That Lutheran Guy

YouTube Channel & Poll Update

2019-02-06T08:15:00.000-08:00

Greetings all,

The poll for my YouTube channel ends soon. Please vote, like and subscribe if you haven't already. My channel needs 100 subscribers for me to have an easier to remember URL/web address for the channel. Momentarily (as you can see) it's a sort of gobbledygook, alphanumeric URL. Once I have 100 subscribers, I can change it to a custom URL that is easier to remember and find.

Poll

https://www.facebook.com/jim.mcgarigle/posts/2151324388257077

Channel

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCrVgWHJjBLN3eTJW8zOxjvg?

First Video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4EzM0e06ac

I've Started A YouTube Channel

2019-02-03T00:40:00.001-08:00

I've decided to launch a YouTube channel:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCrVgWHJjBLN3eTJW8zOxjvg

Over the last eight years, I've studied topics such as the New Testament, Christian Apologetics, Philosophy of Religion and Ethics. I also like to study other things such as systematic theology, patristics & philosophy just for fun. I'm here to share my knowledge of these topics with you.

Launch date will be in April - stay tuned!

PS: I need 100 subscribers to change the URL to something more easy to remember, so hit that subscribe button please!

Blessings,

Jim

Original Sin - In Detail

2017-01-01T01:20:00.003-08:00

For the person who has a lot of questions about the Biblical doctrine of Original Sin, there is plenty here to chew on. Bon Appétit!

[ARTICLE II. ORIGINAL SIN]

1 The opponents approve Article II, “Original Sin,” but they criticize our definition of original sin.2 Here at the very outset His Imperial Majesty will see that the authors of the Confutation are lacking not only in judgment but also in honesty. While we wanted simply to describe what original sin includes, they viciously misinterpret and distort a statement that has nothing wrong in it. They say that being without the fear of God and faith is actual guilt, and therefore they deny that it is original guilt.

2 These quibbles have obviously come from the schools, and not from the emperor’s council. This sophistry is easy to refute. But to show all good men that our teaching on this point is not absurd, we ask them first to look at the German text of the Confession. This will exonerate us of the charge of innovation, for it says: “It is also taught that since the fall of Adam all men who are born according to the course of nature are conceived and born in sin. That is, all men are full of evil lusts and inclinations from their mothers’ wombs and are unable by nature to have true fear of God or true faith in God.”3

3 This passage testifies that in those who are born according to the flesh we deny the existence not only of actual fear and trust in God but also of the possibility and gift to produce it. We say that anyone born in this way has concupiscence and cannot produce true fear and trust in God. What is wrong with this? This explanation should be enough for any unprejudiced man. In this sense the Latin definition denies that human nature has the gift and capacity to produce the fear and trust of God, and it denies that adults actually produce it. When we use the term “concupiscence,” we do not mean only its acts or fruits, but the continual inclination of nature.

4 Later on we shall show at length that our definition agrees with the traditional one. First we must show why we used these words here. Our scholastic opponents admit that concupiscence is the so-called “material element” of original sin.4 Hence it belongs in the definition, especially now when so many philosophize about it irreligiously.

5 There are some5 who claim that original sin is not some vice or corruption in human nature, but only the subjection to mortality that Adam’s descendants bear because of his guilt, without any evil of their own. They go on to say that one is not condemned to eternal death because of original sin but, like a child born of a slave, is in this condition because of one’s mother and not by one’s own fault.

6 To show our disagreement with this evil doctrine, we made mention of concupiscence; with the best of intentions we named it and explained it as a disease since human nature is born full of corruption and faults.

7 We have mentioned not only concupiscence but also the absence of the fear of God and of faith. We have done this because the scholastics misunderstand the patristic definition of original sin and therefore minimize original sin. They argue that the inclination to evil is a quality of the body; in their awkward way they ask whether it came through contact with the apple or through the serpent’s breath, and whether medicine can cure it.6 By such questions they miss the main issue.

8 Thus when they talk about original sin, they do not mention the more serious faults of human nature, namely, ignoring God, despising him, lacking fear and trust in him, hating his judgment and fleeing it, being angry at him, despairing of his grace, trusting in temporal things, etc. These evils, which are most contrary to the law of God, the scholastics do not even mention. They even attribute to human nature unimpaired power to love God above all things and to obey his commandments “according to the substance of the act.”7 And they do not see the contradiction.

9 To be able to love God above all things by one’s own power and to obey his commandments, what else is this but to have original righteousness?

10 If human nature has such powers that by itself it can love God above all things, as the scholastics confidently assert, then what can original sin be? What need is there for the grace of Christ if we can become righteous by our own righteousness? What need is there for the Holy Spirit if human powers by themselves can love God above all things and obey his commandments?

11 Who cannot see the foolishness of our opponents’ position? They acknowledge the minor faults in human nature and ignore the major ones. But it is of these that the Scripture everywhere warns us and of these that the prophets constantly complain, namely, carnal security, contempt of God, hate of God, and similar faults that we are born with.

12 The scholastics mingled Christian doctrine with philosophical views about the perfection of nature and attributed more than was proper to free will and to “elicited acts.” They taught that men are justified before God by philosophical or civic righteousness, which we agree is subject to reason and somewhat in our power. But thereby they failed to see the inner uncleanness of human nature.

13 This cannot be adjudged except from the Word of God, which the scholastics do not often employ in their discussions.

14 This was why in our definition of original sin we also mentioned concupiscence and denied to man’s natural powers the fear and trust of God. We wanted to show that original sin also involves such faults as ignorance of God, contempt of God, lack of the fear of God and of trust in him, inability to love him. These are the chief flaws in human nature, transgressing as they do the first table of the Decalogue.

15 We have said nothing new. Properly understood, the old definition says exactly the same thing, “Original sin is the lack of original righteousness.”8 But what is righteousness? Here the scholastics quibble about philosophical questions and do not explain what original righteousness is.

16 In the Scriptures righteousness contains not merely the second table of the Decalogue, but also the first, commanding fear of God, faith and love toward him.

17 So original righteousness was intended to involve not only a balanced physical constitution, but these gifts as well: a surer knowledge of God, fear of God, trust in God, or at least the inclination and power to do these things.

18 This the Scripture shows when it says that man was created in the image of God and after his likeness (Gen. 1:27). What else is this than that a wisdom and righteousness was implanted in man that would grasp God and reflect him, that is, that man received gifts like the knowledge of God, fear of God, and trust in God? So Irenaeus interprets the likeness of God.9

19 And after saying a great deal about it, Ambrose says, “That soul is not in the image of God in which God is not always present.”1

20 In Eph. 5:9 and Col. 3:10 Paul shows that the image of God is the knowledge of God, righteousness, and truth.

21 Peter Lombard is not afraid to say that original righteousness is the very likeness of God which he put into man.2

22 We cite the opinions of the ancients, with which Augustine’s interpretation of the image agrees.3

23 Thus when the ancient definition says that sin is lack of righteousness, it not only denies the obedience of man’s lower powers, but also denies that he has knowledge of God, trust in God, fear and love of God, or surely the power to produce these things. Even the scholastic theologians teach that these things cannot be produced without certain gifts and help of grace. To make ourselves clear, we are naming these gifts knowledge of God, fear of God, and trust in God. From this it is evident that the ancient definition says just what we do when we deny to natural man not only fear and trust of God but also the gifts and power to produce them.

24 This is precisely the intention of Augustine’s definition that original sin is concupiscence.4 It means that when righteousness is lost, concupiscence follows. Since nature in its weakness cannot fear and love God or believe in him, it seeks and loves carnal things; either it despises the judgment of God in its security, or it hates him in its terror. Thus Augustine includes both the defect and the vicious disposition that follows.

25 Concupiscence is not merely a corruption of the physical constitution, but the evil inclination of man’s higher capacities to carnal things. They do not know what they are talking about when they simultaneously attribute to man a concupiscence that has not been quenched by the Holy Spirit and a love for God above all things.

26 In our definition of original sin, therefore, we have correctly expressed both elements: lack of ability to trust, fear, or love God; and concupiscence, which pursues carnal ends contrary to the Word of God (that is, not only the desires of the body but also carnal wisdom and righteousness in which it trusts while it despises God).

27 Not the ancient theologians alone, but even the more recent ones—at least the more sensible among them—teach that original sin is truly composed of the defects that I have listed, as well as of concupiscence. Thus Thomas says: “Original sin denotes the privation of original justice, and besides this, the inordinate disposition of the parts of the soul. Consequently it is not a pure privation, but also a corrupt habit.”5

28 Bonaventure writes: “When the question is asked what original sin is, it is correct to answer that it is immoderate lust. It is also correct to answer that it is the lack of proper righteousness. And each of these answers includes the other.”6

29 Hugo teaches the same thing when he says that original sin is ignorance in the mind and lust in the flesh.7 He means that at birth we bring along an ignorance of God, unbelief, distrust, contempt, and hate of God. He includes these things in the term “ignorance.”

30 These opinions agree with the Scriptures. For Paul sometimes mentions the deficiency, as in 1 Cor. 2:14, “The unspiritual man does not receive the gifts of the Spirit of God.” Elsewhere (Rom. 7:5) he mentions lust at work in our members and bringing forth evil fruit.

31 We could quote many passages on both parts of our definition, but on so clear an issue there is no need of evidence. The wise reader will easily be able to see that when the fear of God and faith are lacking, this is not merely actual guilt but an abiding deficiency in an unrenewed human nature.

32 So we teach nothing about original sin that is contrary to the Scripture or the church catholic, but we have cleansed and brought to light important teachings of the Scriptures and the Fathers that had been obscured by the sophistic arguments of modern theologians. Modern theologians have evidently not paid attention to what the Fathers meant to say about the deficiency.

33 Recognition of original sin is a necessity, nor can we know the magnitude of the grace of Christ unless we acknowledge our faults. All the righteousness of man is mere hypocrisy before God unless we acknowledge that of itself the heart is lacking in love, fear, and trust in God. Thus the prophet says,

34 “After I was instructed, I smote upon my thigh” (Jer. 31:19). And again (Ps. 116:11), “I said in my consternation, men are all liars,” that is, they do not have the right view of God.

35 Here our opponents lash out at Luther because he wrote that original sin remains after Baptism, and they add that this doctrine was properly condemned by Leo X.8 His Imperial Majesty will recognize an obvious slander here. Our opponents know what Luther meant by this statement that original sin remains after Baptism. He has always written that Baptism removes the guilt of original sin, even though concupiscence remains—or, as they call it, the “material element” of sin. Concerning this material element, he has also said that the Holy Spirit, given in Baptism, begins to mortify lust and to create new impulses in man.9

36 Augustine speaks the same way when he says, “Sin is forgiven in Baptism, not that it no longer is, but it is not imputed.” Here he openly attests that sin is—that is, remains—even though it is not imputed.1 This view pleased later generations so much that they included it in the decretals.2 Against Julian, Augustine says: “That law which is in the members is forgiven by spiritual regeneration, but it remains in the mortal flesh. It is forgiven because its guilt is absolved by the sacrament that regenerates the faithful. But it remains because there continue to work those desires against which the faithful struggle.”3

37 Our opponents know that this is what Luther believes and teaches; and since they cannot refute the principle, they twist his words in order by this device to crush an innocent man.

38 But they maintain that concupiscence is a penalty and not a sin, while Luther contends that it is a sin. We have said earlier that Augustine defines original sin as concupiscence. Let them argue with Augustine if this position displeases them!

39 Besides, Paul says (Rom. 7:7), “I should not have known lust if the law had not said, ‘You shall not lust.’ ” And again, “I see in my members another law at war with the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin which dwells in my members” (Rom. 7:23).

40 No quibbling can overthrow these proofs. For they clearly call lust sin, by nature worthy of death if it is not forgiven, though it is not imputed to those who are in Christ.

41 This is undoubtedly what the Fathers believe. In a lengthy discussion Augustine refutes the opinion that human lust is not a fault but is a neutral thing, like the color of the skin or ill health.4

42 If our opponents claim that the inclination to evil is a neutral thing, not only will many passages of the Scripture contradict them, but the whole church. Even though complete unanimity may be impossible, no one has dared to say that such attitudes as these are a neutral thing—doubt about God’s wrath, his grace, and his Word; anger at his judgments; indignation because he does not deliver us from trouble right away; fretting because bad people are more fortunate than good people; yielding to anger, desire, ambition, wealth, etc.

43 Pious men have confessed to these things, as the Psalms and the prophets show. Here the scholastics have taken over from philosophy the totally foreign idea that because of our emotions we are neither good nor bad, neither to be praised nor condemned.5 Or they say that nothing is sin unless it is voluntary.6 The philosophers said this about the civil courts, not about the judgment of God. It is no wiser to say that nature is not evil. In its place we do not object to this statement, but it is not right to twist it in order to minimize original sin. Yet these ideas appear in the scholastics, who improperly mingle philosophical and civil ethics with the Gospel.

44 As often happens, these ideas did not remain purely academic, but moved out among the people. These notions prevailed, feeding a trust in human powers and obscuring the knowledge of the grace of Christ.

45 So when Luther wanted to show the magnitude of original sin and of human weakness, he taught that the remnants of original sin in man are not in their nature neutral, but they need the grace of Christ to be forgiven and the Holy Spirit to be mortified.

46 Although the scholastics minimize both sin and its penalty when they teach that man can obey the commandments of God by his own powers, Genesis describes another penalty for original sin. There human nature is subjected not only to death and other physical ills, but also to the rule of the devil. For there this fearful sentence is pronounced, “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed” (Gen. 3:15).

47 The deficiency and concupiscence are sin as well as penalty; death, other physical ills, and the tyranny of the devil are, in the precise sense, penalties. Human nature is enslaved and held prisoner by the devil, who deludes it with wicked opinions and errors and incites it to all kinds of sins.

48 Just as the devil cannot be conquered without Christ’s help, so we cannot buy our way out of the slavery by ourselves.

49 World history itself shows the great power of the devil’s rule. Blasphemy and wicked doctrines fill the world, and by these bonds the devil has enthralled those who are wise and righteous in the eyes of the world. In others, even grosser vices appear.

50 Christ was given to us to bear both sin and penalty and to destroy the rule of the devil, sin, and death; so we cannot know his blessings unless we recognize our evil. Therefore our preachers have stressed this in their teaching. They have not introduced any innovations, but have set forth the Holy Scripture and the teachings of the holy Fathers.

51 This, we believe, will satisfy His Imperial Majesty about the childish and trivial quibbling with which our opponents have slandered our article. We know that our doctrine is correct and in agreement with Christ’s church catholic. If our opponents reopen the controversy, we shall not lack men to reply in defense of the truth, for in this case our opponents frequently do not know what they are talking about. They often contradict themselves and fail to explain logically and correctly either the formal element of original sin or the so-called deficiency. For our part, we have been reluctant to enter upon their arguments at great length. We have thought it worthwhile rather to list, in the usual familiar phrases, the opinions of the holy Fathers, which we also follow.

Theodore G. Tappert, ed., The Book of Concord the Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. (Philadelphia: Mühlenberg Press, 1959), 100–107.

I. ORIGINAL SIN

1 In the first place,3 there has been dissension among a number of theologians of the Augsburg Confession about what original sin, strictly understood, is. One side contended that “man’s nature and essence are wholly corrupt as a result of the fall of Adam,”4 so that ever since the Fall the nature, substance, and essence of fallen man, at least the foremost and noblest part of his essence (namely, his rational soul in its highest degree and foremost powers) is original sin itself, which has been called “nature-sin” or “person-sin” because it is not a thought, a word, or a deed but the very nature itself out of which, as the root and source, all other sins proceed. For this reason there is now after the Fall allegedly no difference whatsoever between man’s nature or essence and original sin.5

2 The other party,6 however, took a contrary view and taught that original sin, strictly speaking, is not man’s nature, substance, or essence (that is, man’s body or soul), which even after the Fall are and remain God’s handiwork and creation in us. They maintained that original sin is something in man’s nature, in his body, soul, and all his powers, and that it is an abominable, deep, and inexpressible corruption thereof, in the sense that man lacks the righteousness in which he was originally created, that in spiritual matters he is dead to that which is good and is turned to everything evil, and that, because of this corruption and this inborn sin which inheres in his nature, all actual sins flow out of his heart. Hence, they say, we must preserve the distinction between the nature and essence of fallen man (that is, between his body and soul, which are God’s handiwork and creatures in us even after the Fall) and original sin (which is a work of the devil by which man’s nature has become corrupted).

3 This controversy concerning original sin is not a useless contention about words. On the contrary, when it is presented clearly from and according to the Word of God and is purged of all Pelagian and Manichaean errors, then (as the Apology declares) we are led to understand better and to magnify more fully Christ’s benefits, his precious merits, and the Holy Spirit’s gracious activity. Furthermore, we are extolling God’s honor properly when we carefully distinguish his work and creation in man from the devil’s work, the corruption of human nature.

4 Hence, in order to explain this controversy in a Christian fashion and according to the Word of God and to preserve the true and correct doctrine concerning original sin, we shall use the aforementioned writings to set forth in short chapters the true doctrine and its opposite in theses and antitheses.

5 In the first place, it is an established truth that Christians must regard and recognize as sin not only the actual transgression of God’s commandments but also, and primarily, the abominable and dreadful inherited disease which has corrupted our entire nature. In fact, we must consider this as the chief sin, the root and fountain of all actual sin.7

6 Dr. Luther calls this sin “nature-sin” or “person-sin”8 in order to indicate that even though a man were to think no evil, speak no evil, or do no evil—which after the Fall of our first parents is of course impossible for human nature in this life—nevertheless man’s nature and person would still be sinful. This means that in the sight of God original sin, like a spiritual leprosy, has thoroughly and entirely poisoned and corrupted human nature. On account of this corruption and because of the fall of the first man, our nature or person is under the accusation and condemnation of the law of God, so that we are “by nature the children of wrath,”9 of death, and of damnation unless we are redeemed from this state through Christ’s merit.

7 In the second place, it is also a clearly established truth, as Article XIX of the Augsburg Confession teaches, that God is not the creator, author, or cause of sin. Through Satan’s scheme, “by one man sin (which is the work of the devil) entered into the world” (Rom. 5:12; 1 John 3:8). And even today, in this corruption, God does not create and make sin in us. Rather, along with the nature which God still creates and makes at the present time, original sin is transmitted through our carnal conception and birth out of sinful seed from our father and mother.1

8 Thirdly, reason does not know and understand the true nature of this inherited damage. As the Smalcald Articles point out,2 it is something that has to be learned and believed from the revelation of the Scriptures. The Apology3 summarizes the matter under these heads:

9 1. That this inherited damage is the reason why all of us, because of the disobedience of Adam and Eve, are in God’s disfavor and are children of wrath by nature, as St. Paul says (Rom. 5:12).

10 2. Furthermore, that original sin is the complete lack or absence of the original concreated righteousness of paradise or of the image of God according to which man was originally created in truth, holiness, and righteousness, together with a disability and ineptitude as far as the things of God are concerned. As the Latin words put it, “The description of original sin denies to unrenewed human nature the gifts and the power, or the faculty and the concrete acts, to begin and to effect anything in spiritual matters.”4

11 3. That original sin in human nature is not only a total lack of good in spiritual, divine things, but that at the same time it replaces the lost image of God in man with a deep, wicked, abominable, bottomless, inscrutable, and inexpressible corruption of his entire nature in all its powers, especially of the highest and foremost powers of the soul in mind, heart, and will. As a result, since the Fall man inherits an inborn wicked stamp, an interior uncleanness of the heart and evil desires and inclinations. By nature every one of us inherits from Adam a heart, sensation, and mind-set which, in its highest powers and the light of reason, is by nature diametrically opposed to God and his highest commands and is actually enmity against God, especially in divine and spiritual matters.

12 True, in natural and external things which are subject to reason man still possesses a measure of reason, power, and ability, although greatly weakened since the inherited malady has so poisoned and tainted them that they amount to nothing in the sight of God.

13 4. The punishment and penalty of original sin which God imposes upon Adam’s children and upon original sin is death, eternal damnation,5 together with other bodily, spiritual, temporal, and eternal misery, the tyranny and dominion of the devil, so that human nature is subject to the devil’s dominion, abandoned to his power, and held captive in his servitude. He misleads many influential and wise men of the world with terrible errors and heresies, strikes them with other kinds of blindness, and drives them headlong into all sorts of vice.

14 5. This inherited damage is so great and terrible that in baptized believers it can be covered up and forgiven before God only for the Lord Christ’s sake. Likewise, only the Holy Spirit’s regeneration and renovation can heal man’s nature, which original sin has perverted and corrupted. Of course, this process is only begun in this life, not to be completed until the life yonder.

15 These points, which we have given in summary form, are explained in greater detail in the aforementioned Confessions of our Christian doctrine.

16 It is incumbent upon us to maintain and preserve this doctrine in such a way that we fall neither into Pelagian nor into Manichaean errors. For this reason we shall briefly enumerate the contrary doctrines which are rejected and condemned in our churches.

17 1. First, in opposition to both old and new Pelagians, we condemn and reject as false the opinion and doctrine that original sin is only an obligation resulting from someone else’s action without any corruption of our own nature.6

18 2. Again, that the sinful wicked desires are not sin but concreated and essential attributes of man’s nature.7

19 3. Or that the above-mentioned lack and damage allegedly are not really and truly such a sin in the sight of God that apart from Christ every person on that account is necessarily a child of wrath and of damnation and is in the kingdom and under the dominion of Satan.

20 4. We likewise reject and condemn the following and related Pelagian errors: That human nature even after the Fall is incorrupt and, especially, that in spiritual matters it is good, pure, and in its natural powers perfect.

21 5. Or that original sin is only a simple, insignificant, external spot or blemish, merely splashed on, or a corruption only of certain accidental elements in human nature, in spite of which and beneath which human nature has and retains its goodness and powers also in spiritual matters.8

22 6. Or that original sin is not a deprivation or absence of man’s spiritual good powers, but only an external impediment to them, just as garlic juice smeared on a magnet does not destroy the magnet’s natural power but only impedes it;9 or that the spots spoken of can easily be washed off, like a smudge of dirt from one’s face or paint from the wall.

23 7. Likewise, we also reject and condemn those who teach that, though man’s nature has been greatly weakened and corrupted through the Fall, it has nevertheless not entirely lost all the goodness that belongs to spiritual and divine matters, or that the situation is not the way the hymn which we sing in our churches describes it, “Through Adam’s fall man’s nature and being are wholly corrupted, “but that human nature has of and from man’s natural birth something that is good—even though in only a small, limited, and poor degree—such as the faculty, aptitude, skill, or ability to initiate and effect something in spiritual matters or to cooperate therein.1

24 We shall give our exposition concerning the external, temporal, and civil affairs which are subject to human reason in the next article.

25 We condemn and reject these and similar false doctrines because God’s Word teaches that man’s corrupted nature can of and by itself do no good thing in spiritual, divine matters, not even the least thing (such as, for example, producing a good thought). Worse than that, in the sight of God it can by and of itself do nothing but sin (Gen. 6:5; 8:21).

26 1. On the other hand, this doctrine must also be protected against any Manichaean aberrations. For that reason the following and similar errors are rejected: That now, since the Fall, human nature is initially created perfect and pure, and that afterward Satan infuses and blends original sin (as something essential) into man’s nature, as when poison is blended with water.2

27 Although in the case of Adam and Eve man’s nature was originally created pure, good, and holy, sin did not invade their nature in such a way that Satan created or made something essentially evil and blended this with their nature, as the Manichaeans imagined in their enthusiasm. The fact is, that Satan misled Adam and Eve through the Fall, and that by God’s judgment and verdict man lost the concreated righteousness as a punishment. This deprivation and lack, this corruption and wounding which Satan brought about, this loss has so perverted and corrupted human nature (as was indicated above) that all men, conceived and born in the natural way from a father and a mother, now inherit a nature with the same lack and corruption.

28 For since the Fall human nature is not at first created pure and holy and is corrupted only subsequently through original sin, but in the first moment of our conception the seed from which man is formed is sinful and corrupted.5 Hence original sin is not something which exists independently within or apart from man’s corrupted nature, just as it is not itself the proper essence, body, or soul of man or man himself.

29 Nor are original sin and the human nature that has been thereby corrupted to be distinguished from each other in such a way that man’s nature is allegedly pure, holy, righteous, and incorrupt in the sight of God, and only the original sin which dwells in it is evil.

30 2. We also condemn the error which Augustine attributes to the Manichaeans,6 that it is not the corrupted man himself who sins because of his inborn original sin but a strange and foreign something within man, so that God by his law does not accuse and condemn man’s nature, corrupted by sin, but only the original sin. As stated in a foregoing thesis when we discussed the correct doctrine of original sin, the whole nature of every human being born in the natural way from a father and a mother is corrupted and perverted by original sin in body and in soul, in all its powers from beginning to end, down to the ultimate part involving and affecting the goodness, truth, holiness, and righteousness imparted at creation to our nature in paradise. This does not mean that human nature has been totally destroyed, or has been transformed into some other substance essentially different from our nature and accordingly not coessential with us.

31 Because of this corruption the law accuses and condemns man’s entire corrupted nature unless the sin is forgiven for Christ’s sake.

32 The law, however, accuses and condemns our nature, not because we are human beings created by God but because we are sinful and evil; not because and in so far as our nature and essence are the work, the product, and the creature of God even after the Fall but because and in so far as our nature has been poisoned and corrupted by sin.

33 Although, in Luther’s words,7 original sin, like a spiritual poison and leprosy, has so poisoned and corrupted man’s whole nature that within the corrupted nature we are not able to point out and expose the nature by itself and original sin by itself as two manifestly separate things, nevertheless our corrupted nature or the essence of corrupted man, our body and soul or man himself created by God (within which original sin, by which the nature, essence, or total man is corrupted, dwells) are not identical with original sin (which dwells in man’s nature or essence and corrupts it). Just as in the case of external leprosy the body which is leprous and the leprosy on or in the body are not one and the same thing, so, if one wishes to speak strictly, one must maintain a distinction between (a) our nature as it is created and preserved by God and in which sin dwells and (b) original sin itself which dwells in the nature. According to the Holy Scriptures we must and can consider, discuss, and believe these two as distinct from each other.

34 The chief articles of our Christian faith constrain and compel us to maintain such a distinction. In the first place, in the article of creation Scripture testifies not only that God created human nature before the Fall, but also that after the Fall human nature is God’s creature and handiwork (Deut. 32:6; Isa. 45:11; 54:5; 64:8; Acts 17:25, 26; Rev. 4:11)

35 Job says: “Thy hands fashioned and made me together round about, and thou dost destroy me? Remember that thou hast made me of clay, and wilt thou turn me to dust again? Didst thou not pour me out like milk and curdle me like cheese? Thou didst clothe me with skin and flesh, and knit me together with bones and sinews. Thou has granted me life and steadfast love; and thy care has preserved my spirit” (Job 10:8–12)

36 David says: “I will praise thee, for I am wonderfully made.5 Wonderful are thy works! Thou knowest me right well; my frame was not hidden from thee when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth. Thy eyes beheld my unformed substance; in thy book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them” (Ps. 139:14–16).

37 And in Ecclesiastes we read, “And the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit returns to God who gave it” (Eccl. 2:7).

38 These passages indicate clearly that even after the Fall God is man’s creator who creates body and soul for him. Therefore the corrupted man cannot be identified unqualifiedly with sin itself, for in that case God would be the creator of sin. In the exposition of the First Article of the Creed in the Small Catechism we confess, “I believe that God has created me and all that exists, that he has given me and still sustains my body and soul, eyes, ears, and all my members, my reason and all my senses.” Similarly we confess in the Large Catechism, “I hold and believe that I am a creature of God; that is, that he has given and constantly sustains my body, soul, and life, my members great and small, all the faculties of my mind, my reason and understanding,” etc.7 It is of course true that this creature and handiwork of God has been miserably corrupted by sin, for the dough out of which God forms and makes man has been corrupted and perverted in Adam and is transmitted to us in this condition.

39 At this point all Christian hearts may well ponder God’s inexpressible kindness in that he does not immediately cast this corrupted, perverted, and sinful dough into hell-fire, but out of it he makes and fashions our present human nature, which is so miserably corrupted by sin, in order that through his beloved Son he might cleanse it from sin, sanctify it, and save it.

40 This article shows the difference irrefutably and clearly, because original sin does not come from God, nor is God the creator or author of sin. Neither is original sin the creature or handiwork of God; on the contrary, it is the devil’s work.

41 If there were no difference whatever between the nature and essence of our body and soul (which are corrupted by original sin) and original sin itself (by which our nature is corrupted), we should be compelled to conclude: Either that, since God is the creator of this our nature, he has created and made original sin, which thus would also become his handiwork and creature; or that, since the devil is the author of sin, Satan is the creator of our nature, our body and soul, which would also necessarily have to be Satan’s handiwork or creature if our corrupted nature were unqualifiedly identical with sin itself. Both conclusions are contrary to the first article8 of our Christian faith.

42 For that reason and in order to distinguish God’s creature and handiwork in man from the devil’s work, we declare that it is by God’s creation that man has a body and soul; likewise, that it is God’s work that man is able to think, to speak, to act, and to do anything, for “in him we live and move and are” (Acts 17:28). But the fact that our nature is corrupted, that our thoughts, words, and deeds are evil, is in its origin the handiwork of Satan, who through sin has in this fashion corrupted God’s handiwork in Adam. This corruption has come upon us by inheritance.

43 Secondly, in the article of our redemption we have the mighty testimony of Scripture that God’s Son assumed our nature, though without sin, so that in every respect he was made like us, his brethren, sin alone excepted (Heb. 2:17). Hence all the ancient orthodox teachers held that according to his assumed human nature Christ is of one and the same essence with us, his brethren, because the human nature which he assumed is in its essence and all its essential attributes—sin alone excepted—identical with ours; they also rejected the contrary doctrine as patent heresy.

44 Now, if there were no difference between the nature or essence of corrupted man and original sin, it would have to follow that Christ either did not assume our nature inasmuch as he did not assume sin, or that Christ assumed sin inasmuch as he assumed our nature. Both statements are contrary to the Scriptures. Since, however, God’s Son assumed our nature, but not original sin, it is evident that even after the Fall9 human nature and original sin are not identical with but must be distinguished from each other.

45 Thirdly, in the article of sanctification we have the testimony of Scripture that God cleanses man from sin, purifies him, and sanctifies him and that Christ has saved his people from their sins. Sin thus cannot be identified with man himself, since God receives man for Christ’s sake into his grace but remains the enemy of sin throughout eternity! Hence it is unchristian and abominable to say that original sin is baptized in the name of the holy Trinity, is sanctified and saved, and other similar expressions with which we do not want to scandalize the uninstructed people although they are found in the writings of the modern Manichaeans.1

46 Fourthly, concerning the doctrine of the resurrection Scripture testifies that precisely the substance of this our flesh, but without sin, shall arise, and that in eternal life we shall have and keep precisely this soul, although without sin.

47 If there were no difference whatever between our corrupted body and soul on the one hand and original sin on the other, then it would follow, contrary to this article of our Christian faith, either that our flesh would not rise on Judgment Day and that in eternal life, instead of this essence of our body and soul, we should have another substance or another soul since we there shall be without sin, or else that sin would be raised and would be and remain in the elect in eternal life.

48 From this it is evident that we must reject this doctrine with all its implications and conclusions, as when it is said that original sin is the very nature of corrupted man, its substance, its essence, its body or soul, so that there is allegedly no distinction whatever between our corrupted nature or substance or being and original sin. The chief articles of our Christian faith show powerfully and mightily why we must maintain a distinction between the nature or substance of man, which is corrupted by sin, and the sin by and through which man is corrupted.

49 Let this suffice as a simple exposition of the doctrine and the contrary doctrine, the thesis and antithesis, as far as the chief points in this controversy are concerned. We are not discussing it here at length but are treating only the chief points in summary fashion.

50 With specific reference to vocabulary and phraseology, however, the best and safest procedure is to use and keep the pattern of sound words, as the Holy Scriptures and the above-mentioned books use them in treating this article.

51 In order to avoid all contentions about words, it is necessary to explain carefully and distinctly all equivocal terms, that is, words and formulas that have two or more accepted meanings in common use. Thus in the statement, “God creates man’s nature,” the word “nature” means man’s essence, body and soul. But in the statement, “It is the serpent’s nature to bite and poison,” the term “nature” means—as it often does—a disposition or characteristic. It is in this latter sense that Luther writes that sin and sinning are man’s disposition and nature.2

52 Strictly speaking, therefore, original sin is the deep corruption of our nature as it is described in the Smalcald Articles. Sometimes, however, the term is applied in a wider sense to include the concrete person or subject (that is, man himself with the body and soul in which sin is and inheres) because through sin man is corrupted, poisoned, and sinful. Thus Luther can say, “Your birth, your nature, your entire essence is sin, that is sinful and unclean.”3

53 Luther himself explains that he uses the terms “nature-sin,” “person-sin,” “essential sin” to indicate that not only thoughts, words, and deeds are sin but that the entire nature, person, and essence of man is wholly corrupted though original sin to its very foundation.4

54 Concerning the use of the Latin terms substantia and accidens, we maintain that the assemblies of the uninstructed ought rightly be spared these terms in sermons, since they are not the common man’s vocabulary. But when scholars use the terms among themselves or in the company of persons to whom these words are not unfamiliar, as did Eusebius, Ambrose, and especially Augustine,5 as well as many other prominent doctors of the church, under the necessity of explaining this doctrine against heretics, they use them in the sense of a perfect dichotomy (that is, a division without a middle term), so that every existing thing must either be a substance (that is, a self-subsisting essence) or an accident (that is, an accidental thing that is not self-subsistent but that subsists in another self-subsistent essence and can be distinguished from it).6 This dichotomy was also used by Cyril and Basil.

55 It is one of the unquestioned and irrefutable axioms in theology that every substance or self-subsisting essence, in as far as it is a substance, is either God himself or a product and creature of God. Thus in many of his writings against the Manichaeans, Augustine, in accord with all dependable teachers, deliberately and seriously condemned and rejected the statement, “Original sin is the nature or essence of man.” On this basis all scholars and intelligent people have always held that whatever does not subsist by itself and is not a part of another self-subsisting essence, but is present in another thing mutably, is not a substance (that is, something self-subsistent) but an accident (that is, something accidental).

56 Augustine therefore constantly speaks in this fashion: Original sin is not man’s nature itself, but an accidental defect and damage in the nature. In the same way, prior to this controversy, the theologians in our schools and churches, following the rules of logic, used the same terminology freely and without incurring suspicion, and for that reason without ever being corrected either by Dr. Luther or by any other dependable teacher of our pure Evangelical churches.

57 Since it is irrefutably true, attested and demonstrated by the testimonies of the church’s teachers, and never questioned by any really intelligent person that every existing thing is either a substance or an accident (that is, either a self-subsisting essence or something accidental thereto), if anyone were to ask if original sin is a substance (that is, a thing that subsists by itself and not in another thing) or if it is an accident (that is, a thing that does not subsist by itself but is in another thing and cannot exist or subsist by itself), then necessity compels us to answer simply and roundly that original sin is not a substance but an accident.

58 For this reason the churches of God will never attain abiding peace in this controversy but, on the contrary, the discord will only be increased and deepened if the clergy are in doubt whether or not original sin is a substance or an accident in the right and strict sense of the word.

59 Really to settle this offensive and highly detrimental controversy for our churches and schools therefore requires that every one be rightly instructed in these issues.

60 It involves another question, however, when someone inquires further, What kind of accident is original sin? No philosopher, no papist, no sophist, indeed, no human reason, be it ever so keen, can give the right answer. Holy Scripture alone can lead to a right understanding and give a correct definition of original sin. It testifies that original sin is an inexpressible impairment and such a corruption of human nature that nothing pure nor good has remained in itself and all its internal and external powers, but that it is altogether corrupted, so that through original sin man is in God’s sight spiritually lifeless and with all his powers dead indeed to that which is good.

61 Thus the term “accident” does not in any way minimize original sin if the term is explained in harmony with the Word of God, just as Dr. Luther in his Latin exposition of Genesis 37 likewise writes earnestly against a minimizing of original sin. The term serves only to set forth the distinction between God’s handiwork, our nature in spite of its being corrupted, and the devil’s handiwork, the sin which inheres in and most profoundly and inexpressibly corrupts God’s handiwork.

62 In this fashion Luther used both the term “accident” and the term “quality” when treating this issue. But at the time he explained with special seriousness and great zeal and impressed on everyone how abominable and dreadful this quality and accident is, which did not simply sully human nature but corrupted it so deeply that nothing in it remained pure and uncorrupted. In his exposition of Ps. 90:12 he wrote, “Whether we call original sin a quality or a disease, ultimately the worst damage is that we shall not only endure God’s eternal wrath and death but that we do not even realize what we are suffering.”8 And again on Gen. 3, “The venom of original sin has poisoned us from the soles of our feet to the crown of our head, inasmuch as this befell a hitherto perfect nature.”9

Theodore G. Tappert, ed., The Book of Concord the Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. (Philadelphia: Mühlenberg Press, 1959), 508–519.

Original Sin

Original sin is the lack of original righteousness which is required to be present in us. But this brief and unclear description requires a longer explanation. For we must inquire what “original righteousness” means. Therefore we must add this explanation: Original righteousness was the acceptance of the human race before God, and in the very nature of man [1] light in his mind by which he could firmly assent to the Word of God and [2] turning of his will to God and [3] obedience of his heart in harmony with the judgment of God’s law, which had been planted in his mind.

That original righteousness included all these things can be understood from this statement: man was created in the image and likeness of God, which Paul explains, and he teaches that the image of God is the mind which knows God, and a will which is free, righteous and in harmony with the law of God, as it says in Eph. 4[:24], “[The new man is] created in righteousness and true holiness.” He calls true holiness all virtues which are related by a true heart to this end, that obedience is rendered to God [and] that God is loved and worshiped. Therefore after we have established what original righteousness means, then we can accordingly explain the opposite lack.

