectures on Galatians, 1535, Chapters 1-4 (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald & H. T. Lehmann, Ed.). Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1999.

Luther, Martin. Luther's works, vol. 40: Church and Ministry II (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald & H. T. Lehmann, Ed.). Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1999.

Luther, Martin. Luther's works, vol. 42: Devotional Writings I (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald & H. T. Lehmann, Ed.). Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1999.

Luther, Martin. Luther's works, vol. 50: Letters III (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald & H. T. Lehmann, Ed.). Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1999

Luther, Martin. Luther's works, vol. 51: Sermons I (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald & H. T. Lehmann, Ed.). Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1999.

Luther, Martin. Luther's works, vol. 52: Sermons II (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald & H. T. Lehmann, Ed.). Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1999.

Luther, Martin. The Bondage of the Will. Translated by James I Packer and O.R. Johnston. Grand Rapids: Fleming H. Revell, 1994.

Melanchthon, Philip. Annotationes Philippi Melanchthonis in Epistolam Pauli ad Rhomanos unam Et ad Corinthios duas. Johann Schoeffer, 1523.

Melanchthon, P., & Preus, J. A. O. Loci Communes, 1543 (electronic ed.). St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1992.

The Lutheran Hymnal. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1941.

[1] For our purposes, the age of Lutheran orthodoxy will be defined as the period beginning with Martin Luther and ending with Johann Gerhard, c. AD 1515-1637.

[2] Latin: thronum gratiae. Luther had translated the Greek word ἱλαστήριον (“propitiation, propitiatorium, Mercy Seat,” or “sacrifice of atonement” in the NIV) in Rom. 3:25 with “Gnadenstuhl.” Elsewhere it is rendered “Gnadenthron.”

[3] In his commentary on Romans 3:22-26, explaining how Christ is the “Propitiatorium,” the antitype of the Old Testament Mercy Seat.

[4] Luther: “[We know] about the unfathomable goodness and mercy of our heavenly Father: that Jesus Christ is our mediator, our throne of grace, and our bishop before God in heaven, who daily intercedes for us and reconciles all who believe in him alone, and who call upon him; that he is not a judge, nor cruel, except for those who do not believe in him, or who reject his comfort and grace; [and] that he is not the man who accuses and threatens us, but rather the man who reconciles us [with God], and intercedes for us with his own death and blood shed for us so that we should not fear him, but approach him with all assurance and call him dear Savior, sweet Comforter, faithful bishop of our souls, etc.” (Luther’s Works, Vol. 50, 20-21).

[5] Latin: in justificandis

[6] Gerhard, Adnotationes on Rom. 3:25: “The type of the sprinkling of the Propitiatorium with the blood of the sacrifices, by which was signified that our Propitiatorium in the New Testament was likewise to be sprinkled, not with the blood of another, but with His own blood.”

[7] German: Weiter wird gelehrt, daß wir Vergebung der Sünden und Gerechtigkeit vor Gott nicht erlangen mögen durch unser Verdienst, Werke und Genugtun, sondern daß wir Vergebung der Sünden bekommen und vor Gott gerecht werden aus Gnaden, um Christus’ willen, durch den Glauben, 2] so wir glauben, daß Christus für uns gelitten hat und daß uns um seinetwillen die Sünden vergeben, Gerechtigkeit und ewiges Leben geschenkt wird.3] Denn diesen Glauben will Gott für Gerechtigkeit vor ihm halten und zurechnen, wie St. Paulus sagt zu den Römern am 3. und 4.

Latin: Item docent, quod homines non possint iustificari coram Deo propriis viribus, meritis aut operibus, sed gratis iustificentur propter 2] Christum per fidem, quum credunt se in gratiam recipi et peccata remitti propter Christum, qui sua morte pro nostris peccatis 3] satisfecit. Hanc fidem imputat Deus pro iustitia coram ipso, Rom. 3 et 4.

[8] FC:SD:XI:15

[9] FC:Ep:III:3

[10] AC:XX:9, AC:XXI:2, Ap:V:58, Ap:III:143

[11] Ap:IV:53

[12] AC:IV:2;Ap:IV:40; Ap:III(V):57

[13] Ap:XXIV:23

[14] AE:40:213

[15] FC:Ep:V:5

[16] Ap:IV:81

[17] Luther: “The question is what Christ is and what blessing He has brought us. Christ is not the Law; He is not my work or that of the Law; He is not my love or that of the Law; He is not my chastity, obedience, or poverty. But He is the Lord of life and death, the Mediator and Savior of sinners, the Redeemer of those who are under the Law. By faith we are in Him, and He is in us (John 6:56).”

[18] Those who wish to ascribe a “universal justification” to Luther based on the first sentence of this paragraph would do well to read it all the way to the end of the paragraph. Luther commonly makes broad statements like this that he goes on to explain later. To cite another example: “Now that Christ reigns, there is in fact no more sin, death, or curse—this we confess every day in the Apostles’ Creed when we say: "I believe in the holy church." This is plainly nothing else than if we were to say: "I believe that there is no sin and no death in the church. For believers in Christ are not sinners and are not sentenced to death but are altogether holy and righteous, lords over sin and death who live eternally." (Luther’s Works, Vol. 26, 285)

[19] Augustine of Hippo. P. Schaff (Ed.), A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series, Volume V: Saint Augustin: Anti-Pelagian Writings, 549.

[20] Ap:XIIb:60: “…We attribute justification and regeneration to this faith.” FC:SD:III:18: “The word regeneration is sometimes used for the word justification.” Et al.

[21] The Lutheran Hymnal, The Confession of Sins, p. 6

[22] Theses 12 & 13 on Election: “In addition, whether all men are, in fact, saved, including those who do not believe in Christ. This, likewise, is not, at the moment, being called into question. For although that conclusion can most definitely be reached from Huber’s doctrine as a consequence affirmed by the testimonies of Christ and the apostles, nevertheless, since Huber directly and intentionally does not teach in such a way, we are still willing not to charge him directly with that paradox.” (Hunnius, Theses Opposed to Huberianism, Concerning Justification). This “paradox” of Huber’s was that all men have been forgiven and justified before God, and yet not all men are saved. Hunnius rejects this paradox, since the “testimonies of Christ and the apostles” affirm that those who are justified and forgiven are also saved.

[23] The Lutheran Hymnal #429: “Fount of Grace;” Original: Gnadenthron.

Why We Need to Be in Church on Sunday

noreply@blogger.com (Pastor Spencer) — Sat, 25 May 2013 15:00:00 +0000

Readers, Below is a bulletin insert I've used now and then over the years on Memorial Day weekend:

The Summer season is almost upon us. There will be so very many activities to entertain and entice us over these next months. Thus, for the edification and enlightenment of Christian believers, we learn . . .

Why We Need to Be in Church on Sunday

Unlike on T.V., we're going to start at the top – first things first, as they say.

The Number One Reason Why We Need to Be in Church on Sunday Is: Our LORD deserves for us to be in Church on Sunday. “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life." (John 3:16) What else could any believer do but come to God's House and give Him thanks and praise or sending His Son to pay for the sins of the world? Surely, this question answers itself!

So, OK, that's it, we're done, right? Reason enough, right?

Of course, right. But in case we need a bit more encouragement . . .

The Number Two Reason Why We Need to Be in Church on Sunday Is: God desires for us to be in Church on Sunday. “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy." (Exodus 20:8) God truly wants to see us in His House. If not, He would have clearly said so.

The Number Three Reason Why We Need to Be in Church on Sunday Is: Our

immortal souls require us to be in Church on Sunday. "For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul?" (Matthew 16:26) Sure, we can read the Bible anywhere, but in Church it is presented and explained, and the holy sacraments administered, especially for the benefit of our souls – to strengthen and maintain our saving faith. Nothing is more important than that!

The Number Four Reason Why We Need to Be in Church on Sunday Is: Our sanctified Christian Lives need us to be in Church on Sunday. "Therefore, take up the full armor of God, so that you will be able to resist in the evil day, and having done everything, to stand firm." (Ephesians 6:13) The devil wants us to turn against God, lose our faith and our eternal salvation. Our life of sanctification works against this plot. In Church we learn how to live according to God's will and thwart Satan's evil attacks.

The Number Five Reason Why We Need to Be in Church on Sunday Is: Our families need us to be with them in Church on Sunday. "Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord." (Ephesians 6:4) "Do as I DO," is an excellent teaching method for children, spouses, and even parents; much more so than merely, "Do as I say."

The Number Six Reason Why We Need to Be in Church on Sunday Is: Our fellow members need to have us with them in Church on Sunday. "Let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds, not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another; and all the more as you see the day drawing near." (Hebrews 10:24-25) Whether it should be this way or not, the simple truth is that our fellow members often become discouraged and disheartened when far too many seats remain empty in church. We are in this struggle against the devil together, and we need to show our unity especially in our Sunday worship.

The Number Seven Reason Why We Need to Be in Church on Sunday Is: Our friends, neighbors, co-workers, and community should observe us going to Church on Sunday. "Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven." (Matthew 5:16) It's one thing to say we're Christians; it's another to actually show it. One of the best ways to show this is to be seen heading off to church on Sunday morning – and to invite others along!

The Number Eight Reason Why We Need to Be in Church on Sunday Is: Visitors to our worship service need to see us in Church on Sunday. "And you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth." (Acts 1:8) Suppose someone we invite to church shows up on Sunday and finds our church more than half empty? What can we expect them to think – perhaps that our members don't care enough about what they say they believe to actually attend? Who would want to join a hypocritical group like that?

The Number Nine Reason Why We Need to Be in Church on Sunday Is: The volunteer workers at our Church should see us in Church on Sunday. "For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not turn your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another." (Galatians 5:13) Yes, there are many things we could be doing on a Sunday morning. Yet, some of our fellow members have gone to the effort of serving that morning as ushers, teachers, musicians, counters and the like. We need to support them with our encouragement – and with our presence!

. . . and . . .

The Number Ten Reason Why We Need to Be in Church on Sunday Is: Our Pastor works hard for us to be in Church on Sunday. "Remember those who led you, who spoke the word of God to you; and considering the result of their conduct, imitate their faith. . . . Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with grief, for this would be unprofitable for you." (Hebrews 13:7 & 17) Any truly Biblical Pastor is trained to gladly preach and teach if even only two or three gather around God's Word. But he is also human, and can become dispirited and even hurt when many seem to reject his shepherding by their absence. This is certainly not a wise way to treat those who are supposed to care for our eternal souls!

Let's See one another in Church as often as possible, this Summer, and all year long!

Pastor Spencer

Ascension Day

noreply@blogger.com (Pastor Spencer) — Thu, 09 May 2013 12:48:00 +0000

Ascension of Our Lord
The elevation of Christ into heaven from the Mount of Olives in the presence of His followers took place on the fortieth day after His Resurrection. It is recorded in Mark 16:19, Luke 24:51, and in Acts 1:4-12. The occasion celebrates the completion of Christ's earthly ministry, the pledge and guarantee of our eventual glorification with Christ in eternity, and His existence in heaven with a real and continual, yet completely glorified, human nature.

In the Fourth Century, St. Helena, the mother of Emperor Constantine, built the first church at the summit of Mt. Olivet to commemorate the Ascension of Christ.

This church was destroyed by the Persians in A.D. 614, rebuilt in the Eighth Century, destroyed again by the Saracens, then rebuilt a second time by the crusaders after they occupied Jerusalem at the end of the First Crusade. The Muslim army under Saladin destroyed this church in A.D. 1189, leaving only an octagonal structure, still standing today, which encloses a stone said to bear the imprint of the feet of Christ as He left the ground.

The descriptions of the Gospel writers as they describe the Ascension are a true account of what transpired. At the same time, they should not be interpreted to teach that heaven is to be located directly above the earth; no more than the words "sits on the right hand of God" mean that this is Christ's physical location at all times. As Jesus disappeared from the sight of His followers, He simply rose off the ground and was soon hidden by a cloud. Angles then told those who had been watching Him that He would return in a similar manner - that is, in the sky and from out of clouds.

The observance of this Feast Day in the Christian Church can be traced back to the days of the Apostles themselves. St. Augustine writes that it was begun by the Apostles, and he speaks of it in a way that shows it was the universal observance of the Church long before his time, in both the Eastern and Western Church.

Frequent mention of this celebration is also found in the writings of St. John Chrysostom, St. Gregory of Nyssa, and in the Constitution of the Apostles. It is one of the Feasts ranking as equal with the Feasts of the Passion, the Resurrection, and of Pentecost among Roman, Eastern Orthodox, and liturgical Protestant churches.

A very ancient tradition in all these churches is the extinction of the paschal candle and its removal from the Chancel area after the reading of the Gospel.

A Little Something for the National Day of Prayer - May 2nd

noreply@blogger.com (Pastor Spencer) — Tue, 30 Apr 2013 17:00:00 +0000

The day after tomorrow is the National Day of Prayer in the U.S. This is different than the World Day of Prayer, held on the first Friday in March, which is supposed to be a Christian observance. Wikipedia describes this occasion on the first Thursday in May this way -

"The National Day or Prayer is celebrated by Americans of many religions, including Christians of many denominations, such as Baptists and Catholics, as well as Sikhs, Muslims, Hindus, and Jews. On the National Day of Prayer, many Americans assemble in prayer in front of courthouses, as well as in houses of worship, such as churches, mosques, synagogues, and temples.Luncheons, picnics, and music performances revolving around praying for the nation are also popular observances. Traditionally, the President of the United States issues an official National Day of Prayer proclamation each year as well."

As a service to orthodox, confessional Lutheran Pastors and congregations, below is an explanation you may use when asked by folks in your communities to participate in the National Day of Prayer.

You're welcome!

Pastor Spencer

Prayer Is Worship, and That's a Fact!

Once and for all people need to understand that prayer is a form of worship. There really shouldn't be any argument about this fact. The very first words in Webster’s dictionary to define "worship" are “a prayer . . . showing reverence or devotion for a deity.”

Now, Jesus Himself said that those who worship Him must do so in truth. (John 4:24). And God teaches us very clearly that truth and false teaching are not to be joined together in His church (Romans 16:17, First John 4). Thus, it is obviously not pleasing to God for people who accept the full truth of His Word to join in worship and prayer with those who hold to any false teachings. For what indeed does truth have to do with falsehood? They are opposites!

How much clearer could anything possibly be!? But it seems most people reject this very obvious Bible teaching. Why; because they don't like it. It doesn't fit with their warm, soft, gooey-sweet concept of Christianity. But it is still God's own truth, whether anyone likes it or not.

Therefore, this Pastor and this congregation will never take part in any non-denominational, inter-denominational, multi-religion prayer-fest. We will say very clearly and firmly, “No!” We must refuse to offend and insult our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ by our participation in any such mixture of truth with falsehood!

Yes, the Rumours are True... Intrepid Lutherans is going South.

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Douglas Lindee) — Thu, 18 Apr 2013 03:05:00 +0000

South to Texas, for a conference, that is. The week of April 29^th, is the time scheduled for the 2013 Colloquium and Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Diocese of North America (ELDoNA). The first three days comprise the Colloquium part of the week's agenda, and is open to visitors. I will be in attendance.