Original sin is the lack of original righteousness, that is, there is in those who are born of the seed of man a loss of the light in the mind and a turning of the will away from God and a stubbornness of the heart, so that they cannot truly obey the law of God, following the fall of Adam, on account of which corruption men are born guilty and the children of wrath, that is, condemned by God unless there be forgiveness. If anyone wishes to add that those who are born are also guilty because of the fall of Adam, I will not argue. But in point of fact the unbroken teaching of the church is that of the prophets, apostles, and the ancient writers: Original sin is not only imputation, but also in the very nature of man a darkness and depravity, as I have said. And I will explain this in greater detail under the prooftexts. And the statements of Augustine, Hugo, and Bonaventura agree with this meaning, even though other more recent [and] more profane writers have departed to some degree from the true position and devised intricate sophistries. But Hugo clearly says: “Original sin is ignorance in the mind and disobedience in the will.”

Testimonies

Now that the definition is set forth, we shall add the testimonies which affirm that all people born of the seed of man carry sin with them, so that they might understand that this doctrine is not something created by the disputes of recent writers but has been truly handed down by the Holy Spirit through the prophets and apostles.

And the proper locus for this doctrine is found in Rom. 5[:12 ff.], “By the sin of one all died.” Therefore the others are guilty because of the fall of Adam. And lest it be understood that the others are guilty only without any propagation of corruption, he adds, “Death came upon all, for all have sinned.” The Hebrew expression is: They have sinned, that is, they are guilty and have sin, an evil and condemned thing. If only actual transgressions are sins, then each would be guilty only of his own deed. Now since it clearly says that we are guilty because of the transgression of Adam, it testifies that there is some other sin in nature besides actual transgressions. And lest this sin be understood as only an imputation of guilt, the import of the words ought to be noted. “All have sinned,” that is, the evil which is sin is passed on to all.

Again: “Sin reigned” [and] “death reigned,” that is, people are crushed by the wrath of God, they are without the divine light, and they rush into horrible ragings and eternal destruction, just as it says in Rom. 3[:23], “All lack the glory of God,” that is, that glory which God judges to be glory and by
which He makes alive.

But from Romans 7 and 8 we learn much more clearly that original sin is not only an imputation or a servitude by which we are obligated to die, but also evil propagated in the very nature of man. Rom. 7[:23], “I see another law in my members warring against the law of my mind.” For he calls the “law of the members” something in us which contends with the law of God, namely defects and corrupt inclinations.

And Rom. 8[:7], “The mind of the flesh is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor can it be subjected.” This is a sad and horrible description of the human race. For the words clearly show that they are spoken not only of actual evil but also of the evil inherent in nature itself which is called “enmity against God.” What more terrible thing can be said than that the nature of man is enmity against God, that is, that it constantly carries around with itself darkness and doubts about God, a [feeling of] security which neglects God, a diffidence which flees God, and a complex stubbornness. Profane and self-confident men do not understand these arcane evils, but the church in repentance to some degree recognizes them.

Eph. 2[:3], “We were by nature the children of wrath, even as the rest.” The Hebrew term is “children of wrath,” that is, guilty or condemned. Therefore [Paul] affirms that both the descendents of Abraham and the rest of mankind are condemned not only because of actual transgressions but also because of the evil nature which we bring with us by propagation itself. For this we need no example. And what kind this evil nature is, the statements from [Romans] 7 and 8 set forth.

John 3[:5], “Unless a person be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” Since regeneration is necessary, it is clear that our old nature is guilty and unclean.
Also are added statements of the prophets. Ps. 51[:5], “Behold, I was conceived in iniquities, and in sins did my mother conceive me.” For he does not deplore the sin of [his] mother, but his own. I was so conceived, that as soon as I was formed, sin was in my mass and in my very self, that is, I was not only guilty but there was born with me an aversion away from God and a corrupted tendency. Therefore he testifies that there is sin in human beings which they bring with them when they are born.

Gen. 8[:21], “The meditation of man’s heart is evil from his youth.” This passage shows that transgressions are not only brought on by habit but that in the very heart depravity is inherent in newborn children. For the words are clearer in the Hebrew reading: The work of the human heart, whether molded [plasma] or constructed, is evil, that is, the very mass of the heart is corrupt or certainly all passions or impulses or emotions [hormai] in the heart are evil things, that is, [they are] turned away from God.

Thus also Ps. [25:7] calls the sins of youth that whole heap which we bring with us as newborn children, darkness in the mind, a turning away from God in the will, and stubbornness of the heart.
Jer. 17[:9], “The human heart is perverse above all things and miserable and inscrutable,” that is, turned away from God, and full of sorrows which arise from the fact that human minds do not know God and flee from Him. No one sufficiently understands how great these evils are.

These statements show that the statements of the prophets and apostles are in agreement. But brevity seems to escape human ears, especially since we in this our darkness and [sense of] security do not see the greatness of our misery; people who are apathetic, drunk with pleasures, or puffed up with glory care little about the wrath of God; and deceiving themselves, they minimize these evils, have doubts about God, neglect God, trust in their own wisdom and power, pride, ambition, and other flames of desires. Therefore these brief discourses, though they contain the entire doctrine of sin and the causes of human calamities, move minds too little.

For the old custom of teaching was to include such brief statements, as maxims, the significant articles of doctrine which the church, through the ministry of the Gospel, needs to unfold and explain, so that in some way it might show the fullness of things which are contained in them, just as it is said briefly [in Gen. 3:15], “The seed of the woman shall bruise the head of the serpent.” But the church, in explaining [this passage], to some extent sees what great things it contains. Thus also many brief maxims have been handed down concerning this article on sin and concerning the causes of human calamities, which [maxims] in a very learned way include the sum [of the matter] in which [maxims] the correct meaning and the thrust of the words should be carefully considered.

Consider, I pray, how closely the statements of Jeremiah [17:9] and Paul [Rom. 8:7] agree: “The mind of the flesh is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor can it be subjected.” The statement is simple and clear; it affirms that in man in this mortal life there is and there remains a certain neglect of or flight from God and an anger against Him, and because God in turn disapproves, this statement is also added: This weak nature, [Paul] says, cannot be made subject to the law of God; it never satisfies it but always languishes in doubt, [false] security, diffidence, and various flames of desires. What sadder thing can be said than that in man there is enmity against God? But the Mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ, has suppressed this in the believers, as will be set forth under its own locus. The full meaning of Paul’s statement cannot be set forth in words, but let our thoughts linger, let us look within ourselves, let us acknowledge and deplore our uncleanness and seek the Gospel regarding the Mediator.

Now compare the statement of Jeremiah, “The human heart is perverse above all things and miserable and inscrutable.” First, it is called perverse, that is, turned away from God. This completely agrees with Paul who says [Rom. 8:7], “The heart is inimical to God.” For it is turned away, is not governed by the light of God, is disturbed by doubts, does not acknowledge the wrath and mercy [of God], does not have fear, love, or trust in God, loves itself, takes pleasure in and trusts in our wisdom, dreams up notions about God and has capricious impulses which deviate from the law of God, ambition, desire for vengeance, and other passions. Then the punishments for the defects are described when [Jeremiah] says “miserable” or “full of sorrows.” The heart deprived of the light and consolation of God is oppressed by sorrows, hopelessness, and eternal sadness. Many frightful sins are involved in these penalties, and the evil is so great that its magnitude cannot be fully understood by us or other creatures.

This statement has the same meaning [Ps. 31:22], “I said in my dismay,” that is, in my alarm or dread, “ ‘Every man is a liar,’ ” that is, when I am terrified by the recognition of my sins and the wrath of God, I recognized that all men are liars, that is, they do not believe correctly about God, they have doubts about Him, they do not sufficiently fear [His] wrath nor sufficiently trust in [His] mercy.
I have cited testimonies and have touched on brief explanations to alert the reader that because of brevity he not miss these points but retain the simple and natural meaning over against the Pelagians and many other capricious spirits. The Pelagians deny the whole doctrine of original sin, even without the name. Recent ones, like Occam and many others, retain the name “original sin” but minimize the matter. They deny that these evils are things that conflict with the law of God, darkness in the mind, [and] the stubbornness in the will and heart which is called concupiscence. But they clearly are refuted by the testimony of Paul, Romans 7 and 8, as I shall again point out below. They call these evils only punishments for original sin, whereas they are at the same time punishments for the first fall and sins in individuals as they are born. Therefore in order that this matter may become clearer, I shall set forth the causes and effects.

The efficient causes of the first fall are the devil and the will of Adam and Eve, which assented to the devil and of its own freedom turned itself away from the command of God.
We speak of efficient causes as those which merit something. Thus Adam and Eve are the efficient causes who merited guilt for themselves and their posterity as well as these very defects or depravity which followed the fall, when the light of God was quenched. For after our first parents transgressed, they lost that firm knowledge of God which had been planted in [their] minds and the uprightness of will and the agreement of [their] heart with the law of God. And as they were after the fall, so was their posterity.

Where is original sin? In the soul and in the sentient powers and their organs, because in the mind is darkness, in the will is a turning away from God, a disordered and fickle love of ourselves, an inclination which is corrupt, and in the heart a stubbornness against the right judgment of the mind. Thus in the location of a disease, so to say, or with the subject pointed out, which they call “the matter in which” [materia in qua], the evil can be more properly examined.

With regard to the formal [principle] judgment is simple for the learned, though the uninstructed are troubled in various ways regarding this question. I do not want to cause wars of words in the church, but I shall set forth the correct position clearly and without sophistry and without confusion. Those who have been properly informed know that universally the formal [principle] of sin is guilt or condemnation of a person who is guilty. But this relationship to some evil took place by accident. Therefore we must seek the closest foundation of this relationship, or, as they call it, the nearest material [principle]. Now, the foundation of this guilt is the very defect in man with which we are born, which they call either defects or perverse inclinations or concupiscence. For all these terms refer to the same evil, or rather a great confusion of all evils. For we must understand concupiscence not of the appetites which were created in our nature but of the disorder [ataxia] of all [our] appetites. For in these vices a dialectician knows that its certain formal [principle] is proper to vice, namely the defect of uprightness which strays from the law of God, or a disorder [ataxia].

It is manifest that ignorance of God doubts, lack of fear, and love of God are defects. The defect of disorder [ataxia] is also in love for ourselves, in that, viz., when the [proper] order is upset, Saul loves himself more than God. The same judgment also applies to other wicked inclinations. Writers have called this disorder [ataxia] of all desires concupiscence.

We must also carefully distinguish ataxia from the appetites themselves which were created by God, as I shall set forth more fully later. Therefore since the question is raised as to the formal [principle] of original sin, the correct answer is guilt. But then we must also ask what the basis of this relationship is. Now it is, as I have said the very wickedness with which we are born, which is the evil which contends against the law of God. Because it is a great confusion of evils, just as if someone would say that there are many diseases at the same time, it can be easily understood that the formal [principle] of these confusions is a defect. Moreover, add also guilt when sin is not forgiven; but when it is forgiven, there nevertheless still remains in this life this confusion to a great extent, [and] therefore the defects remain which are the formal [principles] of this confusion.

These things are clear and involve nothing confusing. The monks in their unlearned way omitted guilt and said that the formal [principle] of sin is a defect, and that it is removed in the regenerate, and that there remains the material [principle], which they understood as the very appetites which were created by God, which are good things. But they did not understand what they were saying. For since the diseases remain, that is, the doubts, the negligence, [and] the stubbornness, it is easy to understand that the defects remain. For the names of the diseases which remain indicate defects.
The Holy Spirit begins to heal [our] nature, but the whole disease is not all at once suddenly removed. Just as the Samaritan in Luke 10 did not all at once cure the wounded man, but first poured wine into [his] wounds to wash out the blood and then poured in oil to cut down the suffering and then he began to close the wound so that it might heal; and after that, when the wound had been bound up, he had the invalid put on his beast and then cared for in the inn, so Christ puts us on His body, because He carried the punishment for our sins, and pours the Gospel into our wounds, He then binds them up, covers them and forgives our sins.

But He still wishes the diseases in the church to be cured by continual exercises of the cross and of prayer. This imagery shows that in the remission of original sin the guilt is taken away, but the wounds are not suddenly healed. But as the formal [principle] of a wound is the laceration of the parts which ought to be inviolate, so also in the depravity of the mind, the will, and the heart there are certain lacerations as it were, which are truly grievous and savage, whose formal [principles] a dialectician well understands to be defects or deprivations or losses [sterēseis] viz., disorders [ataxias] which deviate from the law of God.

When the final cause [causa finalis] is spoken of in this locus the punishments must be reviewed and the effects. The punishments for original sin are the death of the body and the other enormous calamities which arise out of human ignorance and the weakness of all [our] powers; likewise the wrath of God and eternal damnation, as Paul says, “We were by nature the children of wrath” [Eph. 2:3].

Likewise there is the tyranny of the devil, who in a frightful way impels weak ones so they rush from one evil to another, just as Oedipus in his ignorance killed his father, and later in his ignorance took his own mother as wife. The sons born of this union contended for the kingdom and wounded and slew each other. The father, when his eyes had been gouged out, was driven from the city and after that was swallowed up by the earth. Such loathsome things befall a person who is not defended against the attacks of the devil. Nor is there anyone who does not feel the sharp and terrible bite of the devil, from which one must learn this truth: “The serpent will lie in wait for His heel” [Gen. 3:15]. But let us again learn the promise: The head of the serpent is crushed by our Lord Jesus Christ.
The punishments for the first fall are manifold human ignorance and this stubbornness of the passions which is called concupiscence. But at the same time this is both the punishment for the first fall and sin itself in the newborn, that is, something culpable and condemned by God. Nor have the monks correctly said that this depraved inclination, which they call tinder, is only punishment. This list of the causes and effects will help the studious to understand the doctrine of the church concerning original sin without perplexity.

Now we must warn the reader about certain statements [such as], “Nothing is sin unless it is voluntary.” This statement is traditional regarding civil crimes. For only voluntary wrongs are punished by a public court of law, so that an accidental killing is not punished by the law offices. But we must not transfer this statement to the doctrine of the Gospel regarding sin and to the judgment of God.

Augustine aptly says that original sin is voluntary because we delight in it. However, this sagacious interpretation departs far from the praetorian statement. It is more proper not to mix intemperately statements pertaining to civil matters with the Gospel. It is therefore sufficient to respond by saying that the former statement speaks of a forensic judgment.

This statement is also highly touted: “Nature is good.” This is true insofar as the rest of God’s work. But the nature of man has been horribly injured and contaminated, just as the picture of the wounded man in Luke 10 depicts. We have been despoiled of the gifts of a perfect nature, that is, a firm knowledge of God, wisdom, righteousness, and, besides this, the rest of [our] nature has been wounded, namely by corrupt concupiscence, death, and the various evils of soul and body.
Moreover, we must distinguish those things which are works of God remaining in man from those things which are wicked per se, for example, the knowledge of mathematics is a good thing because it has been planted in man by God. We must understand this about all true knowledge, each matter in its own order. Therefore the knowledge of the law of nature is also a good thing. For though after the fall of Adam it began to be darker and assent was disturbed by doubts, yet as much of that light as remains is a good thing and a work of God. Therefore arts and beneficial laws constructed on the basis of this knowledge are good things. But in the meantime many doubts arise as to whether God cares for us, whether He punishes, whether He hears [us], whether He wants to help us, receive us, give us eternal glory, etc. These doubts are in themselves wicked because they are evils which conflict with the law of God.

Thus our emotions are twofold. Some of our desires are commanded by the law of God, such as love for [our] children, spouse, [and] parents. Others are prohibited by the law of God, such as despising God, raging against God, hatred, adultery.

Furthermore, although in this corruption of nature the affections commanded by the law of God are corrupted and by accident become wicked because they are not ruled by love for God, as when people often sin against God because of [their] children; yet tender love toward children itself is commanded by God and remains in the regenerate and should become purer. Abraham dearly loved his sons Ishmael and Isaac, but he still put the command of God first.

Therefore we must not imagine that all affections must be removed from man or that all have been condemned in the same way, as the fanatical Anabaptists profess a Stoic freedom from emotion. In fact there is no life without feeling, without desire, without some affections, and the law of God enjoins regarding affections: “You shall love the Lord your God with all [your] heart, etc. You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” And in Rom. 1[:31] among the horrible crimes is “without natural affection” [astorgos].

Therefore there were affections in uncorrupted nature, but well ordered and pure: love for God, parents, children, spouse, brothers and other people, happiness in the knowledge of God and His order in the use of creatures, hatred against the devil. And in the life eternal there will be great happiness in God’s presence and love for God and all the heavenly hosts. Thus there were in Christ true affections, but well ordered and pure: love for God, love for [His] mother, disciples, [and] friends, happiness, sorrow, [and] anger, as is said in Mark 3[:5]: “He looked around in anger.” And with regard to [His] mercy it is said significantly that Christ was moved with compassion. And in regard to great sorrow it is said in Matt. 26[:38], “My soul is sorrowful, even unto death.”

Therefore we must admit that affections have been placed in the nature of human beings, and God wanted also that they themselves should be images and signs of His will. God truly loves us, just as man by nature loves [his] children; God is truly moved with compassion toward us when He sees that we have fallen into eternal misery, which He Himself understands. Just as we by nature are moved with compassion when misfortune befalls a child, so does Christ say, “God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son for us” [John 3:16]. And John says, “God is love” [1 John 4:8], that is, He is filled with true love toward us, not willing [our destruction]. And Paul says to Titus, 3[:4], “The kindness and love of our Saviour toward mankind appeared.” Thus God wanted [His] love, [storgē] impressed on us, to be a reminder of His will.

Hence [affections] must be carefully considered and properly controlled. For now after the Fall they range rashly and are perverted; his is the more to be lamented because they were given to remind us of the will of God. Nevertheless love is to be distinguished from prohibited affections, from the despising of God, from raging against God, from hatred, from rejoicing in iniquity, as when Herodias, Fulvia, etc., rejoiced in revenge, and from other follies which are beyond number. And we must know that affections prohibited by the law of God are in themselves wicked and must be suppressed.
Regarding the common saying, “Nature is good,” I replied that we distinguish between things that were created and depravity, which was not created. In the wrath of Achilles there is a heroic good thing, because it is truly a work of God; but it is corrupted because it is not ruled by the knowledge of God and trust in Him is tangled and worship and trust in God do not shine forth. These defects are not minor sins; hence also a good thing that is corrupted is rejected and becomes culpable.

On the other hand, similar anger in David is purer because there are added knowledge of God, fear and worship of Him, and trust in Him. Thus we should understand that in the regenerate there remains love but that it is more properly controlled and brought back into order and within its bounds and made purer. It remains for [something] to be said about the common question: After baptism is it correct to say that there is sin in infants or is concupiscence a sin? Again, is it correct to say that in regenerate adults there is sin? I reply concerning regenerate adults that all must concede that sin remains. Hence John says, “If we say that we do not have sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us” [1 John 1:8]. Therefore we confess that there are many flames of lusts in the regenerate which they say are sins, because they all together suddenly captivate an assent of the will, which is often hard to shake off. But although [the adversaries] confess these things, yet they minimize these very evils and profess that they are speaking only about actual sins, which they deny are in their nature mortal. And the root of these actions, namely, the budding disease which remains in the regenerate, that is the depraved inclination, they say is absolutely not sin, is it an evil which is in conflict with the law of God.

Moreover consider how great an effrontery it is to neglect these evils, namely doubts concerning God, a [false] security that disregards the wrath of God, a diffidence which flees from God, and the many other plagues which even if they are not always observed, yet are present and often break out, so that in times of calamity Cato sinks completely into darkness and denies that providence exists and Saul is angry with God for punishing him so harshly. These things must be recognized as sins, not concealed, so that we may learn how to contend against them and seek aid against them.

Therefore we answer in this way: In Baptism sin is taken away inasfar as it applies to guilt or imputation, but the disease itself remains, which is an evil in conflict with the law of God, worthy of eternal death unless there is forgiveness, as it is said, “Blessed are they whose sins are covered” [Ps. 32:1]. Nor are we arguing about the term sin; the disagreement is about things. The adversaries contend that this disease which remains in the regenerate is not an evil which is in conflict with the law of God. This error must be censured. And the testimonies of Paul are clear. In Romans 7 and 8 Paul clearly says, “The law in our members is in conflict with the law of [our] mind and with the law of God.” No amount of juggling can escape these testimonies.

But the adversaries set forth many false hypotheses. First they say nothing in regard to the darkness of the mind and the wickedness in the will. Then they understand concupiscence only with reference to the senses and consider it to be a natural desire, although they ought to consider it a disorder [ataxia] of the desires and include both the darkness of the mind and of an evil will together. Third, they also add this false hypothesis that the law of God damns only actual sins. This idea transforms the law of God into a philosophy which speaks only of our discipline. After that these fancies obscure the doctrine of grace. For they imagine that one is righteous because of his fulfillment of the Law and they lose the light of the doctrine of faith.

But the entire teaching of the prophets and apostles cries out that people do not satisfy the law of God and that sin clings in all; and it points out the Mediator [and] says that for His sake we are received and pronounced righteous by faith in Him. Accordingly we must recognize our misery in order that the benefits of Christ may be understood.

But this disagreement cannot be settled by the judgments of hypocrites. Hypocrites have always dissented and [still] dissent from the true church concerning this question, because human reason without divine light does not perceive how great evils these inner sins are, even though from the great confusion of life and the greatness of the calamities it ought to be able to estimate them in one way or another.

Philip Melanchthon and Jacob A. O. Preus, Loci Communes, 1543, electronic ed. (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1992), 48–53.

XVI. ORIGINAL SIN

1. The sin of our first parents was of disastrous consequence not only to them personally, but also to all their offspring, inasmuch as the guilt of their first transgression is imputed, and the corruption of their nature is transmitted, to all their children. The first is called hereditary guilt, the other, hereditary depravity.

2. Hereditary guilt.—The sin which Adam committed was, indeed, first charged to Adam himself, and he died of that sin. But it was imputed also to all his children, and to this day men die of the sin of Adam. Paul tells us that by the obedience of One, that is Christ, many were made righteous—constituted righteous, because the obedience of Christ is imputed or credited to them—and “by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners”—were constituted sinners, because the disobedience of Adam was imputed or charged to them (Rom. 5:19). “By the offense of one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation” (Rom. 5:18).

This he proves by the fact that from Adam to Moses men died, even though they had not sinned “after the similitude of Adam,” transgressing as Adam had done an express command of God, to which the penalty of death was affixed (Gen. 2:17). But they died “through the offense of one” (Rom. 5:14. 15); (1 Cor. 15:22). Hence, the offense of Adam must have been charged to them,   p 68 and because of this offense they died. ‘Tis true, also the sins men commit personally are worthy of death (Rom. 6:23). Paul emphasizes how sin and its guilt came into the world, into the human race. Adam’s sin killed our entire race, made death reign supreme. By their very entrance into this world, sin and death reached all men. “As by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned” (Rom. 5:12).

That the guilt of Adam’s sin is charged to us appears also from the fact that the punishment meted out to him and Eve for their specific transgression (Gen. 3:16–19), is suffered by all men and women to this day. Illustration: A man, who gambled away his freedom and became a slave, by this act brought slavery also upon his children, who had not gambled as their father did. In a similar manner the guilt of Adam, and whatever goes with it, is visited upon all his children.

In this connection we must, however, remember that the same God who imputes to us the sin of Adam and condemns us on its account, has likewise imputed to us the righteousness of Christ and declared us just for HIS sake (Rom. 5:18. 19).

3. Hereditary depravity.—In another direction did the fall of Adam bring woe upon him and his kin. By their sin our first parents lost the image of God and became altogether sinful and corrupt in their nature. As children inherit from their parents certain features and traits, sometimes even bodily weaknesses and diseases, so have all men inherited that deep-seated spiritual corruption, which we call original depravity. This is not a sin which men do or commit in their lives, but a sinful condition of their nature, which they have by birth. Having himself lost the image of God, Adam begat a son “in his own likeness” (Gen. 5:3). Like himself, his children were destitute of righteousness, holiness, and innocence; they were selfish, seeking only their own advantage and pleasure and honor; they were inclined to, and capable of, any sin and crime. Cain was a murderer. Men do evil, because by nature they are evil (Gen. 4:8; 6:3. 5; 8:21).

“Since the fall of Adam, all men begotten in a natural way are born with sin, that is, without fear of God, without trust in God, with concupiscence; and this disease, or vice of origin,   p 69 is truly sin, even now condemning and bringing eternal wrath upon those not born again through Baptism and the Holy Ghost” (A.C., Art. II, Triglot, p. 43).

Bible proof.—Man is “flesh born of flesh” (John 3:6), that is, he is the sinful child of sinful parents. “Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me” (Ps. 51:5). In his flesh dwelleth no good thing (Rom. 7:18). By nature there is in him no true fear of God, no love of God, no trust in God, no willingness to serve God and to do good to his neighbor. On the contrary, his old Adam “is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts” (Eph. 4:22). All manner of lusts arise in him, but they are deceitful, do not lead him in the right way, because his heart, alienated from God, is inclined toward evil (Gen. 8:21). Man covets, because by nature he is covetous; he sins, because by nature he is sinful, and given to “inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness” (Col. 3:5). Thus, by nature man loves himself more than he loves God or his neighbor; he envies others, is selfish and self-centered.

Whatever he plans, purposes, and does, must in some way serve his own personal interests, or flatter his vanity. He has become his own god. In spiritual things his understanding is darkened (Eph. 4:18); he cannot discern or appreciate them, for they are foolishness to him (1 Cor. 2:14). Being carnally minded, his will is not free or neutral, but set on the things of the flesh (Rom. 8:5), and against the things of the Spirit (Gal. 5:17); hence he is by nature an enemy of God (Rom. 8:7; Col. 1:21). Being dead m sin (Eph. 2:1), man has no strength to work out his spiritual restoration.

This description of the spiritual condition of natural man is by no means flattering to his vanity, but such it is according to the Word of Him who “knew what was in man” (John 2:25). This inherited corruption, which vitiated and depraved primarily the faculties of the soul, enslaves in the service of sin also the members of the body (Rom. 6:12, 13a; 7:23, 24).

Original sin does not constitute an essential part of the soul, which God created, nor is it a self-existing essence; but it is the corrupt quality and condition of the soul, brought on by the fall of man, and passed on by birth to his children.   p 70 It is not the sinful act which Adam committed, but the depravity and corruption of the entire nature contracted by, and resulting from, that act. It is the sinfulness of our whole nature, which is ours by birth, and because of which we are constantly at variance with the demand of God: “Ye shall be holy” (Lev. 19:2). Because we are not as God made us at the beginning, and as He wants us to be, we are by nature under His wrath (Eph. 2:3).

“Original sin is not properly the nature, substance, or essence of man, that is, man’s body and soul, which even now, since the Fall, are and remain the creation and creatures of God in us, but it is something in the nature, body, and soul of man, and in all his powers, namely, a horrible, deep, inexpressible corruption of the same, so that man is destitute of the righteousness wherein he was originally created, and in spiritual things is dead to good and perverted to all evil …. Now, since the Fall, man inherits an inborn, wicked disposition and inward impurity of heart, evil lust and propensity” (F.C., Th. D., I, 2. 11, Triglot, p. 859. 863).

Other names for this original depravity are “old Adam,” because we inherited it from Adam. It is also called “flesh” (Rom. 8:13); “old man” (Eph. 4:22); “sin that dwelleth in us” (Rom. 7:17).
“Original sin is universal, inherited by ‘all men begotten in the natural way’ (A.C., Art. II). The universal scope of Job 14:4; John 3:6; Rom. 5:12 leaves no room for excepting the Virgin Mary. She did not except herself, but placed her sole hope of salvation in her ‘Saviour’ (Luke 1:47). The only human being, untainted by original sin is the Virgin’s Son, Jesus Christ, who was immaculately conceived through the power of the Holy Ghost (Luke 1:35; Hebr. 7:26; 2 Cor. 5:21).” (Popular Symbolics, §48).

Original sin clings to us through life.—It is not eradicated in Baptism, as the Roman Catholic Church teaches. (Popular Symbolics, §227). By faith in Christ we are freed from its guilt and punishment; but the corruption itself, concupiscence, remains, as Paul experienced (Rom. 7:14–25), and as every Christian still experiences. (Apol., Art. II, 35–37, Triglot, p. 113). By faith Christians will with the aid of the Holy Ghost constantly strive to suppress this old Adam ( p 71 Eph. 4:22; Gal. 5:24); in this life they will never succeed in totally destroying him. (Cf., F.C., Th. D., Art. I).

Edward Wilhelm August Koehler, A Summary of Christian Doctrine: A Popular Presentation of the Teachings of the Bible, electronic ed. (St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 1999), 67–71.

SOME SOURCES ON THE PRESERVATION/PERSEVERENCE OF THE SAINTS

2016-08-13T12:48:00.000-07:00

SOME SOURCES ON THE PRESERVATION/PERSEVERENCE OF THE SAINTS

Regarding Preservation/Perseverance: What it is and what it isn’t

What Scripture teaches on the final perseverance may be summarized in these two statements:

1. He that perseveres in faith does so only through God’s gracious preservation; the believer’s perseverance is a work of divine grace and omnipotence.

2. He that falls from faith does so through his own fault; the cause of apostasy is in every case rejection of God’s Word and resistance to the operation of the Holy Spirit in the Word.

This doctrine the Christian Church must maintain and defend on two fronts: against Calvinism and against synergism.^{^[1]}

Christ – the cause of our preservation

David Hollazius said, “Christ rose again in order to manifest the victory which he had obtained over death and the devil, Acts 2:24; and to offer and apply to all men the fruits of his passion and death.” These fruits are: “The confirmation of our faith concerning Christ’s full satisfaction, 1 Cor. 15:17; the application of the benefits obtained by the death of Christ, our justification, Rom. 4:25; the sealing of our hope concerning our preservation for salvation, 1 Pet. 1:3; our being raised again to life eternal, John 11:25; 14:19; 2 Cor. 4:14; 1 Thess. 4:14, and our renewal, Rom. 6:4; 2 Cor. 5:15.”^{^[2]}

Humans are only instruments

5 What then is Apollos? What is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, as the Lord assigned to each. 6 I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth. 7 So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth. 8 He who plants and he who waters are one, and each will receive his wages according to his labor. 9 For we are God’s fellow workers. You are God’s field, God’s building. 10 According to the grace of God given to me, like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation, and someone else is building upon it. Let each one take care how he builds upon it. - 1 Corinthians 3:5–10 ^{^[3]}

Preservation is something Christ prays for

The Spirit dwelling in all baptized believers in Christ also intercedes for them when they do not know how or what to pray (Rom 8:26–27). Paul, after the manner of Jesus, repeatedly interceded for the unsaved Jews of his day (Rom 9:1–5; 10:1) and constantly offered prayers for the preservation of the saints in faith and in good works (e.g., 1 Thess 1:2; 2:13; 2 Tim 1:3).^{^[4]}

Preservation of the Saints as an act of God’s Love

Love’s second characteristic is to be kind (1 Cor 13:4). Again it is God who sets the example by showing unfailing kindness in the creation, preservation, and redemption of his people.^b His kindness to them should bear fruit in their lives (Gal 5:22; Col 3:12).^{^[5]}

Preservation is God’s Will for the believer

His purpose ordained how He would bring me thereto and preserve me therein. Also, that He wished to secure my salvation so well and certainly that since, through the weakness and wickedness of our flesh, it could easily be lost from our hands, or through craft and might of the devil and the world be torn or removed therefrom, in His eternal purpose, which cannot fail or be overthrown, He ordained it, and placed it for preservation in the almighty hand of our Saviour Jesus Christ, from which no one can pluck us (John 10:28).”^{^[6]}

The Fallen Angels contrasted with the Saints of God

As a result, Jesus—who is God⁶³—has “kept [them] for the judgment of the great day with eternal fetters under hellish darkness” (εἰς κρίσιν μεγάλης ἡμέρας δεσμοῖς ἀϊδίοις ὑπὸ ζόφον τετήρηκεν). Jude employs the verb “keep” (τηρέω) in this verse and throughout the book in a masterfully impactful way (Jude 1, 6 [twice], 13, 21). He repeats it within this verse. First, the angels did not “keep” their own preeminent status, and so their actions have turned back upon themselves. The punishment matches their crime: now Jesus has “kept” them for judgment. The perfect tense of τετήρηκεν, “he has kept,” underlines the certainty of this past event whose effect continues in the present time. This hellish keeping is the drastic antithesis of the gracious preservation of the “beloved in God the Father,” who are “kept [τετηρημένοις] for Jesus Christ” (Jude 1), and who, on the basis of the Father’s love and Christ’s keeping, are encouraged to “keep yourselves in the love of God” (Jude 21).^{^[7]}

God’s ability to preserve us as an extension of His omnipotence

Although Jude’s reference to God’s ability pertains to his omnipotence, it is his power pressed into service of his mercy.¹⁷ Therefore, Jude 24 continues with two descriptions of his ability to save for eternity. First, he is able φυλάξαι ὑμᾶς ἀπταίστους, “to preserve you as unstumbling.” Jude has already declared that the beloved are “kept for Jesus Christ” (Jude 1), that is, they are being kept in grace by God for the day when Christ returns for them.^{18^[8]}

Preservation from the evil path

2:12–15 Prov 2:12 begins the first of three sections in the chapter describing the redemptive purpose of wisdom: preservation from this evil path. The evil path is populated by those who have rejected wisdom and adopted the dark ways of sin (2:13–15), in contrast to 2:3–5, where the son is urged to seek wisdom and its enlightenment with understanding and knowledge.^{^[9]}

^{^[1]} Francis Pieper, Christian Dogmatics, electronic ed., vol. 3 (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1953), 89.

^{^[2]} Heinrich Schmid, The Doctrinal Theology of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, Verified from the Original Sources, trans. Charles A. Hay and Henry E. Jacobs, Second English Edition, Revised according to the Sixth German Edition (Philadelphia, PA: Lutheran Publication Society, 1889), 407.

^{^[3]} The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton: Standard Bible Society, 2001), 1 Co 3:5–10.

^{^[4]} R. Reed Lessing, Amos, Concordia Commentary (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2009), 450.

^b Mt 20:15; Lk 6:35; Rom 2:4; 11:22; Eph 2:7; Titus 3:4; 1 Pet 2:3

^{^[5]} Gregory J. Lockwood, 1 Corinthians, Concordia Commentary (Saint Louis: Concordia Pub. House, 2000), 464.

^{^[6]} E. T. Horn and A. G. Voigt, Annotations on the Epistles of Paul to the Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and Thessalonians, ed. Henry Eyster Jacobs, vol. IX, The Lutheran Commentary (New York: The Christian Literature Co., 1896), 15.

⁶³ The implied subject of τετήρηκεν, “he has kept,” is the same as the stated subject of the verbs “saved” and “destroyed” in Jude 5, namely, “Jesus.” See the third textual note on Jude 6. The high Christology of Jude 5 supports the affirmation that Jesus is God. See the commentary on Jude 5, which cites Peter’s reference to “our God and Savior Jesus Christ” in 2 Pet 1:1 and Peter’s doxology in 2 Pet 3:18b, which is addressed to “our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (2 Pet 3:18a). Some interpreters consider the “angel” in Rev 20:1–3 who holds the key to the abyss and who binds the devil with a great chain to be an example of angelomorphic Christology, that is, to represent Christ, since Christ holds the keys to death and hell (Rev 1:18). If so, then the binding and chaining of Satan in Rev 20:1–3 is a parallel to the binding and fettering of the fallen angels here in Jude 6, and in both passages it is Christ who does the binding (cf. Mt 12:29).

^{^[7]} Curtis P. Giese, 2 Peter and Jude, ed. Dean O. Wenthe and Curtis P. Giese, Concordia Commentary (Saint Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 2012), 267–268.

¹⁷ Lenski, The Interpretation of the Epistles of St. Peter, St. John and St. Jude, 650.

¹⁸ The Greek verbs translated as “keep” (Jude 1) and “preserve” (Jude 24) are different verbs with slightly different meanings, yet they overlap. Both verbs are in contexts that teach the doctrine of God’s preservation of his beloved in Christ. Jude 1 employs τηρέω, which indicates preservation in watchful care. Jude 24 includes φυλάσσω, which more intensely indicates an act of guarding and preserving. See BDAG, s.vv. τηρέω and φυλάσσω; Hillyer, 1 and 2 Peter, Jude, 267.

^{^[8]} Curtis P. Giese, 2 Peter and Jude, ed. Dean O. Wenthe and Curtis P. Giese, Concordia Commentary (Saint Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 2012), 360.

^{^[9]} Andrew E. Steinmann, Proverbs, Concordia Commentary (Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2009), 95.

Why The LCMS Should Withdraw From The BSA

2015-07-28T13:23:00.001-07:00

Earlier today, the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod made this announcement:

I read it over and found that as it stands, it is unworkable for my parish and I imagine many others. In the announcement from today, one paragraph read:

    At my own parish, the number of boys who are actual LCMS members, much less members of my congregation is rather few. Most are members of other churches and not a few are members of none at all, giving lip service to belief in God in order to go camping and to belong.

    I have talked to long-time members and it wasn't always this way. In the beginning, it was for members of the congregation only. Then it was opened up to members of other LCMS parishes which did not have a Scouting program. As time went on, someone decided it was a good 'outreach' magnate and it was opened up to all comers. As time went on, while a handful of parents and children of our parish are very devoted to it, the vast majority are non-members and have no interest in joining our Church but thank us for providing a wonderful building for them to use. Since we are a large Church-School congregation, we have a gymnasium and 2 lunchrooms for the boys to use.

    Since our own members make up such a small number of the group at present, I sincerely doubt we can guarantee we will even have members willing (numerically) to run as leaders chosen by our congregation. As it is, this has already presented us with conflict as not all the parents who help share our values and our Pastor and Board of Elders have little control over the behavior of a volunteer who is a non-member.

    As I see it, if my congregation were to face a court challenge from a gay couple seeking a wedding, we would not have a leg to stand on as we presently are chartered with a LGBT-friendly organization - The BSA. Fortunately, we aren't there yet, but congregations of other denominations (non-LCMS) are already performing them nearby. At least one lesbian wedding has taken place in my congregation's town and a few members of our congregation may have attended.

    I think the LCMS has one of three choices:

    First, it must pull out of the BSA completely to avoid possible, legal turmoil, then consider whether to align with Trail Life, Lutheran Pioneers or create a whole new LCMS-based boys youth program. At present, LCMS congregations are free to join the Trail Life organization with a caveat in regards to it's non-Lutheran theological basis.

    I sincerely hope Rev. President Harrison and the LCMS legal team bite the bullet and break ties with the Scouts. That said, let's try not to punish the boys and their parents. Let's make sure they have an alternative available. I don't hold the boys or (most of) their parents at fault. The nation's values appear to have changed almost overnight and we, all of us - were not sufficiently vigil.

Take Care & God Bless,

Jim

Ancestral Sin or Original Sin?

2015-07-14T23:46:00.000-07:00

Greetings,

I have recently come across my 2nd part Eastern Orthodox / part something else person on social media.

The 1st was very boutique and cafeteria in his theology. He was part Restorationist, part Baptist, part Hebrew Roots and part Eastern Orthodox. Now I have met a part Arminian and part Eastern Orthodox. The one thing they both have in common is they both condemn Augustine as a heretic (free clue - history is not on your side here), both are 'free-will' advocates - but this most recent one denies original sin in favor of 'ancestral sin.'

He says he makes his arguments on Patristic grounds. Really?

Because I'm not finding much about it in the Fathers. Not in Schaff-Roberts.

1 hit in the Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture.

1 hit in the Catholic University of America Fathers of the Church.

The second quote shown above should be quoted (for those who cannot read the screen caps):

(9) Hear, also, what may move you more and trouble you, and, would that it might, change you for the better. Who does not know that the Gallic bishop Hilary is to be revered as the keenest defender of the Catholic Church against the heretics? Note what he says when dealing with the flesh of Christ. ‘Therefore, when He was sent in the likeness of sinful flesh (Rom. 8:3), He did not have the sin though He had the flesh. But, since all flesh comes from sin—namely, descended from the ancestral sin of Adam—He was sent in the likeness of sinful flesh, not that the sin existed in Him, but the likeness of sinful flesh.’ Again he says in his exposition of Psalm 118, when he comes to the words: ‘Let my soul live and praise thee’( Ps. 118:175): ‘He does not think he lives in this life, for he had said: “Behold I have been conceived in iniquities, and in sins did my mother bear me.( Ps. 50:7)" He knows that he was born of sinful origin and under the law of sin.’ Do you understand what you hear? Do you ask what you should say? If you have any sense of shame, do you dare accuse on this matter of original sin a man so gloriously outstanding among Catholic bishops and so conspicuous in fame and honor? - Augustine of Hippo, Against Julian, ed. Hermigild Dressler, trans. Matthew A. Schumacher, vol. 35, The Fathers of the Church (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1957), 9–10.

Is my interlocutor presenting me with a false definition and a false choice? Seems in the one place it shows up in the Fathers (Augustine no less - ah the irony!), the two terms seem interchangeable.

Now, as for original sin:

319 results in 203 articles in 24 resources in Schaff-Roberts.

54 results in 43 articles in 21 resources in Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture.

Lastly 362 results in 183 articles in 46 resources in the Catholic University of America's Fathers of the Church set.

It's original sin by a landslide with 735 results versus 2 results for ancestral sin. But that doesn't matter because ancestral sin seems to mean the same thing as original sin.

And yes, there are Eastern Orthodox who not only believe in original sin, but think they agree with Augustine:

The consideration of cleansing brings us to two related teachings—original sin and atonement. The Orthodox, with their Protestant and Catholic brothers and sisters, affirm that this world is fallen, and because of this we are born into an environment where it is easier for us to do evil rather than good. Though our solidarity with the rest of humanity, we are entangled in a web of deceit, of hatred and of sin. And through our personal contribution, this state of fallenness continues. Original sin points to our solidarity with the rest of humanity and does not, in a strict sense, imply guilt. Rather, it points to our involvement. The Incarnation, Jesus, is God’s supreme answer to the question of personal and original sin. Because through Christ, we are restored to communion with God. The Incarnation and death of Christ are not viewed by Orthodoxy as solely a settling of accounts nor a ransoming (although there are some aspects of this in Christ’s work). The essence of the Incarnation is love. Christ’s work is not just a reversal of sin and death, but also an inauguration of an essentially new stage in the history of man. We now, at last, see clearly what humanity is to become. - Alexander Melnyk, “What Is Eastern Orthodoxy Anyway?,” Christian History Magazine-Issue 18: How Christianity Came to Russia (Worcester, PA: Christian History Institute, 1988).

Not only as a matter of experience, is no man sinless, but no man can, by any possibility, be free from sin (Ps. cxviii., He, 16). Because of the sin of one sentence is passed upon all (Ps. lix. 4 ); the sentence of slavery which is so deep a degradation that the victim of sin forfeits even the name of man (Ib. cxlii. 6, cxviii., Iod, 2). But Hilary not only states the doctrine; he approaches very nearly, on rare occasions, to the term ‘original sin.’ It follows that nothing less than a regeneration, the free gift of God, will avail (Matt. x. 24) and the grace by which the Christian must be maintained is also His spontaneous and unconditional gift. Faith, knowledge, Christian life, all have their origin and their maintenance from Him (Ps. cxviii). Such is a brief statement of Hilary’s position as a forerunner of St. Augustine. - E. W. Watson, “St. Hilary of Poitiers: Introduction,” in St. Hilary of Poitiers, John of Damascus, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, vol. 9a, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1899), lxxxvi–lxxxvii.

So the ancestral sin -vs- original sin dichotomy is bogus.

Justification & Sanctification - The Difference

2015-07-06T15:11:00.001-07:00

Greetings,

I recently met someone over the internet who did not have a clear idea about the difference between justification & sanctification. I asked if they knew the difference and in reply - I'd say their answer was they punted and either missed or fell short of the goal posts.

As the confusion and/or mixing of justification & sanctification is an old Roman Catholic error that is re-occurring in certain sections of Protestant Christendom, I thought I'd share some sources that define the two terms and distinguish the two.

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Justification by Faith.

1. Faith necessarily demands an object to which it clings, a foundation on which it rests. The very moment faith springs up in the heart, it clings to the very promise that created it, and apprehends what this promise offers. As the Gospel offers grace and forgiveness, the believer by and through faith immediately appropriates these blessings and makes them his own. What God has offered in His promise He confirms in the believer. Because by faith the believer has and holds the righteousness Christ earned for him, God declares him just. It is thus that faith justifies the sinner before God. “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith, without the deeds of the Law” (Rom. 3:28). By the labor of his hands a poor helpless cripple will never become rich; but if a kind friend were to give him thousands of dollars, he would become rich through this gift. Likewise we, who cannot keep the Law as God demands, cannot be justified under the Law; but as God freely gives us the righteousness of Christ through faith, we are accounted just and righteous before Him because of this gift of God.

2. Justification in detail.—(a) All men are sinners.—“There is no difference: for all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23). For this reason they all are guilty before God and worthy of death (Rom. 3:19).

(b) Christ fully atoned for all sins.—Moved by His love and compassion, God sent His Son to be the Savior of the world (John 3:16), who by His vicarious life and death rendered full satisfaction for all men (1 John 2:2). The purpose of His work of redemption was to reconcile the world unto God (2 Cor. 5:19), and by His resurrection He proved that He had accomplished it. “Who was delivered for our offenses, and raised again for our justification” (Rom. 4:25).

(c) God has forgiven all sins.—Because of the redemption through Christ God no longer imputes sins to men (2 Cor. 5:19); He does not charge their transgressions against them, but credits them with the merits of Christ. “For He hath made Him to be sin for us who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him” (2 Cor. 5:21). For the sake of Christ’s complete satisfaction God “justifies the ungodly” (Rom. 4:5), i.e., they who by nature and by their own works were altogether ungodly, were because of the work of Christ declared and pronounced just and righteous. Therefore, “by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life” (Rom. 5:18). “Justification properly consists in the non-imputation of sins, or their forgiveness, to the sinner, which is the negative side; and the imputation of Christ’s perfect righteousness, as though it were his own, which is the positive side” (Dr. C. H. Little in Lutheran Confessional Theology, p. 149).

The fruit of Christ’s redemption is not that He merely opened for man the way to reconciliation with God, and that God is now ready and willing to forgive sins, pending certain conditions man must first fulfill. The fruit of Christ’s redemption is that Christ actually did effect a reconciliation, that God does no longer impute sins, but has in His heart forgiven all sins to all men. On the part of God reconciliation and the forgiveness of sins is not a mere possibility, but an accomplished fact, an objective reality, which is not affected by the personal attitude of man (Rom. 3:3; 2 Tim. 2:13). By His vicarious active and passive obedience Christ paid for the sins of all men, and God, accepting this payment, has in His heart forgiven all sins of all men. There is not a soul in all the world which God has not already absolved from all sin. This is called objective or universal justification. “Objective justification may be defined as God’s declaration of amnesty to the world of sinners on the basis of the vicarious obedience of Christ, by which He secured a perfect righteousness for all mankind, which God accepted as a reconciliation of the world to Himself, imputing to mankind the merits of the Redeemer” (Dr. C. H. Little in Disputed Doctrines, p. 60).

(d) The Gospel reveals and offers to men the forgiveness of sins.—This fact that in Christ the world is reconciled to God, and that the sins of all men are atoned for and forgiven is not known to man by nature, nor can he discover it by his own cogitation. This is a matter we can learn only by divine revelation (1 Cor. 2:7–11). And God did make this fact known to us in the Gospel, “for therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith” (Rom. 1:17). This is not the personal righteousness of God, nor the righteousness He demands of us in the Law, but the righteousness Christ earned for us, which is to be accepted by faith (Rom. 3:21. 22). The Gospel, therefore, does not reveal to us a possible reconciliation, a conditional forgiveness of sins; in the Gospel the reconciliation and the forgiveness of sins are proclaimed as accomplished facts. For this reason Christ says that “remission of sins should be preached in His name among all nations” (Luke 24:47), and the apostle Paul writes “that through this man” (Christ) “is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins” (Acts 13:38). Real and genuine Gospel preaching, therefore, does not consist in merely giving all manner of interesting information about the forgiveness of sins, but in proclaiming to sinners the fact of the forgiveness, the fact that the world is reconciled unto God (2 Cor. 5:19. 20). And because the Gospel is God’s own proclamation of grace to a sin-cursed world, it actually promises, offers, and brings grace and forgiveness to all that hear it.

(e) The promise of forgiveness must be accepted by faith.—This declaration on the part of God calls for acceptance on the part of man. But it is impossible to accept it by means of works; it can be accepted only by faith, for this righteousness is revealed “from faith to faith” (Rom. 1:17). Whoever does not accept it in this manner will not be benefited by it, for we read: “The Word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it” (Hebr. 4:2). But faith, which is so necessary for the acceptance of this Gospel promise, is wrought in the heart of man by this very promise, for “faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God” (Rom. 10:17).

(f) Faith justifies the sinner.—Faith clings to the promise, and thereby man appropriates to himself personally what the promise offers to all men in general. Illustration: On January 1st, 1863, Lincoln declared a general emancipation of all the slaves; the individual slave heard and believed this proclamation and applied it to himself, and thus he became personally free. Thus the reconciliation of the whole world by Christ and the forgiveness of all sins of all men is an accomplished fact, which, in itself, is not affected by the attitude of men (Rom. 3:3). This fact is proclaimed in the Gospel to every slave of sin; and the very moment that he applies this fact to himself, believing that for Christ’s sake also his sins are forgiven, he has the forgiveness of all his sins, is free from the guilt and punishment of sin, and is personally justified before God. That is what Paul teaches (Rom. 4:5): “To him that worketh not,” does not seek to become righteous before God by his own works, “but believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly,” trusts in God, who for Christ’s sake declares all the ungodly just, “his faith is counted for righteousness,” he by such faith becomes personally righteous, because the righteousness of Christ, which his faith apprehends, is by God imputed to him personally. Thus by faith one puts himself into personal possession of that justification, which the Gospel offers to all men in general. This is called personal or subjective justification.

If we tell a heathen man that for Christ’s sake God has forgiven all his sins, we are simply stating a fact, which the unbelief of man cannot make ineffectual, “without effect” (Rom. 3:3). This fact must be accepted in true faith, which presupposes a penitent heart, and consists in confidence and trust in this forgiveness. The function of faith in this matter is merely instrumental; it does not achieve forgiveness of sins; it does not earn it; it does not make us worthy of it; nor does it move God to forgive us our sins. It is not a condition we must fulfil before forgiveness is available for us. On the part of God the forgiving takes place before we ever came to faith, yea, before we were bern, because with God the forgiveness rests on the atonement of our sins through Christ. The forgiveness of sins and the righteousness of Christ are ready for all men, and are being freely offered to them in the Gospel. All things in the kingdom of heaven are now ready (Matt. 22:2–4). But if they are to benefit us, we must accept them; a promised gift can be accepted in no other way than by faith. The moment, therefore, our faith trusts in the promise of God, we apply and appropriate to ourselves what the promise offers, and God confirms the gift upon us personally. Thus it is that man is justified by faith (Rom. 3:28). The moment I accept the riches offered to me I become rich. The believer does not have to wait for the forgiveness of his sins; it is ready for him, and he has it the moment he takes it, and he keeps it as long as he holds it. He loses it as soon as the faith, by which he held it, ceases. Thus the function of faith in justification is that it takes and holds with a trusting heart what God offers in the Gospel.

Justification is that forensic act of God, by which He, on the basis of the perfect vicarious atonement wrought by Christ, declared the whole world to be justified in His sight (objective justification), and transmits and imputes the effect of this declaration to all whom He brings to faith by the work of the Holy Ghost through the means of grace (subjective justification).

Thus it appears that universal justification does not benefit anyone unless it is followed by personal justification, and that personal justification is possible only because of the preceding universal justification. In other words, the fact that God has forgiven all sins to all men does not help anyone unless he accepts it by faith; on the other hand, he cannot appropriate forgiveness to himself if the sins are not yet forgiven. Illustration: Bread will not nourish us, unless we eat it; but we cannot eat it unless it is there.

(g) Justification a judicial act of God.—Justification is not a moral transformation, effected within the sinner by virtue of some infused grace; but it is a judicial act of God, taking place outside of the sinner, by which God in mercy for Christ’s sake absolves him from all sins, pronounces and declares him righteous, who has no righteousness of his own, but who trusts in the righteousness of his Savior (Rom. 4:5–8). God justifies the sinner by imputing to him the righteousness of Christ. “The word ‘justify’ means in this article, to absolve, that is, to declare free from sin” (F.C., Epit., Art. III, 7, Triglot, p. 793). “To justify signifies, according to forensic usage, to acquit a guilty one and declare him righteous, but on account of the righteousness of another, namely, of Christ, which righteousness is communicated to us by faith” (Apol., Art. III, 184, Triglot, p. 205). That the word “justify” means to declare just, we see from Matt. 12:37 and from Prov. 17:15.

(h) Justification is perfect.—Justification is not partial nor progressive, but complete and perfect. The moment there is faith in the heart, by which we lay hold of God’s promise of grace, at that moment there is full forgiveness of all our sins. Forgiveness of sins and the grace of God are not a quantity, of which parts and portions are meted out to us as we have need of them day by day, as it is the case with our daily bread; but grace and forgiveness are facts, proclaimed in the Gospel. Whoever trusts in this fact has the forgiveness for all his sins. God, therefore, does not justify man partially, forgiving him some of his sins while retaining others, but He forgives all sins and justifies man completely. “Who forgiveth all thine iniquities” (Ps. 103:3); “Thou hast cast all my sins behind Thy back” (Is. 38:17); “Having forgiven you all trespasses” (Col. 2:13).

As Christ has atoned for all sins (1 John 2:2), and as God has in His heart forgiven all sins to all men, and offers this forgiveness in the Gospel to all men (2 Cor. 5:19. 20), it follows that everyone who by faith accepts this forgiveness has the forgiveness for all sins and is completely justified before God. For this reason faith does not look forward to forgiveness of sins, as a thing to be hoped for, a thing that we might obtain in the future when we meet our God; it does not say: “I am sure that God will forgive me my sins,” but it says: “From the promise of God in the Gospel I know that He has forgiven all my sins.” Forgiveness of sins and justification are not future blessings we are still waiting for, but they are a present possession, which we have and hold in their completeness as long as we continue in the faith.—There are degrees of faith, weak and strong, but there are no degrees of justification; for the weak in faith cling to the same promise, and obtain the same forgiveness as the strong in faith. The difference is not in what they hold, but in the weakness or the firmness of the hold they have on it.

3. Why does faith save us?—(a) There can be no faith in the forgiveness of sins if there is not first sorrow and contrition over sins in the heart. Whoever does not repent of his sins will not care to have forgiveness of sins. But sorrow over sin, however deep and sincere, does not give to faith its saving power. God does not forgive sin because a person is sorry lot what he has done; (example: Judas).

(b) Good works and a holy life necessarily proceed from faith, for faith without works is dead (James 2:17). “Faith worketh by love” (Gal. 5:6). However, faith does not save us because it produces good works; the fruits of faith do not give to faith its justifying power. Man is justified without the works of the Law (Rom. 3:28). “Contrition that precedes, and good works that follow, do not belong to the article of justification” (F.C., Epit., Art. III, 8, Triglot, p. 795). (Read also F.C., Th. D., Art. III, 24–29, Triglot, p. 923–925.)

(c) Faith itself may be regarded as a work of man, inasmuch as he does the believing. And it is also a good work, well pleasing to God (John 6:28. 29). But it is not a meritorious work. Faith does not justify and save us because of its intrinsic worth and ethical value. Regarded as an act of man, faith is also a work of the Law. Faith is absolutely necessary as a means of salvation, but faith is not the Savior. “Faith justifies, not for this cause and reason that it is so good a work and so fair a virtue, but because it lays hold of and accepts the merits of Christ in the promise of the holy Gospel” (F.C., Th. D., Art. III, 13, Triglot, p. 919).

(d) Not the act of eating, but the food we eat nourishes us. Thus, not the act of believing, but what we believe saves us. However, as one must eat food that really nourishes, so one must believe what really saves. A false doctrine, no matter how sincerely believed, cannot save. The doctrines of the First Article of the Apostles’ Creed are divine truths, but they are not saving truths; one may believe them with all sincerity of heart and still be lost. The saving truth, and, therefore, the chief doctrine of the Bible, is briefly expressed in the words of Paul: “God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them” (2 Cor. 5:19); and “in Christ we have the redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace” (Eph. 1:7); and in the words of Christ: “God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life” (John 3:16); in other words, God by grace for Christ’s sake forgave us our sins. He who truly believes these words has forgiveness, is justified before God, and will be saved. As it is the gold which I hold in my hand that makes me rich, so it is the merits of Christ which I hold by faith that saves my soul. The saving power, therefore, lies not in the hand of faith, but in the merits of Christ, which I hold by faith. Faith is only the means, the instrument, by which I apprehend the saving merits of my Savior. At the same time, faith is the only means by which I can come into possession of these merits, because they are offered to me in an unconditional promise, which can be apprehended in no other way than by faith.

“In order, therefore, that troubled hearts may have a firm, sure consolation, also, that due honor be given to the merits of Christ and the grace of God, the Scriptures teach that the righteousness of faith before God consists alone in the gracious reconciliation or forgiveness of sins, which is presented to us out of pure grace, for the sake of the only merit of the Mediator, Christ, and is received through faith alone in the promise of the Gospel. In like manner, too, in justification before God faith relies neither upon contrition nor upon love or other virtues, but upon Christ alone, and in Him upon His complete obedience by which He fulfilled the Law for us, which obedience is imputed to believers for righteousness. Moreover, neither contrition nor love or any other virtue, but faith alone is the sole means and instrument by which and through which we can receive and accept the grace of God, the merits of Christ, and the forgiveness of sins, which are offered us in the promise of the Gospel” (F.C., Th. D., Art. III, 30. 31, Triglot, p. 925).

4. The results of justification.—(a) The state of grace.—The moment a person is justified by faith, he is delivered from the state of wrath, and enters the state of grace. In this blessed state he has peace with God (Rom. 5:1); he has a good conscience toward God (Hebr. 9:14; 10:22); he has the assurance of God’s protection and guidance (Hebr. 13:5; Rom. 8:28); he is delivered from all fear (Ps. 34:4; Hebr. 2:15); he glories in tribulation (Rom. 5:3); he triumphs in death (1 Pet. 1:3; 1 Cor. 15:55–57); he has become a child of God (Gal. 3:26) and an heir of heaven (Gal. 4:7).—In this state of grace we continue as long as we remain in the faith; however, the moment faith is lost, justification and forgiveness and all the blessings resulting therefrom are likewise lost.

(b) Membership in the invisible Church, the kingdom of grace, and title to the kingdom of glory.—Having by faith obtained the forgiveness of sins, we are translated into the kingdom of the Son of God, and are made partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light (Col. 1:12–14). Because we are born again of God, we are children of His household and family (Eph. 2:19; 3:15). Justified by faith, we join the communion of saints, the royal priesthood, etc. (1 Pet. 2:9), and have claim and title to the kingdom of glory. While in this world, Christians may seem to be of low degree, they should always be fully conscious of the high position to which they are exalted through faith in Christ.

(c) The indwelling of the Holy Ghost and of the entire Trinity.—In conversion we received the gift of the Holy Ghost (Acts 2:38; 10:44; Tit. 3:5. 6). Hence, Paul writes: “Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are” (1 Cor. 3:16. 17); (2 Cor. 6:16). Speaking of the Father and of Himself, Jesus said: “And We will come unto him” (the believer) “and make Our abode with him” (John 14:23). This mystical and inexplicable union and indwelling of God pertains not only to the soul, and does not consist merely in the agreement of the will of man with the will of God, nor in the mere onion of both in mutual love, nor in a mere influence of the Holy Ghost on man, but it pertains also to the body. “Know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?” (1 Cor. 6:19).—This union must be distinguished from the indwelling mentioned in Acts 17:28, which is common to all created things, while this indwelling is peculiar to the believers only. This indwelling of God in His believers is mystical and inexplicable, yet it is real and actual.

What does this indwelling of the Holy Ghost mean to us? Christ purchased and won all men, even those who are finally lost (1 Cor. 6:20; 2 Pet. 2:1); therefore all are, in a sense, His purchased possession. But personally we become His own the moment we believe in Him, for then the Holy Ghost enters our hearts and takes actual possession of us. Illustration: The home a person buys is his own, but he takes actual possession of it when he moves in. So all men are Christ’s own by the redemption, but in conversion the Holy Ghost takes actual possession of the believer by dwelling in his heart. By faith we lay hold of Christ; by sealing us with the Holy Ghost God lays hold of us. “In whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise, which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of His glory” (Eph. 1:13. 14). From this text we learn that the Holy Ghost is the earnest of our inheritance, a pledge on the part of God to us, that He will fulfil His promise and redeem us from this vale of tears and take us to Himself in heaven. In the meantime, the Holy Spirit bears witness with our spirit, assuring us that we are the children of God and the heirs of God (Rom. 8:16). He also supports our prayers and makes intercession for us (Rom. 8:26. 27). He furthermore leads and rules us, that in our lives we bring forth the fruits of the Spirit (Rom. 8:14; Gal. 5:16–23). So the indwelling of the Holy Ghost in our hearts means much to us, and therefore we should heed the warning: “Grieve not the Holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption” (Eph. 4:30).

(d) Initial restoration of the image of God.—The image of God, consisting in a blissful knowledge of God and in righteousness and true holiness of life, was lost when man fell into sin. But a beginning of its restoration is made, when man is justified by faith in Christ. For the new knowledge, which the believer gained from the Gospel, fills his heart with joy and happiness, and this, in turn, moves him to forsake the ways of sin and to walk in the paths of righteousness. Because of the old Adam, this restoration of the image of God will never be perfect in this life. For this reason Paul admonishes us: “Put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of Him that created him” (Col. 3:10), and: “Put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness” (Eph. 4:24).^{^[1]}

More about Justification

The effect of faith is justification; [1] by which is to be understood that act of God by which he removes the sentence of condemnation, to which man is exposed in consequence of his sins, releases him from his guilt, and ascribes to him the merit of Christ. Br. (574): “Justification denotes that act by which the sinner, who is responsible for guilt and liable to punishment (reus culpæ et pænæ), but who believes in Christ, is pronounced just by God the judge.” [2] This act occurs at the instant in which the merit of Christ is appropriated by faith, [3] and can properly be designated a forensic or judicial act, since God in it, as if in a civil court, pronounces a judgment upon man, which assigns to him an entirely different position, and entirely different rights. [4] By justification we are, therefore, by no means to understand a moral condition existing in man, or a moral change which he has experienced, but only a judgment pronounced upon man, by which his relation to God is reversed, [5] and indeed in such a manner, that a man can now consider himself one whose sins are blotted out, who is no longer responsible for them before God; who, on the other hand, appears before God as accepted and righteous, in whom God finds nothing more to punish, at whom he has no longer any occasion to be displeased.

Through this act of justification emanating from God we receive, 1. Remission of Sins (Rom. 4:7; Ps. 32:1, 2; Rom. 3:25; Luke 11:4; 2 Cor. 5:19).

2. The Imputation of the righteousness of Christ [6] (Rom. 5:9; 2 Cor. 5:21; Gal. 3:6; Phil. 3:9; Rom. 4:5); for God, from the moment in which faith is exercised, regards all that Christ has accomplished, as if it had been done by man, and attributes the merit of Christ to him, as if it were his own. [7] From this can be seen what we are to designate as the ground of our justification, and what is the means by which it is attained. The ground lies alone in the merit of Christ, for by this our sins are blotted out, and God is enabled to receive us again into favor. [8] The means, however, through which we attain justification is faith. [9] In no wise, therefore, is any merit or worthiness on our part demanded as the condition for the impartation of justification, as if upon that our justification should depend. It is not denied, indeed, that a moral change takes place in man, with the entrance of faith, and therefore also with that of justification; yet this is to be regarded as only an attendant of justification and contemporaneous with it, but in no wise as the condition upon which we attain justification; [10] and this the less, as it is only the grace of God which displays itself in justification, that furnishes the ground and possibility of such a change. [11] The moral worthiness of man cannot be made account of in the inquiry concerning the reasons of his being received into the favor of God, [12] and it is highly important to assert this firmly, as we would deprive ourselves of the firm footing on which our justification rests, if we regarded it as in any degree dependent upon anything done by us. [13] Justification is, accordingly, to be regarded throughout as a free gift of grace on the part of God, which is offered to us gratuitously and without requiring any addition to it on our part, and which can be received and accepted only by faith, as it is expressed in the declaration that we are justified, gratuitously, by faith alone, [14] and for Christ’s sake. [15]

This doctrine, according to which, in the act of justification, all man’s works are excluded and the whole is considered as effected by God’s grace, constitutes the central point of the knowledge which we owe to the Reformation; [16] in it there is offered man a sure and firm foundation upon which he may build his hopes of salvation, and a sure way is pointed out to him of obtaining it. [17]

[1] Quen. (IV, 286): “The immediate effect of faith is the remission of sins, adoption, justification, union with Christ, access to God, and peace of conscience. Among these effects of faith justification is the principal, to which all the rest can be referred.”

[2] Quen. (III, 526): “Justification is the external, judicial, gracious act of the most Holy Trinity, by which a sinful man, whose sins are forgiven, on account of the merit of Christ apprehended by faith, is accounted just, to the praise of God’s glorious grace and justice and to the salvation of the justified.”

[3] Br. (574): “For with and through faith man is at once justified; so that the act by which faith is conferred upon man, and the act by which man is justified, are simultaneous; although faith is by nature first in order and justification subsequent to it.”

[4] Br. (574): “Justification has a forensic sense, and denotes that act by which God, the judge, pronounces righteous the sinner responsible for guilt and liable to punishment, but who believes in Jesus.”

Chmn. (Loc. c. Th., II, 250): “Paul everywhere describes justification as a judicial process, because the conscience of the sinner accused by the divine law before the tribunal of God, convicted and lying under the sentence of eternal condemnation, but fleeing to the throne of grace, is restored, acquitted, delivered from the sentence of condemnation, is received into eternal life, on account of the obedience and intercession of the Son of God, the Mediator, which is apprehended and applied by faith.” According to this, justification signifies to pronounce righteous. Form. Conc. (Sol. Dec., III, 17): “The word justification signifies in this matter to pronounce righteous, to absolve from sins and the eternal punishment of sins on account of Christ’s righteousness, which is imputed to faith by God.” Br. (575): “Although the Latin word justificare is compounded of the adjective justus and the verb facere, it does not denote in general usage and especially in the Scriptures, when sinful man is said to be justified before God, the infusion of an habitual righteousness, but according to the import of the Hebrew word הִצְדִּיק (2 Sam. 15:4; Deut. 25:1), and the word δικαιοῦν in the Septuagint, and Paul (Rom. 3 and 4), the Latin justificare, is also transferred from an outward to a spiritual court, at which men are placed as before a divine tribunal, and are acquitted after the case has been heard and sentence has been pronounced.” According to the Catholic doctrine “justify” is equivalent in import to making righteous; making a righteous person out of a wicked one. In opposition to this, Ap. Conf. (III, 131): “Justification signifies not to make a wicked person righteous, but in a forensic sense to pronounce righteous.” Quen. (III, 515): “These words δικαιοῦν and הִצְדִּיק, nowhere and never in the whole Scriptures, even when not used in reference to the justification of the sinner before God, signify justification by the infusion of new qualities, but whenever they are used of God justifying the wicked before his tribunal they have a forensic signification.” Grh. (VII, 4 seq,) gives in what follows the Scripture proof in detail: “The forensic signification (of the word δικαιοῦν) is proved, (1) because it denotes a judicial act, not only without reference to the doctrine of gratuitous justification before God (Is. 5:23; Deut. 25:1; 2 Sam. 15:4; Ps. 82:3; Is. 43:9), but also in the very article of justification (Ps. 143:2; Job 9:2, 3; Luke 18:14); (2) because it is opposed to condemnation (Deut. 25:1; 1 Kings 8:32; Prov. 17:15; Matt. 12:37; Rom. 5:16; 8:33, 34); (3) because its correlatives are judicial. For a judgment is mentioned, Ps. 143:2; a judge, John 5:27; a tribunal, Rom. 14:10; a criminal, Rom. 3:19; a plaintiff, John 5:45; a witness, Rom. 2:15; an indictment, Col. 2:14; an obligation, Matt. 18:24; an advocate, 1 John 2:1; an acquittal, Ps. 32:1. The law accuses the sinner before the judgment-seat of God, that he may be subject to the judgment of God. Rom. 3:19. Conscience concurs with this accusation of the law, Rom. 2:15. Since, in consequence of sin, the whole nature of man and all his works are miserably contaminated, he discovers nothing to oppose to the judgment of God; the law therefore hurls the thunder of its curse and condemnation upon man convicted of sin, but the Gospel presents Christ the Mediator, who by his most perfect obedience has atoned for our sins; to him the sinner, terrified and condemned by the law, flees by true faith, opposes this righteousness of Christ to the sentence of God and The condemnation of the law, and in view of, and by the imputation of this, he is justified, that is, freed from the sentence of condemnation and pronounced righteous; (4) because the equivalent phrases are judicial. To be justified is to be not called into judgment, Ps. 143:2; to be not condemned, John 3:18; not to come into condemnation, John 5:24; not to be judged, John 3:18. The publican went down to his house justified, that is, acquitted of his sins, Luke 18:14. Paul explains justification by ‘imputing for righteousness,’ Rom. 4:3, 5; by ‘covering iniquities,’ by ‘not imputing sin,’ 5:7; by ‘remitting sins,’ Rom. 3:25; by ‘forgiving trespasses,’ Col. 2:13. Here belong the phrases ‘to be reconciled to God,’ Rom. 5:10; ‘to be made righteous,’ 5:19; ‘to partake of the blessing,’ Eph. 1:3; ‘to receive remission of sins,’ Acts 10:43; ‘to be saved,’ Acts 4:12. Comp. the parable, Matt. 18:27.”

[5] Br. (577): “Justification does not mean a real and internal change of man.” Holl. (928): “Justification is a judicial, and that, too, a gracious act, by which God, reconciled by the satisfaction of Christ, acquits the sinner who believes in Christ of the offenses with which he is charged, and accounts and pronounces him righteous. Since this action takes place apart from man, in God, it cannot intrinsically change man. For, as a debtor for whom another pays his debt, so that he is considered released from the debt, undergoes not an intrinsic but an extrinsic change in regard to his condition, so the sinner who is reputed and pronounced free from his sins, on account of the satisfaction of Christ applied by true faith, is changed, not intrinsically, but extrinsically, with respect to his better condition. The point from which this external change takes places (terminus a quo) is the state of being responsible for guilt and liable to punishment; because thereby the sinner remains in a state of sin and wrath (Rom. 4:7; Eph. 1:7; 2 Cor. 5:19). The point to which it conducts (terminus ad quem) is the state of grace and righteousness; because God, remitting the offenses of the sinner who believes in Christ, receives him into favor, and imputes to him the righteousness of Christ (Rom. 4:5, 6; Gal. 3:6; 2 Cor. 5:21: Phil. 3:9; Rom. 5:19).” To the last, Br. (579) remarks in addition: “Some refer to this place the privileges of the sons of God, and the inheritance of eternal life, which is conferred or adjudged to us in God’s account. Some add the dignity of the reward of righteousness which we obtain in this act of justification. But others, and probably the majority, distinguish the act by which the sonship, or the inheritance, or the privilege of reward is conferred on the faithful, from justification, and consider them as its consequences.… The Scriptures also frequently distinguish between these two things, viz., freedom from the condemnation of sin, with power to become the sons of God, and the heavenly inheritance, of which the latter implies the former, and is furnished to the justified by a subsequent and new gift, viz., that when the judgment is finished, that sonship or adoption will take place referred to in Rom. 8:15, 23; Gal. 4:5; Eph. 1:5.”

[6] Quen. (III, 524): “Our justification before God consists in the remission and non-imputation of sins and the imputation of the righteousness of Christ.” The Form. Conc. sometimes presents both these expressions conjointly, and sometimes it describes the sentence of justification as having reference only to the remission of sins. It says (Epit., III, 4): “We believe that our righteousness before God consists in this, that the Lord forgives us our sins through mere grace.… For he gives and imputes to us the righteousness of the obedience of Christ; on account of this righteousness we are received into favor by God, and are accounted just.” And it says (Sol. Dec., III, 9): “Concerning the righteousness of faith, we confess that the sinner is justified before God, i.e., is absolved from all his sins and from the sentence of most righteous condemnation, and adopted into the number of the children of God and regarded as a heir of eternal life.” … The same course is adopted by other Dogmaticians. No difference is thereby intended in the matter itself. Br. mentions, as the form of justification, only the forgiveness of sins, because he presupposes the imputation of the righteousness of Christ as that upon which the forgiveness is based. He says (588): “It is certain, when we call the form of justification the forgiveness or non-imputation of sins, the imputation of the righteousness of Christ is not excluded, … nor the imputation of this faith itself for righteousness. That is, we mean to say, that the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, and of faith itself, is only logically prior to that forensic act of justification by which men are absolved from the guilt of sins; for to the question, Why does God justify man? the a priori explanation is given, Because God imputes to man the righteousness or merit of Christ apprehended by faith, or so judges it to belong to man that he is on this account absolved from the guilt of his sins.” Other Dogmaticians express themselves differently in regard to the relation existing between the forgiveness of sins and the imputation of the righteousness of Christ.

Quen. (ib.): “These parts (so to speak) are not different or distinct essentially (τῷ ἐ͂ιναι), but merely logically (τῷ λόγῳ); for the imputation of Christ’s righteousness is essentially nothing else than the remission of sins, and the remission of sins is nothing else than the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, so that either word separately taken expresses the whole nature of justification. Whence the apostle Paul, Rom. 4, interchanges the forgiveness of sins and the imputation of righteousness in his description of justification, which he sometimes defines as the forgiveness of sins, and sometimes as the imputation of righteousness. For, as it can properly be said that at one and the same time, and by one and the same action, the expulsion of darkness from the atmosphere is the introduction of light, so one and the same wicked man, at one and the same time, and by the very same act of justification, is both freed from guilt and pronounced righteous.” Holl. (915): “Remission of sins and the imputation of Christ’s righteousness are inseparable and closely united acts; but distinct, indeed, in form, as the first is privative, and the other positive, the one results immediately from the passive obedience of Christ, the other from his active obedience. We do not deny, meanwhile, that the one may properly be inferred from the other, for there is no sinner, whose sins are pardoned, but has the righteousness of Christ imputed, and the reverse.”

In earlier times, indeed, the definition of renovation or regeneration was also included in that of justification. Thus Mel. says (Loc. Com. Th., II, 207, seq.): “The first (degree) of evangelical liberty is that the forgiveness of sins, reconciliation, justification, or the imputation of righteousness and acceptance to eternal life, and the inheritance of eternal life, are bestowed upon us freely on account of the Son of God.… The second degree is the gift of the Holy Spirit, who enkindles new light in the mind and new emotions in the will and heart, governs us, and begins in us eternal life.” And the Ap. Conf., II, 72: “Because to be justified signifies that the wicked are made righteous through regeneration, it signifies also that they are pronounced or reputed as righteous. For the Scripture uses both these methods of speaking.” Ib., III, 40: “Although it is generally admitted that justification signifies not only the beginning of renovation, but the reconciliation by which we are afterwards accepted.” When, afterwards, these phrases were taken separately, and in the definition of justification only the forgiveness of sin and the imputation of Christ’s righteousness were included, no change of doctrine was thereby introduced. Mel. and the Ap. meant thereby only to say that as faith, by which one apprehends the merit of Christ, is wrought by the Holy Spirit, regeneration in its beginnings is at the same time implied in it. Ap. II, 45: “This special faith, by which any one believes that his sins are forgiven for Christ’s sake, and that God is reconciled and rendered propitious for Christ’s sake, attains the forgiveness of sins and justifies us. And because in penitence, i.e., in our spiritual distress, he comforts us and encourages our hearts, regenerates us and bestows the Holy Spirit, so that then we can obey the divine law.” To this statement the later theologians also adhered. See Note 10. They were influenced, however, by the controversies that afterwards arose with the Roman Catholics, and also with some Lutheran theologians (A. Osiander), already in the definition of justification, to guard against the appearance of admitting that the renovation thus introduced in its beginnings along with the forgiveness of sins, was in any sense a condition of the bestowal of the forgiveness of sins. And with this the Apol. entirely accords.