Intrepid Lutherans has tried to have a presence at least at some of the confessional Lutheran conferences around the nation: like the Lutheranism & the Classics Conference in October 2010, at Concordia Theological Seminary in Fort Wayne, IN; the Emmaus Conference in May 2011 in the Pacific Northwest; the Lutheran Free Conference in November 2011, at Martin Luther College in New Ulm, MN; the Symposium on the Lutheran Confessions in January 2012, again at Concordia Theological Seminary in Fort Wayne, IN; and, of course, our own Conference of Intrepid Lutherans in May of 2012.

Since ELDoNA has always, and especially recently, been an object of our curiosity, we thought that this year's Colloquium would be of interest. It is known that several WELS laymen will be in attendance, and, perhaps, maybe even some WELS clergy. As I understand it, there will be seven papers delivered on Tuesday and Wednesday that week, following which I plan to post some sort of description of, or reaction to, my experience.

Stay Tuned!

UPDATE: A Deceptive Pamphlet from Bethany Lutheran College (ELS)

noreply@blogger.com (Rev. Paul A. Rydecki) — Tue, 16 Apr 2013 05:02:00 +0000

UPDATE: Please note Rev. Moldstad's apology in the Comments below the post.

HT: Ecclesia Augustana

Maybe these things shouldn't surprise me anymore, but they still do. The graphic below was posted last evening by Ecclesia Augustana. It is a copy of a pamphlet being handed out at Bethany Lutheran College by their chaplain, Rev. Don Moldstad, for a presentation he was making on the papacy.

It's bad enough that this pamphlet misrepresents the Scriptural and Lutheran doctrine of justification.

But equally disturbing is the deceptive manner in which these statements have been presented. They are listed under the column entitled "The Lutheran Confessions." They are directly listed, in quotation marks, under "Luther's Small Catechism." But they are not found in Luther's Small Catechism. Anywhere. They come, instead, from the ELS's explanations of Luther's Catechism. A pastor who cannot distinguish between the Lutheran Confessions and the writings of his own synod is inept. A pastor who knows the difference and still presents his synod's writings, in quotation marks, under "The Lutheran Confessions," is being deceptive.

If Rev. Moldstad is led to recognize his error, at very least his error of misrepresenting the words of Luther's Small Catechism, we will welcome his public apology and gladly publish it here on Intrepid Lutherans.

Under the column entitled "The Lutheran Confessions":

From Luther’s Small Catechism:

“I believe in the forgiveness of sins because the Bible assures me that God the Father has by grace forgiven all sinners and declared them righteous.”

“God can declare sinners righteous because, (sic) on the redemptive work of Christ, He has aquitted (sic) all men of the guilt and punishment of their sins, and has imputed to them the righteousness of Christ. He therefore regards them in Christ as though they had never sinned.”

“I receive this justification when the Holy Ghost through the means of grace, leads me, the sinner, to believe that God has forgiven all my sins for Christ’s sake.”

The Average Layman is Defenseless!

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Douglas Lindee) — Mon, 15 Apr 2013 11:30:00 +0000

Today, we reprise a lecture we featured twice in 2011 under the title, 'non rockaboatus' is an organizational disease: Lectures by Dr. Walter Martin, but with a different emphasis. After the facts exposed in last week's post, Do any Lutherans want to be Dresden Lutherans? Meanwhile, the Groeschelites continue their agenda..., it is abundantly clear that our Synod is wracked with division and, as a consequence, is in steep decline right along with the rest of the visible Church. And with the Church, so goes Western Civilization itself, whose political, legal and educational structures were built upon the framework of Christian teaching.

Stating as much in our conclusion to that post (the section entitled The Collective Descent of American Lutheranism), we submitted that the time of inaction, the time of armchair lamentation over the state of our Synod and of American Lutheranism, the time of complacent Synod watching as if it were a mere spectator sport, has come to a close. Yesterday was the time to act. Today is the time to do so feverishly. Tomorrow will be too late. After tomorrow, it will be time to separate and start over. The following will suggest one of the more potent actions laymen can take, but the reader will have to read to the end to discover what it is, and why it is among the most potent forms of action.

Dr. Walter R. Martin (d. 1989) was an expert on the occult, and from the 1960’s onward, disseminated countercultic and apologetic information through his organization, Christian Research Institute (CRI). At least one of Dr. Martin’s works, The Kingdom of the Cults, remains a very valuable resource, one which I consult with semi-regularity as need arises. An associate of Dr. Rod Rosenblatt and Dr. John Warwick Montgomery, Dr. Martin was, like they, an influential Christian intellectual, a man with the courage and ability to engage in public debate with his opponents, and, as a fierce defender of Christian orthodoxy in the face of truly diabolical liberal Christianity, more than equipped to defeat them.

Over the past three years, several of Dr. Martin’s lectures have been featured by Chris Rosebrough on his internet radio show, Fighting for the Faith – a daily program in the lineup of Pirate Christian Radio (PCR). I remember these PCR features, since I am of about the same age as Mr. Rosebrough, and remember Dr. Martin’s voice and manner of teaching from my youth, in a way similar to Rosebrough’s reminiscences. We confessional Lutherans would be mistaken if we should think that our struggles are unique to us. Others have already gone through the struggle that is now hard upon us. We would be fools not to learn from their experience and take their advice.

Dr. Walter Martin on the Cult of Liberalism

(lecture begins @~58min, 30sec)
A Cue to Theological Change: A Change in the Terms used by the Church
“Any person who does not know that today in the United States, and in denominational structures worldwide, we are in an accelerating apostasy, does not know, I repeat, does not know what is going on...” (1hr 12min)

“They were using all of our terminology... What you have to understand is very hard... the major denominational structures on the United States today have pumped all of the meaning out of Christian terminology, and have nothing but a hollow shell. And people are attracted by the shell...” (1hr 28min 50sec and following)

Questions:

What happens over the course of a generation or two when the church begins to use old familiar terms with subtly, though increasingly, different emphasis?
Or, what happens when entirely new words, words previously unfamiliar in Church usage, words with less precise meaning, words with less established theological meaning, replace the old, precise, established and familiar terms? Is the deprecating declaration, “these terms are synonymous,” a sufficient explanation?
What happens when well established ecclesiastical terms, having widely understood meaning, are simply dropped from use?
What ecclesiastical terms can you identify which meet the above three conditions?
If we are to heed Dr. Walter Martin's warnings, ought laymen to be suspicious whenever pastors or theologians use the authority of the church to push their language games as authoritatively binding on the laity?

The Average Layman is Defenseless!
“You can see these people in the cults and the occult if you have any degree of discernment at all, because they are outside the church. But how do you see the Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist, Lutheran, Episcopalian professor of theology? How do you get him in a place where you can find out what his theology really is? The moment you question him, he reverts to orthodox terminology, and then if you press him for the definitions of his terminology, he claims that you're being suspicious, bigoted and unloving. The average layman is defenseless! He's got to take what comes from behind the pulpit and recommended by his church authority because the moment he opens his mouth, he's accused of being divisive in the church, unloving, and disturbing the fellowship of the faith! When it is the devil behind the pulpit, not the victim in the pew, that's responsible for it!...” (1hr 36min 12sec)

“That is why I am concerned about the cult of liberalism as never before. We can identify the other cults, but how do you identify somebody that looks like you, acts like you, sounds like you...? Do you want the answer? ...1 Thessalonians 5:14ff ...put everything to the test, cling tenaciously to what is good...” (1hr 38min 30sec)

Questions:

Is it proper for the layman to assume that ALL pastors who may serve him, or that ALL theologians who may serve his church body, are orthodox on every point of Scripture teaching?
When St. Paul commended the Bereans for verifying his teaching by searching the Scriptures, what was he commending if it was not a cautious reception of his words? Was he commending an open and uncritical reception of his teaching?
How can a layman identify potential theological corruption in his pastor or his church's theologians? Unfamiliar terminology, or unfamiliar use of familiar terminology, perhaps?
How then does the layman examine a pastor or theologian who, by definition, by virtue of the Office he holds, is not allowed to wrong, about anything, ever?
How does a layman examine a Minister of the Word, whose operating assumption is that he is always orthodox and that laymen always need guidance and correction? Will a personal conversation bring about correction in the Minister's theology? Will writing a letter suffice?

Theological Language Games and the Destruction of Orthodoxy
“British theology was corrupted by German theology – Friedrich Schleiermacher, Albrecht Ritschl, David Strauss – and finally [it came] to America... Where do you think we got the God is Dead Theology from? From historic Christianity?... We did not! We got it from a good solid Baptist theological seminary, known as Colgate Rochester in New York, which was absolutely orthodox, but which sold out to liberalism! And when it did, they embraced the theology of Paul Tillich, and ended up with God is Dead. It was called at the time, The Gospel of Christian Atheism – did you ever hear such linguistic nonsense in your life!?” (1hr 40min 30sec)

Questions:

This is at least the third point in Dr. Walter Martin's lecture where he emphasizes the language games of theologians as evidence of changing theology.

How can changes in the use of language possibly result in changes to one's theology, if one's use of language doesn't change the way he thinks about theology?
What is the potential threat to the Christian when his pastors and theologians defend dramatic changes in the language he ought to use when contemplating and expressing his Christian convictions?
From what primary source might Christians be most vulnerable to subtle, or even overt, changes in language use and the threat of its impact on their theology?
Why is it safest to stay with historical and well-established terminology of the church?
If the concern is that our "contemporary generation" doesn't use historic ecclesiastical terminology in everyday conversation and therefore doesn't understand it,
1. Was there ever a time when ecclesiastical terminology was in such wide use in everyday conversation that it was understood on the basis of its everyday usage?
2. How might catechesis have helped people understand the church's use of language in the past?
3. How might catechesis help in the same way, today?

Dr. Walter Martin also makes the strong suggestion here that not only can "orthodox" seminaries go liberal, but gives evidence that they have done so.

Is it possible for an orthodox Lutheran seminary to go liberal?
How can a Lutheran layman know, or even suspect, that his seminary is going liberal?
What can the Lutheran layman do to correct problems in his Synod's seminary, if he suspects, or if it is confirmed that such problems exist? Will a personal conversation bring about the desired correction? Will writing a letter suffice?

Finally, Dr. Walter Martin singled out three Germans – European liberal theologians from the era of 19^th Century European Evangelicalism – as having ruined British and American theology. Surely, these German theologians had no impact on 19^th Century American Confessional Lutheranism... did they?

A Declining Regard for the Scriptures: Spiritual Death and Social Destruction
“[Liberalism] is a cult because it follows every outlining structure of cultism. It has its own revelation, its own gurus, and its denial, systematically, of all sound systematic Christian theology. It is a cult, because it passes its leadership on to the next group, that takes over either modifying, expanding or contracting the same heresies, dressing them up in different language, and passing them on. It is theologically corrupt, because it is bibliologically corrupt; it denies the authority of Scripture and ruins its own theology. And, it ends in immorality. Because the only way you could have gotten to this 'homosexual,' morally relativistic garbage, which is today in our denominational structures, is if the leadership of those denominations divide the authority of the Scriptures, and Jesus Christ as Lord. That is the only way we've gotten there.” (2hr 28min 50sec)

Questions:

How does the Christian's view of the inspiration, inerrancy and perspicuity of the Scriptures impact his theology?
How does the teaching of the church impact society in general – that is, apart from its immediate impact on the people who sit in the pews and hear it directly?
How might false doctrine, therefore, in addition to destroying faith, also become a social evil?
Given that most liberal churches have abandoned orthodoxy, and have embraced the "social gospel" in place of the "Gospel of Jesus Christ," can their fixation on issues of "social justice" be classified as precisely the opposite? Not as the "good" they would have it to be, but as an unmitigated evil perpetrated by liberal churches, which result, rather, in gross injustice?

Immunizing Christians against Theological Poison
“Every major theological seminary that has turned from orthodox Christianity began with disbelief of biblical doctrine... Corrupt Bibliology led them to the next step. Theology began to be touched by it... And finally they had emptied the Gospel of all its content, and simply were using the outward shell so that they could go on collecting money from the people and the churches, because they knew that if the people in the pews knew that they were apostate they'd throw them out. So the strategy was: hang on to the trust funds, hang on to the money that we've got, hang on to the properties we control, we will gradually educate the laymen into this new approach to theology. And then, finally, we will take control of everything. This is the gradual process of feeding you theological poison, until you become immunized enough so that you don't know what is happening to you. And when you wake up to what is happening to you, it's too late. They've got everything...” (1hr 26min 10sec)

“Look what happened... Look at the votes. We were very subtly, systematically, squeezed out. All of the positions of leadership were given to people who denied the foundations of the faith...” (1hr 30min 35sec)

Questions:

The fixation of liberals is what:
1. Preserving sound teaching? ...or
2. Preserving the organization as an institution?
The process of changing theology while maintaining the organization requires that liberals retain the laity while retraining them "gradually" – through a use of familiar terms with subtly, though increasingly, different emphasis, by introducing foreign terms and dropping common ecclesiastical terms.
1. Why do they need to retain the laity? What does the laity offer them?
2. Why is the change gradual?
3. Why is changing the organization's language the best way to change the thinking of those in the organization?
Is it possible for an orthodox Lutheran Synod to go liberal?
How can a Lutheran layman know, or even suspect, that his Synod is going liberal?
If sound teaching is not valued by a liberal Synod as highly as the organization itself, what does the Lutheran layman have that would be so sufficiently valuable that a corrupt organization would pay heed to the orthodox advice of a layman?
1. Merely his orthodox advice? ...or
2. His money?
Can organizational change which laymen must purchase with their money be relied upon as genuine?

Do any Lutherans want to be Dresden Lutherans? Meanwhile, the Groeschelites continue their agenda...

noreply@blogger.com (Intrepid Lutherans) — Thu, 11 Apr 2013 16:55:00 +0000

Those of you who have been following us on Facebook and Twitter probably could have seen this coming, as you've recently been fed a steady diet of links to some of our older posts reprising topics like Pietism, Sectarian Worship, Lay Ministry, along with a few links featuring the advice of orthodox Lutherans from previous eras regarding genuine Lutheran practice that also does the job of confessing our separation from sectarians.

But they are just a bunch of old dead dudes, and who really cares about ancient history anyway. Yeah, they said stuff. So what. We say stuff, too, and what we say is what matters today.

Meanwhile, an email rather circuitously made its way to our inbox yesterday. It was initially sent to the pastors of an entire circuit in the WELS SEW District, and included a passel of attachments for their review ahead of their meeting of this Friday. They will be discussing the opening of an INTERDISTRICT MULTI-SITE CONGREGATION. The congregation, Hope Lutheran in Oconomowoc, WI (Western Wisconsin District), had been planning a multi-site effort since 2010, and, with the encouragement of their District President, had been communicating their plans with WW DMB throughout this time. In July of 2012, a conversation with Wisconsin Lutheran College (WLC) President Dan Johnson resulted in his offer to use the facilities of WLC as a "cradle to launch the second location of Hope" – in the Southeastern Wisconsin District (SEW).

Click here for the documentation.