[7] Quen. (III, 525): “The form of imputation consists in the gracious reckoning of God, by which the penitent sinner, on account of the most perfect obedience of another, i.e., of Christ, apprehended by faith, according to Gospel mercy, is pronounced righteous before the divine tribunal, ‘just as if this obedience had been rendered by the man himself.’ ” Ap. Conf. (III, 184): “To be justified here signifies, according to forensic usage, to absolve a guilty man and pronounce him just, but on account of the righteousness of another, viz., of Christ, which righteousness of another is communicated to us by faith.… Because the righteousness of Christ is given to us through faith, so faith is righteousness in us imputatively, i.e., it is that by which we are caused to be accepted of God in consequence of the imputation and ordination of God.” The expression: the righteousness of Christ, is explained as follows in the Form. Conc. (Sol. Dec., III, 14): “The righteousness (of Christ), which is imputed before God out of pure grace to faith, or to believers, is the obedience, passion, and resurrection of Christ, by which he satisfied the law for our sake and atoned for our sins.” Synonymous with the expression: “the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us,” is that other: “the merit or obedience of Christ is imputed to us.” And also this one: “faith is imputed to us for righteousness,” Rom. 4:5, which is thus explained: “only in so far as it apprehends and applies to itself the righteousness of Christ.” The righteousness of faith, then, “is nothing else than the forgiveness of sins, the gratuitous acceptance of the sinner solely on account of the obedience and most perfect merit of Christ alone.” (Ib. 54.)

Chmn. (Loc. Th., 274) vindicates the doctrine of imputation, against the Papists, as follows: “There is an imputation which is based upon and has reference to a foundation in the person working, to whom the imputation is made, and this is done not as a matter of grace, but as a matter of debt. But there is another imputation, which neither has nor refers to a foundation, in view of or by reason of which the imputation is made, but is based upon the grace and mercy of God, who justifies the wicked. And in this, that he says by this imputation the wicked man is justified, he shows that the foundation is altogether different in the believer to whom this imputation is gratuitous; to whom, namely, not righteousness but guilt would be imputed, if God wished to enter into judgment. Paul, therefore, distinctly and clearly shows that he wishes this word, imputation, in the doctrine of justification, to be understood not in the former, but in the latter sense. And the same thing he also shows more fully and proves from David, who describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness without works. Therefore the foundation of this imputation, concerning which Paul speaks, is not in him to whom the imputation is made, for he says, ‘without works.’ And in Eph. 2:8 he more expressly says: ‘not of yourselves.’ But he adds that sins in this imputation are forgiven, that iniquities are covered, that crimes are not imputed. There is, therefore, in those who believe, to whom this gratuitous imputation is made, an altogether different foundation, if God should wish to enter into judgment with them. The imputation of righteousness consists, therefore, in the grace and mercy of God, which, for the sake of Christ, cover up the inherent foundation, viz., sin, so that it may not be imputed, and impute to the believer, through grace, the foundation which is not in him, just as if the righteousness were inherent in that perfection which he owes. These three things, therefore, we now infer from the true premises which belong to the word imputation in this article: 1. There is no basis in believers, in view, and by reason of which, righteousness is imputed for happiness, not even in Abraham, although adorned by the Holy Spirit with distinguished gifts of renewal. 2. A very different basis is discovered, if God wish to enter into judgment, viz., sin, which is to be covered up, so as not to be imputed. 3. But that imputation is a referring act (relatio) of the divine mind and will, which, through gratuitous mercy for Christ’s sake, does not impute their sins to believers, but imputes to them righteousness, i.e., they are regarded before God, in his judgment, as if they possessed perfect inherent righteousness, and thus salvation and eternal life are bestowed upon them as if they were righteous. But what the fourth point is, that also belongs to imputation, and wherefore it is added can be understood from what follows. When a judge, by his own referring act (relatio), imputes the sentence of righteousness to a guilty person without any foundation, this is an abomination (Prov. 17:15; Ex. 23:1; Deut. 25:1; Is. 5:23; 1 Chron. 8:32). Some may reply, God is a perfectly free agent, and as such can justify whom he will and as he will. But God has revealed his will in the law, and this cannot be broken.… Therefore, in accordance with that revealed will, God does not wish to justify any one without righteousness, i.e., unless according to the law satisfaction has been made for sin, and the law has been fulfilled by a perfect obedience. And Paul says, when faith is imputed for righteousness, the law is not made void, but established, i.e., to use the scholastic terminology, the act of the divine mind imputes to the believer the sentence of righteousness for eternal life, not without a basis. But that basis is not in believers. But God has offered to us his Son as Mediator, made under the law, to which he rendered satisfaction both by bearing our sins and by perfect obedience.… Thus we will obtain a perfect referring act whose foundation is in obedience and redemption, in Christ Jesus our Lord. The referring act (relatio) is the grace and mercy of God; the object of it is the believer, to whom, on Christ’s account, sins are not imputed, but who is through Christ accounted righteous before God unto eternal life, the righteousness of Christ being imputed to him.” …

“This exposition explains the whole doctrine and refutes many cavils.… The Jesuits say, a referring act (relatio) without a foundation is an empty phantasm and an illusion, as if Crassus, burdened with debt, were saluted as rich. Such, they say, is imputative righteousness, which has no foundation inherent in ourselves. But these cavils are abundantly refuted by what we have already said. For we do not teach that God, through any levity, imputes righteousness to believers without any foundation; but we affirm, from the Word of God, that there needs to be ever so firm a foundation of gratuitous imputation, that the righteousness inherent even in Abraham and David could not be the foundation of that referring act (relatio) and imputation, but there was need that the Son of God should become incarnate.… The righteousness of faith is, therefore, not of the least but of the greatest reality, for Christ is our righteousness; nor is it an empty phantasm, for it is the result of the divine thought and judgment.” In regard to the meaning of the word justification, Holl. further remarks (914): “Imputation, in the doctrine of justification, is not taken in a physical sense, so as to signify to insert, to implant, but in a moral, judicial, and declarative sense, so as to signify to adjudicate, to attribute, to ascribe, to transfer, confer, devolve upon another the effect of a voluntary act by one’s own estimate and decision.”

The reality of imputation Br. shows as follows (581): “It is called imputation, not as an empty or imaginary transfer of the merit of one to another, destitute alike of a basis and fruit; but because it is an act of the intellect and will of him who exercises the judgment, by which he adjudges that the merit of one, which is offered for another, and is apprehended by the faith of him for whose benefit it has been offered, can be legitimately accepted as if it were his own merit, and is willing to receive it in such manner as if he had of himself offered it, whatever it is. Paul himself uses this argument in Rom. 4:3–6.” Quen. (III, 525): “This imputation is most real, whether respect is had to the righteousness which is imputed, or to the act of imputation. The righteousness of Christ, or his obedience, active and passive, which is imputed to us, is most true and real, for it corresponds entirely to the mind and will of God expressed in the law. The act of imputation, also, or the imputation itself, is real, because its measure is the infallible intellect of God. Whence God cannot repute or consider him just to whom true righteousness has not been appropriated; nor can there proceed from the divine will, the rule of all excellence, approbation of an imaginary or fictitious estimation or righteousness. They, therefore, to whom the righteousness of Christ is imputed, are truly righteous, though not inherently, or by inherence, but imputatively, and by an extrinsic designation at least they are such, for even from that which is external a true designation may be derived. It is, therefore, an idle question, whether, on account of that imputation, we are really righteous, or are merely considered righteous. For the judgment of God is according to truth. Wherefore, he is truly just who, in the judgment of God, is regarded as just.”

[8] The Dogmaticians distinguish (Quen., III, 517): “The impulsive internal cause of our justification, which is the purely gratuitous grace of God (Rom. 3:24; 11:6; Eph. 2:8, 9; 2 Tim. 1:9; Tit. 3:4–6),” and the “impulsive, external, and meritorious cause, which is Christ the Mediator, by virtue of his active and passive obedience (Rom. 3:24; 2 Cor. 5:21),” (Br., 583). “The impulsive external cause does not annul the gratuitous favor of God, in the matter of justification, nor is it excluded from it; since, rather, the fact is due to divine grace, that God sent his Son to make satisfaction for us, so that we could be justified, and that he accepts this merit belonging to another as if it were our own.” Whence it appears in what sense it is said that the ground of justification is exterior to man. Mel. (Loc. c. Th., I, 179): “If they duly consider these (alarms, that accompany true penitence), they would know that thoroughly terrified minds seek consolation outside of themselves, and this consolation is the confidence with which the will acquiesces in the promise of mercy, granted for the sake of the Mediator.” Quen. (III, 525): “This imputation has a most firm foundation, not in man, who is justified, but without him, namely, in God himself, who imputes, and in Christ the Mediator, who earned the imputation by rendering satisfaction.” The contrary doctrine is that of the Roman Catholic Church, which, by justification, understands, “to make a righteous out of an unrighteous person.” According to this doctrine the ground of our salvation does not lie in the appropriation of the merit of Christ, but in our moral transformation. It is then said: “That, on account of which man is justified and constituted an heir of eternal life, is an infused habit of righteousness and love, or newness of life, or righteousness inherent in us, by which we observe the law.” (Quen., III, 540.) When The Romanists use the phrase, “the righteousness of Christ,” they employ it in a sense entirely different from that in which it is employed in the Lutheran Church; for, while in the latter the righteousness of Christ is understood to mean that righteousness which Christ, by obedience towards the Father, has secured for us, the Romanists understand by the phrase the moral perfection of Christ himself, the righteousness inherent in him. This, however, is carefully distinguished, by the Lutheran Dogmaticians, as the essential, from the other, the habitual and meritorious righteousness. Even the Lutheran divine, Andrew Osiander, understood by the righteousness of Christ his essential righteousness, and thus confounded justification and sanctification, like the Romanists. He says in his Conf. et Disp., A. D. 1549: “That the fulfilment of the law, effected by Christ, and obedience and remission of sins, prepare for righteousness, but the righteousness by which we are accounted righteous before God, is the divine nature of Christ entering into us by faith, and abiding in us, or the essential and eternal righteousness of God, which, dwelling in us, enables us to act righteously.” Hence the decision of the Form. Conc. (Sol. Dec., III, 55): “As in our churches it is considered beyond controversy by the divines of the Augsburg Confession, that all our righteousness is to be sought outside of ourselves and apart from the merits and works, virtues and dignity of men, and that it exists alone in our Lord Jesus Christ, it is carefully to be considered in what way, in the matter of justification, Christ is said to be our righteousness. For our righteousness does not consist in his divine nature (Osiander), nor in his human nature (Stancarus), but in his entire person, for he, as God and man, in his entire and most perfect obedience, is our righteousness.”

[9] Holl. (903): “The receptive means, or that on the part of the sinner which receives Christ’s merit, and the grace of God founded upon it, is faith.” Faith is thus, indeed, considered a cause, but an impulsive cause subordinate, or an instrumental cause, organic, and receptive; only in the sense, however, that by faith the merit of Christ, justifying grace, etc., must be received, and by no means in the other, that in faith there is an effective cause of justification. This is contained already in the general statement of the Apol. (II, 53, German): “Wherefore, whenever we speak of the faith that justifies, or of justifying faith, these three things always concur. First, the divine promise; second, that this offers grace gratuitously, without merit; third, that the blood and merit of Christ constitute the treasure through which sin is paid for. The promise is received through faith; the fact, moreover, that it offers grace without merit utterly excludes all our worthiness and merit, and exalts the great grace and mercy; and the merit of Christ is the treasure, for that must indeed be a treasure and noble security through which the sins of all the world are paid for.” More specifically, Form. Conc. (Sol. Dec., III, 13): “Faith does not justify because it is so good a work, so illustrious a virtue, but because it apprehends and embraces the merit of Christ in the promise of the Gospel.” Holl. (903): “Faith justifies not by itself, by its own dignity, or value, by moving God to justify the believer, but because, as an instrument or receptive means, it lays hold of the merit of Christ, in view of which and without the least detriment to his justice, God, of his mere grace, is moved to pardon and consider righteous the penitent sinner believing in Christ. For the energy or internal power of justifying faith is the receiving of Christ, of the grace of God based upon Christ, pardoning sin, offered in the Gospel promise, together with the remission of sins dependent on this, John 1:12; Rom. 5:17; Gal. 3:14; Acts 10:43. Faith receives the effects of Christ’s satisfaction, the remission of sins. From these sacred oracles we gather that faith is the receptive means by which the satisfaction of Christ, and the grace of God obtained by it, are received.” Quen. (III, 518) distinguishes, therefore, “between the causality of faith, which consists in apprehending and receiving, which is nothing else than an organic and instrumental one, and the ground of that causality, or justifying power, which pertains to faith not in itself and in its own nature, or in so far as it is an act of apprehension. It might appropriate its own merits, or imaginary merits, or human righteousness, and yet it would not in this way justify. It does not pertain to it from the generous estimation of God or his discharge of debt, as if God considered faith of so much value as to impart to it the dignity and power of justifying, but solely on account of the justifying object apprehended, or on account of the object, viz., so far as it apprehends the merit of Christ. Paul expressly mentions this, Rom. 3:25, to wit, that the entire justifying power of faith depends on the object apprehended. As, for example, when the hand of a hungry person takes the offered bread, that taking, as such, does not satisfy the man, for he might receive clay, or a stone, or other things, which could not satisfy him; but the entire satisfaction depends on the object apprehended and eaten, namely, the bread. So the man hungering for righteousness, Matt. 5:6, apprehends indeed by faith, or with the beggar’s hand, the bread that comes from heaven. John 6:50, 51; but the apprehending, as such, does not drive away spiritual hunger; but the entire effect of the apprehension depends upon the object apprehended by faith, that is, the redemption and the blood of Jesus Christ.”

[10] Form. Conc. (Sol. Dec., III, 32): “It is properly said that believers, who are justified by faith in Christ, in this life at first obtain indeed an imputed righteousness of faith, but then also they have an incipient righteousness of new obedience or of good works. But these two things are not to be confounded or intermingled in the doctrine of justification by faith in the sight of God.” Chmn. (Ex. c. Trid., I, 233): “It is certain that the blessing bestowed through the Son of God is twofold, namely, forgiveness of sins and renovation in which the Holy Spirit enkindles new virtues in believers. For Christ by his passion merited for us not only the remission of sins, but, in addition, this also, that, on account of his merit, the Holy Spirit is given to us that we may be renewed in the spirit of our mind. These benefits of the Son of God we say are so united, that when we are reconciled, at the same time the spirit of renovation is also given us. But we do not on this account confound them, but distinguish them, so as to give to each its place, order, and character, as we have learned from the Scriptures, that reconciliation or remission of sins goes before, and that the beginning of love or of new obedience follows. But especially that faith concludes that it has a reconciled God and the forgiveness of sins, not on account of the subsequent and commenced renovation, but on account of the Son of God the Mediator.”

[11] Form. Conc. (Sol. Dec., III, 27): “It is necessary that a person should be righteous before he can perform good works.” Ap. Conf. (II, 36): “It is very foolishly asserted by adversaries, that men, deserving of eternal wrath, merit the pardon of sin by an act of love which they put forth, since it is impossible to love God unless beforehand the pardon of sins has been apprehended by faith. For the heart truly perceiving God to be angry, cannot love him unless he is shown to be appeased; human nature cannot raise itself to the love of an angry, condemning and punishing God, while he terrifies and seems to cast us into eternal death. It is easy for the indolent to fancy these dreams of love, that one guilty of mortal sin can love God above all things, because they do not perceive what the anger or judgment of God is; but, in the agony and stings of conscience, the conscience itself perceives the vanity of these philosophical speculations.”

[12] Chmn. (Ex. c. Trid., I, 234): “This is the principal question, this the point, this the matter to be decided; what that is, on account of which God receives the sinner into favor; what can and ought to be opposed to the judgment of God, that we may not be condemned according to the rigid sentence of the law; what faith ought to seize and present, on what to depend, when it desires to treat with God that it may be pardoned; what should intervene for which God may become appeased and propitious to the sinner who has merited wrath and eternal damnation; what conscience should determine that to be, on account of which adoption is granted us, which affords a sure ground of confidence that we shall be received to eternal life; whether it be the satisfaction, obedience, and merit of the Son of God, the Mediator, or the renovation commenced in us, love, and the other virtues.”

[13] Mel. (I, 192): “As it is of much importance that this exclusive particle (gratis) should be properly understood, I will explain the four reasons on account of which it is necessary to retain and defend it: (1) That due honor be ascribed to Christ; (2) that conscience may retain a sure and firm consolation (if this exclusive particle be ignored, doubt is strengthened, to wit, if you suppose that there is no pardon unless you have a contrition or a love sufficiently worthy, doubt will adhere, which produces at one time contempt of God, at another hatred and despair); (3) that true prayer may be offered; (4) that the difference between the Law and the Gospel may be seen.”

[14] Form. Conc. (Sol. Dec., III, 36): “Paul means this when he urges with so much diligence and zeal in the matter of justification by faith, the exclusive particles by which works are excluded from it, such as these, ‘without works,’ ‘without the law,’ ‘without merit,’ ‘by grace alone,’ ‘gratis,’ ‘not of works.’ But all these exclusives are embraced in these words, when we teach, ‘we are justified before God, and saved, by faith alone.’ For in this way our works are excluded, not indeed in the sense that true faith can exist without contrition, or as if good works did not necessarily follow true faith (as its most certain fruits); or, as if believers in Christ ought not to perform them; but works are excluded from the doctrine of justification before God, lest they may be introduced and mixed in the matter of the justification of the sinner before God, as if necessary and absolutely pertaining to it. This is the true meaning of the exclusive particles in the doctrine of justification, which must be firmly and sedulously retained and urged in its discussion.” Chmn. (Loc. Th., II, 283): “Should the inquiry be made why we contend so strenuously for the particle ‘alone,’ and are not rather contented with those exclusive particles which are contained in the Scriptures (the terms ‘by grace, freely, without works, imputation’), the reasons are weighty and true. For as the Church, in all its periods, has used freely some modes of speaking that things might be most plainly propounded, explained, defended, and retained against the various artifices of enemies; so, in the article of justification, we give a prominent place to the exclusive particles of Paul. If it be asked for what purpose and on what account we have adopted and desire to retain the particle ‘alone’ we answer, the reasons are true and weighty. This particle ‘alone’ embraces at once, and that very significantly, all the exclusive particles which the Scriptures use.”

In order to specify very particularly the sense in which the phrase “we are justified by faith alone” is used, and to guard against misunderstandings, the Dogmaticians append a number of explanations, from which we select the following. Quen. (III, 552 seq.): “(1) We do not here speak of the energy (ἐνεργεία) of faith, or of the operation of justifying faith, which manifests itself in various acts of virtues, as love, hope, etc.; but of the operation which is peculiar to it, native and singular, and is entirely incommunicable to all other moral excellencies, namely, the apprehension and application of the merit of Christ. (2) The exclusive particle ‘alone’ does not exclude different kinds of causes, but subordinates them. For it is not opposed (a) to the grace of God, the principal efficient cause of justification; (b) not to the merit of Christ; (c) nor to the Word and Sacraments, which are the instrumental causes of our justification, on the part of God offering and granting, but to our works, for it is they that are excluded by this proposition, so that the proposition, faith alone justifies, is equivalent to this, faith without works justifies. (3) Distinguish between the exclusion of works with respect to their actual presence, and with respect to the communication of efficiency. Works are excluded not from being present, but from the communication of efficiency; not that they are not present to faith and the justified, but that they have no energy or causation in connection with faith in the justification of man. (4) Distinguish between faith considered in respect to justification itself, and then it is only the instrument apprehending the merit of Christ, and it alone justifies; and considered in the person justified, or after justification, and thus it is never alone, but always attended with other graces; indeed, it is the root and beginning of them all. (5) Distinguish between faith alone and a solitary faith. Faith alone justifies; that is, it is the only organ by which we lay hold of the righteousness of Christ and apply it to ourselves, but it never exists alone, or is solitary; that is, detached and separated from the other virtues, because true faith is always living, not dead; therefore it has good works present with itself as its proper effect.”

[15] The most correct and common expression is, “we are justified by faith; that is, through faith.” Synonymous in import are the expressions, “we are justified by grace, by the merit, by the obedience of Christ.” (Comp. Form. Conc., Sol. Dec., III, 9 and 12.) If the expression be used, “faith alone justifies,” to avoid all misunderstanding, this is explained as follows. Musæus (in Holl.): “When it is said concerning faith, in the nominative case, that it justifies, the language seems to be figurative. The meaning is not that faith absolves a man from sins and accounts him righteous; but faith is said to justify, because God, in view of it, regards us righteous, or because faith (not by its own, but by the worth of Christ’s merit) moves God to justify us.” Holl. (ib.). “Osiander justly remarks: ‘If we wish to speak accurately and according to Scripture, it must be said that God alone justifies (for it is an act of God alone); but by faith man is justified.’ For faith of itself does not justify, because it is merely apprehensive. The mode of speaking, because it has become so common to say, faith alone justifies, can be retained, if the phrase be properly explained in accordance with Scripture usage.”

[16] Form. Conc. (Sol. Dec., III, 6): “This article in regard to the righteousness of faith is the chief one in the entire Christian doctrine, without which distressed consciences can have no true and firm consolation, or rightly appreciate the riches of Christ’s grace. This is also confirmed by the testimony of Luther, when he says, if this one article remains uncorrupted the Christian Church will remain uncorrupted, in harmony and without party divisions; but if it is corrupted, it is impossible successfully to oppose a single error or a fanatical spirit.”

Chmn. (Loc. Th., II, 216): “This one point mainly distinguishes the Church from all nations and superstitions, as Augustine says: ‘The Church distinguishes the just from the unjust, not by the law of works but by the law of faith.’ Yea, this article is, as it were, the citadel and chief bulwark of the entire Christian doctrine and religion, which being either obscured, or adulterated, or subverted, it is impossible to retain the purity of the doctrine in other points. But, this doctrine remaining untouched, all idolatries, superstitions, and perversions in all the other doctrines destroy themselves.”

[17] The later theologians add further: “The effects and properties of justification.” As effects, Quen. (III, 526) enumerates: “(1) our mystical union with God, John 15:4–6, 14, 23; Gal. 2:19, 20; 3:27; Eph. 3:17; (2) adoption as sons of God, John 1:12; Rom. 8:14; (3) peace of conscience, Rom. 5:1; (4) certain hearing of prayer, Rom. 8:32; James 1:5–7; (5) sanctification, Rom. 6:12; (6) eternal salvation, Rom. 4:7, 8.” As properties: “(1) Immediate efficacy, for it is not gradual and successive, as renovation, but in a moment, an instant, simultaneously and at once. (2) Perfection, because all sins are perfectly pardoned, so that there is need of no satisfaction of our own, 1 John 1:7; Rom. 8:1; Heb. 10:14. (3) Identity in the mode of justification, in respect to all that are to be saved. A common salvation of all presupposes a common faith and a common and the same mode of justification. Acts 4:12; 15:11; Rom. 3:22–26. (4) Assurance in us, not conjectural, but infallible and divine. Rom. 8:25, 38, 39; 5:1, 2; Eph. 3:12; 1 John 3:14. (5) Growth, not as to the act which is instantaneous, but in regard to faith and the consciousness of justification. 2 Cor. 10:15; Col. 1:10; 2 Pet. 3:18; Eph. 4:14, 15; (6) Constant continuance. For as the forgiveness of sins, so also our justification is renewed daily, and not only in the first beginning, but faith daily is imputed to the believer for righteousness, and thus our justification is continuous, Rev. 22:11; (7) Amissibility, Ez. 18:24; Heb. 6:5, 6; John 15:2; (8) Recoverableness, John 6:37; Rom. 5:20. The prodigal son is an example, Luke 15.”^{^[2]}

Sanctification Through Faith

1. The word “sanctification” is sometimes used in a wider sense, as in 2 Thess. 2:13: “God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth.” The term here comprehends the entire work of the Holy Ghost, by which He leads the sinner unto eternal life. However, it is also used in a narrower sense, as in 1 Thess. 4:3: “This is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication” etc. Here the term evidently refers only to that part or phase of the Spirit’s work, by which He incites and directs believers to lead a godly life.

As pointed out above, we properly distinguish between the justifying and the sanctifying power of faith. It is the latter of which we speak now.

2. Sanctification in detail.—(a) Renewal of the heart.—Sanctification of life begins in the heart. By nature man is carnally minded, and an enemy of God (Rom. 8:7). But by faith he appreciates and accepts the blessings of God’s grace. Thus there is created in his heart a gratitude and a love of God. “We love Him, because He first loved us” (1 John 4:19). His attitude toward God is changed.

This change of heart from enmity to love brings about also a change of mind with respect to the things of life. The believer’s view of life and his estimate of earthly things is changed (Phil. 3:7. 8), and his affection is set on things above (Col. 3:2). Because the believer loves God, his mind is no longer set on the works of the flesh, which God abhors, but on the things of the Spirit, which are pleasing to God (Rom. 8:5). What he loved before, he now hates; what he hated before, he now loves. Because of the mercies he received from his God, he will not be conformed to the world, but be transformed by the renewing of his mind to prove what is the good and acceptable will of God (Rom. 12:2). Thus the moral attitude of man is radically changed; morally he has become a new creature (2 Cor. 5:17). This inward change and renewal is the essence of sanctification.

As all sins proceed from the heart (Matt. 15:19), so does the reformation of life make its beginning there. Compulsory laws and rules may somewhat change the outward conduct of man, but it is the sanctifying power of faith in Christ that truly reforms the evildoer, and renews the image of God in his life (Eph. 4:24).

(b) Struggle against sin.—Such change of heart will inevitably induce the believer to struggle against the wicked promptings of his flesh, in which dwelleth no good thing (Rom. 7:18). He will not willingly yield to, and obey, the lusts thereof (Rom. 6:12); but he will endeavor to subdue and suppress them. “They that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts” (Gal. 5:24). He will change his former manner of life, the “vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers,” by putting off the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts (Eph. 4:22). By daily contrition and repentance the old Adam in the believers is to be drowned, and evil desires are to be resisted and suppressed.

But the believer will resist also temptations that approach him from without. His faith enables him to overcome the allurements of the world (1 John 5:4. 5; 1 Pet. 4:2), and to stand against the wiles of the devil (Eph. 6:10–13; 1 Pet. 5:8. 9). While before there was in him no power to resist, but rather a strong inclination to yield to every evil temptation (Gen. 8:21), there is in him now a new power, a new will, that struggles against Satan, the world, and the flesh.

(c) Good works.—This change of heart manifests itself also in a positive way. The believer will bring forth fruit meet for repentance (Matt. 3:8); his faith works by love (Gal. 5:6); he will be zealous of good works (Tit. 2:14). He is like “a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season” (Ps. 1:3). His faith is a light that continually sends forth rays of good works (Matt. 5:16); it is a vital energy, always active in doing what is pleasing to God.

Luther writes in the Preface to St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans: “Thus faith is a divine work in us, that changes and regenerates us of God, and puts to death the old Adam, makes us entirely different men in heart, spirit, mind, and all powers, and brings with it the Holy Ghost. Oh, it is a living, busy, active, powerful thing that we have in faith, so that it is impossible for it not to do good without ceasing. Nor does it ask whether good works are to be done; but before the question is asked, it has wrought them, and is always engaged in doing them” (F.C., Th. D., Art. IV, 10, Triglot, p. 941).

3. True faith always sanctifies.—As a light sends forth rays from the moment it begins to burn until it is extinguished, so the sanctification of life begins the very moment faith is kindled in the heart, and it continues as long as the light of faith burns. There can be no true faith in the heart without having some effect on the life of a person, for faith always works by love (Gal. 5:6). Where there is faith in the heart, there is sanctification in the life. The lives Christians lead before men are the outward evidence of their faith in God. “Faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone … Shew me thy faith without thy works” (which is impossible), “and I will shew thee my faith by my works” (James 2:17. 18). When faith dies, sanctification of life ceases; even though the outward form of godliness may continue, its strength and essence are gone (2 Tim. 3:5).

4. Sanctification varies.—The sanctifying power of faith (not its justifying power) varies according to the strength or the weakness of faith. The weak faith succumbs to temptation more easily than the strong faith, is less productive of good works, and gives way to fear and doubt in face of danger (Matt. 14:29–31). The fluctuations of faith are reflected in the life of a person. For this reason the holiness of life is not the same in all believers; not even in the same person does it continue on the same level. Not all Christians are equally zealous and fruitful of good works. As faith weakens, love waxes cold, and good works decrease in number and quality. To achieve a greater sanctification of life, there must be a stronger faith and a deeper appreciation of the goodness or God. Hence, it must be our constant effort to continue and to grow in the faith, so that we may grow also in holiness of life; “to be strengthened with might by His Spirit in the inner man” (Eph. 3:16). Growing in faith, we shall abound also in charity toward each other (2 Thess. 1:3).

5. Sanctification is never perfect.—Let no one imagine that it is possible for him to become perfect in his life. Paul confesses: “Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect, but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus” (Phil. 3:12). Christ apprehended Paul that he should become perfect, and Paul strives to attain this end; but he admits that he has not yet succeeded. Isaiah admits that even “our right-eousnesses are as filthy rags” (Is. 64:6). “For our best works, even after the grace of the Gospel has been received, are still weak and not at all pure” (Apol., Art. III, 42, Triglot, p. 169).—The reason why no believer can become perfect in his life is that besides the new man, which is faith in its sanctifying function, he still has the old Adam, the flesh, original sin, which is by no means eradicated from his nature, but clings to him unto death (Rom. 7:14–24), which continually lusts against the Spirit (Gal. 5:17), and contaminates even the good works that proceed from faith. But while a Christian must admit imperfection in his best endeavors, he will, nevertheless, “follow after,” earnestly strive for perfection, “to cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God” (2 Cor. 7:1). Hence, sanctification is progressive, but never perfect in this life.

6. Sanctification of life not optional.—(a) “This is the will of God, even your sanctification” (1 Thess. 4:3). We sometimes forget this, and are concerned only about our final salvation in heaven; we are anxious to live with Christ in the kingdom of glory, but are not always so eager to live under Him in His kingdom of grace. (b) However, Christ redeemed us that also in this life we should live under Him in righteousness and true holiness (2 Cor. 5:15; Luke 1:74. 75). (c) Also for this purpose the Holy Ghost has converted us. “We are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them” (Eph. 2:10). Therefore we should follow holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord (Hebr. 12:14), abound in every good work (2 Cor. 9:8), and not be weary in well doing (Gal. 6:9).

7. Sanctification of life has no saving power.—While the new life we lead is, indeed, a “living sacrifice, holy and acceptable unto God” (Rom. 12:1), it is by no means a sacrifice by which we atone for past transgressions, and on account of which God declares us just. It is rather a sacrifice of thanksgiving for the mercies received, and it is not offered in expectation of a reward. A life lived and a work done in expectation of reward cease to be fruits of faith and love. God, indeed, promises to reward faithful service (Matt. 5:12; Luke 14:14; Gal. 6:9); still, such service must not be rendered because, and in expectation, of such reward, but because, and in recognition, of the numerous blessings we have gratuitously received from His hands. A holy life can never proceed from a mercenary motive, but from love. Sanctification of life, therefore, can never be the cause of our justification before God, but it is the result and consequence thereof. For this reason sanctification of life can never be properly taught independent of, and separated from, justification. Our Lutheran Confessions reject as false “that man, after he has been born again, can perfectly observe and completely fulfill God’s Law, and that this fulfilling is our righteousness before God, by which we merit eternal life” (F.C., Epit., Art. II, 12, Triglot, p. 789).

8. The causes of sanctification.—(a) The principal efficient cause of our sanctification is the Triune God. “The very God of peace sanctify you wholly” (1 Thess. 5:23). “It is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of His good pleasure” (Phil. 2:13). More especially this work is ascribed to the Holy Ghost, who prompts and induces us to mortify the flesh (Rom. 8:13. 14), renews us (Tit. 3:5), and brings forth good fruits (Gal. 5:22. 23).

To do this, the Holy Ghost employs means. Since it is faith that worketh by love, it is necessary that this faith be continually stimulated and strengthened, which is done by means of the Gospel. But while the Holy Ghost uses the Gospel to energize our faith, and to make us able and willing to serve God in our lives, He uses the Law to direct us as to what God would have us do (Rom. 12:1. 2; Ps. 119:9).

“For the Law says indeed that it is God’s will and command that we should walk in a new life, but it does not give us the power and ability to begin and do it; but the Holy Ghost, who is given and received, not through the Law, but through the preaching of the Gospel, Gal. 3:14, renews the heart. Thereafter the Holy Ghost employs the Law so as to teach the regenerate from it, and to point out and show them in the Ten Commandments what is the good and acceptable will of God, Rom. 12:2, in what works God hath before ordained that they should walk, Eph. 2:10” (F.C., Th. D., Art. VI, 11. 12, Triglot, p. 965).

(b) The secondary cooperating cause is man. While in his conversion man is purely passive (he does not convert himself, but is converted), he concurs in the work of his sanctification, cooperating with the Holy Ghost by virtue of the spiritual powers bestowed upon him. In leading holy lives and in doing good works Christians are not automata, but they are consciously active. It is man that suppresses evil desires, resists temptation, wills and does what is pleasing to God; but behind all this is the energizing, prompting, directing power of the Holy Ghost (Phil. 2:13).

“As soon as the Holy Ghost through the Word and Sacraments has begun in us His work of regeneration and renewal, it is certain that through the power of the Holy Ghost we can and should cooperate, although in great weakness. But this does not occur from our carnal natural powers, but from the new powers and gifts which the Holy Ghost has begun in us in our conversion, as Paul expressly and earnestly exhorts that we as workers together with Him receive not the grace of God in vain, 2 Cor. 6:1. But this is to be understood in no other way than that the converted man does good to such an extent and so long as God by His Spirit rules, guides, and leads him, and as soon as God withdraws His gracious hand from him, he could not for a moment persevere in obedience to God. But if this were understood thus that the converted man cooperates with the Holy Ghost in the manner as when two horses together draw a wagon, this could in no way be conceded without prejudice to the divine truth” (F.C., Th. D., Art. II, 65. 66, Triglot, p. 907).^{^[3]}

sanctification

Sanctification, sometimes called renovation, is technically employed to express the continuation of the divine work begun in regeneration, whereby the power of the new life is steadily increased and depravity and sin are more and more overcome in both heart and life (1 Thess. 4:3; 5:23; 1 Cor. 1:30; Col. 2:6; 2 Cor. 7:1).

1. Some distinctions are to be noted: (1) It is distinguished from justification, (a) in that justification is objective, an act of God without us, pardoning and counting us righteous, while sanctification is a work wrought within us. The first absolves from the guilt of sin; this cleanses from sin itself. (b) Justification is complete at once, while sanctification is a progressive work, and never reaches a point in this life beyond which there is no room or demand for improvement (Rom. 7:22–24; Phil. 3:10–14). (2) It is to be distinguished from regeneration, in that while regeneration conveys the power and reality of the new life, this is a progressive increase of actual holiness day by day, to its completion in the “eternal life.” (3) It differs from both justification and regeneration, in that while these are wholly and purely God’s work, sanctification involves man’s own concurrence and co-operation. It includes, as plainly meant, a real synergism—that the true believer must “work out” into manifest fruitage of holy living and righteous, loving character, the possibilities which grace has put into the whole redemptive provision (Phil. 2:12–13). The new life, divinely inaugurated, must be actually and actively lived, into personal victory over evil and into goodness, if salvation is to be consummated. The justified and regenerate man becomes a “co-laborer with God” (1 Cor. 3:9; Rom. 2:7), a secondary cause subordinated and enabled by God, so that he may not only renew himself daily by the power received from above, but instrumentally co-operate in the progress of the Redeemer’s kingdom.

2. Though important to make and maintain these distinctions for the sake of theological exactness in definition, according to real peculiarities and relations, it is equally so to note and remember that they cohere in a unity that is inseparable. They cannot be separated in normal Christian experience, so that we may have one without the others. The theological tendency to trace out differences and distinctions in the parts which constitute the process of actualizing personal salvation is in danger of obscuring their essential unity or organic integration. What to some may seem pedantic distinctions must necessarily be made and maintained, but the certainty of the distinctions must be attended with even greater emphasis upon their indispensable co-action in the life of Christian experience. Regeneration must appear in that experience, if one is really “justified” through the faith whose very principle is spiritually vitalizing—the reception of Christ into his heart and life. It is not “justifying faith” if it be “dead” or non-vitalizing. So sanctification must follow regeneration—the advance of the given life, in more or less distinct measure, being the indispensable condition and indeed the very reality of the saving force and movement. It is the law of “life” to advance in the direction of its own governing principle. The normal Christian life must therefore progress—exhibit its adaptation to consummate in recovered holiness. The reality of justification marks not only the beginning of grace, but also the principle of the further grace of the new life—actually giving that life in initial movement which sanctification is to carry forward to completion. But never, to the end of his earthly life, is man’s “justification” other than at first, i. e., forgiveness and acceptance on account of Christ’s propitiation and imputed righteousness. For he is never “justified” on the ground of his own sinlessness. And the “regenerate state” into which he comes through justification and the Spirit’s quickening, as it is only a progressive reaching of the new life, must be carried forward by sanctification, in which God, through the believer’s own co-operation, consummates the complete salvation from sin and restored holiness. Sanctification is, in truth, only the co-operative stage of the regenerating movement on to its completion. Both justification and regeneration continue and move forward through sanctification to the final salvation. The distinctive forms of work, therefore, which enter successively into the movement of personal salvation, present a unity upon which the success of the whole saving effort depends. Only in the real progression of Christ “for” us in justification into Christ “in” us of regeneration and advancing sanctification, is Christ made in final realization the power of “an eternal life.” Only thus is the principle or law of holiness, righteousness, and love restored to the life of the human soul, expressed as the writing of the law in the heart of man. Antinomianism, which resolves the process of salvation into repeal or lowering of the standard of moral law or ethical excellence, has no place in the theology of the Scriptures or in the Christian life. “The law is holy, just, and good.” Redemption is the divine movement for overthrow of moral evil, Love’s triumph for the supremacy of ethical law (Matt 5:17–48; Rom. 3:31; 8:3–4).