Multi-site Congregations? Whence comest thou?
In a previous exposé on the teaching of Craig Groeschel, entitled Pietism and Ministry in the WELS: A brief review of Craig Groeschel, we critiqued the thirteen points of his Vision and Values document. Point one, along with our response to it, reads

Since Christ is for us and with us, we are a fearless, risk taking, exponential thinking church. We refuse to insult God with timid thinking or selfish living.

Compare this, the FIRST POINT of Groeschel's Vision and Values statement, with THE FIRST POINT listed in the Mission Vision Values statement of Hope Lutheran, from the documentation packet linked above:

"Since Christ is for us and with us, we are a fearless, risk taking, exponential thinking church. We refuse to insult God with timid thinking or selfish living."

Already we see, Craig Groeschel is their guide – they have adopted his Vision for Ministry and made it their own, quoting from it verbatim. But it doesn't end there. Here are points four and seven from Craig Groeschel's Vision and Values document:

"4. We give up things we love for things we love even more. It's an honor to sacrifice for Christ and His church.

"7. We will lead the way with irrational generosity. We truly believe it is more blessed to give than to receive."

You can read our 2010 exposé on Craig Groeschel to see our responses to these points. But compare these points to POINT SIX listed in Hope Lutheran's Mission Vision Values statement, again from the packet linked above:

"We love to give up things we love for the things that God loves."

We did a post or two on plagiarism, did we not? Yes, I think we did. Here is the series we posted in 2010 on the sin of plagiarism. Craig Groeschel makes an appearance in this series, as well – commenting on those who do not give credit to their sources:

A Superfluity of Naughtiness: Plagiarism and Pastoral Fraud – Part I

A Superfluity of Naughtiness: Plagiarism and Pastoral Fraud – Part II

A Superfluity of Naughtiness: Plagiarism of Sectarian Sources in the WELS – A Case in Point

A Superfluity of Naughtiness: Plagiarism of Sectarian Sources in the WELS – A Case in Point (cont'd)

Re-read these old posts, and read the rest of our 2010 exposé on Craig Groeschel and his connection to the WELS. What we said then still applies today, and that application is most assuredly expanding.

Recently, Craig Groeschel wrote an editorial for FoxNews.com, which was titled, Christians, here's why we're losing our religion. Aptly titled, his objective is, in fact, to lose religion. He writes:

"You see, religion alone can only take a person so far. Religion can make us nice, but only Christ can make us new. Religion focuses on outward behavior. Relationship is an inward transformation. Religion focuses on what I do, while relationship centers on what Jesus did. Religion is about me. Relationship is about Jesus... religion is about rules, but being a Christian is about relationship."

Compare Groeschel's statement, above, to POINT SEVEN in the document Mission Vision Values, again, in the packet linked above. It reads:

"We will not let our behavior or church culture create a barrier between Jesus and a person he died for."

The relationship between statements like this and Evangelical leadership emanating from the likes of Craig Groeshel is obvious. Yet, such leadership is Scripturally incompetent – a clear example of allowing an enemy of the Christian AND the Church (i.e., the World) to dictate our terms. In reality, those who separate religion from Christianity, as Groeschel suggests, have no idea what either religion or Christianity is. Sure, Christianity is a relationship between the individual and Jesus, but Scripture's testimony on the matter is clear and abundant: for as much as it is a relationship between the individual and Jesus, it is also a relationship of confessional unity between fellow Christians AND a relationship between the congregation and Christ. Christianity is NOT strictly a matter between the individual and God, in its visible manifestation, it is principally corporate in nature! One cannot separate the idea of "religion" from Christianity! To even suggest it is nonsense.

Craig Groeschel continues in his editorial:

"But in order to reach the current generation and generations to come, we must change the way we do things. That's why we like to say, 'To reach people no one is reaching, we have to do things no one is doing.'"

He is repeating, here, the sixth point of his Vision and Values statement – which we commented on in our previous exposé. Hope Lutheran echoes this thought in POINT FIVE of their Mission Vision Values statement, contained in the documentation packet linked above:

"We are committed to reaching people that churches are not reaching."

But is Hope Lutheran, or anyone else who copies Craig Groeschel, really living out this vision statement? Hardly. Following the model of those 'who are doing what no one else is doing', those so doing such only succeed in doing what everyone else is doing. It's called a bandwagon. The fact is, it is on the basis of his multi-site church model that Craig Groeschel's LifeChurch.tv was recently named the most innovative church. Those who copy him aren't at all "doing what no one else is doing to reach those no one else is reaching," but are simply doing what everyone else is doing, as they climb on board the bandwagon to do what has apparently been "successful" for Craig Groeschel. Everyone without a shred of creativity of their own, that is. Professor John Schaller has better advice for Lutherans. Read what Schaller writes, to see what he says about doing what everyone else is doing, instead of what Lutherans, alone, can uniquely do.

Craig Groeschel continues further:

s churches, we don't have the liberty to change the message, but we must change the way the message is presented. We have to discover our 'altar ego' — and become who God says we are instead of who others say we are.

Note that by "we", Groeschel is not referring to the Church anymore. By this point in his editorial, he has already separated corporate religion from the individual. The "we" he is referring to is individual Christians, and nothing more. Thus, the change he is calling for is not change in the Church, but change in the individual Christian, beginning with the separation of the individual Christian from the Church, and continuing with a change in his focus, calling the Christian to dwell on his own behaviour. Not only is this rank Sanctification oriented Pietism (which we detailed in our post, Lay Ministry: A Continuing Legacy of Pietism, and highlighted as a problem with Craig Groeschel in our 2010 exposé), it is a "change in the message." It is a manifestly duplicitous perspective on Christianity. All he is saying here is, "We must change the message to eliminate "religion" from Christianity (yes, change), we must change the message to eliminate "labels" from our identity (i.e., to eliminate a Christian's public confession from his Christianity), we must change the message to focus on what Christians do for God or what Christians do for man in the name of God instead of what the Holy Spirit does for man through His appointed Means, and we must change the message in these ways to accommodate the demands of the unregenerate who won't listen to us otherwise (who, the Scriptures tell us, are at war against God and don't want to listen to Him anyway). Moreover, we must change the message the way others say we must change the message, we must change the way they say we must change, and become who they say we must be." Who are these "others" but Craig Groeschel and similar Evangelical leaders! Separating the Christian from his religion and from his confession, they insert themselves to take over for the visible Church.

The Collective Descent of American Lutheranism
In our post, C.P. Krauth explains how orthodox Lutheran Synods descend into heterodoxy, we quoted Charles Porterfield Krauth as he identified the Course of Error in the Church, well-known since the time of St. Augustine and operating as well as it ever had in his own time:

It begins by asking toleration

Indulged in for this time, error goes on to assert equal rights

ipso facto

From this point error soon goes on to its natural end, which is to assert supremacy

The Conservative Reformation and its Theology

For almost three years now Intrepid Lutherans have been warning of this danger, educating our readers on the differences between heterodox sectarianism and orthodox Lutheranism, and demonstrating those differences along with giving evidence of its incursion into our Synod. Some have joined us by lending us their names; though some have been threatened for this, many remain. But these few do not account for the nearly 1500 daily page reads we see on average. Many folks read our essays and informational posts, and are confronted with the stark reality: our Synod is deteriorating right along with the visible Church everywhere, which almost unanimously now invites the World and worldly influences to abide with her in determining doctrine and practice. If they would aspire to be Dresden Lutherans of any sort, it is high-time for our readers to do more than just read. It is time for them to assert their Confession, to begin acting on their convictions in a way that will bring an end to this sort of thing.

A Brief Explanation of Lutheran Hymnody: For the Lutheran who asks regarding the Beautiful Hymns of His church

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Douglas Lindee) — Fri, 05 Apr 2013 03:00:00 +0000

Three weeks ago, we published a lengthy post entitled, An Explanation of Lutheran Worship: For the Lutheran who asks the Meaning of the Beautiful Liturgy of His church. The body of that post contained a full Explanation of the Common Service — the order of Divine Service beginning on “page 15” of The Lutheran Hymnal which was published by the Synodical Conference in 1941. An English-language harmony of sixteenth century Lutheran liturgies published in 1888 by the General Council of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, it still serves as a benchmark of liturgical excellence. Indeed, in our recent post, Lutheranism and the Fine Arts: Dr. P.E. Kretzmann and the Necessity of Continuing Catechesis, we quote Dr. Kretzmann referring to the Common Service as “unsurpassed in the entire history of the Christian Church.”

The Explanation we published two weeks ago was taken directly from catechetical materials developed by the General Council for the distinct purpose of educating Lutherans regarding the doctrinal integrity and catholicity of genuine Lutheran worship. Indeed, this Explanation of the Common Service, published in 1908, was dedicated to the “Young Lutheran who asks the meaning of the beautiful liturgy of the Lutheran Church.” In our introductory remarks preceding the explanation, we marveled at this. Lutherans these days don't educate their youth about Lutheran worship, and if they do, they don't do so in a way that extolls it's beauty as a work of Fine Art, nor do they do so in a way that reinforces its doctrinal integrity, nor do they do so in a way that embraces its catholicity. One of the bright shining exceptions to the lamentable reality that contemporary Lutherans no longer value their heritage of worship enough to bother passing it down to their youth, is the LCMS-affiliated organization, Higher Things. Outside of this organization, the best one can hope for is a one- or two-lesson explanation of Lutheran worship which neither extolls its beauty nor places value on its doctrinal integrity and catholicity, but uses the opportunity to deride our heritage by vaunting its status as “an adiophoron” and setting it on equal footing with just about any form of Sectarian Worship imaginable – as long as one wears the appropriate set of blinders as he goes about imagining. Yeah, sure, you can do it, but why would you want to? In answer to this one needs but a “reason,” and in the world of adiaphora that merely means “opinion.” Thus one “reason” is as good as another, and anything one can “justify” has open license attending it.

But we further asked the reader to notice the use of language this Explanation employed. It was not written for functionally illiterate Lutherans who find reading and understanding anything written above the sixth-grade reading level to be a hopeless struggle. On the contrary, being dedicated to the “Young Lutherans,” it was written to Lutheran Youth, and plainly assumed that they had command of their own language. If it was written above their level, then it served the noble purpose of lifting them out of their immature literacy and colorless task-oriented-use of language, through the rich vocabulary and precise grammar employed in the distinctive and enculturating language of the Church. Contemporary Lutherans, it seems, no longer value the uplifting qualities of higher literacy, either.

Regardless of what the so-called wise-men of contemporary times insist upon, I am not ready to succumb to such disrespect for others that my operative assumption is that they are all functionally illiterate. I don't think all, or most, or even a significant minority of educated Lutherans are just a bunch of dumb-dumbs who can't read. Some very-well may refuse to read anything more complex than a comic book, but that is a separate matter – a matter of sinful obstinacy, and perhaps even rebellion. It is not a matter of literacy. So today, we are going to continue our use of materials having high-literary quality to provide a brief explanation of Lutheran hymnody.

What is a Hymn? A Canticle? A Carol? An Anthem?
We begin with the source pictured at the top left: The Handbook to the Lutheran Hymnal, by W. G. Polack – who was the chairman of The Lutheran Hymnal committee. This work first appeared in 1942, essentially accompanying the publication of The Lutheran Hymnal, and went through several revisions thereafter. It is a book which catalogs all of the hymns used in The Lutheran Hymnal, identifying their authors and sources, providing a history of the circumstances under which the hymn was written (if notable), reproducing the hymn in its original language alongside the English version which appeared in the hymnal and identifying (sometimes justifying) alternate readings from the original composition. It is considered a classic in the field of hymnology.
Read more »

“Who do You Say that I AM?” What do the Scriptures Say?

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Douglas Lindee) — Tue, 02 Apr 2013 23:30:00 +0000

“Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life. Most assuredly, I say to you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God; and those who hear will live. For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have life in Himself, and has given Him authority to execute judgment also, because He is the Son of Man. Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice and come forth — those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation. I can of Myself do nothing. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is righteous, because I do not seek My own will but the will of the Father who sent Me.

“If I bear witness of Myself, My witness is not true. There is another who bears witness of Me, and I know that the witness which He witnesses of Me is true... I do not receive testimony from man, but I say these things that you may be saved... I have a greater witness... for the works which the Father has given Me to finish — the very works that I do — bear witness of Me, that the Father has sent Me. And the Father Himself, who sent Me, has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His form. But you do not have His word abiding in you, because whom He sent, Him you do not believe. You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me. But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life.

“I do not receive honor from men. But I know you, that you do not have the love of God in you. I have come in My Father’s name, and you do not receive Me... How can you believe, who receive honor from one another, and do not seek the honor that comes from the only God?” (John 5:24-44, NKJV)

The bile which dribbles from the lips of His enemies is no different now than it was when Jesus walked the earth. Though man’s search for Meaning and Truth, and his desire for Eternal Life continues unabated, the Life and Message of the Man Who is also God – Jesus Christ, the Messiah and the World’s one and only Saviour from Sin – is reviled, and those who follow Him, despised. The World along with man’s own Fleshly Nature remain as much the Christian’s enemy as the Devil himself, to tear us away from the Only Way to the Father: Jesus (Jn. 14:6, Ac. 4:12). The words above are those of Jesus in response to His enemies.

But, who is Jesus? How do we know about Him? How do we know He is Who He said He is? In the text above, Jesus Himself names for us the two coordinating witnesses which answer these questions:

“I do not receive testimony from man... I have a greater witness... for the works which the Father has given Me to finish — the very works that I do — bear witness of Me, that the Father has sent Me”

That is, the historical facts of Jesus life, death and resurrection are ample testimonies of Jesus' claims.
“And the Father Himself, who sent Me, has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His form. But you do not have His word abiding in you, because whom He sent, Him you do not believe. You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me.”

That is, the Scriptures themselves – and in this case, Jesus was referring specifically to the prophecies of the Old Testament concerning the Messiah, numbering on the order of 300, which in Him alone are exactly fulfilled – written by God through the pens of His appointed prophets (2 Pe. 1:20-21,Is. 59:21; 2 Ti. 3:15-17; 1 Co. 14:37,2 Co. 13:10,1 Pe. 1:25; 2 Pe. 3:2,2 Pe. 3:15-17; Mk 16:15-18,He. 2:3-4), also give ample testimony concerning Jesus.

These are the two witnesses who testify of Jesus: the events of Jesus’ life and the words of Scripture. And it is only upon two or three witnesses that testimony concerning a man is to be received (De. 19:15, Matt. 18:16, He. 10:28). And these are the witnesses against whom the Beast has waged war, and which the World around us has long left for dead, whose carcasses they “rejoice over and make merry, and send gifts to one another, because these two prophets tormented those who dwell on the earth” (Rev. 11:1-14).