3. Its efficient cause. (a) Its total aim is effectuated in the saving work of the Trinity (1 Thess. 5:23). (b) The work of Christ enters as a power and provision for its accomplishment (1 Cor. 1:30). (c) Especially the Holy Spirit as applying the redemption provided in God’s grace and truth (John 14:16–17; Rom. 15:16; 2 Cor. 3:18; Tit. 3:5; Gal. 5:22).

4. Its instrumental cause. It is not effected directly, but through appointed means, the word and sacraments (John 17:17; Eph. 5:26).

5. Though progressive, it is never perfect in this life (Phil. 3:12–14; 1 John 1:8–10). It nevertheless forms the completing process in the spiritual recovery of the soul, and in its consummation makes the ransomed “meet for the inheritance of the saints in light” (Eph. 5:26; 1 Thess. 5:23).

The Mystical Union

As involved in God’s gaining entrance thus, through His truth and Holy Spirit, into the human mind, effecting spiritual renewal and purification, there is formed a peculiar, vital relation that has been not inaptly designated the Mystical Union. This is not to be confounded with what is historically known as “Mysticism,” which in its different types is allied with pantheism or breaks with the evangelical teaching of redemption.¹ But the Mystical Union takes account of the evangelical reality which Mysticism failed to apprehend, and in whose place it wove its transcendent and pantheistic dreams and pieties. We must clearly discriminate this deep and essential reality from the theological musings of historical mysticism.

The chief Scriptures asserting it are the following: John 14:23; 15:1–7; 1 Cor. 3:16–17; Gal. 2:20; Eph. 5:30. The natural and necessary interpretation of these Scriptures, in the light of the divine working through the word and Spirit in the mind and heart of believers, justifies us in affirming of this union: (1) It is not simply the common immanent presence of God, by virtue of which He is in everything, according to the truth: “In Him we live and move and have our being” (Acts 17:28). This divine immanence in all nature, whatever it may be, is not itself the redemptory benediction promised in the gospel as the saving indwelling and working. (2) It is not a mere figure of speech, a word of ideal stimulation, but most true and real. (3) It is not a making into one substance or essence the essences of God and of the believer, or a realization of any pantheistic idcalism. It stands apart from all the forms of varied monistic unifications of God and man in the theosophic philosophies of our day. (4) But it is the special presence, or indwelling, which God, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, gives to the believer, by which He really abides in him, accomplishing within him the work of grace, comfort, joy, and purification. It is St. Paul’s experienced reality: “I live, yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God who loved me and gave Himself for me” (Gal. 2:20); and the fulfillment of the promise: “If a man love Me, he will keep My words, and My Father will love him, and we will come unto him and make our abode with him” (John 14:23). Sartorius well expresses it: “God dwells, Christ dwells, in man, and man in Him by love, not as though any mingling or identification of the Divine and human natures took place, for this would not be love, whose essence consists always in the union of the distinct; they remain diverse and essentially different as the created and the uncreated, and yet are made like and united in the fervor of love and its return. It is not from afar, but as indwelliug (immanent) that the Holy Spirit of the Father and the Son bears witness to our spirit that we are the children of God.”¹

Viewing thus the gospel of salvation in its whole aim and mode, in its redemptory provision and applicatory process, it is luminously clear in divine adaptations, both as an impressive and touching appeal of self-sacrificing Love, and as an exact correspondence to the constitutional faculties of the human race, for the recovery of free personalities from the error and bondage of sin into which they had lapsed. Its appeal and means, if rightly traced, are found to reveal the perfect philosophy of Absolute Wisdom and Goodness, forming a distinct and impressive seal of its divinity.^{^[4]}

The Relation of Justification to Sanctification

The teaching of Scripture and of Scriptural theology on the relation between justification or faith and sanctification and good works may be epitomized in these two statements: 1. There is an inseparable connection (nexus indivulsus) between justification and sanctification; where there is justification, there is in every case also sanctification. 2. But in this nexus indivulsus the cart must not be placed before the horse, that is, sanctification must not be placed before justification, but must be left in its proper place as the consequence and effect of justification. Thus the Formula of Concord: “This should not be understood as though justification and renewal were sundered from one another in such a manner that a genuine faith sometimes could exist and continue for a time together with a wicked intention, but hereby only the order (of cause and effects, of antecedents and consequents) is indicated, how one precedes or succeeds the other. For what Luther has correctly said remains true nevertheless: Faith and good works well agree and fit together (are inseparably connected); but it is faith alone, without works, which lays hold of the blessing; and yet it is never and at no time alone.” (Trigl. 929, Sol. Decl., II, 41.)

In view of the great importance of these two points and the strong opposition which is raised against them today, the matter will have to be presented in greater detail. The two points were at issue, too, in the controversies of the Lutheran Church of the sixteenth century against Antinomianism and Majorism. On the one hand, the nexus indivulsus between faith and good works had to be maintained, and, on the other hand, the inversion of the proper order of faith and good works had to be rejected.

I. As to the nexus indivulsus, Scripture teaches that wherever the Holy Ghost works faith in the Gospel in a man, He immediately works also sanctification and good works in that same man through that faith.⁸ Though justification precedes sanctification ordine causarum et effectuum, they both take place at the same time.⁹ It is therefore correct to say that where there is no sanctification, there is also no faith.

There are all sorts of men who have no use for this nexus indivulsus. There are the theologians of the “critical school” who shake their heads when they see how the Apostle Paul intimately connects the inner moral transformation, the iustitia inhaerens, with the actus forensis of justification, the iustitia imputata. They say that such a connection is inconceivable. They insist that the Apostle inadvertently mixed up “two streams of thought,” the Jewish and the Hellenistic, which are really incompatible. (See Vol. II, p. 410 ff.) There are also modern “positive” theologians who declare that the iustitia fidei imputata could never produce sanctification; in order to produce sanctification, justifying faith itself must be taken not merely as instrumental, but as an “ethical act” or as the “germ” of sanctification. Furthermore, it must be admitted that even the Christians who in theory maintain the inseparable connection between justification and sanctification are ever in danger, because of their flesh, of forgetting this connection in practice.

But Scripture strongly emphasizes the fact that sanctification is indissolubly connected with justification. We may not be able to explain fully the “psychological connection” between these two occurrences, but the fact that they are closely connected is clearly stated in Scripture. In Rom. 3:21 to the end of chapter five the Apostle sets forth that justification is an actus forensis, nothing but the judicial verdict of innocence,¹⁰ so much so that he places the faith which justifies in opposition to every moral quality in man (Rom. 4:5; 3:28; Gal. 2:16; Phil. 3:9). In Rom. 6:1 Paul at once brings up the question whether in view of such a justification a life in sin is possible; and he answers that they who are justified can self-evidently no longer live in sin, since they have died to sin. In 6:2–11 he presents this state of affairs as an established, indisputable fact and closes with this summary in v. 11: “Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ, our Lord.” The thought that justified men could still serve sin and not live unto God would be as absurd as if we assumed that men who have departed this life and are in their graves are still participating in earthly activities. The Apostle certainly teaches that there is an indissoluble connection between sanctification, or the iustitia inhaerens, and justification, the mere imputation of righteousness.¹¹

And then there is a “psychological connection” between justification and sanctification. Why should Pfleiderer, Holtzmann, and others declare this matter to be inconceivable? They will admit that the intercourse of men is regulated by the law of psychology that love begets love. Now, God loves man with a wondrously great love. “God so (οὕτως) loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son” (John 3:16). “Herein (ἐν τούτῳ) is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins” (1 John 4:10). “God commendeth [συνίστησι, proves] His love towards us in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us” (Rom. 5:8). Convince a man of this wondrously great love of God for him, and he cannot help loving God in return and avoiding sin for the sake of his love to God. And God knows how to convince and assure man of His great love. He does not appeal to the natural powers of man, for the natural man will not believe in this love, but regards it as foolishness (1 Cor. 2:14; 1:23). Nor does He try to demonstrate His love by the persuasive words of man’s wisdom (1 Cor. 2:4). But He simply presents this great love as a fact, and by this preaching of the Gospel the Holy Ghost creates faith in the love of God. Rom. 10:17: “Faith cometh by hearing.” (John 16:14; 1 Cor. 2:5.) And when this faith in the Gospel, faith in the love of God in Christ, has been kindled in man’s heart, he will, as a matter of course, love God and hate sin. Thus there is a “psychological connection” between justification and sanctification. They no longer form “two heterogeneous strata of dogmatic construction.”

In Paul’s own case everything was psychologically correct as to the indissoluble connection between justification and sanctification. “The life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me” (Gal. 2:20). Nor did the Christians find that they were supposed to act “unpsychologically” when they declared with John: “We love Him because He first loved us” (1 John 4:19) and with Paul: “He died for all that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto Him which died for them and rose again” (2 Cor. 5:15). It is the experience of all Christians that the more certain they are of God’s grace and of their heavenly inheritance, the more ready are they to serve God and to set their affection on things above. “I will run the way of Thy Commandments when Thou shalt enlarge my heart” (Ps. 119:32). Also love of the neighbor flows psychologically from faith in the love of God. “Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another” (1 John 4:11), and: “Walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us and hath given Himself for us an Offering and a Sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling savor” (Eph. 5:2). Thus the love of God and of the neighbor, in other words, the fulfillment of the Law (Matt. 22:34–39; Rom. 15:8–10), is connected by a nexus indivulsus with justifying faith in a spiritual and yet most natural manner. Justification and sanctification are certainly not two heterogeneous “streams of thought” which run side by side without blending, but they clearly and certainly are “psychologically connected.”

The moderns are right from their standpoint in ruling out faith as the cause of sanctification. The faith which they have in mind is wholly or in part the product of man, the result of man’s self-decision or the product of scientific demonstration. Such a faith is an impotent thing. Like all the works of man’s hands, it must fail. In the words of Luther: “As it [fides acquisita] is a human fiction and a dream, causing no real change of the heart, so it also accomplishes nothing and is followed by no improvement” (St. L. XIV:99). But the faith which is kindled by the Holy Ghost without any human co-operation, which amidst the terrors of conscience “assents to the promise of God, in which, for Christ’s sake, the remission of sins and justification are freely offered” (Trigl. 135, Apol., IV, 48), is virile and dynamic. This faith produces sanctification and good works. The Apology presents this psychologically: “This special faith, by which an individual believes that for Christ’s sake his sins are remitted him, and that for Christ’s sake God is reconciled and propitious, obtains remission of sins and justifies us. And because in repentance, i.e., in terrors, it comforts and encourages hearts, it regenerates us and brings the Holy Ghost, that then we may be able to fulfill God’s Law, namely, to love God, truly to fear God, truly to be confident that God hears prayer and to obey God in all afflictions; it mortifies concupiscence, etc.” (Trigl. 133, IV, 45.) Luther describes the power of the divinely wrought faith thus: “Faith is a divine work in us that changes us and regenerates us of God (John 1:13) and puts to death the old Adam and makes us entirely different men in heart, spirit, mind, and all powers and brings with it the Holy Ghost. Oh, it is a living, busy, active, powerful thing that we have in faith so that it is impossible for it not to do good without ceasing. Nor does it ask whether good works are to be done, but before the question is asked, it has wrought them and is always engaged in doing them.… Faith is a living, bold trust in God’s grace, so certain that a man would die a thousand times for it. And this trust and knowledge of divine grace renders joyful, fearless, and cheerful towards God and all creatures, which [joy or cheerfulness] the Holy Ghost works through faith. And on account of this, man becomes ready and cheerful, without coercion, to do good to everyone, to serve everyone, and to suffer everything for love and praise to God, who has conferred this grace on him, so that it is impossible to separate works from faith, yea, just as impossible as it is for heat and light to be separated from fire.” (St. L. XIV:99 f. Trigl. 941, F. C., Sol. Decl., IV, 10 ff.)

When Scripture states that faith works sanctification (Gal. 5:6: “Faith which worketh by love”) and, in other passages, that the Holy Ghost works sanctification (Rom. 8:9), it presents the truth that the Holy Ghost, as the efficient cause of sanctification, works through faith as His instrumentum. Through faith in the grace of God, in the remission of sins for Christ’s sake, He inscribes the love of God and all Christian virtues, i.e., the entire Law of God, into the heart (Gal. 2:20). Viewed also from this angle, the inseparable connection between justification and sanctification is clearly seen.

Again, Scripture states that faith is wrought by the Holy Ghost (1 Cor. 2:4–5) and, in other passages, that only by faith we can receive the Holy Ghost. Gal. 3:2, 5: “Received ye the Holy Ghost by the works of the Law or by the hearing of faith?” In the first instance the Holy Ghost is represented as approaching man from without with the Word of the Gospel and creating faith through the Word. In the latter instance He is represented as having already made His abode in man’s heart. That is to say, when the Holy Ghost has created faith in the heart He does not cease working, but through faith He continues His work in the heart; from within He sustains man’s faith in justification and by sustaining his faith promotes sanctification as the fruit of faith. In these various ways Scripture teaches the nexus indivulsus between justification and sanctification, between faith and good works.

II. Now as to the second point. Justification and sanctification cannot be separated; however, last things must not be put first. Sanctification must not be placed before justification. Sanctification is the consequens, never the antecedens, of justification.

The natural man protests against this divine order. According to his conception of religion, works must be placed before justification—the cart must be placed before the horse. That is the belief of all pagans (Acts 17:22–23; 1 Cor. 8:1; 10:20. Trigl. 177, Apol., III, 85) and of apostate Jewry (Rom. 10:3. Trigl. 177, ibid., 86). That is the teaching of the Papacy; while it has put on Christian trappings, it anathematizes all who will not hitch the cart before the horse.¹² And that is the teaching of all those Protestants who in various ways and under various names let good works, “ethical” actions, correct conduct, etc., precede conversion and justification or make good works either expressly the causa, or at least the conditio sine qua non of obtaining eternal salvation (Arminians, synergists, Majorists, modern radical and positive theologians).

This general perversion of the divine order is due to the “opinio legis, which inheres by nature in men’s mind” (Trigl. 197, ibid., 144–145). Only when men are instructed by the Holy Ghost through the Word will they get the right view of religion and place sanetification after justification.

Because the flesh still clings to them, even Christians are always prone to assign to works a place before justification (see Luther, St. L. IV:2077 f.). And even theologians who theoretically define the relation of faith and works correctly are tempted to lose sight of this relation in practice. When they observe how the doctrine of grace is misused to neglect the doing of good works, they at times succumb to the temptation to forget the “mercies of God” (Rom. 12:1) as the sole fountainhead of good works and to approve, at least tacito consensu, such works as are not the fruits of justification.¹³ (See further the section on “The Good Works of the Heathen.”)

It is fatal folly and blindness to pervert, either openly or secretly, the proper order of justification and sanctification (Gal. 3:2). Scripture tells us that in every case where good works are placed ahead of justification two things ensue. In the first place, men do not thereby gain justification, but call down upon themselves the curse (Gal. 3:10). And, in the second place, the very opposite of sanctification and good works results, namely, sin is increased. Rom. 7:5: “The motions of sins, which were by the Law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.” Either sanctification and good works follow justification, or there will be no sanctification and good works at all. Scripture sets forth this truth from several viewpoints. One who does not believe in justification by faith without the works of the Law is still under the Law; the Law, however, does not dethrone sin, but arouses it (Rom. 7:5, 7–11. Luther VIII:1455). The Law does not work sanctification, but—the flesh is at fault—hypocrisy (Jer. 31:32; Luke 18:11–12) or despair (Acts 16:27). Again: He who does not believe in the Gospel, in other words, he who trusts in his works for justification, is not ruled by the Holy Ghost, but by the devil. And such a one does not perform the holy will of God, but he thinks, wills, and does what Satan works in him (Eph. 2:2; Titus 3:3; Luke 11:21). Therefore the practical need of the individual Christian, who is concerned about his Christian faith and Christian life, and the practical need of the Church, inasmuch as it is concerned about faith and sanctification, demand that, on the one hand, the nexus indivulsus between justification and sanctification and, on the other hand, the ordo antecedentium et consequentium be clearly understood and scrupulously maintained. The following discussion also is intended to serve that purpose.^{^[5]}

F.C., Epit. The Formula of Concord. Epitome.

Apol. Apology of the Augsburg Confession.

F.C., Epit. The Formula of Concord. Epitome.

F.C., Th. D. The Formula of Concord. Thorough Declaration.

^{^[1]} Edward Wilhelm August Koehler, A Summary of Christian Doctrine: A Popular Presentation of the Teachings of the Bible, electronic ed. (St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 1999), 145–155.

Br. Baier.

Quen. Quenstedt.

Br. Baier.

Chmn. Chemnitz.

Form. Conc. The Formula of Concord.

Br. Baier.

Ap. Conf. Apology of the Augsburg Confession.

Quen. Quenstedt.

Grh. Gerhard.

Br. Baier.

Holl. Hollazius.

Br. Baier.

Quen. Quenstedt.

Form. Conc. The Formula of Concord.

Br. Baier.

Quen. Quenstedt.

Holl. Hollazius.

Mel. Melanchthon.

Ap. Conf. Apology of the Augsburg Confession.

Mel. Melanchthon.

Quen. Quenstedt.

Ap. Conf. Apology of the Augsburg Confession.

Form. Conc. The Formula of Concord.

Chmn. Chemnitz.

Holl. Hollazius.

Br. Baier.

Quen. Quenstedt.

Br. Baier.

Mel. Melanchthon.

Quen. Quenstedt.

Form. Conc. The Formula of Concord.

Holl. Hollazius.

Form. Conc. The Formula of Concord.

Holl. Hollazius.

Quen. Quenstedt.

Form. Conc. The Formula of Concord.

Chmn. Chemnitz.

Form. Conc. The Formula of Concord.

Ap. Conf. Apology of the Augsburg Confession.

Chmn. Chemnitz.

Mel. Melanchthon.

Form. Conc. The Formula of Concord.

Chmn. Chemnitz.

Quen. Quenstedt.

Form. Conc. The Formula of Concord.

Holl. Hollazius.

Form. Conc. The Formula of Concord.

Chmn. Chemnitz.

Quen. Quenstedt.

F.C., Th. D. The Formula of Concord. Thorough Declaration.

Apol. Apology of the Augsburg Confession.

F.C., Epit. The Formula of Concord. Epitome.

F.C., Th. D. The Formula of Concord. Thorough Declaration.

^{^[3]} Edward Wilhelm August Koehler, A Summary of Christian Doctrine: A Popular Presentation of the Teachings of the Bible, electronic ed. (St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 1999), 155–161.

¹ See Dr. Shedd’s “History of Christian Doctrine,” Vol. I., pp. 77–81.

¹ “Doctrine of Divine Love,” p. 250.

^{^[4]} Milton Valentine, Christian Theology & 2, vol. 2 (Philadelphia: Lutheran Publication Society, 1906), 272–277.

⁸ That was done, too, in the case of the malefactor on the cross (Luke 23:40–41).

⁹ Formula of Concord: Faith which lays hold of the blessing without works “is never and at no time alone” (931, Sol. Decl., III, 41). Carpzov, quoted in Baier-Walther, III, 301: “In the same instant and moment in which faith is kindled in us and in which faith, grasping the offered justification, justifies us, we are also renewed in mind and body.” Quenstedt: “Regeneration” (in the sense of the generation of faith), “justification, the union with Christ and renovation all take place at the same time; their union is closer than that of a mathematical point; they cannot be separated and divorced. Nevertheless, according to our mode of conceiving (notionally), regeneration and justification precede the unio mystica.” (II, 896.)

¹⁰ Holtzmann maintains correctly that Rom. 5:12–21 treats solely of justification, and not yet of sanctification (II, 153).

¹¹ Holtzmann: “When the believer passes from the sphere of the Law intothe sphere of grace, the dominion of sin has come definitely to an end” (II, 166).

¹² Trid., Sess. VI, can. 24: “If anyone saith that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof, let him be anathema.”

¹³ I have in mind here, e.g., the custom of raising funds for the church by sales, socials, etc., on the plea that unless this method is followed, the necessary “good works” will not be done.

^{^[5]} Francis Pieper, Christian Dogmatics, electronic ed., vol. 3 (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1953), 7–13.

Lutheranism & Predestination: Bible Verses and Systematic Resources

2015-06-20T19:04:00.000-07:00

Lutheranism & Predestination

OK, I freely admit over 60 pages is a bit overkill, but this post includes ALL the cognates for freewill, predestination, election, Choice, etc., not just the ones that bolstered my point but all that appeared by searching the ESV, KJV, NIV & The Mounce Reverse-Interlinear™ New Testament. Most verses are ESV, most of the variants came from the KJV, my apologies for not marking them. There are over 300+ verses. The cognate words are in bold, I left the In Context, Full Chapter and Other Translations links in so the person who desires to can knock themselves out

Scripture Verses

Freewill

Exodus 35:29

All the men and women, the people of Israel, whose heart moved them to bring anything for the work that the Lord had commanded by Moses to be done brought it as a freewill offering to the Lord.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Exodus 36:3

And they received from Moses all the contribution that the people of Israel had brought for doing the work on the sanctuary. They still kept bringing him freewill offerings every morning,

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Leviticus 7:16

But if the sacrifice of his offering is a vow offering or a freewill offering, it shall be eaten on the day that he offers his sacrifice, and on the next day what remains of it shall be eaten.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Leviticus 22:18

“Speak to Aaron and his sons and all the people of Israel and say to them, When any one of the house of Israel or of the sojourners in Israel presents a burnt offering as his offering, for any of their vows or freewill offerings that they offer to the Lord,

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Leviticus 22:21

And when anyone offers a sacrifice of peace offerings to the Lord to fulfill a vow or as a freewill offering from the herd or from the flock, to be accepted it must be perfect; there shall be no blemish in it.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Leviticus 22:23

You may present a bull or a lamb that has a part too long or too short for a freewill offering, but for a vow offering it cannot be accepted.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Leviticus 23:38

besides the Lord's Sabbaths and besides your gifts and besides all your vow offerings and besides all your freewill offerings, which you give to the Lord.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Numbers 15:3

and you offer to the Lord from the herd or from the flock a food offering or a burnt offering or a sacrifice, to fulfill a vow or as a freewill offering or at your appointed feasts, to make a pleasing aroma to the Lord,

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Numbers 29:39

“These you shall offer to the Lord at your appointed feasts, in addition to your vow offerings and your freewill offerings, for your burnt offerings, and for your grain offerings, and for your drink offerings, and for your peace offerings.”

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Deuteronomy 12:6

and there you shall bring your burnt offerings and your sacrifices, your tithes and the contribution that you present, your vow offerings, your freewill offerings, and the firstborn of your herd and of your flock.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Deuteronomy 12:17

You may not eat within your towns the tithe of your grain or of your wine or of your oil, or the firstborn of your herd or of your flock, or any of your vow offerings that you vow, or your freewill offerings or the contribution that you present,

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Deuteronomy 16:10

Then you shall keep the Feast of Weeks to the Lord your God with the tribute of a freewill offering from your hand, which you shall give as the Lord your God blesses you.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Deuteronomy 23:23

That which is gone out of thy lips thou shalt keep and perform; even a freewill offering, according as thou hast vowed unto the Lord thy God, which thou hast promised with thy mouth.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translation

1 Chronicles 29:6

Then the leaders of fathers' houses made their freewill offerings, as did also the leaders of the tribes, the commanders of thousands and of hundreds, and the officers over the king's work.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

2 Chronicles 31:14

And Kore the son of Imnah the Levite, keeper of the east gate, was over the freewill offerings to God, to apportion the contribution reserved for the Lord and the most holy offerings.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Ezra 1:4

And let each survivor, in whatever place he sojourns, be assisted by the men of his place with silver and gold, with goods and with beasts, besides freewill offerings for the house of God that is in Jerusalem.”

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Ezra 2:68

Some of the heads of families, when they came to the house of the Lord that is in Jerusalem, made freewill offerings for the house of God, to erect it on its site.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Ezra 3:5

and after that the regular burnt offerings, the offerings at the new moon and at all the appointed feasts of the Lord, and the offerings of everyone who made a freewill offering to the Lord.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Ezra 7:13

I make a decree, that all they of the people of Israel, and of his priests and Levites, in my realm, which are minded of their own freewill to go up to Jerusalem, go with thee.

Ezra 7:16

with all the silver and gold that you shall find in the whole province of Babylonia, and with the freewill offerings of the people and the priests, vowed willingly for the house of their God that is in Jerusalem.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Ezra 8:28

And I said to them, “You are holy to the Lord, and the vessels are holy, and the silver and the gold are a freewill offering to the Lord, the God of your fathers.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Psalm 54:6

With a freewill offering I will sacrifice to you; I will give thanks to your name, O Lord, for it is good.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Psalm 119:108

Accept my freewill offerings of praise, O Lord, and teach me your rules.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Ezekiel 46:12

When the prince provides a freewill offering, either a burnt offering or peace offerings as a freewill offering to the Lord, the gate facing east shall be opened for him. And he shall offer his burnt offering or his peace offerings as he does on the Sabbath day. Then he shall go out, and after he has gone out the gate shall be shut.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Amos 4:5

offer a sacrifice of thanksgiving of that which is leavened, and proclaim freewill offerings, publish them; for so you love to do, O people of Israel!” declares the Lord God.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Predest*

Acts 4:28

to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Romans 8:29

For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Romans 8:30

And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Ephesians 1:5

he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will,

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Ephesians 1:11

In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will,

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Elect*

Isaiah 42:1

Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Isaiah 45:4

For Jacob my servant's sake, and Israel mine elect, I have even called thee by thy name: I have surnamed thee, though thou hast not known me.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Isaiah 65:9

And I will bring forth a seed out of Jacob, and out of Judah an inheritor of my mountains: and mine elect shall inherit it, and my servants shall dwell there.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Isaiah 65:22

They shall not build, and another inhabit; they shall not plant, and another eat: for as the days of a tree are the days of my people, and mine elect shall long enjoy the work of their hands.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Matthew 24:22

And if those days had not been cut short, no human being would be saved. But for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Matthew 24:24

For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Matthew 24:31

And he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Mark 13:20

And if the Lord had not cut short the days, no human being would be saved. But for the sake of the elect, whom he chose, he shortened the days.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Mark 13:22

For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform signs and wonders, to lead astray, if possible, the elect.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Mark 13:27

And then he will send out the angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Luke 18:7

And will not God give justice to his elect, who cry to him day and night? Will he delay long over them?

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Romans 8:33

Who shall bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Romans 9:11

though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls—

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Romans 11:5

Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Romans 11:7

What then? Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened,

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Romans 11:28

As regards the gospel, they are enemies for your sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Colossians 3:12

Put on therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering;

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

1 Thessalonians 1:4

Knowing, brethren beloved, your election of God.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

1 Timothy 5:21

In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus and of the elect angels I charge you to keep these rules without prejudging, doing nothing from partiality.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

2 Timothy 2:10

Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Titus 1:1

[ Greeting ] Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, for the sake of the faith of God's elect and their knowledge of the truth, which accords with godliness,

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

1 Peter 1:1

[ Greeting ] Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who are elect exiles of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

1 Peter 1:2

Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

1 Peter 2:6

Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

1 Peter 5:13

The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

2 Peter 1:3

[ Confirm Your Calling and Election ] His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence,

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

2 Peter 1:10

Therefore, brothers, be all the more diligent to confirm your calling and election, for if you practice these qualities you will never fall.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

2 John 1:1

[ Greeting ] The elder to the elect lady and her children, whom I love in truth, and not only I, but also all who know the truth,

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

2 John 1:13

The children of your elect sister greet you.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Choose/Chose*/Choice

Genesis 6:2

the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Genesis 13:11

So Lot chose for himself all the Jordan Valley, and Lot journeyed east. Thus they separated from each other.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Genesis 18:19

For I have chosen him, that he may command his children and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord by doing righteousness and justice, so that the Lord may bring to Abraham what he has promised him.”

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Genesis 23:6

“Hear us, my lord; you are a prince of God among us. Bury your dead in the choicest of our tombs. None of us will withhold from you his tomb to hinder you from burying your dead.”

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Genesis 24:10

Then the servant took ten of his master's camels and departed, taking all sorts of choice gifts from his master; and he arose and went to Mesopotamia to the city of Nahor.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Genesis 43:11

Then their father Israel said to them, “If it must be so, then do this: take some of the choice fruits of the land in your bags, and carry a present down to the man, a little balm and a little honey, gum, myrrh, pistachio nuts, and almonds.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Genesis 49:11

Binding his foal to the vine and his donkey's colt to the choice vine, he has washed his garments in wine and his vesture in the blood of grapes.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Exodus 14:7

and took six hundred chosen chariots and all the other chariots of Egypt with officers over all of them.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Exodus 15:4

“Pharaoh's chariots and his host he cast into the sea, and his chosen officers were sunk in the Red Sea.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Exodus 17:9

So Moses said to Joshua, “Choose for us men, and go out and fight with Amalek. Tomorrow I will stand on the top of the hill with the staff of God in my hand.”

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Exodus 18:25

Moses chose able men out of all Israel and made them heads over the people, chiefs of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties, and of tens.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Numbers 1:16

These were the ones chosen from the congregation, the chiefs of their ancestral tribes, the heads of the clans of Israel.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Numbers 14:4

And they said to one another, “Let us choose a leader and go back to Egypt.”

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Numbers 16:2

And they rose up before Moses, with a number of the people of Israel, 250 chiefs of the congregation, chosen from the assembly, well-known men.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Numbers 16:5

and he said to Korah and all his company, “In the morning the Lord will show who is his, and who is holy, and will bring him near to him. The one whom he chooses he will bring near to him.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Numbers 16:7

put fire in them and put incense on them before the Lord tomorrow, and the man whom the Lord chooses shall be the holy one. You have gone too far, sons of Levi!”

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Numbers 17:5

And the staff of the man whom I choose shall sprout. Thus I will make to cease from me the grumblings of the people of Israel, which they grumble against you.”

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Numbers 26:9

The sons of Eliab: Nemuel, Dathan, and Abiram. These are the Dathan and Abiram, chosen from the congregation, who contended against Moses and Aaron in the company of Korah, when they contended against the Lord

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Deuteronomy 1:13

Choose for your tribes wise, understanding, and experienced men, and I will appoint them as your heads.’

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Deuteronomy 4:37

And because he loved your fathers and chose their offspring after them and brought you out of Egypt with his own presence, by his great power,

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Deuteronomy 7:1

[ A Chosen People ] “When the Lord your God brings you into the land that you are entering to take possession of it, and clears away many nations before you, the Hittites, the Girgashites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations more numerous and mightier than you,

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Deuteronomy 7:6

“For you are a people holy to the Lord your God. The Lord your God has chosen you to be a people for his treasured possession, out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Deuteronomy 7:7

It was not because you were more in number than any other people that the Lord set his love on you and chose you, for you were the fewest of all peoples,

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Deuteronomy 10:15

Yet the Lord set his heart in love on your fathers and chose their offspring after them, you above all peoples, as you are this day.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Deuteronomy 12:1

[ The Lord's Chosen Place of Worship ] “These are the statutes and rules that you shall be careful to do in the land that the Lord, the God of your fathers, has given you to possess, all the days that you live on the earth.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Deuteronomy 12:5

But you shall seek the place that the Lord your God will choose out of all your tribes to put his name and make his habitation there. There you shall go,

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Deuteronomy 12:11

then to the place that the Lord your God will choose, to make his name dwell there, there you shall bring all that I command you: your burnt offerings and your sacrifices, your tithes and the contribution that you present, and all your finest vow offerings that you vow to the Lord.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Deuteronomy 12:14

but at the place that the Lord will choose in one of your tribes, there you shall offer your burnt offerings, and there you shall do all that I am commanding you.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Deuteronomy 12:18

but you shall eat them before the Lord your God in the place that the Lord your God will choose, you and your son and your daughter, your male servant and your female servant, and the Levite who is within your towns. And you shall rejoice before the Lord your God in all that you undertake.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Deuteronomy 12:21

If the place that the Lord your God will choose to put his name there is too far from you, then you may kill any of your herd or your flock, which the Lord has given you, as I have commanded you, and you may eat within your towns whenever you desire.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Deuteronomy 12:26

But the holy things that are due from you, and your vow offerings, you shall take, and you shall go to the place that the Lord will choose,

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Deuteronomy 14:2

For you are a people holy to the Lord your God, and the Lord has chosen you to be a people for his treasured possession, out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Deuteronomy 14:23

And before the Lord your God, in the place that he will choose, to make his name dwell there, you shall eat the tithe of your grain, of your wine, and of your oil, and the firstborn of your herd and flock, that you may learn to fear the Lord your God always.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Deuteronomy 14:24

And if the way is too long for you, so that you are not able to carry the tithe, when the Lord your God blesses you, because the place is too far from you, which the Lord your God chooses, to set his name there,

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Deuteronomy 14:25

then you shall turn it into money and bind up the money in your hand and go to the place that the Lord your God chooses

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Deuteronomy 15:20

You shall eat it, you and your household, before the Lord your God year by year at the place that the Lord will choose.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Deuteronomy 16:2

And you shall offer the Passover sacrifice to the Lord your God, from the flock or the herd, at the place that the Lord will choose, to make his name dwell there.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Deuteronomy 16:6

but at the place that the Lord your God will choose, to make his name dwell in it, there you shall offer the Passover sacrifice, in the evening at sunset, at the time you came out of Egypt.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Deuteronomy 16:7

And you shall cook it and eat it at the place that the Lord your God will choose. And in the morning you shall turn and go to your tents.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Deuteronomy 16:11

And you shall rejoice before the Lord your God, you and your son and your daughter, your male servant and your female servant, the Levite who is within your towns, the sojourner, the fatherless, and the widow who are among you, at the place that the Lord your God will choose, to make his name dwell there.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Deuteronomy 16:15

For seven days you shall keep the feast to the Lord your God at the place that the Lord will choose, because the Lord your God will bless you in all your produce and in all the work of your hands, so that you will be altogether joyful.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Deuteronomy 16:16

“Three times a year all your males shall appear before the Lord your God at the place that he will choose: at the Feast of Unleavened Bread, at the Feast of Weeks, and at the Feast of Booths. They shall not appear before the Lord empty-handed.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Deuteronomy 17:8

[ Legal Decisions by Priests and Judges ] “If any case arises requiring decision between one kind of homicide and another, one kind of legal right and another, or one kind of assault and another, any case within your towns that is too difficult for you, then you shall arise and go up to the place that the Lord your God will choose.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Deuteronomy 17:10

Then you shall do according to what they declare to you from that place that the Lord will choose. And you shall be careful to do according to all that they direct you.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Deuteronomy 17:15

you may indeed set a king over you whom the Lord your God will choose. One from among your brothers you shall set as king over you. You may not put a foreigner over you, who is not your brother.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Deuteronomy 18:5

For the Lord your God has chosen him out of all your tribes to stand and minister in the name of the Lord, him and his sons for all time.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Deuteronomy 18:6

“And if a Levite comes from any of your towns out of all Israel, where he lives—and he may come when he desires—to the place that the Lord will choose,

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Deuteronomy 21:5

Then the priests, the sons of Levi, shall come forward, for the Lord your God has chosen them to minister to him and to bless in the name of the Lord, and by their word every dispute and every assault shall be settled.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Deuteronomy 23:16

He shall dwell with you, in your midst, in the place that he shall choose within one of your towns, wherever it suits him. You shall not wrong him.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Deuteronomy 26:2

you shall take some of the first of all the fruit of the ground, which you harvest from your land that the Lord your God is giving you, and you shall put it in a basket, and you shall go to the place that the Lord your God will choose, to make his name to dwell there.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Deuteronomy 30:11

[ The Choice of Life and Death ] “For this commandment that I command you today is not too hard for you, neither is it far off.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Deuteronomy 30:19

I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse. Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live,

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Deuteronomy 31:11

when all Israel comes to appear before the Lord your God at the place that he will choose, you shall read this law before all Israel in their hearing.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Deuteronomy 33:13

And of Joseph he said, “Blessed by the Lord be his land, with the choicest gifts of heaven above, and of the deep that crouches beneath,

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Deuteronomy 33:14

with the choicest fruits of the sun and the rich yield of the months,

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Deuteronomy 33:21

He chose the best of the land for himself, for there a commander's portion was reserved; and he came with the heads of the people, with Israel he executed the justice of the Lord, and his judgments for Israel.”

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Joshua 8:3

So Joshua and all the fighting men arose to go up to Ai. And Joshua chose 30,000 mighty men of valor and sent them out by night.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Joshua 9:27

But Joshua made them that day cutters of wood and drawers of water for the congregation and for the altar of the Lord, to this day, in the place that he should choose.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Joshua 24:14

[ Choose Whom You Will Serve ] “Now therefore fear the Lord and serve him in sincerity and in faithfulness. Put away the gods that your fathers served beyond the River and in Egypt, and serve the Lord.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Joshua 24:15

And if it is evil in your eyes to serve the Lord, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.”

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Joshua 24:22

Then Joshua said to the people, “You are witnesses against yourselves that you have chosen the Lord, to serve him.” And they said, “We are witnesses.”

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Judges 5:8

When new gods were chosen, then war was in the gates. Was shield or spear to be seen among forty thousand in Israel?

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Judges 10:14

Go and cry out to the gods whom you have chosen; let them save you in the time of your distress.”