According to the very words of Jesus, God’s Message to all of mankind about the work of Jesus, the Message against which all of mankind is naturally opposed, cannot be divorced from the actual historical facts of Christ’s life. Indeed, such facts are as important to us today as they were to the disciples who witnessed the events of His life firsthand, who on the basis of what they had seen and heard “could not help but speak of it” (Ac. 4:12-21), even in the face of persecution by the Jewish, and later, Roman authorities. Already before the close of the Apostolic Age, on the basis of their witness to these events and the Message of Jesus Christ which attended them, the Good News had become known as that which was “turning the world upside down” (Acts 17:1-7). No, the Message of Good News cannot be divorced from the historical events of Jesus’ life as Scripture records them, from His birth to His death by crucifixion, and especially His bodily Resurrection. For “if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching in vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ... If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable” (1 Co. 15:11-23). The facts of history concerning Jesus, as they are recorded in the Scriptures, establish the Christian religion; and this is why, as facts, they are important: for if the Messiah had not actually come as God in the Flesh, if He had not died on the Tree as propitiation for the sins of the World, if He had not risen bodily from the grave, all in fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy, then the Christian religion is a myth – the same as every other religion on the planet which rests on false or unverifiable historical claims, or on no claims whatsoever.

So it behooves every Christian to make these facts his own, as facts and not only as articles of faith (which by definition any worldly religion can claim regardless of the facts), and be prepared, as St. Peter and St. Paul adjure us, to assert them as such as part of our defense of Christianity: “always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you” and “Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching” (1 Pe. 3:15 & 2 Ti. 4:2, NKJV). With this in mind, the following brief explanation for the life, death and resurrection of Jesus, according to the facts recorded in Scripture, is produced.

The First Part

person of Christ

The Second Part

crucifixion

The Third Part

bodily resurrection

These facts are vitally important for the Christian to understand, as they are fulfilled in the historical person of Jesus, and served as a primary basis on which the Message of the Early Evangelists was proliferated throughout, and beyond, the Mediterranean. They must continue to serve as such, lest our own irrational prejudice against historical fact increasingly rob the Good News of the Person Who gave it. They impress upon us, and all who would hear us, that the events of Christ’s life as recorded in the Scriptures, as important as they are to the Christian religion, aren’t just religious truths, aren’t the product of an desperately profound hopefulness willing to jettison reality: they are also, and just as importantly, legitimate history – the same sort of legitimate history by which we learn of Pope Gregory VII, Martin Luther, George Washington, Napolean Bonaparte, Queen Victoria, or Winston Churchill – a history which has not lost integrity as historians and archeologists have studied the historical claims of the Bible, but a history whose credibility remains established as those claims have become verified as fact.
Read more »

A Second Sermon for Easter – 'The Festival of Christ's Resurrection': “Where there is faith, God no longer sees sin” – by Dr. Martin Luther

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Douglas Lindee) — Mon, 01 Apr 2013 01:00:00 +0000

A Second Sermon for The Festival of Christ's Resurrection

Where there is Faith, God No Longer Sees Sin
by Dr. Martin Luther¹

And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit. And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts? Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet. And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat? And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb. And he took it, and did eat before them. And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, and said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

Luke 24:36-47

The incidents of our text also occurred on Easter, when the two disciples had returned from Emmaus to Jerusalem, and had narrated to the others what had happened to them and told them that they had seen the Lord. They are in fact the same which John relates, and which form the text for next Sunday, making no mention, however, of Thomas and his experience, which occurred eight days later and is presented to our consideration by the lesson of the following Sunday. Our text, which contains much important matter, might be considered under various heads, but inasmuch as we have already dwelt upon the resurrection itself, we will now confine our discourse to two main points presented by our lesson. Read more »

A Sermon for Easter – 'The Festival of Christ's Resurrection': “The Power and the Benefit of the Resurrection of Christ” – by Dr. Martin Luther

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Douglas Lindee) — Sun, 31 Mar 2013 18:00:00 +0000

A Sermon for The Festival of Christ's Resurrection

The Power and the Benefit of the Resurrection of Christ
by Dr. Martin Luther¹

In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre. And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it. His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow: and for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men. And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you. And they departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy; and did run to bring his disciples word. And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him. Then said Jesus unto them, Be not afraid: go tell my brethren that they go into Galilee, and there shall they see me. Now when they were going, behold, some of the watch came into the city, and shewed unto the chief priests all the things that were done.

Matt. 28:1-10

The present festival directs our attention to that consolatory and joyful article of our Creed, in which we confess that Christ on the third day arose again from the dead. This requires us, first of all, to know and consider the Easter narrative, then also to learn why this has happened and how to enjoy its benefits. The Easter events were these. On the evening of Thursday before Easter, when Christ had arisen from the Supper and had gone into the garden, He was betrayed by Judas and taken prisoner by the Jews. These dragged Him from one high priest to the other, until they finally concluded to give him over into the hands of Pilate, who as governor had the power to pronounce judgment. About the third hour of the day sentence was passed upon Him, when He was led forth to execution and was crucified. At the sixth hour, about noon, or an hour later, an earthquake occurred and the sun was darkened. Towards the ninth hour, which would be nearly three hours before sunset, Christ died upon the cross. This is according to the statement of Mark; the other Evangelists do not state so definitely the hours in which these events took place.

In our Creed we confess that Christ arose again on the third day, which is far different from saying that He arose after three days. The Lord was not dead three entire nights and days. On Friday evening, about three hours before dark, He died. These three hours are called the first day. During the whole night and day of the Sabbath He remained in the grave, and also the following night until the next morning. This night counts also a day; for the Jews begin their day with the night, and count night and day as one whole day. We reverse this method of counting and call the day find the night one day. In the Church, however, the old Jewish method of reckoning the festivals was retained, so that these always begin with the evening of the previous day.

Very early on Sunday morning, which was the third day after the Friday on which Christ was crucified, at the first dawn of day, when the soldiers were lying around the tomb, Christ, who had died, awoke to a new, eternal life, and arose from the dead in such a manner that the guards around the grave were unaware of His resurrection. From the account which Matthew gives of this event we must infer that Christ did not arise during the earthquake, which evidently began when the angel descended from heaven and rolled away the rock from the entrance of the tomb. Christ, however, passed out from the closed grave without disturbing the seals put upon it, just as on the evening of the same day He also came to His disciples through the doors which were shut.

When the earth began to quake and the angel appeared, the soldiers were so terrified that they lost all consciousness. As soon as they recovered they all ran from the grave, some in this, others in that direction; for the coming of the angel was to them no occasion of rejoicing, but one of terror and distress. There were others, however, who should be comforted by the cheerful tidings of the angel. Read more »

A Second Sermon for Friday of Holy Week, or 'Good Friday': “The Legacy of the Dying Redeemer” — by Dr. Adolph Hoenecke

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Douglas Lindee) — Fri, 29 Mar 2013 19:30:00 +0000

legate

fr.

legatus

vt.

fr.

legatus

legare

legacy

And this formal definition is precisely the meaning Dr. Hoenecke intends with the use of this term: “a gift by will esp. of money or other personal property; a bequest.” It is unmistakeable. Throughout his sermon, he identifies what Jesus earned through His innocent life and suffering as His Bequest to wretched sinners, he identifies Christ as the Testator, and he identifies the New Testament in His Blood as His Last Will and Testament.

On Maundy Thursday, in the night in which He was betrayed, Jesus, our Saviour, took bread, and when He had given thanks, broke it saying, “Take, eat; this is My body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of Me” (Lk. 22:19; Mt. 26:27; Mk. 14:22; 1 Co. 11:24). In the same manner also He took the cup when He had supped, and when He had given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, “Drink ye all of it; this cup is the New Testament in My Blood, which is shed for you for the remission of sins. This do, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of Me” (Lk. 22:20; Mt. 26:28; Mk. 14:23-24; 1 Co. 11:25). This “New Testament” offered by Christ in His Blood, was a specific kind legal arrangement that is common in probate law even to this day. Christ, in using this phraseology, was offering his “Last Will and Testament.” People draft a “last will and testament” in preparation for their death, in order that their estate be disposed according to their desires following their death; so it is very fitting that Jesus issued such a Will the day prior to His death. In a “last will and testament,” the benefit of the Testator’s life work is left to the bequeathed. By definition, they have utterly no participation in what the Testator accomplished, nor do they have any ownership in His bequest; by definition, He is the sole owner and He alone has the Authority to dispose of His property in the terms specified in His “Last Will and Testament.” It represents the blessing of the Testator upon the bequeathed, a blessing which belongs to the bequeathed only once it has been received by them in the manner specified by the Testator, in the manner administrated by His executors.

And just what was the Bequest that Jesus willed to His heirs? Just what did His life's work amount to, that wretched sinners would gladly receive it as their inheritance, and remember Him with Joy and Gratitude? He left them what they in no way could acquire on their own, what they could never claim any participation in:

THE REMISSION OF SINS AND RIGHTEOUS STANDING BEFORE GOD!
And all the benefits attending thereto!
And this Benefit is distributed by His Ministers, “administered by His executors,” through the Means of Grace, Word and Sacrament. Using the seven last words of Christ on the Cross, Dr. Hoenecke identifies in the following sermon seven provisions of the Divine Testament, earned by Christ, bequeathed to sinners, and received by them through faith – which the Holy Spirit works exclusively through the Means of Grace.

(NOTE: This sermon was previously published on Intrepid Lutherans, under the title, Holy Week Sermons – Good Friday (by Dr. Adolf Hoenecke))

Holy Week: A Sermon for Good Friday

The Legacy of the Dying Redeemer
by Dr. Adolph Hoenecke¹

Text: The Passion story containing the Seven Last Words of Christ on the Cross

Today we commemorate the death of Jesus Christ. On this day occurred the death of which God speaks through Paul: “The covenant that was confirmed before of God in Christ” (Ga. 3:17). And: “For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth” (He. 9:17). So it was on this great day that the divine testament which was made and confirmed in Christ came into force for us. But what did our blessed Lord, the Lamb of God, bequeathe to us at His death? Of earthly goods there was almost nothing. We hear this about his material legacy: “(They) parted his garments, casting lots” (Mt. 27:35) Moreover, we know that the Son of Man, Jesus Christ, had no where to lay His head, to say nothing of gold and silver.Read more »

A Sermon for Friday of Holy Week, or 'Good Friday': “The Redemptive Work of Christ, Made Our Own through Faith” — by Dr. Paul E. Kretzmann

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Douglas Lindee) — Fri, 29 Mar 2013 12:00:00 +0000

Vanity of vanities! All is vanity... The eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor is the ear filled with hearing. That which has been is that which will be, and that which has been done is that which will be done. So there is nothing new under the sun

Eccl. 1:2-9 (NASB 1977)

What has been, is, and will be. So the Scriptures say. The past is hardly irrelevant: it is the reality of what is, and what will be; and this is the lesson of Solomon's lament in the verses directly following (vv. 10-11). It is also Solomon's lesson concerning God's Work and Judgment:

There is nothing better for a man than to eat and drink and tell himself that his labor is good. This also I have seen, that it is from the hand of God. For who can eat and who can have enjoyment without Him? For to a person who is good in His sight, He has given wisdom and knowledge and joy, while to the sinner He has given the task of gathering and collecting so the he may give to one who is good in God's sight... I know that there is nothing better for them than to rejoice and to do good in one's lifetime; moreover, that every man who eats and drinks sees good in all his labor — it is a gift of God. I know that everything God does will remain forever; there is nothing to add to it and there is nothing to take from it, for God has so worked that men should fear Him. That which is has been already, and that which will be has already been, for God seeks what has passed by... The conclusion, when all has been heard, is: fear God and keep His commandments, because this applies to every person. Because God will bring every act to judgment, everything which is hidden, whether it is good or evil

Eccl. 2:24-26, 3:12-15, 12:13-14 (NASB 1977)

Thus, that which is “relevant” is only that which God does, that which remains forever, to which there is nothing to add and from which nothing can be taken. And that which is relevant to man, is that which God has accomplished for him. What man accomplishes, whether in the name of God or anyone else, is only vanity.

So what did God accomplish for mankind?

Jesus Christ the righteous... is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world

1 Jn 2:2

Ro. 3:24-25

2 Co. 5:15

Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

Christ has redeemed me, a lost and condemned sinner, purchased and won me from all sins, from death and from the power of the devil. This is most certainly true

SC:II:II

So concludes Dr. Paul E. Kretzmann. In the following sermon, he explains further.

(NOTE: This sermon was previously published on Intrepid Lutherans, under the title, Holy Week Sermons – Good Friday (by Dr. Paul E. Kretzmann))

Holy Week: A Sermon for Good Friday

The Redemptive Work of Christ, Made Our Own through Faith
by Dr. Paul E. Kretzmann¹

The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, ‘Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the Sin of the world’?

John 1:29

It is a solemn occasion which finds us assembled here at this time, for the Christian world is today commemorating the darkest day in the history of the world, the day on which the Son of God, the Lord of Glory, the Prince of Life, suffered the most shameful death of the cross; it is the day on which He laid down His life as a ransom for the sins of the world. No wonder that the Christian Church has from olden times celebrated the day with every evidence of deepest grief and mourning.Read more »

A Second Sermon for Thursday of Holy Week, or 'Maundy Thursday' — by Dr. Martin Luther

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Douglas Lindee) — Thu, 28 Mar 2013 19:00:00 +0000

On Wednesdays through the Lenten Season this year (2013), we published sermons from Dr. Adolph Hoenecke (1835-1908), who is among the most important theologians of the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS), and from Dr. Paul E. Kretzmann (1883-1965), a prolific author, educator, historian and theologian of the Lutheran Church — Missouri Synod (LCMS) and among the more significant figures of 20^th Century American Lutheranism. We will do the same through Holy Week. Except for today, Maundy Thursday. Instead of Dr. Hoenecke and Dr. Kretzmann, we will hear from Dr. Martin Luther himself, from his Hauspostille.

Normally, we read sermons from Dr. Luther's Hauspostille as they come to us in the collection recently edited by Eugene F.A. Klug, and translated by him and others. This is the same Hauspostille included in the seven-volume Complete Sermons of Martin Luther published by Baker Book House. There were two collections of Luther's Hauspostille: one from the stenographic notes of Veit Dietrich and one from those of Georg Roerer, both of whom copied the words of Luther as he preached to his students in his home. Roerer's notes were published in 1539 without Luther's approval, while those of Veit Dietrich were published later, in 1545, and carried with them Luther's endorsement. The newly translated Hauspostille contained in the Baker publication comes from the Roerer collection of Luther's Hauspostille, under the rationale that “the consensus of scholars has more and more moved in the direction of Roerer's transcription of Luther's house postils as the source most complete, exact, and trustworthy.”¹

We will not be reading a sermon from Roerer's collection, however. Missing from that collection, and contained only in Veit Dietrich's collection, are two Maundy Thursday sermons from the First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians. Veit Dietrich's collection of Dr. Luther's Hauspostille was translated from German into English in 1871. In this post, we publish Luther's Second Sermon for the Day of the Lord's Supper, from the second English edition of that translation effort, published in 1884.²

A Sermon for Maundy Thursday

Second Sermon for the Day of the Lord's Supper
by Dr. Martin Luther²

Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world. Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come.