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Judges 20:15

And the people of Benjamin mustered out of their cities on that day 26,000 men who drew the sword, besides the inhabitants of Gibeah, who mustered 700 chosen men.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Judges 20:16

Among all these were 700 chosen men who were left-handed; every one could sling a stone at a hair and not miss.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Judges 20:34

And there came against Gibeah 10,000 chosen men out of all Israel, and the battle was hard, but the Benjaminites did not know that disaster was close upon them.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

1 Samuel 2:28

Did I choose him out of all the tribes of Israel to be my priest, to go up to my altar, to burn incense, to wear an ephod before me? I gave to the house of your father all my offerings by fire from the people of Israel.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

1 Samuel 2:29

Why then do you scorn my sacrifices and my offerings that I commanded for my dwelling, and honor your sons above me by fattening yourselves on the choicest parts of every offering of my people Israel?’

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

1 Samuel 8:18

And in that day you will cry out because of your king, whom you have chosen for yourselves, but the Lord will not answer you in that day.”

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

1 Samuel 9:1

[ Saul Chosen to Be King ] There was a man of Benjamin whose name was Kish, the son of Abiel, son of Zeror, son of Becorath, son of Aphiah, a Benjaminite, a man of wealth.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

1 Samuel 10:24

And Samuel said to all the people, “Do you see him whom the Lord has chosen? There is none like him among all the people.” And all the people shouted, “Long live the king!”

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

1 Samuel 12:13

And now behold the king whom you have chosen, for whom you have asked; behold, the Lord has set a king over you.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

1 Samuel 13:2

Saul chose three thousand men of Israel. Two thousand were with Saul in Michmash and the hill country of Bethel, and a thousand were with Jonathan in Gibeah of Benjamin. The rest of the people he sent home, every man to his tent.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

1 Samuel 16:8

Then Jesse called Abinadab and made him pass before Samuel. And he said, “Neither has the Lord chosen this one.”

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

1 Samuel 16:9

Then Jesse made Shammah pass by. And he said, “Neither has the Lord chosen this one.”

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

1 Samuel 16:10

And Jesse made seven of his sons pass before Samuel. And Samuel said to Jesse, “The Lord has not chosen these.”

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

1 Samuel 17:8

He stood and shouted to the ranks of Israel, “Why have you come out to draw up for battle? Am I not a Philistine, and are you not servants of Saul? Choose a man for yourselves, and let him come down to me.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

1 Samuel 17:40

Then he took his staff in his hand and chose five smooth stones from the brook and put them in his shepherd's pouch. His sling was in his hand, and he approached the Philistine.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

1 Samuel 20:30

Then Saul's anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said to him, “You son of a perverse, rebellious woman, do I not know that you have chosen the son of Jesse to your own shame, and to the shame of your mother's nakedness?

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

1 Samuel 24:2

Then Saul took three thousand chosen men out of all Israel and went to seek David and his men in front of the Wildgoats' Rocks.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

1 Samuel 26:2

So Saul arose and went down to the wilderness of Ziph with three thousand chosen men of Israel to seek David in the wilderness of Ziph.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

2 Samuel 6:1

[ The Ark Brought to Jerusalem ] David again gathered all the chosen men of Israel, thirty thousand.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

2 Samuel 6:21

And David said to Michal, “It was before the Lord, who chose me above your father and above all his house, to appoint me as prince over Israel, the people of the Lord—and I will celebrate before the Lord.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

2 Samuel 10:9

When Joab saw that the battle was set against him both in front and in the rear, he chose some of the best men of Israel and arrayed them against the Syrians.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

2 Samuel 16:18

And Hushai said to Absalom, “No, for whom the Lord and this people and all the men of Israel have chosen, his I will be, and with him I will remain.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

2 Samuel 17:1

[ Hushai Saves David ] Moreover, Ahithophel said to Absalom, “Let me choose twelve thousand men, and I will arise and pursue David tonight.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

2 Samuel 21:6

let seven of his sons be given to us, so that we may hang them before the Lord at Gibeah of Saul, the chosen of the Lord.” And the king said, “I will give them.”

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

2 Samuel 24:12

“Go and say to David, ‘Thus says the Lord, Three things I offer you. Choose one of them, that I may do it to you.’”

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

1 Kings 3:8

And your servant is in the midst of your people whom you have chosen, a great people, too many to be numbered or counted for multitude.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

1 Kings 8:16

‘Since the day that I brought my people Israel out of Egypt, I chose no city out of all the tribes of Israel in which to build a house, that my name might be there. But I chose David to be over my people Israel.’

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

1 Kings 8:44

“If your people go out to battle against their enemy, by whatever way you shall send them, and they pray to the Lord toward the city that you have chosen and the house that I have built for your name,

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

1 Kings 8:48

if they repent with all their mind and with all their heart in the land of their enemies, who carried them captive, and pray to you toward their land, which you gave to their fathers, the city that you have chosen, and the house that I have built for your name,

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

1 Kings 11:13

However, I will not tear away all the kingdom, but I will give one tribe to your son, for the sake of David my servant and for the sake of Jerusalem that I have chosen.”

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

1 Kings 11:32

(but he shall have one tribe, for the sake of my servant David and for the sake of Jerusalem, the city that I have chosen out of all the tribes of Israel),

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

1 Kings 11:34

Nevertheless, I will not take the whole kingdom out of his hand, but I will make him ruler all the days of his life, for the sake of David my servant whom I chose, who kept my commandments and my statutes.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

1 Kings 11:36

Yet to his son I will give one tribe, that David my servant may always have a lamp before me in Jerusalem, the city where I have chosen to put my name.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

1 Kings 12:21

When Rehoboam came to Jerusalem, he assembled all the house of Judah and the tribe of Benjamin, 180,000 chosen warriors, to fight against the house of Israel, to restore the kingdom to Rehoboam the son of Solomon.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

1 Kings 14:21

[ Rehoboam Reigns in Judah ] Now Rehoboam the son of Solomon reigned in Judah. Rehoboam was forty-one years old when he began to reign, and he reigned seventeen years in Jerusalem, the city that the Lord had chosen out of all the tribes of Israel, to put his name there. His mother's name was Naamah the Ammonite.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

1 Kings 18:23

Let two bulls be given to us, and let them choose one bull for themselves and cut it in pieces and lay it on the wood, but put no fire to it. And I will prepare the other bull and lay it on the wood and put no fire to it.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

1 Kings 18:25

Then Elijah said to the prophets of Baal, “Choose for yourselves one bull and prepare it first, for you are many, and call upon the name of your god, but put no fire to it.”

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

2 Kings 3:19

and you shall attack every fortified city and every choice city, and shall fell every good tree and stop up all springs of water and ruin every good piece of land with stones.”

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

2 Kings 19:23

By your messengers you have mocked the Lord, and you have said, ‘With my many chariots I have gone up the heights of the mountains, to the far recesses of Lebanon; I felled its tallest cedars, its choicest cypresses; I entered its farthest lodging place, its most fruitful forest.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

2 Kings 21:7

And the carved image of Asherah that he had made he set in the house of which the Lord said to David and to Solomon his son, “In this house, and in Jerusalem, which I have chosen out of all the tribes of Israel, I will put my name forever.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

2 Kings 23:27

And the Lord said, “I will remove Judah also out of my sight, as I have removed Israel, and I will cast off this city that I have chosen, Jerusalem, and the house of which I said, My name shall be there.”

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

1 Chronicles 9:22

All these, who were chosen as gatekeepers at the thresholds, were 212. They were enrolled by genealogies in their villages. David and Samuel the seer established them in their office of trust.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

1 Chronicles 15:2

Then David said that no one but the Levites may carry the ark of God, for the Lord had chosen them to carry the ark of the Lord and to minister to him forever.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

1 Chronicles 16:13

O offspring of Israel his servant, children of Jacob, his chosen ones!

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

1 Chronicles 16:41

With them were Heman and Jeduthun and the rest of those chosen and expressly named to give thanks to the Lord, for his steadfast love endures forever.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

1 Chronicles 19:10

[ Ammonites and Syrians Defeated ] When Joab saw that the battle was set against him both in front and in the rear, he chose some of the best men of Israel and arrayed them against the Syrians.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

1 Chronicles 21:10

“Go and say to David, ‘Thus says the Lord, Three things I offer you; choose one of them, that I may do it to you.’”

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

1 Chronicles 21:11

So Gad came to David and said to him, “Thus says the Lord, ‘Choose what you will:

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

1 Chronicles 24:6

And the scribe Shemaiah, the son of Nethanel, a Levite, recorded them in the presence of the king and the princes and Zadok the priest and Ahimelech the son of Abiathar and the heads of the fathers' houses of the priests and of the Levites, one father's house being chosen for Eleazar and one chosen for Ithamar.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

1 Chronicles 28:4

Yet the Lord God of Israel chose me from all my father's house to be king over Israel forever. For he chose Judah as leader, and in the house of Judah my father's house, and among my father's sons he took pleasure in me to make me king over all Israel.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

1 Chronicles 28:5

And of all my sons (for the Lord has given me many sons) he has chosen Solomon my son to sit on the throne of the kingdom of the Lord over Israel.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

1 Chronicles 28:6

He said to me, ‘It is Solomon your son who shall build my house and my courts, for I have chosen him to be my son, and I will be his father.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

1 Chronicles 28:10

Be careful now, for the Lord has chosen you to build a house for the sanctuary; be strong and do it.”

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

1 Chronicles 29:1

[ Offerings for the Temple ] And David the king said to all the assembly, “Solomon my son, whom alone God has chosen, is young and inexperienced, and the work is great, for the palace will not be for man but for the Lord God.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

2 Chronicles 6:5

‘Since the day that I brought my people out of the land of Egypt, I chose no city out of all the tribes of Israel in which to build a house, that my name might be there, and I chose no man as prince over my people Israel;

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

2 Chronicles 6:6

but I have chosen Jerusalem that my name may be there, and I have chosen David to be over my people Israel.’

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

2 Chronicles 6:34

“If your people go out to battle against their enemies, by whatever way you shall send them, and they pray to you toward this city that you have chosen and the house that I have built for your name,

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

2 Chronicles 6:38

if they repent with all their mind and with all their heart in the land of their captivity to which they were carried captive, and pray toward their land, which you gave to their fathers, the city that you have chosen and the house that I have built for your name,

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

2 Chronicles 7:12

Then the Lord appeared to Solomon in the night and said to him: “I have heard your prayer and have chosen this place for myself as a house of sacrifice.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

2 Chronicles 7:16

For now I have chosen and consecrated this house that my name may be there forever. My eyes and my heart will be there for all time.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

2 Chronicles 11:1

[ Rehoboam Secures His Kingdom ] When Rehoboam came to Jerusalem, he assembled the house of Judah and Benjamin, 180,000 chosen warriors, to fight against Israel, to restore the kingdom to Rehoboam.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

2 Chronicles 12:13

So King Rehoboam grew strong in Jerusalem and reigned. Rehoboam was forty-one years old when he began to reign, and he reigned seventeen years in Jerusalem, the city that the Lord had chosen out of all the tribes of Israel to put his name there. His mother's name was Naamah the Ammonite.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

2 Chronicles 13:3

Abijah went out to battle, having an army of valiant men of war, 400,000 chosen men. And Jeroboam drew up his line of battle against him with 800,000 chosen mighty warriors.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

2 Chronicles 13:17

Abijah and his people struck them with great force, so there fell slain of Israel 500,000 chosen men.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

2 Chronicles 25:5

[ Amaziah's Victories ] Then Amaziah assembled the men of Judah and set them by fathers' houses under commanders of thousands and of hundreds for all Judah and Benjamin. He mustered those twenty years old and upward, and found that they were 300,000 choice men, fit for war, able to handle spear and shield.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

2 Chronicles 29:11

My sons, do not now be negligent, for the Lord has chosen you to stand in his presence, to minister to him and to be his ministers and make offerings to him.”

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

2 Chronicles 33:7

And the carved image of the idol that he had made he set in the house of God, of which God said to David and to Solomon his son, “In this house, and in Jerusalem, which I have chosen out of all the tribes of Israel, I will put my name forever,

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Nehemiah 1:9

but if you return to me and keep my commandments and do them, though your outcasts are in the uttermost parts of heaven, from there I will gather them and bring them to the place that I have chosen, to make my name dwell there.’

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Nehemiah 5:18

Now what was prepared at my expense for each day was one ox and six choice sheep and birds, and every ten days all kinds of wine in abundance. Yet for all this I did not demand the food allowance of the governor, because the service was too heavy on this people.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Nehemiah 9:7

You are the Lord, the God who chose Abram and brought him out of Ur of the Chaldeans and gave him the name Abraham.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Esther 2:1

[ Esther Chosen Queen ] After these things, when the anger of King Ahasuerus had abated, he remembered Vashti and what she had done and what had been decreed against her.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Esther 2:9

And the young woman pleased him and won his favor. And he quickly provided her with her cosmetics and her portion of food, and with seven chosen young women from the king's palace, and advanced her and her young women to the best place in the harem.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Job 7:15

so that I would choose strangling and death rather than my bones.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Job 15:5

For your iniquity teaches your mouth, and you choose the tongue of the crafty.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Job 29:25

I chose their way and sat as chief, and I lived like a king among his troops, like one who comforts mourners.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Job 33:20

so that his life loathes bread, and his appetite the choicest food.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Job 34:4

Let us choose what is right; let us know among ourselves what is good.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Job 34:33

Will he then make repayment to suit you, because you reject it? For you must choose, and not I; therefore declare what you know.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Job 36:21

Take care; do not turn to iniquity, for this you have chosen rather than affliction.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Psalm 16:5

The Lord is my chosen portion and my cup; you hold my lot.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Psalm 25:12

Who is the man who fears the Lord? Him will he instruct in the way that he should choose.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Psalm 33:12

Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord, the people whom he has chosen as his heritage!

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Psalm 47:4

He chose our heritage for us, the pride of Jacob whom he loves. Selah

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Psalm 65:4

Blessed is the one you choose and bring near, to dwell in your courts! We shall be satisfied with the goodness of your house, the holiness of your temple!

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Psalm 78:67

He rejected the tent of Joseph; he did not choose the tribe of Ephraim,

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Psalm 78:68

but he chose the tribe of Judah, Mount Zion, which he loves.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Psalm 78:70

He chose David his servant and took him from the sheepfolds;

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Psalm 89:3

You have said, “I have made a covenant with my chosen one; I have sworn to David my servant:

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Psalm 89:19

Of old you spoke in a vision to your godly one, and said: “I have granted help to one who is mighty; I have exalted one chosen from the people.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Psalm 105:6

O offspring of Abraham, his servant, children of Jacob, his chosen ones!

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Psalm 105:26

He sent Moses, his servant, and Aaron, whom he had chosen.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Psalm 105:43

So he brought his people out with joy, his chosen ones with singing.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Psalm 106:5

that I may look upon the prosperity of your chosen ones, that I may rejoice in the gladness of your nation, that I may glory with your inheritance.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Psalm 106:23

Therefore he said he would destroy them— had not Moses, his chosen one, stood in the breach before him, to turn away his wrath from destroying them.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Psalm 119:30

I have chosen the way of faithfulness; I set your rules before me.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Psalm 119:173

Let your hand be ready to help me, for I have chosen your precepts.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Psalm 132:1

[ The Lord Has Chosen Zion ] [ A Song of Ascents. ] Remember, O Lord, in David's favor, all the hardships he endured,

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Psalm 132:13

For the Lord has chosen Zion; he has desired it for his dwelling place:

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Psalm 135:4

For the Lord has chosen Jacob for himself, Israel as his own possession.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Proverbs 1:29

Because they hated knowledge and did not choose the fear of the Lord,

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Proverbs 3:31

Do not envy a man of violence and do not choose any of his ways,

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Proverbs 8:10

Take my instruction instead of silver, and knowledge rather than choice gold,

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Proverbs 8:19

My fruit is better than gold, even fine gold, and my yield than choice silver.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Proverbs 10:20

The tongue of the righteous is choice silver; the heart of the wicked is of little worth.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Proverbs 16:16

How much better to get wisdom than gold! To get understanding is to be chosen rather than silver.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Proverbs 22:1

A good name is to be chosen rather than great riches, and favor is better than silver or gold.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Song of Solomon 4:13

Your shoots are an orchard of pomegranates with all choicest fruits, henna with nard,

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Song of Solomon 4:14

nard and saffron, calamus and cinnamon, with all trees of frankincense, myrrh and aloes, with all choice spices—

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Song of Solomon 4:16

Awake, O north wind, and come, O south wind! Blow upon my garden, let its spices flow. [ Together in the Garden of Love ] [ She ] Let my beloved come to his garden, and eat its choicest fruits.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Song of Solomon 5:15

His legs are alabaster columns, set on bases of gold. His appearance is like Lebanon, choice as the cedars.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Song of Solomon 7:13

The mandrakes give forth fragrance, and beside our doors are all choice fruits, new as well as old, which I have laid up for you, O my beloved.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Isaiah 1:29

For they shall be ashamed of the oaks that you desired; and you shall blush for the gardens that you have chosen.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Isaiah 5:2

He dug it and cleared it of stones, and planted it with choice vines; he built a watchtower in the midst of it, and hewed out a wine vat in it; and he looked for it to yield grapes, but it yielded wild grapes.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Isaiah 7:15

He shall eat curds and honey when he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Isaiah 7:16

For before the boy knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land whose two kings you dread will be deserted.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Isaiah 14:1

[ The Restoration of Jacob ] For the Lord will have compassion on Jacob and will again choose Israel, and will set them in their own land, and sojourners will join them and will attach themselves to the house of Jacob.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Isaiah 22:7

Your choicest valleys were full of chariots, and the horsemen took their stand at the gates.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Isaiah 37:24

By your servants you have mocked the Lord, and you have said, With my many chariots I have gone up the heights of the mountains, to the far recesses of Lebanon, to cut down its tallest cedars, its choicest cypresses, to come to its remotest height, its most fruitful forest.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Isaiah 40:20

He who is too impoverished for an offering chooses wood that will not rot; he seeks out a skillful craftsman to set up an idol that will not move.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Isaiah 41:8

But you, Israel, my servant, Jacob, whom I have chosen, the offspring of Abraham, my friend;

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Isaiah 41:9

you whom I took from the ends of the earth, and called from its farthest corners, saying to you, “You are my servant, I have chosen you and not cast you off”;

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Isaiah 41:24

Behold, you are nothing, and your work is less than nothing; an abomination is he who chooses you.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Isaiah 42:1

[ The Lord's Chosen Servant ] Behold my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen, in whom my soul delights; I have put my Spirit upon him; he will bring forth justice to the nations.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Isaiah 43:10

“You are my witnesses,” declares the Lord, “and my servant whom I have chosen, that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Isaiah 43:20

The wild beasts will honor me, the jackals and the ostriches, for I give water in the wilderness, rivers in the desert, to give drink to my chosen people,

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Isaiah 44:1

[ Israel the Lord's Chosen ] “But now hear, O Jacob my servant, Israel whom I have chosen!

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Isaiah 44:2

Thus says the Lord who made you, who formed you from the womb and will help you: Fear not, O Jacob my servant, Jeshurun whom I have chosen.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Isaiah 44:14

He cuts down cedars, or he chooses a cypress tree or an oak and lets it grow strong among the trees of the forest. He plants a cedar and the rain nourishes it.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Isaiah 45:4

For the sake of my servant Jacob, and Israel my chosen, I call you by your name, I name you, though you do not know me.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Isaiah 49:7

Thus says the Lord, the Redeemer of Israel and his Holy One, to one deeply despised, abhorred by the nation, the servant of rulers: “Kings shall see and arise; princes, and they shall prostrate themselves; because of the Lord, who is faithful, the Holy One of Israel, who has chosen you.”

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Isaiah 56:4

For thus says the Lord: “To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths, who choose the things that please me and hold fast my covenant,

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Isaiah 58:5

Is such the fast that I choose, a day for a person to humble himself? Is it to bow down his head like a reed, and to spread sackcloth and ashes under him? Will you call this a fast, and a day acceptable to the Lord?

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Isaiah 58:6

“Is not this the fast that I choose: to loose the bonds of wickedness, to undo the straps of the yoke, to let the oppressed go free, and to break every yoke?

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Isaiah 65:9

I will bring forth offspring from Jacob, and from Judah possessors of my mountains; my chosen shall possess it, and my servants shall dwell there.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Isaiah 65:12

I will destine you to the sword, and all of you shall bow down to the slaughter, because, when I called, you did not answer; when I spoke, you did not listen, but you did what was evil in my eyes and chose what I did not delight in.”

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Isaiah 65:15

You shall leave your name to my chosen for a curse, and the Lord God will put you to death, but his servants he will call by another name.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Isaiah 65:22

They shall not build and another inhabit; they shall not plant and another eat; for like the days of a tree shall the days of my people be, and my chosen shall long enjoy the work of their hands.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Isaiah 66:3

“He who slaughters an ox is like one who kills a man; he who sacrifices a lamb, like one who breaks a dog's neck; he who presents a grain offering, like one who offers pig's blood; he who makes a memorial offering of frankincense, like one who blesses an idol. These have chosen their own ways, and their soul delights in their abominations;

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Isaiah 66:4

I also will choose harsh treatment for them and bring their fears upon them, because when I called, no one answered, when I spoke, they did not listen; but they did what was evil in my eyes and chose that in which I did not delight.”

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Jeremiah 2:21

Yet I planted you a choice vine, wholly of pure seed. How then have you turned degenerate and become a wild vine?

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Jeremiah 22:7

I will prepare destroyers against you, each with his weapons, and they shall cut down your choicest cedars and cast them into the fire.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Jeremiah 25:34

“Wail, you shepherds, and cry out, and roll in ashes, you lords of the flock, for the days of your slaughter and dispersion have come, and you shall fall like a choice vessel.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Jeremiah 33:24

“Have you not observed that these people are saying, ‘The Lord has rejected the two clans that he chose’? Thus they have despised my people so that they are no longer a nation in their sight.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Jeremiah 33:26

then I will reject the offspring of Jacob and David my servant and will not choose one of his offspring to rule over the offspring of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. For I will restore their fortunes and will have mercy on them.”

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Jeremiah 48:15

The destroyer of Moab and his cities has come up, and the choicest of his young men have gone down to slaughter, declares the King, whose name is the Lord of hosts.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Jeremiah 49:19

Behold, like a lion coming up from the jungle of the Jordan against a perennial pasture, I will suddenly make him run away from her. And I will appoint over her whomever I choose. For who is like me? Who will summon me? What shepherd can stand before me?

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Jeremiah 50:44

“Behold, like a lion coming up from the thicket of the Jordan against a perennial pasture, I will suddenly make them run away from her, and I will appoint over her whomever I choose. For who is like me? Who will summon me? What shepherd can stand before me?

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Ezekiel 20:5

and say to them, Thus says the Lord God: On the day when I chose Israel, I swore to the offspring of the house of Jacob, making myself known to them in the land of Egypt; I swore to them, saying, I am the Lord your God.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Ezekiel 20:40

“For on my holy mountain, the mountain height of Israel, declares the Lord God, there all the house of Israel, all of them, shall serve me in the land. There I will accept them, and there I will require your contributions and the choicest of your gifts, with all your sacred offerings.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Ezekiel 23:7

She bestowed her whoring upon them, the choicest men of Assyria all of them, and she defiled herself with all the idols of everyone after whom she lusted.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Ezekiel 24:4

put in it the pieces of meat, all the good pieces, the thigh and the shoulder; fill it with choice bones.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Ezekiel 24:5

Take the choicest one of the flock; pile the logs under it; boil it well; seethe also its bones in it.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Ezekiel 24:6

“Therefore thus says the Lord God: Woe to the bloody city, to the pot whose corrosion is in it, and whose corrosion has not gone out of it! Take out of it piece after piece, without making any choice.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Ezekiel 27:24

In your market these traded with you in choice garments, in clothes of blue and embroidered work, and in carpets of colored material, bound with cords and made secure.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Ezekiel 31:16

I made the nations quake at the sound of its fall, when I cast it down to Sheol with those who go down to the pit. And all the trees of Eden, the choice and best of Lebanon, all that drink water, were comforted in the world below.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Ezekiel 48:14

They shall not sell or exchange any of it. They shall not alienate this choice portion of the land, for it is holy to the Lord.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Haggai 2:20

[ Zerubbabel Chosen as a Signet ] The word of the Lord came a second time to Haggai on the twenty-fourth day of the month,

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Haggai 2:23

On that day, declares the Lord of hosts, I will take you, O Zerubbabel my servant, the son of Shealtiel, declares the Lord, and make you like a signet ring, for I have chosen you, declares the Lord of hosts.”

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Zechariah 1:17

Cry out again, Thus says the Lord of hosts: My cities shall again overflow with prosperity, and the Lord will again comfort Zion and again choose Jerusalem.’”

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Zechariah 2:12

And the Lord will inherit Judah as his portion in the holy land, and will again choose Jerusalem.”

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Zechariah 3:2

And the Lord said to Satan, “The Lord rebuke you, O Satan! The Lord who has chosen Jerusalem rebuke you! Is not this a brand plucked from the fire?”

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Matthew 11:27

All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Matthew 12:15

[ God's Chosen Servant ] Jesus, aware of this, withdrew from there. And many followed him, and he healed them all

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Matthew 12:18

“Behold, my servant whom I have chosen, my beloved with whom my soul is well pleased. I will put my Spirit upon him, and he will proclaim justice to the Gentiles.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Matthew 20:14

Take what belongs to you and go. I choose to give to this last worker as I give to you.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Matthew 20:15

Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or do you begrudge my generosity?’

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Matthew 22:14

For many are called, but few are chosen.”

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Matthew 27:15

[ The Crowd Chooses Barabbas ] Now at the feast the governor was accustomed to release for the crowd any one prisoner whom they wanted.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Mark 13:20

And if the Lord had not cut short the days, no human being would be saved. But for the sake of the elect, whom he chose, he shortened the days.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Luke 1:9

according to the custom of the priesthood, he was chosen by lot to enter the temple of the Lord and burn incense.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Luke 6:13

And when day came, he called his disciples and chose from them twelve, whom he named apostles:

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Luke 9:35

And a voice came out of the cloud, saying, “This is my Son, my Chosen One; listen to him!”

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Luke 10:22

All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows who the Son is except the Father, or who the Father is except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.”

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Luke 10:42

but one thing is necessary. Mary has chosen the good portion, which will not be taken away from her.”

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Luke 14:7

[ The Parable of the Wedding Feast ] Now he told a parable to those who were invited, when he noticed how they chose the places of honor, saying to them,

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Luke 23:35

And the people stood by, watching, but the rulers scoffed at him, saying, “He saved others; let him save himself, if he is the Christ of God, his Chosen One!”

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

John 6:70

Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you, the Twelve? And yet one of you is a devil.”

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

John 13:18

I am not speaking of all of you; I know whom I have chosen. But the Scripture will be fulfilled, ‘He who ate my bread has lifted his heel against me.’

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

John 15:16

You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

John 15:19

If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Acts 1:2

until the day when he was taken up, after he had given commands through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Acts 1:12

[ Matthias Chosen to Replace Judas ] Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem, a Sabbath day's journey away.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Acts 1:24

And they prayed and said, “You, Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which one of these two you have chosen

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Acts 6:1

[ Seven Chosen to Serve ] Now in these days when the disciples were increasing in number, a complaint by the Hellenists arose against the Hebrews because their widows were being neglected in the daily distribution.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Acts 6:5

And what they said pleased the whole gathering, and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolaus, a proselyte of Antioch.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Acts 9:15

But the Lord said to him, “Go, for he is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the children of Israel.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Acts 10:41

not to all the people but to us who had been chosen by God as witnesses, who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Acts 13:17

The God of this people Israel chose our fathers and made the people great during their stay in the land of Egypt, and with uplifted arm he led them out of it.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Acts 15:7

And after there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Acts 15:22

[ The Council's Letter to Gentile Believers ] Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They sent Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leading men among the brothers,

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Acts 15:25

it has seemed good to us, having come to one accord, to choose men and send them to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Acts 15:40

but Paul chose Silas and departed, having been commended by the brothers to the grace of the Lord.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Romans 9:1

[ God's Sovereign Choice ] I am speaking the truth in Christ—I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit—

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Romans 11:5

So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Romans 16:13

Greet Rufus, chosen in the Lord; also his mother, who has been a mother to me as well.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

1 Corinthians 1:27

But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong;

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

1 Corinthians 1:28

God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are,

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

1 Corinthians 12:18

But as it is, God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

1 Corinthians 15:38

But God gives it a body as he has chosen, and to each kind of seed its own body.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Ephesians 1:4

even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Philippians 1:22

If I am to live in the flesh, that means fruitful labor for me. Yet which I shall choose I cannot tell.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Colossians 1:27

To them God chose to make known how great among the Gentiles are the riches of the glory of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Colossians 3:12

Put on then, as God's chosen ones, holy and beloved, compassionate hearts, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience,

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

1 Thessalonians 1:4

For we know, brothers loved by God, that he has chosen you,

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

2 Thessalonians 2:13

[ Stand Firm ] But we ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as the firstfruits to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Hebrews 5:1

For every high priest chosen from among men is appointed to act on behalf of men in relation to God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

James 2:5

Listen, my beloved brothers, has not God chosen those who are poor in the world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom, which he has promised to those who love him?

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

1 Peter 2:4

As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious,

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

1 Peter 2:6

For it stands in Scripture: “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a cornerstone chosen and precious, and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

1 Peter 2:9

But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

1 Peter 5:13

She who is at Babylon, who is likewise chosen, sends you greetings, and so does Mark, my son.

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Revelation 17:14

They will make war on the Lamb, and the Lamb will conquer them, for he is Lord of lords and King of kings, and those with him are called and chosen and faithful.”

In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

Systematic Theology

Original Sin

1. The sin of our first parents was of disastrous consequence not only to them personally, but also to all their offspring, inasmuch as the guilt of their first transgression is imputed, and the corruption of their nature is transmitted, to all their children. The first is called hereditary guilt, the other, hereditary depravity.

2. Hereditary guilt.—The sin which Adam committed was, indeed, first charged to Adam himself, and he died of that sin. But it was imputed also to all his children, and to this day men die of the sin of Adam. Paul tells us that by the obedience of One, that is Christ, many were made righteous—constituted righteous, because the obedience of Christ is imputed or credited to them—and “by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners”—were constituted sinners, because the disobedience of Adam was imputed or charged to them (Rom. 5:19). “By the offense of one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation” (Rom. 5:18). This he proves by the fact that from Adam to Moses men died, even though they had not sinned “after the similitude of Adam,” transgressing as Adam had done an express command of God, to which the penalty of death was affixed (Gen. 2:17). But they died “through the offense of one” (Rom. 5:14. 15); (1 Cor. 15:22). Hence, the offense of Adam must have been charged to them, and because of this offense they died. ‘Tis true, also the sins men commit personally are worthy of death (Rom. 6:23). Paul emphasizes how sin and its guilt came into the world, into the human race. Adam’s sin killed our entire race, made death reign supreme. By their very entrance into this world, sin and death reached all men. “As by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned” (Rom. 5:12). That the guilt of Adam’s sin is charged to us appears also from the fact that the punishment meted out to him and Eve for their specific transgression (Gen. 3:16–19), is suffered by all men and women to this day. Illustration: A man, who gambled away his freedom and became a slave, by this act brought slavery also upon his children, who had not gambled as their father did. In a similar manner the guilt of Adam, and whatever goes with it, is visited upon all his children.

In this connection we must, however, remember that the same God who imputes to us the sin of Adam and condemns us on its account, has likewise imputed to us the righteousness of Christ and declared us just for HIS sake (Rom. 5:18. 19).

3. Hereditary depravity.—In another direction did the fall of Adam bring woe upon him and his kin. By their sin our first parents lost the image of God and became altogether sinful and corrupt in their nature. As children inherit from their parents certain features and traits, sometimes even bodily weaknesses and diseases, so have all men inherited that deep-seated spiritual corruption, which we call original depravity. This is not a sin which men do or commit in their lives, but a sinful condition of their nature, which they have by birth. Having himself lost the image of God, Adam begat a son “in his own likeness” (Gen. 5:3). Like himself, his children were destitute of righteousness, holiness, and innocence; they were selfish, seeking only their own advantage and pleasure and honor; they were inclined to, and capable of, any sin and crime. Cain was a murderer. Men do evil, because by nature they are evil (Gen. 4:8; 6:3. 5; 8:21).

“Since the fall of Adam, all men begotten in a natural way are born with sin, that is, without fear of God, without trust in God, with concupiscence; and this disease, or vice of origin, is truly sin, even now condemning and bringing eternal wrath upon those not born again through Baptism and the Holy Ghost” (A.C., Art. II, Triglot, p. 43).

Bible proof.—Man is “flesh born of flesh” (John 3:6), that is, he is the sinful child of sinful parents. “Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me” (Ps. 51:5). In his flesh dwelleth no good thing (Rom. 7:18). By nature there is in him no true fear of God, no love of God, no trust in God, no willingness to serve God and to do good to his neighbor. On the contrary, his old Adam “is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts” (Eph. 4:22). All manner of lusts arise in him, but they are deceitful, do not lead him in the right way, because his heart, alienated from God, is inclined toward evil (Gen. 8:21). Man covets, because by nature he is covetous; he sins, because by nature he is sinful, and given to “inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness” (Col. 3:5). Thus, by nature man loves himself more than he loves God or his neighbor; he envies others, is selfish and self-centered. Whatever he plans, purposes, and does, must in some way serve his own personal interests, or flatter his vanity. He has become his own god. In spiritual things his understanding is darkened (Eph. 4:18); he cannot discern or appreciate them, for they are foolishness to him (1 Cor. 2:14). Being carnally minded, his will is not free or neutral, but set on the things of the flesh (Rom. 8:5), and against the things of the Spirit (Gal. 5:17); hence he is by nature an enemy of God (Rom. 8:7; Col. 1:21). Being dead m sin (Eph. 2:1), man has no strength to work out his spiritual restoration.

This description of the spiritual condition of natural man is by no means flattering to his vanity, but such it is according to the Word of Him who “knew what was in man” (John 2:25). This inherited corruption, which vitiated and depraved primarily the faculties of the soul, enslaves in the service of sin also the members of the body (Rom. 6:12, 13a; 7:23, 24).

Original sin does not constitute an essential part of the soul, which God created, nor is it a self-existing essence; but it is the corrupt quality and condition of the soul, brought on by the fall of man, and passed on by birth to his children. It is not the sinful act which Adam committed, but the depravity and corruption of the entire nature contracted by, and resulting from, that act. It is the sinfulness of our whole nature, which is ours by birth, and because of which we are constantly at variance with the demand of God: “Ye shall be holy” (Lev. 19:2). Because we are not as God made us at the beginning, and as He wants us to be, we are by nature under His wrath (Eph. 2:3).

“Original sin is not properly the nature, substance, or essence of man, that is, man’s body and soul, which even now, since the Fall, are and remain the creation and creatures of God in us, but it is something in the nature, body, and soul of man, and in all his powers, namely, a horrible, deep, inexpressible corruption of the same, so that man is destitute of the righteousness wherein he was originally created, and in spiritual things is dead to good and perverted to all evil …. Now, since the Fall, man inherits an inborn, wicked disposition and inward impurity of heart, evil lust and propensity” (F.C., Th. D., I, 2. 11, Triglot, p. 859. 863).

Other names for this original depravity are “old Adam,” because we inherited it from Adam. It is also called “flesh” (Rom. 8:13); “old man” (Eph. 4:22); “sin that dwelleth in us” (Rom. 7:17).

“Original sin is universal, inherited by ‘all men begotten in the natural way’ (A.C., Art. II). The universal scope of Job 14:4; John 3:6; Rom. 5:12 leaves no room for excepting the Virgin Mary. She did not except herself, but placed her sole hope of salvation in her ‘Saviour’ (Luke 1:47). The only human being, untainted by original sin is the Virgin’s Son, Jesus Christ, who was immaculately conceived through the power of the Holy Ghost (Luke 1:35; Hebr. 7:26; 2 Cor. 5:21).” (Popular Symbolics, §48).

Original sin clings to us through life.—It is not eradicated in Baptism, as the Roman Catholic Church teaches. (Popular Symbolics, §227). By faith in Christ we are freed from its guilt and punishment; but the corruption itself, concupiscence, remains, as Paul experienced (Rom. 7:14–25), and as every Christian still experiences. (Apol., Art. II, 35–37, Triglot, p. 113). By faith Christians will with the aid of the Holy Ghost constantly strive to suppress this old Adam (Eph. 4:22; Gal. 5:24); in this life they will never succeed in totally destroying him. (Cf., F.C., Th. D., Art. I).^{^[1]}

The Election of Grace

As the work of the Holy Ghost, by which men are brought to Christ and through faith unto salvation, is but the realization of God’s eternal purpose and plan, it is proper to discuss the doctrine of election at this point. “The eternal election of God, however, or predestination, that is, God’s ordination to salvation, does not extend at once over the godly and the wicked, but only over the children of God” (F.C., Th. D., XI, 5, Triglot, p. 1065). It has no counterpart, such as a predestination to damnation.

1. General statement.—Before a person begins to build a house, he has in mind the purpose to build and a plan according to which he will build. And while we may not have any advance information concerning his purpose and plan, we learn to know them as the building operations begin and proceed, for the man builds as he has purposed and planned it. We also conclude that he will continue to build until his original purpose is realized. In a similar way we may consider the work of the Holy Ghost. We observe in others, and experience it also in ourselves, that the Holy Ghost has called us by the Gospel, that He has wrought faith in our hearts, that He justifies, sanctifies, and that He keeps us in this faith, and will finally save us. These are spiritual blessings, which the Holy Ghost bestows upon us during our lifetime, of which we have knowledge. Behind the work of the Holy Ghost, as it unfolds itself in our lives, stands the eternal purpose and plan of God. The entire work of the Holy Ghost is the actual fulfilling and realization of God’s purpose.

Briefly stated, then, the doctrine of predestination is this: Whatever God has done, is doing, and will still do for us during our life on earth to bring us to faith in Christ and to preserve us in this faith unto eternal salvation, is not a matter of chance; neither is it motivated by any personal merit and worthiness, or better conduct, which God foresaw in some people; but God has from eternity purposed and planned it, and by grace for Christ’s sake He has chosen and predestinated us to salvation before the foundation of the world.