1 Corinthians 11:27-34

This text is of great importance and deserves to be attentively considered by Christians. We have already learned, from the previous sermon, how the people misunderstood these words, so as to deprive themselves of the comfort contained in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, yea, even shunned it as something dangerous. It is true, Judas did not receive this Sacrament to his consolation or amendment. There were also many among the Corinthians, as St. Paul tells us, who received it unworthily, and thus brought upon themselves bodily and spiritual punishment. There is indeed a difference in the reception of this Sacrament; some partake of it worthily and unto eternal life, but others unworthily unto condemnation, inasmuch as they do not repent and have true faith. Hence it is of the first importance that we learn to know what is meant by the expression “eating and drinking worthily or unworthily.”Read more »

A Sermon for Thursday of Holy Week, or 'Maundy Thursday': “The Holy Sacrament” — by Dr. Martin Luther

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Douglas Lindee) — Thu, 28 Mar 2013 06:30:00 +0000

On Wednesdays through the Lenten Season this year (2013), we published sermons from Dr. Adolph Hoenecke (1835-1908), who is among the most important theologians of the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS), and from Dr. Paul E. Kretzmann (1883-1965), a prolific author, educator, historian and theologian of the Lutheran Church — Missouri Synod (LCMS) and among the more significant figures of 20^th Century American Lutheranism. We will do the same through Holy Week. Except for today, Maundy Thursday. Instead of Dr. Hoenecke and Dr. Kretzmann, we will hear from Dr. Martin Luther himself, from his Hauspostille.

Normally, we read sermons from Dr. Luther's Hauspostille as they come to us in the collection recently edited by Eugene F. A. Klug, and translated by him and others. This is the same Hauspostille included in the seven-volume Complete Sermons of Martin Luther published by Baker Book House. There were two original collections of Luther's Hauspostille: one from the stenographic notes of Veit Dietrich and one from those of Georg Roerer, both of whom copied the words of Luther as he preached to his students in his home. Roerer's notes were published in 1539 without Luther's approval, while those of Veit Dietrich were published later, in 1545, and carried with them Luther's endorsement. The newly translated Hauspostille contained in the Baker publication comes from the Roerer collection of Luther's Hauspostille, under the rationale that “the consensus of scholars has more and more moved in the direction of Roerer's transcription of Luther's house postils as the source most complete, exact, and trustworthy.”¹

We will not be reading a sermon from Roerer's collection, however. Missing from that collection, and contained only in Veit Dietrich's collection, are two Maundy Thursday sermons from the First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians. Veit Dietrich's collection of Dr. Luther's Hauspostille was translated from German into English in 1871. In this post, we publish Luther's First Sermon for the Day of the Lord's Supper, from the second English edition of that translation effort, published in 1884.²

(NOTE: Due to the length of this sermon, I have taken the liberty of adding subheadings,
to break up the content for those with short attention span.)

A Sermon for Maundy Thursday

First Sermon for the Day of the Lord's Supper
by Dr. Martin Luther²

The Holy Supper

For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.

1 Corinthians 11:22-26

According to a time-honored usage, more people come to the Lord's Table at this season than at any other time during the year. This fact, together with the urgent necessity that on a stated day the doctrine of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper be plainly taught the people from the pulpit, prompts us to consider now the words of St. Paul, which you have heard read in our text. From these words we learn that this Sacrament was in no wise instituted or introduced by men, but by Christ Himself. In the night in which He was betrayed He instituted it for His disciples, yea for all Christians, that it might be unto them His Testament, His parting gift, full of great comfort and blessing.Read more »

A Sermon for Sunday of Holy Week, or 'Palm Sunday': “Stand Ye in the Ways, and Find Rest for Your Souls” — Dr. Paul E. Kretzmann

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Douglas Lindee) — Sat, 23 Mar 2013 22:00:00 +0000

We expect that the primary way in which most WELS people experience most of the Bible, most of the time, is by hearing it read in the context of the public worship service

The speech patterns of post-Modernism are unmistakeable in references such as this. The message of the Bible is to be primarily experienced not contemplated; it is more important that the masses have a feeling for what the Bible says, and have a positive experience in relation to that feeling, rather than understand the Scriptures as precisely as possible, especially if the process of understanding is a negative experience of mental struggle.

In the words of Christians who've preceded us, we also find the comfort of discovering that they faced the same issues we face today. Christians have always been concerned about the health of the Church, and, certainly, this is not necessarily a bad thing; but in connection with this concern, they have also been known to take great pride in counting their numbers as a show of growth, as a show of power and influence over others, and as a show of what they've accomplished for Christ. Dr. Kretzmann warns against this in specific terms, as he also warns of bewailing the apparent failure of Christianity, of the fall of Christs' Church at the hands of Her enemies, and of zealously urging human effort to “save the Church from certain demise.” Writing in 1956 as a contemporary of Donald McGavran, “the father of the church growth movement” (of whom and about which we wrote in our recent post, The Church Growth Movement: A brief synopsis of its history and influences in American Christianity), it's almost as if Kretzmann were responding to McGavran directly in the following sermon, and prophetically warning the Christian zealots of our own day who, “listening to the seductive voices of men who profess to be leaders to everlasting life,” would “glibly prate of scholarship and of the latest results of science” and “presume to put up their pitiful manmade theories over against the eternal verities of God’s Word.”

Almost. The fact is, the World is one of the three great enemies of the Christian, and it has always waged war against the Church, always pitted man's reason against the Word of God. We see Dr. Kretzmann's sermon applying to us in our day, even though he uses examples from his own day, because the warnings he issues, the Truth he claims, and the remedy he offers have always applied to Christians. ‘Stand ye in the ways... ask for the old paths... walk in the good ways... and ye shall find rest for your souls...’ — this Dr. Kretzmann explains in the following sermon.

(NOTE: This sermon was previously published on Intrepid Lutherans, under the title, Holy Week Sermons – Palm Sunday (by Dr. Paul E. Kretzmann))

Holy Week: A Sermon for Palm Sunday

Stand Ye in the Ways, and Find Rest for Your Souls
by Dr. Paul E. Kretzmann²

(Introit, Ps. 22:19)

Thus saith the Lord, ‘Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls.’ But they said, ‘We will not walk therein’.

Jeremiah 6:16

For most Lutheran Christians, Palm Sunday occupies a unique position among the Sundays of the church year. This is true not only because the day ushers in the solemn contemplations of Holy Week, with the reading of the Lenten story, not only because the Gospel lesson of the day tells us of that unique incident in the life of our Savior, His entry into Jerusalem, but also because in most congregations the day has been set apart for the solemn act of confirmation.

“And they brought [it] to Jesus: and they cast their garments upon the colt, and they set Jesus thereon. And as he went, they spread their clothes in the way. And when he was come nigh, even now at the descent of the mount of Olives, the whole multitude of the disciples began to rejoice and praise God with a loud voice for all the mighty works that they had seen; saying, Blessed be the King that cometh in the name of the Lord: peace in heaven, and glory in the highest... And when he was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it, saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes. For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side, and shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation.”
(Luke 19:35-44)

Palm Sunday has for many centuries been the day on which new members were received into the Christian congregation, when they made a public profession of their faith and were declared ready to receive the last instruction in Christian doctrine before being admitted to the Lord's Supper. For that reason Palm Sunday is a day of solemn memories for many hundreds of thousands of church members, a day on which they quietly and definitely renew the baptismal vow as they repeated it on the day of their confirmation. And even if a Christian was not received into adult membership into the Christian Church on Palm Sunday, he will readily join the other church members in remembering the solemn occasion when he made his vow to be faithful to the Triune God and His Word, and specifically to his Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Such a solemn renewal of the vow by which a person declares his allegiance to the Savior is particularly necessary in our day, when so many difficulties have arisen to endanger the simple faith of Christians. It is true that the Christian Church, in its outward appearance, has apparently made much headway in recent years. The number of church members, according to available statistics, has increased by many per cent over the gains recorded a few years ago. Over 60% of the people of America now profess adherence to some church³. It is most unfortunate, however, that in many instances, this outward membership is not the expression of a full and complete adherence to the full truth of the Word of God. There is a good deal of formal Christianity, including a fairly regular attendance at the chief service on Sunday morning, chiefly because this is considered rather fashionable. But when one inquires about the attendance at other church services, at Bible hours, and at meetings in which further progress in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ is the goal, there are bound to be great disappointments. And if we should go one step farther and inquire about regular worship in the home, and about daily Bible reading by the individual, the disappointment would be increased in considerable measure. It is truly a sad phenomenon, but one which cannot be denied, that many congregations, especially in the large cities, have, for the majority of the membership, degenerated into social clubs with a religious veneer, and that the call of the Lord: “My son, give me thine heart” (Pr. 23:26), is falling upon deaf ears.

And there is another point which must be added here, namely that of the attitude taken by a great many people who disdain to be reckoned with churchgoers, many of whom even are out-and-out enemies of the Bible and its soul-giving truths. Somehow people have gotten the notion that Christianity, the Christian religion, the Christian faith, are on trial, that the truth of the Bible has been cited before the tribunal of men and has been found wanting.

Is this true? Is the Christian religion failing? Has it been arraigned before the tribunal of men’s justice and found wanting? — Nothing can be farther from the truth. To all who entertain such notions the Bible calls out: “Nay, but, O man, who art thou that thou repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, ‘Why hast thou made me thus?’” (Ro. 9:20). Or: “The preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God” (1 Co. 1:18). Hence it is not the truth of God that is standing at the bar of justice, but the foolishness of man. It is the people of this country and of every city in it who are standing at the crossroads; it is they who should be found in great searchings of heart. For those who reject or ignore His Word and who foolishly criticize the eternal verities of Holy Writ the words are written: “Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord, and against his anointed, saying, ‘Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.’ He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision. Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure” (Ps. 2:1-5). It is the almighty and all-wise God who calls out to men, in His holy Word: “This is the way, walk ye in it, when ye turn to the right hand, and when ye turn to the left” (Is. 30:21). It is also He who speaks to us, in the words of our text:

“STAND YE IN THE WAYS, AND SEE, AND ASK FOR THE OLD PATHS,
WHERE IS THE GOOD WAY, AND WALK THEREIN,
AND YE SHALL FIND REST FOR YOUR SOULS.”

Let us, under the gracious guidance of the Holy Spirit, meditate on these words for a few minutes.

I.
It is a solemn warning that lies in these words, just as solemn as that which we find in Christ’s own words: “Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat” (Mt. 7:13). Truly, many are they that go in thereat. Many are they who are listening to the seductive voices of men who profess to be leaders to everlasting life, but whose way leads far from the path of heaven to a dreadful uncertainty which leads to everlasting destruction. Who are they who presume to put up their pitiful manmade theories over against the eternal verities of God’s Word? Ah, they glibly prate of scholarship and of the latest results of science. They presume to pick the Bible to pieces and to substitute for its divine truth the flimsy threads of human arguments. They fill the hearts of our growing boys and girls, of our young men and young women, with doubts concerning the wisdom before which the greatest achievements of man’s mind pale into insignificance. They speak of mistakes in the Bible, though nine out of ten have never even read the Bible. Yea, they lead men and women, or try to lead them, into new and strange paths, into paths where the truth of the creation story is ridiculed, where the inerrancy of the inspired Record is set aside, where the deity of Christ is declared to be non-essential, where nothing is left of the Bible but a shell and a hollow mockery.

But what saith the Lord? Let us repeat the words of Ps. 2:4: “He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.” And the Prophet proclaims: “The wise men are ashamed, they are dismayed and taken: lo, they have rejected the word of the Lord; and what wisdom is in them?” (Je. 8:9). And again we read: “Thus saith the Lord, ‘Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, neither let the mighty man glory in his might, let not the rich man glory in his riches: but let him glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me, that I am the Lord which exercise loving-kindness, judgment, and righteousness, in the earth: for in these things I delight, saith the Lord’” (Je. 9:23-24).

But there is another matter which ought to concern us most seriously at this time, one which is not connected, except indirectly with the attacks that have recently been launched against the Bible. It is a situation which confronts every one of us in a manner that ought to challenge our attention. It is the universal abandonment to selfishness which characterizes our times, the hectic seeking after the gratification of various appetites, the eagerness for sensual and sensuous delights. It was not in this manner that the kingdom of David and the Church of the Lord was built up through the preaching of the Lord’s prophets. It was not thus that George Washington became the “father of his country”; it was not thus that Abraham Lincoln, under God, was fitted to become its savior. It was not thus that the individual state in our great commonwealth was established, each so remarkable in extent and powerful in riches. And, above all, it is not thus that the Lord would have us live our short span of life, as it is allotted to us in this vale of tears. Shall we spend the money which comes to us as a gift from the hands of a kind Father for the pursuit and gratification of momentary and fleeting delights? Shall we waste our God-given strength in the vain pursuit of pleasures which sap our God-given energy and weaken the stamina of our nation? Shall we prostitute the liberty which is ours as the children of God into a license which endangers our soul’s salvation? — Ah, if there were fewer white lights burning to show the way to questionable and dangerous amusements and more white lights of consecration glowing within the hearts and souls of men in the interest of that which is good and elevating or, as the Apostle puts it, of “whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report” (Ph. 4:8); if there were less strength dissipated in yielding to the vices of our day and more strength used in building up the homes and the nation and the churches; if there were less money spent in useless and dangerous luxuries and more for the sound establishment of things which are enduring for the welfare of home and Church: how much more would the pleasure of the Lord rest upon those who call themselves Christians! Does not the Lord say, in the Book of His eternal Truth: “Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world”? Yea, and He continues: “If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever” (1 Jn. 2:15-17). And another Apostle writes: “Know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? Whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God” (Ja. 4:4).

Are we then, my friends, following the allurements of the world's wisdom and of the world's temptations? Have we listened to the voice of the tempter and placed our souls in jeopardy? Oh, let us hear the warning cry of our God: “Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein.” Mark what the Lord says through His inspired Prophet: “Behold, I will proceed to do a marvelous work among this people, even a marvelous work and a wonder: for the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid. Woe unto them that seek deep to hide their counsel from the Lord, and their works are in the dark, and they say, ‘Who seeth us?’ and ‘Who knoweth us?’ Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter’s clay” (Is. 29:14-16). The world passeth away, and the lust thereof, but he that doeth the will of God abideth forever.

II.
And this last promise is of such great importance in our present meditation. For we find that, in addition to the warning contained in our text, we have also a most loving appeal, a fatherly call to all men, for while the Lord admonishes us: “Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein,” He adds the beautiful statement: “And ye shall find rest for your souls.” So we see that even the first part of the sentence contains an implied promise, for it says, in effect: If you will keep on standing in the ways and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way. The Lord thereby indicates that He presupposes such conduct on the part of all those who are truly His children. This being the case, we can appreciate the promise all the better: Ye shall find rest for your souls; namely, by following the right way and walking therein.

We know where the true path may be found; we know which is the right way to heaven. The Savior of mankind has said: “I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man cometh unto the Father but by me” (Jn. 14:6). Christ is the Way, because He has prepared the way into the presence of our heavenly Father through the blood of His cross. Does the false wisdom of this world throw up its hands in horror over the doctrine of the redemption, an idea which our oversensitive generation can no longer accept? We ignore all objections to the eternal truth, for we know that we have redemption through the blood of the Lamb, the forgiveness of sins.

Let us, therefore, give the closest attention to the words of our text, to the glorious promise included in the words of the Lord: And ye shall find rest unto your souls. The inspired writer of the Letter to the Hebrews states it as a simple fact: “There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God” (He. 4:9). And in the same letter we find the encouraging question: “How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?” (He. 9:14). That is the truth of God: The blood of Christ has purged our consciences from dead works to serve the living God, to walk in His ways. How then can any one, knowing Christ and the atonement through His blood as the only way, neglect to keep on seeking the one and only Way to heaven? Now, Jesus is found in the Word of grace, and in the Word alone. It is He who says, in the Book of eternal Truth: “Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me” (Jn. 5:39). It is He who inspired His holy writer to call out: “Wherewithal shall a young man cleanse his way? by taking heed thereto according to thy word.” And again: “Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path” (Ps. 119:9,105). And let no one think that these passages refer merely to a sanctified life, for there can be no true sanctification without a knowledge and acceptance of the way of justification based on the redemption wrought by the Savior.

Have we been heeding His call: “...thou shalt seek the Lord thy God, thou shalt find him, if thou seek him with all thy heart and with all thy soul” (De. 4:29). It is God Himself who draws men to the Savior, namely by creating willing hearts, such as are willing to be led and guided by Him, eager to learn more and more about the way to heaven through the acceptance of His promise: “Ye shall End rest for your souls.”

Have you been searching for Him in His Word? How often have you read the Bible, the Book which has rightly been called “God’s love-letter to all mankind”? There are less than 1200 chapters in the Bible and, by spending fewer than ten minutes a day on the average, or far less than one per cent of your time, you can easily read the Bible through once every year. Have you been observing a family worship hour, in which you and your loved ones spend some time daily with your Redeemer, in order to learn ever more about the way of salvation through Christ and His blood? There are 168 hours in the week: do you suppose that you could spare two of these hours in becoming acquainted with the eternal verities which are essential for your eternal happiness? O friends, as we value the great and the lasting things of this life, as we look forward to the life beyond the grave, as we desire to spend eternity in the company of our one and only Savior, let us heed the call of the Lord in our text: “Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls.”

AMEN.

Endnotes:

Kretzmann, P. (1956). Jesus Only: A series of Lenten and post-Easter Sermons. Milwaukee: Northwestern Publishing House. pp. 46-54.

For more information about Dr. Paul E. Kretzmann, see the Intrepid Lutheran post, Dr. P. E. Kretzmann: Standing on God’s Word when the World opposes us
Wendland, P. (2011, December). Evaluating Translations. Forward in Christ 98(12). pg. 29

NOTE: President Wendland is here naming and defending criteria for the choice of a new translation for Synod. This particular criterion plainly trumps the claim that Synod's choice of standard translation is only meant to be the translation used by NPH in its publications, that it does not represent the Synod's recommendation or requirement for use in the local congregation. On the contrary, by establishing this as a relevant and primary criterion, President Wendland directly states “it is expected” that Synod's choice of standard translation will also be the standard translation used in every congregation, will be the translation generally read in public during the Divine Service. It is “expected,” and is therefore a primary criterion in the selection of a standard translation.

Some may be tempted to dismiss President Wendland's emphasis of the term “expectation” in connection with the translation used in WELS parishes, yet, even this month, this point was again emphasized Rev. John Braun, who writes:
Hence, it is known, indeed, it is “expected,” that the version of the Bible used in catechism materials and other publications distributed by NPH will be the version from which WELS children, and members of all WELS congregations, will be indoctrinated; it will be the version they memorize, contemplate and repeat to one another for the rest of their lives. If Synod in Convention chooses the NIV 2011 this Summer as the “translation used in WELS publications,” then “IT WILL BE EXPECTED” that (a) an egalitarian version of the Bible, that is (b) rendered at the sixth-grade reading level, will be that which our children will (c) “memorize, contemplate and repeat to one another” for the rest of their lives. For the rest of their lives, they will be “memorizing, contemplating and repeating to one another” a translation of the Bible rendered in terms that are (a) twisted to comply with the cultural standards of militant feminism that has been in a state of open war against the Church and Christian teaching from the start, in (b) terms no more sophisticated than a sixth grader.

This is the form of indoctrination that awaits our children, should the NIV 2011 be chosen this Summer by Synod in Convention, and it will impact them long into adulthood. Their thinking in matters of religion, as they will have been taught from childhood, will not equip them for their lives as adults, it will only equip them with the thinking capacity of twelve-year-old child. At the same time, they will receive instruction in the ideas of the world from their schools, colleges and workplaces, and from the acquaintances and friends they meet through their lives, in terms suitable for adults. Moreover, the word patterns they repeat to one another from childhood will prepare them to receive with gladness the false teaching of the feminists. The juvenile thinking patterns taught them by their NIV Bibles will render them impotent against not only worldliness, but from direct attacks of the World. We see it now, among those adults who've been taught to think about their faith in the simplistic terms of the NIV 1984. Indeed, I am convinced that blame for the appalling state of American Christianity today can be attributed, at least in part, to the popularity of the NIV 1984 over the past generation. It's users are notoriously unprepared for anything but an “experiential” religious life, and decry anything that is not a “positive experience” as false, or of the devil. They are helpless, and mostly worthless as defenders of the Truth. What else is to be expected? Clumsily wielding a dull Sword, they're not dependable partners in battle. I've witnessed the shamefulness of their easily-avoided defeat many times. They look like fools, and make all other Christians look like fools right along with them, for the sole reason that they transparently think and reason like fools, they articulate their thoughts with the shallow predictability of children. To prepare children for adulthood, they must be prepared with thoughts and words that will actually serve them in adulthood, as adults. They must be prepared for adulthood by equipping them with words and thought patterns with respect to their religion that are suitable for adults. This is accomplished by having them “memorize, contemplate and repeat to one another” the Scriptures according to the standards of adult literacy -- adult speech and thought patterns, not those of a sixth grader. The difference between childishness and adulthood that is suggested by St. Paul in this regard is stark:
Likewise, the Proverbs tell us:
The Bible says in these verses, and in others, that childish ways and thinking are habits and behaviours which the adult IS EXPECTED to put behind him, not retain throughout his life, and which he must be trained to put behind him from childhood. Training Christians to think and speak like twelve-year-olds for the rest of their lives is no way to prepare them for the rigours of Christian adulthood. The NIV, whether the 1984 or the 2011 edition, DOES NOT ADEQUATELY PREPARE CHILDREN FOR CHRISTIAN ADULTHOOD.

So let's have no more talk of dismissing the importance of Synod's choice “translation used in WELS publications,” as if it weren't intended to have, indeed, if it weren't “THE EXPECTATION” that it have, wider and deeper impact than merely the “translation used in WELS publications.” It is clearly “expected” to be far more than just this. And it undoubtedly will be.
This is an interesting statistic cited by Dr. Kretzmann. His sermon was written in 1956, and according to then "available statistics," roughly 60% of America's population "confessed adherence to some church." One may assume that at that time the term "church" was limited to a church of some Christian confession. Of further interest with regard to this statistic is that it had recently "increased by many percent," perhaps giving some reason for Christian boasting. Dr. Kretzmann's further warnings and lamentations in this paragraph, however, make it clear that such increases, in and of themselves, were no cause for confidence as, “in many cases, outward membership [was] not the expression of a full and complete adherence to the full truth of the Word of God.” Moreover, church attendance and membership was generally known to follow from human weakness, as people tended to use church as a way to indulge their need to be “fashionable.”

In contrast, according to the 2008 American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS), the percentage of Americans identifying themselves as Christian was 76% – a statistic which represented nearly a 15% numeric increase since 1990, but, due to population growth over the same period, also represented almost an 11% decline as a percentage of American adults. Granted, as stated, this is a slightly different statistic than the one cited by Dr. Kretzmann, who cited “confessed adherence to some [Christian] church,” yet, I would presume to say that identifying oneself as “Christian” in 1956 would have been tantamount to confessing “adherence to some church,” whereas today, given the growth of the Emergent Church over the past 15 years and the growing rejection of organized religion, “confessed adherence to some church” can no longer be said to be equivalent to self-identifying as a “Christian.”

If one accepts that these statistics are roughly equivalent in nature, then even with a relatively much higher percentage of professing Christians in America today, and with raw numbers of Christians in America measurably increasing, it is curious to notice that today’s attitude toward Church attendance, even among those professing to be “confessional Lutherans,” has shifted that much further away from that of Dr. Kretzmann, who indicated that such increases were not necessarily cause for rejoicing, given that “full and complete adherence to the full truth of the Word of God” was not the confession of the adherents. Today, among advocates of the ubiquitous Church Growth Movement (CGM), the primary matter of concern is the health of the organization (whether it be the Congregation or the Church Body to which it belongs), where the health of the organization is measured in dollars. Since such organizations are non-profit and rely primarily on donations, this means essentially one thing: “butts in seats.” More numbers means more donations, and more donations mean a healthy church (or “church body” as the case may be), while fewer numbers thus means an unhealthy or “dying” or “ineffective” congregation or church body. Today, more than ever, to get "butts in seats," churches of the Church Growth Movement exploit the same apparently long-known human weaknesses – the human need to pursue what is judged "fashionable" in the eyes of the World – as we observe them having thus “degenerated into social clubs with [little more than] a religious veneer,” as made plainly evident in our recent post, Real? Relational?? Relevant??? O THE HORROR OF IT ALL!!!

“What was missing in my life was Absolution”: One Christian's Journey from Evangelicalism to Confessional Lutheranism

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Douglas Lindee) — Fri, 22 Mar 2013 04:59:00 +0000

On Tuesday, we published a short blog post highlighting the research of Rev. Matthew Richard (CLBA), who is working on a doctoral degree at Concordia Seminary - St. Louis, entitled, 'Crucible Moments' and 'Becoming Lutheran'. Afterward, while perusing his blog, PM Notes: Evangelizing Moral Therapeutic Deists; Comforting Post-Evangelicals; Strengthening Monergists, I stumbled across one of his posts from last December: Confessions Of A Former Evangelical (Encore). It is a brief post, featuring only a broadcast from Chris Rosebrough's Fighting for the Faith, regarding which he comments:

"Perhaps the Best Defense of the Gospel You'll Ever Hear (From a Lutheran)"

I recall this episode from Fighting for the Faith, and agree: It is well worth your time. I've included it in this post, below. Give it a listen.

Incidentally, that post, linked to from Rev. Richard's blog to his Baptist friend's blog, is no longer there. Perhaps his Baptist friend was just cleaning up old posts, but nothing before January 2013 is available. However, maybe this following fact is pertinent. On February 28, 2013, his Baptist friend, a Baptist minister, announced that he has left the Southern Baptist Convention. He has many very interesting, and familiar, reasons for doing so. Please read his post: Why I’ve Left the Convention.

A Journey From Legalistic Pietistic Evangelicalism to the Cross
delivered at the First National BJS Conference, February 2009
by Chris Rosebrough

Quotes from Chris Rosebrough's “Plenary Speech”
compiled for those of who won't listen to the podcast,
who haven't been through the transition of “Evangelical” to “confessional Lutheran,”
who don't know what a genuine Worldview Crisis really is
(See our recent post, 'Crucible Moments' and 'Becoming Lutheran' for more information on “transition” and “Worldview Crisis”.)

They've completely transformed the church service. It's no longer a pastor who is an undershepherd of the Good shepherd, feeding God's sheep with God's Word, making disciples, giving them Word and Sacrament, proclaiming and announcing the forgiveness of sins won by Jesus Christ on the Cross. Instead, it has been turned into a psychological freakshow.

How about this from Saddleback Church: “When you're running on empty, learn the ancient secrets from God's Word for a less stressful, more relaxing, lighter and free-er lifestyle.”

Now here is the fun part about it. All of these churches... when these guys launch -- four, five or six hundred people. They are marketing experts, they are running circles around us. And the people coming to their churches, are they hearing the Gospel? Not at all... All of these guys "claim" that they are doing these things to reach the lost for Jesus Christ, and to give them the Gospel, and that they are not compromising. HOGWASH!

What are the results of all this? ...After 20 years, 40% of their people don't believe in salvation by Grace... 57% don't believe in the Authority of the Bible... 56% don't believe Jesus is the Only Way to Eternal Life.

Former Evangelicals, they're like ex-smokers...

So you can say that, at that time, I was "On fire for the Lord!" -- and you bet I was, because I was told if I wasn't, I was going to burn in Hell. There was no Grace. There was no forgiveness. Only an endless rat-wheel of good works with no assurance that I was even meeting the lowest standard necessary for me to be saved. That's the thing about the Law: How do you know when you've done it enough to please God?

I did everything I could to stand out as a Christian among Christians, and at the time if you were to ask me if I was going to heaven when I died, my answer would have been. “I hope so... I hope so.” Beneath the Christian facade was a young man who was struggling with his sin, and who knew he wasn't winning that battle. And I knew that I was not good enough to be saved.

“We believe that 'Entire Sanctification' is that act of God, subsequent to regeneration, by which believers are made 'free from original sin, or depravity,' and brought into a 'state of entire devotion to God', and 'the holy obedience of love made perfect'. It is wrought by the baptism with the Holy Spirit, and comprehends in one experience the cleansing of the heart from sin and the abiding indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit, empowering the believer for a life of service. 'Entire Sanctification' is provided by the Blood of Jesus, is wrought instantaneously by faith, preceded by entire consecration into this work and state of Grace, the Holy Spirit bears witness. This experience is also know by various terms representing its various phases, such as 'Christian perfection', 'perfect love', 'heart purity', the 'Baptism of the Holy Spirit', the 'Fullness of the Blessing', 'Christian Holiness', and 'Second Blessing of Holiness.'”

Perfection... and that's really the Material Principle of Pietism... Modern day Evangelicals, the center of their preaching is 'the changed life', and, their Formal Principle is 'The Bible as Guidebook for Living.' That's what they preach for. Life change.

I was literally fed a steady stream of tactics and practical methods for 'living a God-pleasing life'... But there was no peace for me, no assurance, no hope, my sin problem wouldn't go away, and I knew that I would face shame and rejection if I had to stand before Jesus and give an accounting of my life. Because that's all they were preaching: an Accounting.

“Be ye perfect, as your Father in Heaven is perfect.”

“If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.” Yeah, but I wasn't... I obviously didn't love God... I came to [my pastor] for Grace, and he gave me more Law. Looking back on it I now realize, the teaching and preaching of my church literally cut me off from all hope of salvation. I diligently searched God's Law for little shreds of hope and tiny crumbs of sunlight that could tell me that I would be okay. But there is no comfort in God's Law. There is no forgiveness offered in God's Law.

A person can only live under despair for so long. And that is what this kind of teaching produced in me: utter despair. I was literally withering under the heat of God's Law. But what I didn't know, is that that is exactly what God's Law is supposed to do to us. What was missing in my life was Absolution.

There's no way he can make it into heaven, he's not even trying!

He comforted me with Christ's shed blood on the Cross, he told me over and over again that Jesus' Blood was shed for me, for my sins, all of them, FREE, even the one's I've committed today. I'd never heard a Christian talk this way before. And I'm telling you, there are millions of Evangelicals who've never heard a Christian talk this way before. They don't know the Gospel!

He openly confessed his overwhelming need for a Saviour and his utter dependence on Christ's shed Blood on the Cross for his sins.