2. Bible proof.—We read in Scripture: “God hath saved us and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began” (2 Tim. 1:9). Here the apostle Paul calls attention to certain things the Christians had experienced in their lives; they had been called and converted through the Gospel. This did not happen by chance, nor because God discovered in them some merit or virtue; He purposed this before the world began according to His grace in Christ Jesus.

“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ; according as He hath chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, wherein He hath made us accepted in the Beloved” (Eph. 1:3–6). The apostle Paul thanks God for the spiritual blessings the Christians at Ephesus had received, and of which they had knowledge. Then he adds this information, that they were blessed “according as He hath chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world.” God blessed them during their lifetime, even as He had from eternity purposed and planned to do. The intent of this election, therefore, was that the Ephesian Christians should be blessed with all spiritual blessings; they were chosen that they should be holy and blameless before God in love; they were predestinated that by faith they should become the children of God.—Furthermore, Paul points out the cause of their election. As during their lives they were blessed “in Christ,” so they were from eternity chosen “in Him,” and predestinated “according to the good pleasure of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace.” Thus we see that in blessing us with spiritual blessings during our lives on earth, God carries out what He purposed to do for us from eternity.

Other texts which clearly set forth the doctrine of election are: Rom. 8:28–30; 2 Thess. 2:13; 1 Pet. 1:2; Acts 13:48.

3. Election in detail.—(a) Election is an act of God; “He hath chosen us.” Man did not choose God to be his Father, but God chose man to be His child. And this He did not during the lifetime of a person, but “before the foundation of the world.” The question is not determined while man lives on earth, pending his conduct, but before he is born (Rom. 9:11), before the world began (2 Tim. 1:9).

(b) God was moved to do this, not by any merit or worthiness He foresaw in man (2 Tim. 1:9; Rom. 11:6), but solely and exclusively by His grace in Christ Jesus; “according to the purpose of His grace given us in Christ Jesus” (2 Tim. 1:9); “having chosen us in Him” (Christ) and “having predestinated us … by Jesus Christ … according to the good pleasure of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace” (Eph. 1:4–6).

(c) This predestination does not pertain to the redemption, by which salvation was to be procured for all men, nor to the means of grace, through which these spiritual blessings were to be offered and imparted to men, but it pertains to men themselves, to individual persons; “us” (Eph. 1:4), “you” (2 Thess. 2:13), “as many as were ordained to eternal life believed” (Acts 13:48). The objects of election are men, human beings, not means.

(d) God chose, elected. Election, therefore, does not extend over all men, for that would not be an election. Election extended over certain ones. “Many are called, but few are chosen” (Matt. 22:14). Who these chosen ones are, God did not reveal beforehand; but they are recognized by the results of their election in their lives, as we shall see later. The election was at the same time also a predestination; for God elected these people for a definite purpose, and ordained that this purpose be realized and accomplished with them. He resolved and decreed from the beginning what He would do for them after they are born into this world.

(e) The elect are predestinated unto being called through the Gospel and unto conversion (2 Tim. 1:9; Rom. 8:28), unto the obedience of faith (1 Pet. 1:2; Acts 13:48), unto the adoption of children by faith (Eph. 1:5; Rom. 8:29), unto justification through faith (1 Pet. 1:2; Rom. 8:30), unto sanctification of life, to “be holy and without blame before Him in love” (Eph. 1:4), unto good works (Eph. 2:10), unto perseverance in the faith (John 10:28; Matt. 24:24), and through all these unto eternal life (Acts 13:48; 2 Thess. 2:13).

4. Resumé.—The decree of predestination, therefore, ordains not merely the final salvation of the elect, but it includes also the entire way that leads them to heaven. In other words, God predestinated His elect unto eternal life via conversion, faith, justification, sanctification, and preservation in the faith, as Paul says: “God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth” (2 Thess. 2:13). None of the elect get to heaven except by this way, and it is included in the decree of their election that they should get to heaven by this way. Hence, the entire work of the Holy Ghost, by which He calls, converts, justifies, sanctifies, keeps, and finally saves sinners, is but the execution and realization of God’s eternal purpose concerning these individuals. This is brought out very clearly in Rom. 8:28–30, where we read: “We know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to His purpose. For whom He did foreknow, He also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom He did predestinate, them He also called: and whom He called, them He also justified: and whom He justified, them He also glorified.” In this text the word “foreknow” cannot mean merely to know beforehand, because God knew all men before they were born, yet not all men are predestinated. Here the word “foreknow” means to know as one’s own, as in Matt. 7:23; Luke 13:27; it means to elect, to choose, as in Rom. 11:2; Amos 3:2. Hence, the meaning of the text is: Whom He chose, those He predestinated; and whom He predestinated, them He called by the Gospel, them He justified by faith, and them He finally glorified in heaven.

“In this counsel, purpose, and ordination God has prepared salvation not only in general, but has in His grace considered and chosen to salvation each and every person of the elect who are to be saved through Christ, also ordained that in the way just mentioned He will, by His grace, gifts, and efficacy, bring them thereto, aid, promote, strengthen, and preserve them” (F.C., Th. D., Art. XI, 23, Triglot, p. 1069).

Being elected unto conversion and faith, and through these unto salvation, it is evident that a person cannot be elected in view of, or because of, his faith, since faith is not a cause, but the result of his election (Acts 13:48).

5. Knowledge of our election.—No man on earth has direct information as to his personal election; he can have only an inferred knowledge. In life we often infer the cause from its effects. Illustration: Perhaps we did not see or hear it rain during the night; but if in the morning we find wet ground and water puddles, we infer that it must have rained. In like manner, we have no direct knowledge of our election, but we have the experimental knowledge of its results in our lives, namely, those spiritual blessings in Christ, from which we should infer that we were elected thereunto. From our faith in Christ, which we now have, we infer that we shall not perish, but have everlasting life (John 3:16); from the same faith we should infer also that we were ordained to eternal life (Acts 13:48). Faith in Christ is a matter of personal experience and direct knowledge; “I know whom I have believed” (2 Tim. 1:12). And by this faith which I now have, I know of my election in the past and my salvation in the future. The knowledge of my election, in turn, fortifies my assurance of final salvation (Matt. 24:24). Thus knowledge of election—not election itself—is contingent on faith. Faith in Christ does not explain why we are elected, but it shows us that we are elected. “Der Glaube ist nicht Erklaerungsgrund, wohl aber Erkenntnisgrund der Wahl.”

He who would know of his election, should not begin to speculate concerning the secret and inscrutable foreknowledge of God; but let him repent of his sins, hear the Gospel of grace, by which God calls His elect; let him examine himself whether he is in the faith (2 Cor. 13:5); then by this faith he will know also of his election. As long as a person is in the faith, he should regard himself an elect, even as he regards himself an heir of salvation as long as he believes in Christ. In like manner must we, as Paul did (2 Thess. 2:13), look upon all as being elected, whom we must assume to be believers.

As long as a person is without faith, he cannot know and regard himself as being elected. But this does by no means say that he is not elected; for God may still call him by the Gospel and begin in him that good work, which will end in heaven. Let him hear the Gospel, believe in Christ, his Savior, and then he will by this faith also know of his election. (Cf. F.C., Th. D., Art. XI., 25–33, Triglot, p. 1071).

6. The comfort of this doctrine.—This doctrine is by no means a useless speculation, but very comforting; it shows us that our salvation and everything pertaining thereto is not a matter of chance, nor, on our part, a matter of personal choice (Rom. 9:16), or of personal merit (Rom. 11:6), but is a matter of deep concern to God, who purposed it before the world began, deliberated concerning it, and in His secret counsel ordained how He would bring us thereto and preserve us therein. And since this counsel of God cannot fail nor be overthrown, we are thereby assured of our final salvation (Matt. 24:24). (Cf., F.C., Th. D., Art. XI, 45. 46, Triglot, p. 1079).

We are also admonished: “Give diligence to make your calling and election sure” (2 Pet. 1:10). No one should think that, because he is in faith today and thereby assured of his election, he may now discard the Gospel, lose faith, live in sin, and still regard himself as one of the elect who will unfailingly be saved. We find comfort in our election only while we are in the faith. Hence, to make our election sure to ourselves, we must give diligence that we remain steadfast in the faith. To this end we must make use of those means by which God assures us of His grace and thereby of our election.

7. Relation of the election of grace to the work of grace.—The work of the Holy Ghost, by which we are brought to Christ and to salvation, is the fulfillment and the execution of the election of grace. Hence, there is so intimate a connection between the two that an error in the one will result in an error in the other. Synergists teach that man contributes something toward his conversion; hence, they teach that men are elected in view of this “something” they would contribute. Calvinism teaches that many are foreordained to everlasting death; hence, they teach that the Holy Ghost does not intend to save all men. He who correctly understands and believes as is confessed in Luther’s explanation of the Third Article of the Apostles’ Creed, will have no difficulty in understanding and believing that, what the Holy Ghost does to bring us to Christ and through faith to heaven, God has purposed and resolved to do for us from eternity.

“This doctrine is the doctrine of the Third Article plus the idea of eternity; in other words, it is the eternal purpose and plan of God to do for the individual what, according to the Third Article, He actually does for him during his lifetime to bring him to heaven” (G. J. Fritschel in The Lutheran Standard, January, 1940).

8. False teachings on election.—Calvinism teaches: “By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death” (Westminster Confession); (cf., Schaff, 3608); (cf., Triglot, Introd., No. 225. 226). The Bible knows nothing of a predestination unto eternal death. On the contrary, it teaches that God will have all men to be saved (1 Tim. 2:4), and that man alone is at fault, if he is lost (Matt. 23:37; Hos. 13:9).

Synergism, while upholding the universality of God’s grace and of Christ’s redemption, teaches that there must be something in man that influenced and determined God to elect just him and not another. (Cf., Triglot, Introd., No. 224). Even the expression that men are elected “in view of faith” makes sense only if there is an element of human merit in faith. But the Bible definitely excludes every merit or worthiness in man as a cause of his election (2 Tim. 1:9; Rom. 11:6).

Human reason cannot harmonize the two doctrines of the Bible, that God by grace for Christ’s sake will have all men to be saved, and that God by grace for Christ’s sake elected few to be saved; neither must men try to harmonize them. We can only restate what God has revealed to us in His Word, and we must not begin to guess what He has reserved in His hidden wisdom concerning this mystery. God has not revealed to us all He knows, all He did and intends to do for our salvation, nor His reasons for His acts. But God did reveal as much as He wants us to know and as much as we need to know regarding salvation through Christ. He does not satisfy our curiosity as to His secret counsels. Hence, we say with Paul: “O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are His judgments, and His ways past finding out!” (Rom. 11:33). (Read F. C., Art. XI.)^{^[2]}

Preservation through Faith Unto Salvation.

1. God keeps us in the faith.—As it is God who gave us, and preserves in us, our natural life, so it is He who not only wrought faith and spiritual life in us, but who also keeps and preserves it. “Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation” (1 Pet. 1:5). “He which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ” (Phil. 1:6). “Who shall also confirm you unto the end, that ye may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 1:8). From these texts it is evident that God does not merely start men on the way of faith to heaven, but that God also “strengthens and preserves us steadfast in His Word and faith unto the end.” “The decree of the Council of Trent, and whatever elsewhere is set forth in the same sense, is justly to be rejected, namely, that our good works preserve salvation or the righteousness of faith, which has been received, or even faith itself is either entirely or in part preserved by our works” (F.C., Th. D., Art. IV, 35, Triglot, p. 949). We reject “the doctrine of the synergists … that free will … can cooperate, by its own powers, with the Holy Ghost in the continuation and maintenance of this work” (F.C., Th. D., Art. II, 77, Triglot, p. 911).

“The exhortations ‘Be thou faithful unto death’ (Rev. 2:10), ‘Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling’ (Phil. 2:12), do not imply that a Christian achieves this perseverance by his own powers, as little as the command to believe implies that man produces faith. The powers called for in this exhortation are supplied and set in action solely by God (Phil. 2:13). As to the argument that, since man himself brings about his defection, he must also be able to achieve his perseverance, Scripture rejects the deduction (1 Pet. 1:5; Hos. 13:9). And it is not even logically valid” (Popular Symbolics, p. 74). The fact that man is able to do one thing does not prove that he is able also to do the opposite. Man can destroy his life, but he can neither produce nor preserve it.

2. God preserves faith through the means of grace.—As God preserves physical life through certains means, such as food and drink, so He preserves spiritual faith and life through means, the means of grace. The same means by which He created faith He employs to nourish and to keep it, namely, the Gospel and the Sacraments. The power of God by which we are kept in the faith (1 Pet. 1:5), operates through the Gospel, which is “the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth” (Rom. 1:16). It is “the Word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe” (1 Thess. 2:13). “Through the same Word and the forgiveness of sins (He) bestows, increases, and strengthens faith” (Large Cat., III, 62, Triglot, p. 695). “Through the same Spirit and His grace, by means of daily exercise of reading and practising God’s Word, He would preserve in us faith and His heavenly gifts, strengthen us from day to day, and keep us to the end” (F.C., Th. D., Art. II, 16, Triglot, p. 887).

3. Man must use the means of grace.—As man must use the means which God provides for the support and wants of the body, so he must likewise use the means by which God would preserve his faith. “Search the Scriptures” (John 5:39). “Blessed are they that hear the Word of God, and keep it” (Luke 11:28). “Let the Word of Christ dwell in you richly” (Col. 3:16). “Blessed is the man … his delight is in the Law of the Lord; and in His Law doth he meditate day and night” (Ps. 1:1. 2). While God could, indeed, preserve us in faith without the use of any means whatsoever, He has not promised to do so. It has pleased Him to deal with us only through His Word. If, then, we wish that faith be preserved in us, we must learn and ponder His Word, and keep it in our hearts. Whatever occupies our attention will work on our hearts. Neglecting to use the Word of God means spiritual starvation, spiritual suicide. The light of faith continues to burn as long as the Word of God supplies oil for our lamp.

4. The end of such preservation in the faith is the salvation of the soul.—“Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation … Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls” (1 Pet. 1:5. 9). “God so loved the world, that He gave His only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life” (John 3:16). Trusting in God’s promise of preserving grace, the believer is assured of his final salvation. Hence, we confess with Luther in the explanation of the Third Article of the Apostles’ Creed: “I believe that … He will give unto me and all believers in Christ eternal life. This is most certainly true.” Having thus brought the sinner back to God, the Spirit’s work of sanctification comes to an end.

5. Warnings against apostasy.—“The warnings against apostasy, Rom. 11:20; 1 Cor. 10:12, are aimed not at the confidence of faith, but at carnal security and self-confidence; heeding them, the Christian casts himself upon the Gospel promise and thus obtains and retains the certainty of final salvation. So also the ‘fear and trembling’ of Phil. 2:12, resulting from the realization of our weakness and inability, does not replace the confidence of faith, but exists side by side with it and subserves it” (Popular Symbolics, p. 75). As we look at our weakness and the dangers that threaten us, we, like children, are filled with fear and trembling; but as we look at the sure promises of God, we are quite confident that His hand will lead us safely through all difficulties and dangers (Rom. 8:38; John 10:28). “The assertion that one who knows that he may become a castaway (1 Cor. 9:27) cannot have the assurance that he will not become a castaway may be logically correct, but is theologically false; Rom. 8:38. The difficulty which this matter presents cannot be solved by means of logic, but only by distinguishing between the Law and the Gospel. The convictions produced by the Law must not, and do not, eliminate the convictions produced by the Gospel, the assurance of perseverance, but subserve them” (Popular Symbolics, p. 75).

6. Salvation is exclusively a work of divine grace.—Without their merit and cooperation did the Son of God procure for all men forgiveness of sins, life, and salvation. Without our merit and cooperation did the Holy Ghost cause us to believe in Christ, and to continue in this faith unto the end. Thus God began the good work in us, and performs it until we are safe in heaven. No Christian may now or hereafter claim any merit for himself, but must give all praise and glory to God, who “hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light” (Col. 1:12). If at any stage our salvation depended in any measure or degree on some contribution we must make, it would at once become uncertain to all of us, since no one could be sure whether his personal contribution were sufficient to insure salvation. Man cannot contribute anything toward his conversion and final salvation, but he is saved exclusively by the monergism of divine grace. “By grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it” (salvation) “is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast” (Eph. 2:8. 9); (Rom. 4:16).

7. “God will have all men to be saved” (1 Tim. 2:4). Whereas God alone can save sinners, the question arises, whether He wants to save all of them. The answer is given in the following Scripture texts. “The Lord is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance” (2 Pet. 3:9). “God will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim. 2:4). “As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live” (Ezek. 33:11). In this last text God confirms with an oath His serious intention of saving all men. Even of those who are finally lost we learn, that Christ has not only bought them (2 Pet. 2:1), but that He also wanted to gather them to Himself (Matt. 23:37). There is no human being whom Christ did not redeem, and whom the Holy Ghost does not want to bring to faith in Christ, and through such faith to heaven. If there were but one exception, each man might think that he is this exception, and no one could be sure of his salvation. However, there is positively no exception; God wants all men to be saved, and to that end has redeemed all men through Christ.

8. Not all men are saved.—“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: because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it” (Matt. 7:13. 14). “And these shall go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into life eternal” (Matt. 25:46). “Many are called, but few are chosen” (Matt. 22:14). Thus, more are actually lost than saved.—The reason why many do not come to Christ, though they are called, lies in no sense with God, but solely with man. Unto Jerusalem Christ said: “How often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!” (Matt. 23:37). Stephen told the Jews: “Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost; as your fathers did, so do ye” (Acts 7:51). Whoever, therefore, is lost, is lost by his own fault; whoever is saved, is saved by the grace and power of God. “O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself; but in Me is thine help” (Hos. 13:9). Man got himself into trouble, but only God can get him out of it.

9. A difficulty.—In this connection a certain difficulty presents itself to man’s way of thinking.

There is no difference among men; they all are equally unworthy to be converted and saved (2 Tim. 1:9), equally incompetent to convert themselves, and by nature equally unwilling to be converted (1 Cor. 2:14; Eph. 2:1; Rom. 8:7; 1 Cor. 12:3).

There is no difference in the attitude of God towards men; He earnestly would convert and save all men (1 Tim. 2:4), and He alone can convert if man is to be converted (1 Cor. 12:3; Jer. 31:18).

From this it would seem to follow that, since the same powerful grace of God works on all who hear the Gospel, the same effect would result: either that all are converted, because the powerful grace of God breaks down their resistance, or that no one is converted, because the grace of God is not strong enough. For if the grace of God does convert one, we see no reason why it should not do so with another, who is in like condemnation. If it cannot or does not convert the second person, we see no reason why it can and does convert the first. Where the same powers operate under the same conditions, we should expect the same results. Still we find, while the spiritual condition of all men is the same, and the converting grace is equally serious and efficacious with all, there is a difference in the result: some are converted, others are not.

Synergism would explain this different result by a difference in men. Some people, it is held, by their natural powers contribute something towards their conversion; they cooperate with the Holy Ghost, fit themselves for His work, do not resist as much as others, and therefore with them the efforts of the Holy Ghost take effect, and conversion results.

Calvinism would explain the different result by a difference in God, namely, that God does not seriously intend to convert and save all men, that He passes certain ones by with His grace. (Cf., Historical Introduction to the Symbolical Books: XIV, The Synergistic Controversy, Triglot, p. 124; XX, On Predestination, p. 195).

Both, Synergism and Calvinism, make salvation uncertain to the individual. The Synergist must ask himself whether he has sufficiently cooperated with the Holy Ghost to bring about a real conversion, while the Calvinist must ever be in doubt whether he really is among those whom God wanted to convert and to save.

The Bible denies that there is a difference in the spiritual attitude of natural man toward God, or in the gracious will of God towards men, and it plainly teaches that He is willing to convert and save all men, and that only He can convert and save them. If any man is turned to God in conversion, this is solely and exclusively the work of the Holy Ghost; but if any man remains unconverted, it is solely and exclusively his own fault. Beyond this we must not try to reason. We have no right to construct or develop a doctrine on the basis of our own rational deductions, but must bring every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ (2 Cor. 10:5), and bow in humble admiration to the superior wisdom of our God, as the apostle Paul did, saying: “O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments, and His ways past finding out!” (Rom. 11:33).^{^[3]}

Purpose of the Doctrine of Election

Scripture explicitly and definitely states the purpose of this doctrine. Its purpose is not to deny or restrict the gratia universalis, as many before and after Calvin have thought,²⁰ but to confirm and impress on us the sola gratia. Christians, in comparing themselves with non-Christians, are not to get the idea that God has chosen them as His people in view of their “different behavior,” their better conduct, or their lesser guilt, etc., but they should always and in all circumstances remain aware that, compared with the unbelievers, they, too, behaved wickedly and are themselves just as guilty before God as are the reprobate. If they took the opposite view, they would be canceling their membership in the Christian Church, the Kingdom of Grace, and be joining the kingdom of the Pharisees, which lies under the curse (Luke 18:9 ff.; Gal. 3:10). This is the purpose of the doctrine of election as revealed in Holy Writ.

This was the purpose also of the Old Testament type of the election of grace, namely, the election of Israel to be the covenant people. Reading Deut. 9:4 ff., one gains the impression that Moses in addressing Israel felt that he could not do enough to cure the people of the delusion that they received the land of Canaan because they were better than the heathen. Listen to his words: “Speak not thou in thine heart, after that the Lord, thy God, hath cast them out from before thee, saying, For my righteousness the Lord hath brought me in to possess this land; but for the wickedness of these nations the Lord doth drive them out from before thee. Not for thy righteousness, or for the uprightness of thine heart, dost thou go to possess their land; but for the wickedness of these nations the Lord, thy God, doth drive them out from before thee, and that He may perform the Word which the Lord sware unto thy fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Understand, therefore, that the Lord, thy God, giveth thee not this good land to possess it for thy righteousness; for thou art a stiffnecked people.”

The doctrine of election to salvation serves the same purpose. Here, too, it seems that the Holy Ghost cannot do enough to instill this truth into the Christians, that God’s choice of them to salvation is not due to their being better than others, but is attributable solely to the grace of God in Christ. 2 Tim. 1:9: “Not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began.” Eph. 1:5–6: “According to the good pleasure of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace.” Rom. 11:6: “And if by grace, then is it no more of works.” Keeping in mind this purpose, the confirmation of the sola gratia, we are led to the right understanding of Romans 9–11. These chapters are not directed against universal grace; on the contrary, universal grace is very emphatically taught here too; see 10:21; 11:32. The characteristic feature of these chapters is their polemicizing against the delusion of self-righteousness and superiority to others.²¹

Our Lutheran Confessions, too, declare it to be the purpose of the doctrine of election to confirm the sola gratia. Says the Formula of Concord: “It establishes very effectually the article that we are justified and saved without all works and merits of ours, purely out of grace alone, for Christ’s sake. For before the time of the world, before we existed, yea, before the foundation of the world was laid, when, of course, we could do nothing good, we were according to God’s purpose chosen by grace in Christ to salvation, Rom. 9:11; 2 Tim. 1:9. Moreover, all opiniones (opinions) and erroneous doctrines concerning the powers of our natural will are thereby overthrown, because God in His counsel, before the time of the world, decided and ordained that He Himself, by the power of His Holy Ghost, would produce and work in us, through the Word, everything that pertains to our conversion.” (Trigl. 1077, ibid., 43 ff.) Again: “By this doctrine and explanation of the eternal and saving choice [predestination] of the elect children of God His own glory is entirely and fully given to God, that in Christ He saves us out of pure [and free] mercy, without any merits or good works of ours, according to the purpose of His will, as it is written Eph. 1:5 f.: ‘Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, wherein He hath made us accepted in the Beloved.’ Therefore it is false and wrong [conflicts with the Word of God] when it is taught that not alone the mercy of God and the most holy merit of Christ, but that also in us there is a cause of God’s election, on account of which God has chosen us to eternal life. For not only before we had done anything good, but also before we were born, yea, even before the foundations of the world were laid, He elected us in Christ; and ‘that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of Him that calleth, it was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger; as it is written concerning this matter, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated, Rom. 9:11 ff.; Gen. 25:23; Mal. 1:2 f.” (Trigl. 1091, ibid., 87 f.)

Because of its purpose of confirming the sola gratia the Scriptural doctrine of eternal election is terrifying to some, consoling to others. For all who think that they are not as other people, who still find in themselves inherent virtue and innate ability, semina virtutum, at least a facultas se applicandi ad gratiam, a different behavior, a lesser guilt, etc.—for all these the Scriptural election of grace is terrifying because it blasts their whole religion, of which “self-determination, inseparable from human nature,” is an important part.²² On the other hand, all whom the thunderbolt of the Law “has knocked into a heap,” who have come to despair of themselves and who see their only salvation in the pure, free grace of God, find the Scripture doctrine of the election of grace very comforting because of its powerful confirmation of the sola gratia. “Thus this doctrine,” says the Formula of Concord, “afords also the excellent and glorious consolation that God was so greatly concerned about the conversion, righteousness, and salvation of every Christian, and so faithfully purposed it [provided therefor] that before the foundation of the world was laid, He deliberated concerning it, and in His [secret] purpose ordained how He could bring me thereto [call and lead me to salvation], and preserve me therein. Also, that He wished to secure my salvation so well and certainly that, since through the weakness and wickedness of our flesh it could easily be lost from our hands, or through craft and might of the devil and the world be snatched and taken from us, He ordained it in His eternal purpose, which cannot fail or be overthrown, and placed it for preservation in the almighty hand of our Savior Jesus Christ, from which no one can pluck us, John 10:28. Hence Paul also says, Rom. 8:28–29: Because we have been called according to the purpose of God, who will separate us from the love of God in Christ?” (Trigl. 1079, ibid., 45 ff.) Thus the election of grace affords strong consolation to the individual Christians in their weakness and temptations because it confirms the sola gratia.

Furthermore, when it seems at times that the end of the Christian Church on earth is at hand, we should regard the election of grace as a guarantee of the survival of the Church under all circumstances. This, too, Scripture teaches as one purpose of eternal election. When Elijah in his pessimism stood before God and lamented: “Lord, I, even I only, am left” (1 Kings 19:10), the Lord informed him that there were still seven thousand left in Israel as fruit of the election. Rom. 11:7: “The election [abstractum pro concreto: the elect] hath obtained it.” When the distress reaches its climax in the closing days of this world, God will for the elect’s sake shorten the days of affliction (Matt. 24:22). Accordingly, the Formula of Concord says: “This article also affords a glorious testimony that the Church of God will exist and abide in opposition to all the gates of hell” (Trigl. 1079, ibid., 50). Election is a cause of the continuous existence of the Christian Church.

Those, however, who make some human factor (aliquid in homine) the cause or motive of eternal election—whether this is in whole or only in part man’s own accomplishment, whether called the “inalienable” option or human free choice or something similar—are all utterly perverting the purpose of the revelation of eternal election into its antithesis. They contort this doctrine, which should confirm and magnify God’s grace (Eph. 1:6), into a teaching which actually affirms and magnifies human virtue and good behavior, which removes salvation from the gracious hand of God and places it into the power of man, makes grace and salvation uncertain instead of certain, and is designed to move the Christian Church off its foundation, the sola gratia. We dare not forget that as long as a person in his heart and before God holds that there is a cause and reason of election in him personally, he bears the marks of the lost, as Paul reminded the Gentile Christians when they were beginning to forget the truth that “there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek” (Rom. 10:12) and to assume that they were superior to the unbelieving Jews (Rom. 11:18–22).

Another purpose of the doctrine of election is to supply an admonition and warning much needed by all Christians according to their flesh. Since Christians were not elected irrespective of the means of grace (nude), but “through the sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth,” this doctrine powerfully exhorts all Christians by all means to hold to the course in which their election in eternity took place. Thus Christ uses the election for admonition when, after describing the way of salvation, He adds: “Many are called, but few are chosen” (Matt. 20:16; 22:14). Peter, too, uses this doctrine for the same purpose when he urges all Christians to make their calling and election sure (2 Pet. 1:10).²³ The elect on earth are seen in these vestments: they “hear the Gospel, believe in Christ, pray and give thanks, are sanctified in love, have hope, patience, and comfort under the cross, Rom. 8:25; and although all this is very weak in them, yet they hunger and thirst after righteousness, Matt. 5:6.” (Trigl. 1073, ibid., 30.) The Formula of Concord specifically sets forth the hortatory purpose of the doctrine of eternal election in the words: “From this article also powerful admonitions and warnings are derived, as Luke 7:30: ‘They rejected the counsel of God against themselves.’ Luke 14:24: ‘I say unto you that none of those men which were bidden shall taste of my supper.’ Also Matt. 20:16: ‘Many be called, but few chosen.’ ” (Trigl. 1079, ibid., 51.)^{^[4]}

No Election of Wrath or Predestination to Damnation

The Calvinists categorically teach a predestination unto damnation as the “necessary reverse” or other side of a predestination to salvation. Calvin gives the following heading to the chapter in which he begins his discussion of eternal election: “Eternal Election, or God’s Predestination of Some to Salvation, and of Others to Destruction” (Inst. III, 21; Allen, II, 140). And earlier as well as recent Reformed theologians look down on all who, while teaching an election to salvation, reject a predestination to damnation. Calvin reprimands them in severe and rude language. He declares the rejection of a predestination to damnation to be exceedingly “puerile and absurd,” “worse than absurd” (Inst. III, 23, 1; Allen, II, 163). Hodge and Shedd use more polite language, but deny the Lutheran theology the right to exist because it rejects a predestination to damnation while teaching an election to salvation. Shedd (Dogm. Theol. I, 448) divides all Christendom on earth into two classes, Calvinists (the deniers of the universalis gratia) and Arminians (the deniers of the sola gratia). This division leaves no room in the Church for the Lutherans. The position of the Formula of Concord is called “untenable ground.”²⁴

But this “necessary reverse” or logical counterpart is purely a human invention.²⁵ Scripture strikes this allegedly necessary complement out entirely. Clearly and emphatically Scripture teaches that Christians owe their whole Christian state in time, specifically also their faith, to their eternal election; but with the same clarity and emphasis Scripture also excludes the thought that the unbelief of the lost can be traced to a predestination to damnation. Compare, for example, v. 48 of Acts 13 with v. 46. In v. 48 the faith of Gentile converts is traced back to their eternal election: “As many as were ordained to eternal life, believed.” But the unbelief of the obdurate Jews is not traced to a predestination to unbelief and to damnation, but to their opposition to the earnest and efficacious gracious will of God in the Word: “Seeing ye put it [the Word of God] from you [ἀπωθεῖσθε] and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.” The “necessary reverse” is completely wiped out also by the passages which testify that the saving grace of God, the merit of Christ, and the efforts of the Holy Ghost to convert apply also to the lost. See the discussion of the pertinent Scripture texts in Vol. II, 21–34. Likewise the Scripture doctrine of obduration proves that the obdurate were in no wise elected to wrath or bypassed with the offer of grace (praeteritio). Of course, the hardening of the heart is an act of divine wrath. It does not, however, set in absolutely, that is, without a cause, but rather for “a recompense unto them,” εἰς ἀνταπόδομα (Rom. 11:9), in retribution, that is, it results from man’s resistance to God’s Word and will and to God’s gracious visitation. See “Serious and Efficacious Grace,” Vol. II, 28 ff.

To substantiate his claim that God “has created” (creavit) those ultimately lost, “to a life of shame and a death of destruction,” to that end either “depriving them of the opportunity of hearing the Word” or “by the preaching of it increasing their blindness and stupidity,” Calvin also appeals to 1 Cor. 4:7: “Who maketh thee to differ from another [τίς σε διακρίνει]? And what hast thou that thou didst not receive?” (Inst. III, 24, 12.) We answer: Of course, the Christians recognize their advantage of having the Word of God while others are without it. They also see their advantage of believing the Word, while others do not believe. They acknowledge that they have blessings which others do not possess. But at the same time they realize that they are equally guilty with the rest and still often act reprehensibly toward God’s Word; and when comparing themselves with the lost, they find that they are “most similar to them” (et quam simillimi deprehensi), and thus they “learn the more diligently to recognize and praise God’s pure [immense], unmerited grace in the vessels of mercy,” as the Formula of Concord states it (Trigl. 1083, ibid., 60).

But this is the surprising thing about the teaching of Scripture regarding the salvation of men that though the vessels of mercy must praise God’s unmerited grace, God nevertheless did not pass by the vessels of wrath, the lost, with His grace and salvation, but earnestly sought entrance to their hearts. We saw this clearly in the case of the stubborn Jews, Acts 13:46, who thrust the Word offering them grace and salvation from them and judged themselves unworthy of eternal life, contrary to God’s intention. The same fact appears in the words with which Stephen reveals the true situation to the stiff-necked Jews: “Ye do always resist [ἀντιπίπτετε] the Holy Ghost; as your fathers did, so do ye” (Acts 7:51). The “resisting” (ἀντιπίπτειν, flinging oneself against Him) presupposes a pressing, aggressive activity of the Holy Spirit. In short, according to the teaching of Scripture, God prefers those ultimately saved in such a manner that He meanwhile does not neglect those ultimately lost, does not by-pass them with His effort to convert them. The same truth is taught in Rom. 9:22–23, where the Apostle places in juxtaposition the “vessels of wrath” and the “vessels of mercy.” When Paul here says that God endured the vessels of wrath “with much long-suffering” (ἐν πολλῇ μακροθυμίᾳ), he is thereby declaring that God sought to convert and save them too.²⁶

A closer study of Rom. 9:22–23 shows clearly that the election to salvation has no predestination to damnation as its corollary. In two respects the vessels of wrath differ radically from the vessels of mercy. 1. While it is said of the vessels of mercy in the active voice that God had afore prepared them unto glory, the passive voice is used of the vessels of wrath: κατηρτισμένα εἰς ἀπώλειαν, ready, ripe for destruction. The passive construction is not to be regarded as accidental, but as intended, since the vessels of wrath and the vessels of mercy are here compared. The more we note how the words “Which He had afore prepared unto glory” (ἃ προητοίμασεν) emphasize God’s work in the vessels of mercy, the more it strikes us that in regard to the vessels of wrath, in so far as they are “fitted to destruction” (κατηρτισμένα εἰς ἀπώλειαν), there is no mention whatever of any “doing” by God. Thus the use of the active in regard to the one group and the passive in regard to the other indeed indicates that the preparation for glory and the fitting unto damnation do not have the same author. The fitting unto destruction is not traced back to God.

The Formula of Concord, too, points out this truth: “Hence the Apostle distinguishes with especial care the work of God, who alone makes vessels of honor, and the work of the devil and of man, who by the instigation of the devil, and not of God, has made himself a vessel of dishonor. For thus it is written, Rom. 9:22 f.: ‘God endured with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction, that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had afore prepared unto glory.’ Here, then, the Apostle clearly says that God endured with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath, but does not say that He made them vessels of wrath; for if this had been His will, He would not have required any great long-suffering for it. The fault, however, that they are fitted for destruction belongs to the devil and to men themselves, and not to God.” (Trigl. 1089, 79 f.)

2. While the προ (afore) in προητοίμασεν traces the preparation of the vessels of mercy back to eternity, the προ is missing before κατηρτισμένα εἰς ἀπώλειαν, “fitted to destruction.” Here, then, is taught an eternal preparation for glory or for salvation, but no eternal preparation for destruction.²⁷ In connection with this text, Bengel correctly points to Matt. 25:34, compared with v. 41, and to Acts 13:48, compared with v. 46. In this latter passage the faith of the Gentiles is traced to their eternal election, but the unbelief of the Jews is not represented as a consequence and result of their foreordination to damnation, but as a consequence and result of their resistance to God’s gracious will and operation. In Matthew 25 Christ says of the Kingdom of Glory that it was prepared for the blessed of His Father from the foundation of the world, hence from the beginning intended for them. Of the fire of hell, however, Christ says that it is prepared for the devil and his angels. If men go to hell, they go to a place originally not prepared for them. “Hell was originally not built for men.”

Against this fact it is urged that in the eternal and immutable God one cannot possibly speak of a first and a second will, an original and a later purpose. True, but the God in whom there is no prius and no posterius and who is swayed by no cause outside Him is God in His majesty far transcending human comprehension. Nevertheless, since He wants to be known of us, God became man, as in Christ so also in Scripture, as Luther often reminds us. And we must look only to this revelation of God in Christ and in Scripture if we would have a salutary knowledge of God. Christ Himself teaches us in John 3:17–18 that God first of all intends to save all men, and only secondarily intends to condemn those who through not believing on the name of the only-begotten Son leave Him no other choice. It is a mark of folly rather than wisdom to bring in at this point the eternal, immutable God, whom no cause outside Himself determines or influences. Scripture pays tribute to this majestic God, saying, for example, Rom. 11:36: “Of Him, and through Him, and to Him, are all things.” But from the context it is plain that this passage states a truth transcending human comprehension (“For who hath known the mind of the Lord? Or who hath been His counselor?”) and gives the reason why there are judgments and ways in God which we human beings cannot explain in this life, that is, cannot understand and search out (“How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out!”). See “Terminology Regarding the Divine Will of Grace” and the discussion of a “change of mind in God,” Vol. II, 34 ff.; 367, footnote 69.

Calvinists argue furthermore that there must needs be an election of wrath, a praeteritio, or an eternal predestination to damnation in view of the historical fact that so many nations did not have the Gospel and the further fact that of a hundred hearers, who are all alike in total depravity, only about twenty per cent are converted.²⁸ Recent Calvinists say: “The result is the interpretation of the purposes of God.” Here, however, we must maintain that God wants His will toward us determined by His revealed Word, which assures us that His grace is universal, and not by the history of His dispensations upon whole nations or individuals. These ways of God recorded in history—that one nation has the Gospel, another not; that, though all who hear the Word are alike guilty, some are converted and the others not—Scripture classes with God’s judgments, unsearchable for men, and with His ways that are past finding out (Rom. 11:33–36). Calvin and his followers commit the folly of attempting to extract a doctrine of predestination to damnation from the historical facts which Scripture expressly declares to be incomprehensible and unfathomable for us. They pretend to have a knowledge which they cannot possibly have.