“But now the righteousness of God has been made manifest apart from the Law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it, the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe, for their is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God and are Justified freely by His Grace as a gift through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.”

I had stopped my incessant worrying about whether I was good enough, holy enough, or perfect enough to be saved. Instead, I was asking a far more important set of questions:
“Was Jesus Christ good enough?”
“Was Jesus Christ holy enough?”
“Was He perfect enough to save me?”
“Did Jesus' Blood, which He shed on the Cross, cover all of my sins? Or just some of them?”

These texts show that it is all about Jesus Christ [not ME]. His obedience, His ministry, His perfection, His righteousness, His taking my sin and suffering my punishment for me, on the Cross!

Celebrating the Birth of the Greatest Composer in the History of the West: the Lutheran, Johann Sebastian Bach

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Douglas Lindee) — Thu, 21 Mar 2013 21:30:00 +0000

Today is the Vernal Equinox, the first day of Spring, and in 1685, the same can be said of musical excellence, both in the Church and in the West, as within them the full vibrance of musical life was born, as well – with the birth of Johann Sebastian Bach (1685-1750), the man known as the Greatest Composer in the History of Western Civilization. We have written much on Intrepid Lutherans about this creative Master, a fiercely orthodox Lutheran who infused his faith into his compositions through the language of counterpoint, in it battling not only Pietism but, as we detailed in our post, Music for the Twelve Days of Christmas, Part 3: Johann Sebastian Bach, the apostasy of the Enlightenment. The first post in which we first featured J.S. Bach, Music for Holy Week, Part 1 – excerpts from Matthäus Passion, we summarized Bach's life and accomplishments, as follows:

“

Bach perhaps needs little introduction: he was and remains the master of counterpoint and represents the pinnacle of Baroque musical achievement. In addition to his many secular works, as Cantor of St. Thomas Church in Leipzig he composed a full series of Cantatas to accompany the Lutheran liturgy for each week of the Church Calendar, along with many other Sacred works as he was commissioned... It is worth noting, however, than in addition to his status as a composer, Johann Sebastian Bach was also fiercely orthodox in his Lutheranism. Being active as a composer during the rise of German Pietism and attempting to ward it off through the Sacred works he was often commissioned to compose, his professional library was proliferate with personally annotated works of Lutheran theology – he had the library of a theologian, and he used it as reference material in the composition of his works.

”

Bach's genius as a composer was not entirely his own. He is known to have studied the Masters of the previous generation and incorporated their genius into his own art: men like Michael Praetorius, Samuel Scheidt, Johann Schein, and especially Heinrich Schütz (1585-1672) – the greatest German composer, second to Bach, who, having composed exclusively for the Lutheran Church throughout his career, has been the subject of numerous posts on Intrepid Lutherans, as well.

Schütz studied under the Renaissance Master of antiphonal and polychoral composition, Giovanni Gabrieli, at St. Mark’s Basilica in Venice. So remarkable was his performance as a student, that Master Gabrieli was compelled to recommend him with the words, “In Schütz you will have a musician such as one will not find in many other places”. Indeed, upon his death in 1612, Gabrieli willed his signet ring to Schütz. Heinrich Schütz was appointed Kapellmeister at the Royal Court in Dresden in 1615, and from there through the remainder of his career, he masterfully wedded the highest musical art of the Renaissance with the German language, the purest manifestation of which, for him, was Martin Luther's translation of the the Bible.

Bach's relationship to Schütz is almost serendipitous. Recall from our post, Music for the Twelve Days of Christmas, Part 2: Heinrich Schütz ... and other thoughts to ponder over the New Year Holiday... the concern Schütz had in the second third of his life over the decline in compositional integrity he had witnessed, for

“

the advent of the chordal style dispensing with linear but rich polyphonic textures made it possible for technically less accomplished composers to shine with concertante figured-bass music. According to Schütz, there were hardly any younger composers in Germany willing to deal with the more profound aspects of composition. So their tonal idiom was bound to become increasingly shallow and banal.

”

As a result, he published his Geistliche Chormusik (Sacred Choral Music) in 1648, dedicating it to the choir of St. Thomas Church in Leipzig, to “encourage budding German composers, before they would try their hand at the concertante style ...to first demonstrate their skill in this area.” O that today's Lutheran composers would follow this advice, and avoid their own “shallow and banal tonal idiom!”

It seems to be unknown whether Bach took the recommendation of Schütz to heart, or whether those responsible for calling Bach to be Cantor at St. Thomas in Leipzig were seeking to diligently live up to the encouragement Schütz obviously meant for them, or whether his Geistliche Chormusik had any such impact by that time at all. But it is, at least, an interesting coincidence. Other interesting coincidences include Bach's place in time: Heinrich Schütz died as Pia Desideria (published 1675) was percolating in the mind of Philipp Jakob Spener (1635-1705); Bach was born as plans for the Pietist learning center, University of Halle were being drawn; while Bach served in Leipzig, the last of the Lutheran theologians from the Lutheran Age of Orthodoxy, and vigorous opponent of Pietism, Valentin Ernst Löscher (1673-1749), served as Superintendent and as pastor at the Kreuzkirche in Dresden (practically a stone's-throw from the Royal Court, and a place known to benefit from regular collaboration with Schütz); and both Bach and Löscher, being in such proximity, battled with fierce dedication against Pietism in their respective vocations. Löscher and Bach died at the opening of the Enlightenment, in 1749 and 1750, respectively – with no one, really, to take their place.

With the death of Bach, accompanied by the demise of the Lutheran Age of Orthodoxy, the Spring of musical expression also came to an end, and along with it was left behind the Source of New-Life, the True teaching of God's Word upon which this Spring emerged. God's Truth gave way to Man's pride, the searing heat of Enlightenment notions, such as the “perfectibility of man,” invading both the Fine Arts and Christian Theology, first vaunting the objectivity of man's intellect, then vaunting the subjectivity of man's social and emotional existence, each iteratively warring against the other. Today, we live in the Autumn of both the Arts and the visible Church, the clouds of post-Modernism increasingly obscuring the light of Truth, upon which true art and true theology depend. We await with dread the dark Winter that is fast upon us, ready to endure it for the sake of Christ and the benefit of our neighbor, yet wondering what misery it will bring. But we remember the Spring. And we long for its return.

Johann Sebastian Bach is recognized as the Greatest Composer in the history of Western Civilization; and the work recognized as the Greatest Work of the Greatest Composer is nothing other than a Lutheran Mass – Bach's Lutheran Mass in B-Minor. We offer for our readers today, in celebration of the birth of the Greatest Composer to have ever lived, and in fond remembrance of the Spring that once was, this, a full performance of Bach's Greatest Work.

Lutheran Mass in B-Minor – by Johann Sebastian Bach

A Sermon for Judica: “The Power of the Cross” — Dr. Paul E. Kretzmann

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Douglas Lindee) — Wed, 20 Mar 2013 14:30:00 +0000

On Wednesdays through the Lenten Season this year (2013), we will be publishing sermons from Dr. Adolph Hoenecke (1835-1908), who is among the most important theologians of the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS), and from Dr. Paul E. Kretzmann (1883-1965), a prolific author, educator, historian and theologian of the Lutheran Church — Missouri Synod (LCMS) and among the more significant figures of 20^th Century American Lutheranism.

Last Sunday, also known as Passion Sunday, marked the beginning of the Fifth Week in Lent, or Judica — sometimes also called “Passion Week” or “Passiontide.” Today, unlike we have for the past five Wednesdays, we hear from Dr. Paul E. Kretzmann (LCMS), as he tells us about The Power of the Cross

As the late-Renaissance/early-Baroque era painting at left depicts, the Cross of Christ, though once a symbol of ignominy, has, by Christ’s Victory on the Cross become the symbol of Salvation throughout the World, for on the Cross, the entire work of man’s Redemption was accomplished by Jesus. Thus have men through millenia since been drawn to the Cross of Christ, confidently trusting in the completed work of Christ for their eternal Salvation. That is The Power of the Cross, that through it the work of man’s Salvation was completed in Christ, and that by it God continues to draw men to Himself. In the following sermon, Dr. Kretzmann explains.

A Sermon for Judica

The Power of the Cross
by Dr. Paul E. Kretzmann¹

(Introit, Ps. 43:1)

And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me. This he said, signifying what death he should die.

John 12:32-33

We call ourselves soldiers of the cross. And it is a most remarkable fact that the cross, once the symbol of deepest shame and disgrace, has, during the last nineteen hundred years, become the sign of victory, the sign by which millions of Christians all over the world profess their allegiance to a man who once died on a cross, thereby sealing His life’s work with His life’s blood. Yes, Jesus of Nazareth, a man who had come to His own, first of all to the people of His own race and blood, but then also in behalf of the untold millions of mankind throughout the world, was nailed to a cross just outside the northern gates of the city of Jerusalem, according to the cruel custom of the Romans in punishing certain base criminals. It seemed a moment of the deepest shame and humiliation when the cross, erected on Calvary as the center one of three, was lifted up to the skies. And it might have seemed to many witnesses a mere incident in the life of a demagogue, whose false claims, as they thought, were definitely brought to naught by His death.

Yet, as said before, the cross of Jesus has become the emblem of faith to millions of people. It was carried as the symbol of salvation from Jerusalem through Samaria and Galilee, through Asia Minor and Europe, through the Americas and Australia, through Africa and Asia, and through the islands of the great seas of the world. It is displayed on innumerable churches, as well as on the church appointments, such as altars, lecterns, and baptismal fonts. It is used as a pendant on ornaments and on lapel pins; it is printed on millions of books and magazines. In short, wherever Christians are found, there the cross is the most prominent symbol of their faith in the crucified Savior. The cross has successfully withstood the onslaught of the Mohammedan half-moon, the star and the crescent, and it is proudly displayed in opposition to the star of David. To this day and hour the cross is proving the symbol of victory even against the hosts of paganism in every continent of the globe.

In this connection we cannot but take note of the fact that the cross, as the emblem of the redemption wrought by Jesus Christ, is mentioned time and again in the Scriptures of the New Testament. If we look at the Epistles of St. Paul, for example, we find him cautioning himself, as it were, against preaching with “wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect” (1 Cor. 1:17-18). At the same time he openly states that “the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness, but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.” The same Apostle refers to the “offense of the cross”, for well he knew that the natural man stumbles at this sign of disgrace and shame (Gal. 5:11). He refers to the fact that there is such a thing as a “persecution for the cross of Christ” (Gal. 6:12). Yet in the same connection he boldly writes: “God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world” (Gal. 6:14). So also the Letter to the Hebrews admonishes all men to look “unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God” (Heb. 12:2).

All this is in keeping with prophecy which Jesus uttered in our text, a prophecy which sets before us, in golden letters

THE POWER OF THE CROSS

Let us, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, examine this somewhat more closely.

I.
Wherein does the power of the cross consist? What has made it the symbol of a world-conquering faith? Jesus says in our text: “If I be lifted up from the earth.” This is stated, not as a suggested possibility, as though it were an event which might, and then again might not take place. No, it is the statement of an event definitely expected, one that was certain to be fulfilled in the immediate future. Jesus was looking forward to it, He saw in spirit the cross being lifted up in view of the city which had rejected its Saviour. He had, just a few days before, wept bitter tears over the city, because its inhabitants had refused to acknowledge what pertained to their peace (Luke 19:29-44; cf. Luke 13:34-35, Matt. 23:37-39). And His tears had not been the evidence of a shallow sentimentality, of a pity which even a heathen might feel over the trouble that might befall a friend. No, the tears of Jesus, shed as He looked upon the city which would so soon reject Him, were an evidence of His eternal love for all mankind, a love whose unexampled fervor would drive Him even to the cruel cross.

Thus the power of the cross rests upon God’s eternal counsel of love. He had foreseen the fall of men and the terrible power which sin would exert over mankind, the rule of Satan as the prince of this world. But, from eternity also, His love had found a way to break the power of sin and of the devil by sending a Saviour who, as true man, could be under the Law and suffer death, while, at the same time, as true God, He could conquer sin and death.

The fact that God’s eternal counsel of love found its fulfillment in His death on the cross is brought out even in the many passages of the Old Testament which, directly or indirectly, speak of the Messiah’s work. The very first promise which God gave to men after the Fall brought the Gospel news that the Seed of the Woman would crush the head of the serpent at the very time that the serpent would crush the heel of the Victor (Gen. 3:15). In the 22nd Psalm the Messiah, speaking through the mouth and pen of David, cries out: “My strength is dried up like a potsherd; and my tongue cleaveth to my jaws; and thou hast brought me into the dust of death” (vs. 15). And in Isaiah 55 the sufferings which led to the climax of the crucifixion are pictured: “He was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities... He is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth” (vv. 3-7).

This fact of the eternal counsel of love giving power to the cross of Christ is brought out also in the various prophecies which Christ Himself uttered in the course of His ministry, when He spoke of His sufferings and death (i.e., John 3:14; Mark 8:31,9:12; Luke 9:22; etc.). It was indicated even in the conversation of Christ with Nicodemus in that beautiful saying: “God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son” (John 3:16). And who will not immediately be reminded of the various passages in which Jesus tells His disciples that the divine obligation was resting upon Him to go up to Jerusalem, to be delivered into the hands of the Gentiles, to suffer unspeakable agony and shame, and finally to be crucified? (i.e., Mark 10:33; Matt. 20:17-19; etc.) – All these facts are the background of this present meditation: they are necessary for the proper understanding of the power of the cross.

II.
But, we find, in the second place, that the power of the cross is so amazingly great and wonderful because His being lifted up from the earth signifying what death He should die, includes the entire work of redemption. Over the cross we might write the words which Jesus Himself spoke on the afternoon of the resurrection day: “Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?” (Luke 24:26). It is by the way of the cross that the way to heaven is open to us through His blood.

Is it forgiveness of sins that we need? The Bible tells us: “In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace” (Eph. 1:7).

Is it justification before the righteous God that we are looking for? The Bible tells us: “Being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him” (Rom. 5:9).

Do we need the peace of a good conscience? The Bible tells us: “Having made peace through the blood of his cross” (Col. 1:20).

Do we want to be sure that we are purchased from the power of sin and Satan? The Bible tells us: “The church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood” (Acts 20:28).

Do we want to be certain of our redemption? The Bible tells us: “Ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a Lamb without blemish and without spot” (1 Pet. 1:18-19).

Do we want to be sure that we are really clean from the filth of sin? The Bible tells us: “The blood of Jesus Christ his son cleanseth us from all sin” (1 John 1:7).

Do we need white raiment to stand in the presence of the holy God? The Bible tells us: “They... have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb” (Rev. 7:14).

Do we want to be sure of access to the throne? The Bible tells us: “Having... boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus” (Heb. 10:19).

Thus was the power of the cross exerted; thus was the blood of the cross the agency through which redemption was gained for all mankind. The cross of Christ signifies and includes the entire work of redemption. So the cross is the symbol of the Christian faith, of Christianity itself; thus it was that St. Paul could declare: “I determined not to know anything among you save Jesus Christ, and him crucified” (1 Cor. 2:2). And even more emphatically he writes, in a later letter; “I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ, and be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith: that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death” (Phil. 3:8-10).

III.
But now we ask: What has the power of the cross to do with you and me in the present meditation? We know that it is not a mere head knowledge, a mere comprehension of historical acts which will avail us, in view of the greatest tragedy and the most astounding miracle which the world has ever seen. Thousands and millions have known the story of the cross of Christ, but this cross was to them an object of scorn and derision, and therefore a delusion and a snare. To them the wonderful message of the Gospel has become as the Apostle Paul so sorrowfully puts it, “a savour of death unto death” (2 Cor. 2:14-16).

Nor is it sufficient to have the cross, the entire suffering of Christ, a mere matter of contemplation, of something to be interested in as an account of the possibilities which reside in the human mind, that a man will readily become a martyr of the cause in which he believes. Thousands and millions of people have regarded with amazement the miracle of Calvary, and as many thousands and millions have shed tears of sympathy over the fate of One whose love should have convinced even the most hardhearted enemy of the truth of His cause. No mere contemplation of Christ’s sufferings will bring the power of the cross into the hearts of men.

For that reason there is only one fact which gives us sublime confidence whenever we study the story of the cross, and that is the fact of Christ’s statement in our text: “I will draw all men unto me.” This is in the most wonderful agreement with His oft-repeated declaration that He came into the world to seek and to save that which was lost, that He came down from heaven, not to do His own will, but the will of the Father who sent Him. “And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me” the Saviour cries out, “that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day” (John 6:39). And we should note, in particular, that this majestic statement is followed by the promise: “And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day” (John 6:40). This declaration shows how close is the relation of the cross, the work of redemption, to the lives of all men.

Let us keep this in mind, for the power of the cross applied in the lives of men is due to the fact that Christ’s redemption was gained for all men. It was the world which God loved, for which He gave His only-begotten Son. “God... will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim. 2:4). Christ stretched out His hands even to the rebellious inhabitants of Jerusalem. He is today calling to all men: “Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth” (Is. 45:22).

Thus the power of the cross draws men to Christ, for whosoever believeth on Him shall not perish. As men, in studying the miracle of the cross, realize their own sinfulness, their guilt in the eyes of the holy God, which will bring them down into everlasting damnation unless they turn to Him, then, by the grace of God, they lift up their arms to Him in an appeal for mercy, then the power of the cross draws them to Christ as their one and only Saviour, who loved them and gave Himself for them. Thus is established the fellowship of heart and mind with Christ and God, thus the power of the cross is exerted in time for eternity. For this reason the song of every believer can be that of Psalm 103: “Bless the Lord, O my soul, and all that is within me, bless his holy name. Bless the Lord, O my soul, and forget not all his benefits: who forgiveth all thine iniquities; who healeth all thy diseases; who redeemeth thy life from destruction; who crowneth thee with lovingkindness and tender mercies” (vv. 1-4). Truly, we can sing, with hearts uplifted to Him:

AMEN.

Endnotes:

Kretzmann, P. (1956). Jesus Only: A series of Lenten and post-Easter Sermons. Milwaukee: Northwestern Publishing House. pp. 46-54.

For more information about Dr. Paul E. Kretzmann, see the Intrepid Lutheran post, Dr. P. E. Kretzmann: Standing on God’s Word when the World opposes us

A. Hunnius on the truly confessional Lutheran teaching of Romans 5:18

noreply@blogger.com (Rev. Paul A. Rydecki) — Tue, 19 Mar 2013 21:15:00 +0000

(Here is an excerpt from a post on www.faithalonejustifies.com)

Aegidius Hunnius has a brilliant section in A Clear Explanation of the Controversy among the Wittenberg Theologians concerning Samuel Huber’s misuse of Romans 5 to prove that all those who have been condemned through Adam’s sin have also been justified by Christ’s obedience (whether they believe in Him or not).

Hunnius takes apart Huber’s (and the official WELS) doctrine piece by piece, concluding with this observation about Huber’s supposed “confessional subscription” to the Lutheran Book of Concord:

And what will Dr. Huber reply to the Book of Concord, which, in citing these very words from Romans, explicitly confirms that those things mean nothing other than that we are justified by faith? This is what the Book of Concord says in the Latin edition, page 666: “Therefore, these statements are equivalent and clearly mean the same thing, when Paul says that we are justified by faith; or that faith is imputed to us for righteousness; and when he teaches that we are justified by the obedience of one Mediator, who is Christ; or that through the righteousness of one man, justification of life comes upon all men. For faith does not justify on account of this, that it is such a good work, or that it is such a splendid virtue, but because it apprehends and embraces the merit of Christ in the promise of the Gospel.” Thus far the Book of Concord. If the Pauline phrase (that “through the righteousness of one Man, justification of life comes upon all men”) clearly means the same thing as that other statement, “We are justified by faith” (as the Book of Concord clearly and emphatically asserts), then the interpretation is rejected by the sentence of the Book of Concord that imagines from these words of Paul a justification apart from faith—one that extends also to those who have never had faith and never will. Dr. Luther says it even better in [his lectures on] the second chapter to the Galatians: “Where Christ and faith are not present, there is no remission of sins, no refuge, nothing but pure imputation of sins and condemnation.”

'Crucible Moments' and 'Becoming Lutheran'

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Douglas Lindee) — Tue, 19 Mar 2013 12:30:00 +0000

Becoming Lutheran
It is very likely that most readers of Intrepid Lutherans have not been following this research, if they even knew about it, but Rev. Matthew Richard (CLBA), who is working on a doctoral degree from Concordia Seminary - St. Louis, has finished the research stage of his dissertation. The title of his dissertation is Becoming Lutheran: Exploring the Journey of American Evangelicals Into Confessional Lutheran Thought, and the research consisted of three surveys whose participants were once active Evangelicals that have made the transition to confessional Lutheranism, or those who are in the process of making that transition. I was one of the survey participants (along with hundreds of others).

The first two surveys (quantitative and qualitative surveys, respectively) have been published:

Results of Survey #1

Results of Survey #2

It is unknown to me if he will be publishing the results of the third survey, which concerned advice for Lutheran pastors with respect to prospects or parishioners who are going through the transition.

Rev. Richard has been compiling the results of his research on his Research Journal blog. In addition, he was the subject of a very interesting interview on Worldview Everlasting TV after the results of the first survey were released last February.

Having personally been through the lengthy transition from “Evangelical” to “confessional Lutheran,” and having done so reflectively (that is, I wasn't just jumping from one Evangelical church to another, like so many Evangelicals tend to uncritically do), I find that his results describe very well the process that we endure, and that they also help explain why many of us who've made the transition as adults (again, reflectively and deliberately) cling so tenaciously to sound and genuine Lutheranism and warn so vigorously against anything that smacks of contemporary Evangelicalism. Indeed, both Rev. Richard and Rev. Fisk discuss this very thing in the interview, above. Unlike those Lutherans who have become enamoured with sectarianism and adjure their brothers to “just give it a chance,” we've already “given it a chance,” already know very well the ruin to which it leads, and, rejecting it, urge others not to even dabble in it. Just as there are no non-smokers like former smokers, there are no non-Evangelicals like former Evangelicals. I'm one of them. I highly recommend looking at his research.

Crucible Moments
In the first survey issued by Rev. Richard, “Fear” and “Anger” emerged as two themes repeatedly observed. These two emotions were explored in the second survey – certainly for the sake of gaining a deeper and more objective understanding of these two factors, but, it seems reasonable to think, perhaps also seeking a way of “easing the process.” With the results of the second survey now published, however, I think it is pretty clear that these “emotions” are necessary aspects of the process, and that if a person does not endure them then it seems difficult to say whether a genuine transition to confessional Lutheranism has been made (assuming they actually believed the Evangelical teaching they had previously imbibed over the years).

Worldview Change is
Repentance from Falsehood

This result (which may be surprising to some) reminds me of a statistic reported by Josh McDowell in his book, Right from Wrong: 90% of one's values are developed by age 13, while the rest develop mostly between the ages of 13 and 18, and remain essentially fixed through the rest of his life – barring what McDowell called “crucible moments” during adulthood, or moments of ideological or worldview crisis. These “crucible moments” force a person into deep reflection, like no other kind of life experience can, and often result in either a change to, or a significant reinforcement of one's worldview. For any such change to occur in adults, whose values are essentially fixed, worldview crisis is necessary for the change to occur.

As the rest of Rev. Richard's research seems to show, the journey from contemporary pop-church Evangelicalism to genuine confessional Lutheranism is a very definite worldview change. I can personally attest to this fact. If “alleviating” or “easing the process” means hiding distinctive Lutheran teaching and practice in order to avoid “offending” prospects, or to soft-pedal the Second use of the Law in order to avoid “offending” the unregenerate, or to hide the Sacrament for fear of “offending” visitors, then the only effect “easing the process” might have is to attenuate the genuine change itself. That would be unfortunate. Perhaps it is best to simply be aware that individuals making a journey from “Evangelicalism” to “confessional Lutheranism” are struggling through internal conflict, and merely receive it as an explanation for what a given pastor observes as he brings disaffected Evangelicals through adult catechism? Perhaps it is best for a pastor to simply offer direct Scriptural support for every doctrinal claim he makes during the process, instead of trying to practice some form of “armchair psychology,” and leave the prospects to wrestle with the clear statements of Scripture on their own and arrive at their convictions through the Holy Spirit's working? I ask these questions rhetorically, of course, while agreeing with Rev. Richard in the interview, above, that, at the very least, confessional Lutheran pastors ought to patiently stick with disaffected Evangelicals who are in the midst of a worldview crisis.

Anyway, I think that the final product of Rev. Richard's research (which won't be published for several months it appears) will make for interesting reading – as will the many journal articles it will no-doubt produce. For now, I hope our readers will use the links above to give his raw research a look, and I hope that they find something interesting or beneficial in it.

An Explanation of Lutheran Worship: For the Lutheran who asks the Meaning of the Beautiful Liturgy of His church

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Douglas Lindee) — Sun, 17 Mar 2013 04:45:00 +0000

Last week, we published an article entitled, Lutheranism and the Fine Arts: Dr. P.E. Kretzmann and the Necessity of Continuing Catechesis. It stood in stark contrast against the depraved junk being pushed by the Church Growth Movement (CGM), which, though vaulting the latest in “scientific methodology”, nurtures anti-intellectualism as much as it promotes mediocrity, turning its back on the preaching and teaching of sound doctrine and repudiating the hard work of rigorous catechesis in order to make Christianity more outwardly attractive to the unregenerate who despise Christ and the teaching of His Word. Another term for this among CGM advocates is, “Evangelism.”

But most importantly, that post emphasized the need not only for rigorous catechesis, but of a broad catechesis that includes more than just Bible study. In that post, Dr. Kretzmann and the Walther League strongly encouraged complementary catechesis in areas of Church History, of Christian Missions, of Distinctive Lutheran Doctrines, Customs and Usages of the Lutheran Church, of Church Art, of Science, and of Literature. And within the category of Church Art was included the very important topic of Liturgics.

In fact, the catechesis of the Lutheran Worshiper was the topic of another recent post on Intrepid Lutherans, The Catechesis of the Lutheran Worshiper: An antidote to the “itching ears” and “happy feat” of CGM enthusiasts?. In that post we drew the distinction between those who favor so-called “contemporary worship,” as those who Congregate before Entertainers, with those who retain a wholesome catholicty and still embrace the distinctive practices of historic Lutheran liturgy, as those who Congregate before the Means of Grace.

But what is such “wholesome catholicty”? What is the “distinctive practice of historic Lutheran liturgy”? Do American Lutherans of the 21^st Century even have such a thing? If so, is it at all in general use? Maybe they do, maybe they don't, but one thing is for sure: they certainly had such in the 19^th and 20^th Centuries, AND they had catechetical materials to go along with it for the purpose of teaching successive generations about Lutheran worship.

Lutherans of these bygone times highly valued the wholesome catholicty of their historic Lutheran worship practices, that served to starkly contrast them with the American sects which surrounded them — which had in many cases been given over to the evangelical revivalism of Charles Finney, and to practices emanating from the Holiness movements within American Methodism (as discussed in our recent post, The Church Growth Movement: A brief synopsis of its history and influences in American Christianity. Even in confessional Lutheran churches in America, the allure of the Anxious Bench became increasingly difficult to resist, and Methodist hymnals were, distressingly, in growing demand (as Dr. C.F.W. Walther laments, in our post, C.F.W. Walther: Filching from sectarian worship resources equals “soul murder”. It was within this environment that the confessional and liturgical movements of the 19^th Century grew, and worked toward the establishment of confessional unity among Lutherans in America, and to distinguish and insulate American Lutheranism from the poison of sectarian influences.

In 1908, the General Council of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America published an Explanation of the Common Service – a harmony of sixteenth century Lutheran liturgies published in 1888, in the English language. This is the same Common Service found in The Lutheran Hymnal, which was published by the Synodical Conference in 1941, and which is still used in many Lutheran congregations even today. It is my understanding that, in many circles, this liturgy of the Divine Service is still referred to as a benchmark of liturgical excellence. Indeed, in our recent post, Lutheranism and the Fine Arts..., Dr. Kretzmann refers to the Common Service as “unsurpassed in the entire history of the Christian Church.” Sadly, however, though many Lutherans still use it, most Lutherans, and nearly all young Lutherans, are completely ignorant of this fine and beautiful liturgy, having never had the privilege of being consistently guided through worship under the rubrics of this Common Service.

Interestingly, the Explanation published in 1908 by the General Council of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, was dedicated to this very group of people, to the “Young Lutherans who ask the meaning of the beautiful liturgy of the Lutheran Church.” As you read this Explanation, notice its use of language. Consider the fine education and catechesis “Young Lutherans” must have enjoyed a century ago, which was deliberately reinforced by the church in books such as this. Do Lutheran publishing houses have such respect and concern for the youth of today? Certainly, they target young people with a great deal of material, so concern unquestionably exists — but does the quality of these materials generally rise to this level? Does it specifically advocate and reinforce Confessional practice? Does it refer to the liturgy as something “beautiful” and as something to be valued? I don't believe I've seen this sort of thing coming from the main Lutheran publishers.

Therefore, in the interest of those who would otherwise never have the opportunity to know, the following Explanation of the Common Service is offered. It explains Lutheran worship according to what has been considered the definitive Lutheran liturgy yet produced – a liturgy which is nevertheless disappearing under the short-sighted tyranny of “contemporary relevance,” and an explanation whose need has long been disregarded as counterproductive to progress and to the future of Evangelical church practice.

Note: the reader may recognize this Explanation as having appeared on Intrepid Lutherans in the past. In fact, it was published as a series in the Summer of 2010, as follows:

Intrepid Lutherans: Explanation of the Common Service — Part 1

Intrepid Lutherans: Explanation of the Common Service — Part 2

Intrepid Lutherans: Explanation of the Common Service — Part 3

Intrepid Lutherans: Explanation of the Common Service — Part 4

It is offered, below, in a single unbroken post.

Note also that this explanation, though long out of print, is now available in book form from Emmanuel Press, one of the fine confessional Lutheran publishers listed in the right-hand column of this blog.