And as for the Formula of Concord, it does not occupy “untenable ground,” but takes the doctrinal position of God’s revealed Word by saying: “Likewise, when we see that God gives His Word at one place, but not at another; removes it from one place, and allows it to remain at another; also, that one is hardened, blinded, given over to a reprobate mind, while another, who is indeed in the same guilt, is converted again, etc.—in these and similar questions Paul (Rom. 11:22 ff.) fixes a certain limit to us how far we should go, namely, a) that in the one part we should recognize God’s judgment. For they are well-deserved penalties of sins when God so punishes a land or nation for despising His Word that the punishment extends also to their posterity, as is to be seen in the Jews. And thereby [by the punishments] God in some lands and persons exhibits His severity to those that are His [in order to indicate] what we all would have well deserved, and would be worthy and worth, since we act wickedly in opposition to God’s Word [are ungrateful for the revealed Word, and live unworthily of the Gospel] and often grieve the Holy Ghost sorely, b) in order that we may live in the fear of God, and acknowledge and praise God’s goodness, to the exclusion of, and contrary to, our merit in and with us, to whom He gives His Word and with whom He leaves it, and whom He does not harden and reject.… c) When we proceed thus far [eo usque] in this article, we remain on the right [safe and royal] way, as it is written Hos. 13:9: ‘O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself; but in Me is thine help.’ However, as regards those things in this disputation which would soar too high and beyond these limits [extra hos limites], we should, with Paul, place the finger upon our lips, and remember and say, Rom. 9:20: ‘O man, who art thou that repliest against God?’ ” (Trigl. 1081, ibid., 57–63.)

Also the words (Rom. 9:18): “Therefore hath He mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will He hardeneth,” are incorrectly adduced as proof for a predestination to damnation. They do not mean that in God’s heart there is no mercy for a part of mankind, namely, for those who are finally lost. The Apostle expressly says the very opposite (ch. 11:32): “God hath concluded them all in unbelief that He might have mercy upon all.” And this mercy the Apostle does not conceive as a “will of complacency,” that is, a will without any intention of securing its fulfillment, for in ch. 10:21 he quotes God as saying: “All day long I have stretched forth My hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people.” Why not take note of the scope of the text? The words, Rom. 9:18, “Therefore hath He mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will He hardeneth,” are not directed against the universal grace of God, but against work-righteousness, that is, against the delusion of man that by works he can merit something before God, and against the conceit that he can by works make God his Debtor. This scope of the passage is evident from the entire preceding and subsequent context, particularly also from the words: “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So, then, it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy.”

It may be well to add a remark with reference to Rom. 9:18, since this text has suffered much at the hands of exegetes. Quite generally they are ready to let this statement stand: “Whoever is saved, is saved only by grace; whoever is lost, is lost by his own fault.” Now, the words that God has mercy and hardens according to His will do not in their meaning go one inch beyond the sentence that the critics are ready to accept. The clear teachings of Scripture must, of course, be upheld, that those ultimately lost are not lost because of a lack of grace, but solely through their own fault, because of their wicked conduct toward God’s Word and gracious operation, as we have shown; and that furthermore such as are saved are equally guilty with the others and no better in their conduct. In these two truths we have the substance of Paul’s words: “Therefore hath He mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will He hardeneth.” The Formula of Concord states the meaning thus: “For no injustice is done those who are punished and receive the wages of their sins; but in the rest, to whom God gives and preserves His Word, by which men are enlightened, converted, and preserved, God commends His pure [immense] grace and mercy, without their merit” (Trigl. 1083, ibid., 61). There is but one deduction of which we must beware, which the Calvinists as well as the synergists take the liberty to make contrary to Scripture, to wit, the inference that the affirmation of the sola gratia has as its “necessary reverse” the denial of the gratia universalis et seria.

The Cause of Error in the Doctrine of Election

The cause of aberrations from the Scripture doctrine of election is the attempt to unravel a mystery in this life the solution of which we can expect only in eternal life. This topic has been discussed under Universal Grace and Universal Redemption, as also under Conversion and Preservation in Faith (Vol. II, 21ff.; 379ff.; 486ff.; Vol. III, p. 98). Therefore a brief summary here will suffice. Why, with the same divine grace for all and the same total depravity in all men, not all mankind, but only a part, is saved is beyond our limited ken in this life.

The attempt to solve this mystery has given birth, on the one hand, to Calvinism (denying the universalis gratia), and on the other, to synergism (denying the sola gratia). Correctly Thomasius says: “The Reformed teaching solves the problem facing us by amputating the one side (universal grace)” (Dogmatik, 2d ed., III, 464). With the same end in view, synergism amputates the other side, the sola gratia.

The fact that the synergists are intent on solving the mystery indicated becomes apparent from their whole Melanchthonian argumentation. The heart and core of all their multiform arguments is always: It is necessary (necesse est, Melanchthon) to assume a difference among men with regard to their conduct and their guilt before God. If there were no difference among men before God, but an equal guilt and an equally contrary behavior, we would not be in a position to explain why not all men believe and are saved or, in other words, why some believe and are saved and others not.

This statement of course is true. We cannot explain this mystery. In the light of the facts clearly revealed in Scripture, that the grace of God is universal, and that all men are alike totally depraved, we cannot answer the question: Cur non omnes? Cur alii, alii non? Cur alii prae aliis? But Scripture directs us to hold our tongue. The question should remain unanswered. Scripture (Rom. 11:33), speaks of God’s “unsearchable judgments and ways past finding out” in His guidance of individuals and nations; and the Scriptural reason for the incomprehensibility and inscrutability of these judgments and ways is the fact that no one has first given something to God, for which God should recompense him.

Luther teaches that in this matter there is an inexplicable mystery, the solution of which we can expect only in eternal life. Cf. Vol. II, 49, note 93. The Formula of Concord teaches the same mystery by maintaining equal guilt and equally wicked behavior on the part of those who are saved, and by instructing us not to attempt in this life to go beyond this boundary of human knowledge: Whoever is saved, is saved by God’s grace alone; whoever is lost, is lost solely by his own fault.²⁹ This mystery is taught also by the Lutheran dogmaticians of the 16th century before the intuitu fidei theory appeared. Cf. Vol. II, 487, note 64. This mystery the Missouri Synod as well as the entire Synodical Conference taught in the controversy on the doctrines of conversion and election, and thus, on the one hand, it upheld the universalis gratia over against Calvinism, and, on the other hand, it resisted the denial of the sola gratia inherent in the opposite contention that conversion and salvation, and therefore also eternal election, depend not only on God’s grace, but are contingent on the different conduct and the lesser guilt of man. Cf. Vol. II, 490, footnote 69.

It has therefore been well said that in the doctrine of election a theologian takes his final examination. This Scripture doctrine sweeps the last remnants of Pelagianism and rationalism out of one’s theology. The sola gratia many praise bona fide as the very heart of the Christian doctrine. But the moment they come face to face with the question whether those who are saved are, compared with those who are lost, equally guilty before God and equally contrary, they feel constrained to predicate a better conduct and a lesser guilt on the part of those who are saved and thus to deny the sola gratia. Again, many bona fide praise Scripture as the only source and norm of Christian doctrine. But as soon as you expect them to cling to both the universalis gratia and the sola gratia without any rationalistic compromise, simply because Scripture teaches both, then also some professed Lutherans abandon the Scripture principle and reason themselves, with the later Melanchthon, into the synergistic camp. Goeschel remarks on Article XI of the Formula of Concord: “This article certainly makes it clearer and clearer how the Formula of Concord, without regard of persons, forcefully assails all rationalism, also the subtlest, the rationalism of believers. That is the very reason why it draws the criticism of so many to this day; it is opposed to rationalism of all sorts, and for that reason rationalism of every kind has an antipathy to this Confession, also that rationalism which does not regard itself as rationalism.”^{30^[5]}

A.C. The Augsburg Confession.

F.C., Th. D. The Formula of Concord. Thorough Declaration.

A.C. The Augsburg Confession.

Apol. Apology of the Augsburg Confession.

F.C., Th. D. The Formula of Concord. Thorough Declaration.

^{^[2]} Edward Wilhelm August Koehler, A Summary of Christian Doctrine: A Popular Presentation of the Teachings of the Bible, electronic ed. (St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 1999), 181–188.

F.C., Th. D. The Formula of Concord. Thorough Declaration.

Large Cat. The Large Catechism of Dr. Martin Luther.

F.C., Th. D. The Formula of Concord. Thorough Declaration.

²⁰ See the full historical discussion of this contrast in the sections “Universal Grace” and “Serious and Efficacious Grace,” Vol. II, 21 ff.; also “Terminology Regarding the Divine Will of Grace,” Vol. II, 34–52, where it is shown, too, that Luther and Calvin agree only in certain expressions, but differ entirely as to substance.

²¹ Cp. the résumé (ch. 9:30–33) and the further discussion (ch. 10:1–13), also the Apostle’s polemics against the Gentile Christians in so far as they were inclined to regard themselves as better than the Jews. (Ch. 11:18 ff.)

²² Recently again Dr. Schmidt in Distinctive Doctrines, 4th ed., p. 230, energetically promotes the idea that man, stirred by grace, still has “an option between obeying the call and yielding to the saving influences of God’s Spirit, on the one hand, and refusing to do so, on the other hand.”

²³ See Luther’s exegesis of 2 Pet. 1:10 in Vol. II, 544; Luther’s disputation on Luke 7:47 in St. L. VII:1461, thesis 57.

^{^[4]} Francis Pieper, Christian Dogmatics, electronic ed., vol. 3 (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1953), 490–494.

²⁴ Hodge (Syst. Theol. II, 325) expresses the same thought.

²⁵ [This is admitted, practically,, in the action,, recently taken by the Presbyterians. In May, 1938, the daily press reported: The General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States voted 151 to 130 today to omit two sections of its Confession of Faith, which some speakers said formed the comerstone of the church code. The sections omitted concerned the predestination of man by divine election. These sections were criticized by several ministers as an “overstatement’ of the Scriptures which ‘keeps our ministers constantly on the defensive.’ ”]

²⁶ Stoeckhardt (Roemerbrief) correctly comments: “God endured the vessels of wrath with much long-suffering before venting His wrath on them. This patience does not merely mean, as Hofmann holds, that God postponed wrath and punishment. ‘A mere prolongatio irae, delaying the judgment, is after all no long-suffering., Weiss. The μακροθυμία of God always has as its aim the repentance and improvement of the sinner. ‘The Lord … is long-suffering to usward, μακροθυμεῖ εἰς ἡμᾶς, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance,’ 2 Pet. 3:9.… We have shown above that the judgment of obduration, on which the extreme wrath follows, is brought upon men by themselves, always has as its necessary antecedent condition the self-hardening of man. God has previously offered grace to those whom He ultimately hardens and condemns and has earnestly sought to save them, but they would not. And now Paul stresses in our passage that God has been very patient and long-suffering toward the vessels of wrath, that He not merely once, but repeatedly urged and invited them to repent and be converted. And note that God even then endured the vessels of wrath with much long-suffering when they were already fitted to destruction.”

²⁷ For a full discussion see Stoeckhardt, Roemerbrief, p. 432 ff. [mimeographed translation by Kochlinger, p. 131 ff.].

69 A great many theologians refuse to say that “a change was produced in the mind and disposition of God.” They say with Ihmels: “That term would necessarily create the impression as though reconciliation were extorted from God and, what is more serious, the impression as though God were subject to a change in His sentiments.” “Extorted“? One who knows the teaching of Scripture and of the Church should not use such a term. Scripture and the Church teach that God was not affected by any external influence, but was moved by His love to forego His wrath against the τέκνα ὀργῆς, on account of the Vicarious Satisfaction. See John 3:16; Rom. 5:8; 1 John 4:9–10. Luther: Gods Lamb (John 1:29) is the Sacrifice ordained by God Himself for the sins of the world.” And Ihmel’s second argument, taken from the changelessness of God, directly charges the Holy Ghost with using misleading language in Scripture. To be sure, God is not subject to change (Ps. 102:24–27). But since we mortals, due to the finiteness of our powers of comprehension, cannot grasp the eternal immutability” of God and can think only in terms of time and space, Scripture itself instructs us to think of a before and an after in the immutable God. Scripture throughout speaks of a beginning and a ceasing both of God’s wrath and of God s grace. Thus God has revealed Himself, graciously condescending to our human power of understanding. Dare any mortal, pleading the “eternal immutability” of God, brush aside this self-revelation of God? The old theologians have devoted much time to the study of the “problem” of the immutability of God and His “entrance into history,” and the conclusion which they reached, namely: “In God [that is, God in His unchangeable and to us incomprehensible majesty] there are no causes formaliter causantes; nevertheless, there are causae virtualiter sive in puncto rationis [according to our way of looking at things] causantes, is in perfect accord with Scripture (see Baier-Walther, II, p. 33; J. R. Reusch, Annotationes, p. 175 sqq.). According to Scripture, a change in the mind of God, His wrath changing into grace, took place 1900 years ago, when Christ died for us. At that time the wrath of the changeless God was replaced, “before His forum,” by His grace. One who calls these thoughts “misleading” renounces the teaching of Scripture concerning the redemption which Christ accomplished in the fullness of time.

²⁸ Calvin: “The same sermon is addressed to a hundred persons; twenty receive it with the obedience of faith; the others despise, or ridicule, or reject, or condemn it” (Inst. III, 24, 12; Allen, II, 191).

93 De Servo Arbitrio: “Let us therefore hold in consideration the three lights, the light of nature, the light of grace, and the light of glory. This is the common and very good distinction. By the light of nature it is insolvable how it can be just that the good should be afflicted and the wicked should prosper; but this is solved by the light of grace. By the light of grace it is unsolvable how God can damn him who, by his own powers, can do nothing but sin and become guilty. Both the light of nature and the light of grace here say that the fault is not in miserable man, but in the unjust God; nor can they judge otherwise of that God who crowns the wicked freely without any merit, and yet crowns not, but damns another, who is perhaps less, or at least not more, wicked. But the light of glory speaks otherwise and will in the hereafter show God, whose judgment now is one of incomprehensible justice, to be of the most righteous and most manifest justice. Only that we should for the time [in this life] believe it, reminded and confirmed by that example of the light of grace, which accomplishes a like, miracle in regard to the light of nature.” (St. L. XVIII:1965 f.) Dorner: “Luther does not assume a contradiction [between the revealed and the hidden will of God]; he rather demands that one believe this contradiction to be only a seeming one” (Geschichte der protestantischen Theologie, p. 206).

²⁹ Trigl. 1083, ibid., 61, 62. Frank is mistaken, therefore, when he (Theol. d. F. C., I, 124) opines that the Formula “withholds judgment as to whether a scientific harmonization is possible or not.”

64 The Strassburg Formula of Concord of 1563: “However, why this grace, or this gift of faith, is not bestowed on all by God, while He calls all to Himself, and, according to His infinite goodness, calls them with serious intent, this is a mystery that is hidden from us and known to God alone. It cannot be searched out by any man’s reason and must be reverently contemplated and worshiped, as is written: ‘O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowlelge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out!’ (Romans 11.) And Christ thanks God the Father because He has hidden those things from the wise and prudent and has revealed them unto babes (Matthew 11). Still, we are not to be offended at these hidden ways of the divine will when we are troubled in conscience, but we must look at the will of God that has been revealed in Christ, who calls all sinners to Himself.” (Cp. Loescher, Hist., mot., II, p. 288.) Joachim Moerlin: “It has been revealed to us that God will save only those who believe in Christ and that unbelief is of our own doing. However, the judgments of God, viz., why He converts Paul, but does not convert Caiaphas; why He restores fallen Peter, while He leaves Judas to despair, are hidden from us.” (Cp. Schluesselburg, Catalogus Haereticorum, V., p. 228.) Chemnitz: “What, then, is the reason why Judas is not received and does not obtain forgiveness of sin? Did he not repent of what he had done? What is there lacking in his contrition and repentance that he cannot obtain grace? He had no faith in Christ, he did not believe that God is gracious and forgives sin. For that reason was he lost; for where there is no faith, there is no grace of God nor forgiveness of sin. Now, our Catechism says in the Third Article of our Christian Creed that no man can by his own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ, or come to Him, but the Holy Ghost must create this faith in him, for faith is a gift of God. How, then, does it come that God does not implant such faith in the heart of Judas, that he, too, might believe that Jesus Christ could help, him? At this point we must put a stop to our questions and say (Romans 11): ‘O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out!’ We cannot and may not search out this matter, which is too far beyond us. Rather, the story of Judas should warn us against sinning intentionally and thus tempting God, lest God withdraw His hand from us and permit us to sink and Perish. For otherwise we shall fall into sin upon sin and become enmeshed in sin so deeply that it will be impossible for us to return and regain our former standing, as happened to Judas.” (Passionspredigten, IV, p. 17 f.) Apology of the Book of Concord (Chemnitz, Selnecker, Kirchner), Dresden, 1584: “Nor does the Book of Concord deny that there is a reprobation in God or that God casts some away. Hence it does not go counter to the statement of Luther, in his treatise De servo arbitrio against Erasmus, that this is the highest degree of faith to believe that this same God who saves so few persons is nevertheless the most gracious God, but Luther is careful to point out that God is not the real cause of this rejection and condemnation of men, as our adversaries teach, and that when this question is mooted, all men should put their fingers on their lips and declare, first, with the Apostle Paul (Romans 11): ‘Because of unbelief they were broken off,’ and (Romans 6): ‘The wages of sin is death.’ Secondly, however, when this question is raised why our Lord God does not convert all men by His Holy Spirit (which He could certainly do), we must again say with the Apostle: ‘How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out.’ But we must by no means make God the Lord the determining and actual cause of the reprobation and damnation of the unrepentant. However, if they urge this point, viz.: If you accept the predestination of the elect, you must also grant that in God Himself there is from eternity a cause why men are cast away, even regardless of their sin, etc., we reply that we are in no wise minded to make God the cause of reprobation (which really has its origin, not in God, but in sin), and to ascribe to Him the real cause of the damnation of the wicked, but we shall take our stand on the saying of the Prophet Hosea, chapter 13, where God says: ‘O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself; but in Me is thine help.’ Nor shall we try—as we heard Luther say above—to search out our heavenly Father as far as He is a hidden God and has not revealed Himself. For, though we try, it is too high for us, and we cannot comprehend it. The more we engage in such questioning, the farther we get away from our loving God, and the more we gin to doubt His gracious will toward us. Likewise, the Book of Concord does not deny that God does not operate in all men alike; for in all ages there have been many whom He did not call through the public office of the ministry. But our adversaries shall never succeed in making us believe, as they try to do, that God is the real cause of the casting away of these people and that He has decreed in His bare council to reprobate and cast them away eternally even regardless of sin. For it is sufficient that in approaching this depth of the mysteries of God we say with the Apostle Paul in Romans 11: ‘His judgments are unsearchable,’ and 1 Corinthians 15: ‘Thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.’ All that is beyond this truth will be revealed to us, by our Savior Christ Himself in the life everlasting.” (Fol. 206 f.) Setnecker: “Though God could make willing all who are unwilling, yet He does not do so, and He has the most righteous and wise reasons why He does not, which reasons it does not behoove us to search out. We rather owe Him most heartfelt thanks that He has called us by the preaching of the Gospel, to the communion of the life everlasting and enlightened our hearts by faith.” (In Omnes Epp. D. Pauli Apost. Commentar., 1595, fol. 213.) Timotheus Kirchner: “Since, then, faith in Christ is a special gift of God, why does He not bestow it on all? We reply: We should reserve the discussion of this question until life eternal, and we should meanwhile be satisfied to know that God will not have us seek out His secret judgments (Romans 11): ‘O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments!’ ” (Enchiridion, p. 143.)—The following statements will show how Melanchthon s proposition was received by the Lutherans of that time. Andreae said at the colloquy at Herzberg: “The Loci Communes of Melanchthon are valuable. But as to the Locus ‘De libero arbitrio’ one cannot help saying that the pronouncements are, to say the least, dubious and ambiguous. And what about the four paragraphs which were inserted after the death of Luther? We read there: ‘There must be in us a reason for the discrimination why Saul is rejected and David received.’ ” (Cp. Lehre und Wehre, Vol. 28, p. 446.) Konrad Schluesselburg enumerates eight “principal errors of the synergists,” and the second reads: “That there is a cause in us why some assent to the promise of the Gospel and others do not assent.” Just as emphatically Hutter renounces Melanchthon’s proposition as expressive of the synergistic error (Explicatio F. C., pp. 200–201).

69 Guerieke, Symbolik, 3d ed., p. 395 f.: “Both Churches [the Reformed and the Lutheran] declare emphatically: ‘Whoever is lost is rejected solely through his own fault, as a sinner.’ But while the Lutheran Church in humble resignation stops at this point, the Reformed Church, obedient to the demands of consistent reasoning—refusing to bow even before the Word of God in its unbelieving adherence to the rigid laws of logical thinking—does not hesitate to apply what was said above also to the lost.… The Lutheran Church recognizes from this that it does not behoove mortal men to seek to penetrate into this mystery of divine justice and in humble submission desists from answering a question which, as it (the Church) well knows, can be answered consistently by us weak mortals only in a blasphemous manner. Our Church teaches that he who is saved, is saved solely by God’s grace in Christ, without any merit of his own; he who is lost, is lost through his own fault, because he persistently resists the divine grace. The reason why the resistance to the grace of God in the case of the former, and not the latter, is finally broken, is not the merit of the former, though it is the fault of the latter; the inward disposition of man underlying this difference also comes indeed, in so far as it is good, solely, from God; in so far as it is evil, it does not come from God. Man, however, with his dim, darkened reason cannot explore this deepest depth of the divine workshop. It is greater wisdom to acknowledge the divine mystery than blasphemously to solve it.”

³⁰ Die Konkordienformel, etc., p. 144 f.; cp. Pieper,Grunddifferenz, p. 12 ff., espec, p. 28, note 3; F. Pieper, Zur Einigung, 2d ed., p. 29 ff.

^{^[5]} Francis Pieper, Christian Dogmatics, electronic ed., vol. 3 (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1953), 494–503.

Must I Be Baptized In Order To Be Saved?

2014-12-13T15:51:00.000-08:00

Greetings,

This is an argument which has been raging - and I use that word purposely because there seems to be an utter lack of civility over the issue, call it zero tolerance if you will; on the part of those who call themselves 'born-again' Christians and who reject either Baptismal Regeneration or Infant Baptism or both. I may reject my 'born again' brothers and sisters view of baptism and conversion - but I do not reject them.

The unfortunate line of reasoning (and amusingly contradictory and illogical) is that a person who believes in Baptismal Regeneration and/or has been baptized as an infant isn't saved! It is never explicitly stated altogether as a coherent thought. It usually comes out in name-calling accusations once Scriptural arguments have been set aside in favor of ad hominem attacks by those who believe in 'believer baptism.' They seem to be saying that if you have been baptized as an infant, your baptism is not valid - an idea only about 500 years old.

This would seem to suggest (on the part of these 'born again' Christians) that only 'believer' baptisms are valid and you must be baptized after making a 'decision' for Christ in order to be saved.

But if baptism has no role in salvation, does the order matter? If only belief matters than why get your knickers in a twist over the order? Why get baptized at all?

I mean, if you take this logic to it's natural conclusion, there are all sorts of things I can avoid doing to be saved right?

I mean, I suppose that I could avoid taking communion my whole Christian life and still just believe and be saved. I confess, I do believe that is Biblically possible. I could also avoid ever reading the Bible and just believe, I am sure all kinds of illiterate Christians in centuries past never picked up a Bible and read it and still just believed and were saved. I also imagine that you could never drop one red cent in the offering plate and just believe and be saved, after all, all those poor people in developing countries probably rarely or never do right?

Do you see where this is going? I am sure if we REEEELY put on our thinking caps, we can come up with a laundry list of all kinds of things we can avoid doing and still be saved because all we need do is just believe right? Are we saved by Grace alone, through Faith alone by Christ alone? Yes. Do some people misunderstand this and turn it into Gospel reductionism, cheap grace and easy believism? You bet - and the Baptismal Regeneration deniers have neither Scripture, Church History or logic on their side. There are several passages that clearly teach that Baptism saves - not apart from faith in Christ, let us be clear about that. There is no such thing as 'sola baptisma.' BUT, baptism is used as a means of conveying grace, not by water alone and not by ritual alone but because the water is enjoined by the Word - the Word of God, and the Word of God has great supernatural power.

Now, let's look at some of those passages:

Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ - 1 Peter 3:21

In Context:

¹⁸For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, ¹⁹in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, ²⁰because they formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. ²¹Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, ²²who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him. - 1 Peter 3:18-22

You really have to use a tortured interpretation to get away from the clear meaning of the text here which says, "Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you . . . through the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

1 What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? ²By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? ³Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? ⁴We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.⁵For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. - Romans 6:1-5

So what does Baptism do? It unites us to the death and resurrection of Christ and Christ Himself. For Scripture also says:
For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. - Galatians 3:27

Some translations such as the NIV say,

for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. - Galatians 3:27

So, you still believe Baptism is only symbolic and contains no supernatural power?

⁸See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. ⁹For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, ¹⁰and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority. ¹¹In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, ¹²having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. ¹³And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, ¹⁴by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. - Colossians 2:8-14

In Baptism, we:

'Put on' or 'are clothed' with Christ,
Filled in Him,
Circumcised,
Die with Him,
Buried with Him,
Raised with Him
Our debt of sin is nailed to the Cross
And we are set free from the Law.

Now as we see in Colossians 2:11, we are circumcised. When were Israelites/Jews circumcised?

¹⁰This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your offspring after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised. ¹¹You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you. ¹²He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised. Every male throughout your generations, whether born in your house or bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring, ¹³both he who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money, shall surely be circumcised. So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant. - Genesis 17:10-13

The word offspring is זָרַע (Zaruh) which means seed in Hebrew, which makes sense as God is talking primarily about 8 day old male babies. Now obviously if an adult male back then was not yet circumcised, he was expected to be too - that was one of the terms of the Covenant. No awaiting a 'decision for Yahweh' here. Furthermore, God commanded Abraham here to circumcise all the males including 8 day old male infants and that became the custom.

And Abraham circumcised his son Isaac when he was eight days old, as God had commanded him. - Genesis 21:4

And on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. - Leviticus 12:3

But it wasn't just about being cut with a knife:

And the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring, so that you will love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live. - Deuteronomy 30:6

Now notice the passive nature of the circumcisee, the action of being circumcised is being done unto the one receiving it.

It was done to John the Baptist:

⁵⁷Now the time came for Elizabeth to give birth, and she bore a son. ⁵⁸And her neighbors and relatives heard that the Lord had shown great mercy to her, and they rejoiced with her. ⁵⁹And on the eighth day they came to circumcise the child. And they would have called him Zechariah after his father - Luke 1:57-59

And Jesus:

²¹And at the end of eight days, when he was circumcised, he was called Jesus, the name given by the angel before he was conceived in the womb.²²And when the time came for their purification according to the Law of Moses, they brought him up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord ²³(as it is written in the Law of the Lord, “Every male who first opens the womb shall be called holy to the Lord”) - Luke 2:21-23

For review now, what does Colossians 2:11-14 say?

11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. 13 And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, 14 by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross.

If circumcision = baptism and God circumcised the heart (Deut 30:6) of 8 day old boys, then isn't it possible (Matt 19:6) that God who forbade His Apostles from allowing little children come to Him (Matt 19:14, Mark 10:14 & Luke 18:16) also circumcises the hearts of infant children now in baptism which now saves us (1 Peter 3:18-22) ?

Now another objection I hear is a misuse of the Reformation Solas (a way that would be utterly foreign to Luther, Melanchthon, Calvin, Cranmer, et al), which is when the objector says, "We are saved by grace alone, through faith alone in Christ alone without Baptism."

    What we have here is a combination of bad hermeneutics (*WHY* would you pit Christ against Baptism given what all the verses above say?), a-historical logic (using the Reformation Solas in a way diametrically opposed to the their very creators).

    Now note there is not 1 alone but 3 (grace, faith & Christ). Are the mistaken interlocutors misunderstanding what 'alone' means here? You bet they are. Grace alone means apart from the Law (works). Faith alone means apart from reason (the devils know God exists), Christ alone means without the Pope or any other gods.

As the verses already given attest, God uses baptism as a vehicle to save us, water combined with God's Word creates faith in the heart of the one who receives it.

    Now baptism isn't magic and its efficacy is not absolute. Remember what I said at the beginning? There are all kinds of things you could hypothetically avoid participating in or doing and still be saved - but why would you if you are a sincere Christian?

And the Christian parent has much to do with this too, the Bible says,

Train up a child in the way he should go; even when he is old he will not depart from it. - Proverbs 22:6.

It's not as if you can just baptize a baby and hope for the best. In Old Testament times, Jewish fathers were to train their sons from the Law of Moses and from literature such as the Book of Proverbs. Proverbs itself is one long discourse of advice given from father to son.

At the time of the Reformation, Luther wrote the Large and Small Catechisms. The Small Catechism was for training the young basic Christian doctrine, the Large Catechism was so Fathers could know enough to employ the Small Catechism. This is how all modern Christian primary education began. Luther's closest friend and colleague, Philip Melanchthon is still called the 'Father of Germany' to this day for the role he played in establishing schools in Germany.

In regards to how ancient the belief in baptismal regeneration is, I refer you to this short paper I wrote (and received an 'A' on at seminary) It addresses some other important points not discussed here.

So must you baptized in order to be saved? No, you can be saved by grace, through faith in Christ all by itself, but baptism still does save as shown above.

+Peace+

Jim McGarigle
http://ilt.academia.edu/JamesMcGarigle

https://www.facebook.com/jim.mcgarigle

https://www.linkedin.com/in/jimmcgarigle

A Brief Paper Regarding The Papacy In Light Of The Early Church Fathers

2014-06-05T11:45:00.000-07:00

THE PAPACY IN LIGHT OF THE EARLY CHURCH FATHERS

THE ORIGINS

In this paper I plan to examine the historical development of the Papacy but also to challenge its foundations according to the Scriptures and the Early Church Fathers. In the classic, Reformation tradition, I subscribe to the teaching that the Pope is, “. . . the man of lawlessness . . . the son of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God.”[1]

The 1^st so-called foundational proof for the Papacy usually given is Matthew 16:18-19:

And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. ^{^[2]}

The problem is that the key words ‘Peter’ and ‘rock’ do not agree in case, declension or gender in the original Greek text:

κἀγὼ δέ σοι λέγω ὅτι σὺ εἶ Πέτρος, καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, καὶ πύλαι ᾅδου οὐ κατισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς· ^{^[3]}

Peter = Πέτρος, is a 2^nd declension, nominative, masculine, singular noun. Pέτρᾳ, by contrast is a 1^st declension, dative, singular feminine noun.[4] You have to jump ahead about two centuries after Christ in the Church Fathers to the time of Tertullian (160-225 A.D.) before Matthew 16:18 becomes the basis for Petrine doctrine:

Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called “the rock on which the church should be built,” who also obtained “the keys of the kingdom of heaven,”^{^[5]}

If, because the Lord has said to Peter, “Upon this rock will I build My Church,” “to thee have I given the keys of the heavenly kingdom;” or, “Whatsoever thou shalt have bound or loosed in earth, shall be bound or loosed in the heavens,” you therefore presume that the power of binding and loosing has derived to you, that is, to every Church akin to Peter, what sort of man are you, subverting and wholly changing the manifest intention of the Lord, conferring (as that intention did) this (gift) personally upon Peter? “On thee,” He says, “will I build My Church;” and, “I will give to thee the keys,” not to the Church; and, “Whatsoever thou shalt have loosed or bound,” not what they shall have loosed or bound. For so withal the result teaches. In (Peter) himself the Church was reared; that is, through (Peter) himself; (Peter) himself essayed the key; you see what (key): “Men of Israel, let what I say sink into your ears: Jesus the Nazarene, a man destined by God for you,” and so forth.^{^[6]}

At the same approximate time in history there is some commentary on this passage by Hippolytus of Rome (170 – 235 A.D.) but it is used to talk about the role of the Holy Spirit, not the basis for the Papacy:

This is the Spirit that at the beginning “moved upon the face of the waters;” by whom the world moves; by whom creation consists, and all things have life; who also wrought mightily in the prophets, (Acts 28:25) and descended in flight upon Christ. This is the Spirit that was given to the apostles in the form of fiery tongues (Matt. 3:16). This is the Spirit that David sought when he said, “Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me.” Of this Spirit Gabriel also spoke to the Virgin, “The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee.”(Luke 1:35) By this Spirit Peter spake that blessed word, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” By this Spirit the rock of the Church was stablished (Matt. 16:18). This is the Spirit, the Comforter, that is sent because of thee (John 16:26), that He may show thee to be the Son (τέκνον) of God.^{^[7]}

Cyprian of Carthage (Early 3^rdCentury- 258 A.D.) had a different take of Matthew 16:18 as well:

Our Lord, whose precepts and admonitions we ought to observe, describing the honour of a bishop and the order of His Church, speaks in the Gospel, and says to Peter: “I say unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”(Matt. 16:18, 19) Thence, through the changes of times and successions, the ordering of bishops and the plan of the Church flow onwards; so that the Church is founded upon the bishops, and every act of the Church is controlled by these same rulers.^{^[8]} - Emphasis mine.

So Cyprian viewed the Bishops as the plural rulers of the Church, not Peter as the singular head of all Christendom. Cyprian underlines his doctrine of a Church lead by an egalitarian school of bishops in De unit. eccl. = On The Unity Of The Church:

If any one consider and examine these things, there is no need for lengthened discussion and arguments. There is easy proof for faith in a short summary of the truth. The Lord speaks to Peter, saying, “I say unto thee, that thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”⁴ And again to the same He says, after His resurrection, “Feed my sheep.” And although to all the apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power, and says, “As the Father hath sent me, even so send I you: Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they shall be remitted unto him; and whose soever sins ye retain, they shall be retained;”⁶ yet, that He might set forth unity, He arranged by His authority the origin of that unity, as beginning from one. Assuredly the rest of the apostles were also the same as was Peter, endowed with a like partnership both of honour and power; but the beginning proceeds from unity.^{^[9]} – Emphasis mine.

So by the time of the Third Century A.D., there were at least two, possibly three opinions on the meaning of Matthew 16:18ff in the Church. I next investigated the various titles of the Papacy such as the ‘Vicar of Christ’. What In found in the Fathers was little:

Grant, then, that all have erred; that the apostle was mistaken in giving his testimony; that the Holy Ghost had no such respect to any one (church) as to lead it into truth, although sent with this view by Christ (John 14:26), and for this asked of the Father that He might be the teacher of truth (John 15:26);grant, also, that He, the Steward of God, the Vicar of Christ,^§ neglected His office, permitting the churches for a time to understand differently, (and) to believe differently, what He Himself was preaching by the apostles,—is it likely that so many churches, and they so great, should have gone astray into one and the same faith? ^{^[10]}

One passing mention by Tertullian – that’s it until you get to the last volume where it is brought up as an item of controversy between the churches of the East and the West:

Canon XXXIX

Of the care and power which a Patriarch has over the bishops and archbishops of his patriarchate; and of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome over all.

Let the patriarch consider what things are done by the archbishops and bishops in their provinces; and if he shall find anything done by them otherwise than it should be, let him change it, and order it, as seemeth him fit: for he is the father of all, and they are his sons. And although the archbishop be among the bishops as an elder brother, who hath the care of his brethren, and to whom they owe obedience because he is over them; yet the patriarch is to all those who are under his power, just as he who holds the seat of Rome, is the head and prince of all patriarchs; in-asmuch as he is first, as was Peter, to whom power is given over all Christian princes, and over all their peoples, as he who is the Vicar of Christ our Lord over all peoples and over the whole Christian Church, and whoever shall contradict this, is excommunicated by the Synod.^{^[11]}

It is worth noting that the translator comments, “I have translated the whole canon literally; the reader will judge of its antiquity.”^{^[12]}Apparently, he didn’t trust the authenticity of the quote and in the Elucidations section following his work on Cyprian, he also wonders how much that is in the text regarding the authority of the Pope has been interpolated or “forced” into the text we now have:

How differently our Lord must have settled this inquiry had He given the supremacy to one of the Apostles, or had He designed the supremacy of any single pastor to be perpetual in His Church! “Who should be greatest?” ask this question of any Romanist theologian, and he answers, in the words of the Creed of Plus IV., “the Bishop of Rome, successor to St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and Vicar of Christ.” But why was no such answer given by our Lord? And why does St. Peter know nothing of it when he says, “The elders who are among you I exhort, who am also an eider … feed the flock of God, taking the oversight … not as being lords over God’s heritage,” etc. So also in the Council of Jerusalem, how humbly he sits under the presidency of James, and again how cheerfully he permits the apostles to send him forth, and “give him mission” to Samaria!² St. Paul, moreover, who was “not a whit behind the chiefest of the Apostles,” overrules him, and reforms his judgment.⁴

If I have forborne in these notes to refer frequently to the Treatise of Bishop Sage, who often elucidates our author in a very learned manner, it is because he is almost wholly a controvertist, and therefore not to my purpose in this work. For his Cyprian, however, I entertain a sincere respect; and, as it might seem otherwise should I omit all reference to that work, I place its title in the footnote. Profoundly do I feel what another Scottish Doctor⁶ has beautifully said, “It is a loss, even to those that oppose errors and divisions, that they are forced to be busied that way.”^{^[13]}

This got me intrigued about some of the other titles like Pontifex Maximus, the material just got worse. The 1^st reference to the title is in regards to the old Roman pagan religion and its priestly class:

To idols, at all events, both monogamy and widowhood serve as apparitors. On Fortuna Muliebris, as on Mother Matuta, none but a once wedded woman hangs the wreath. Once for all do the Pontifex Maximus and the wife of a Flamen marry. The priestesses of Ceres, even during the lifetime and with the consent of their husbands, are widowed by amicable separation.^{^[14]}

There is a rich irony in the fact that Rome would have us believe that Tertullian gives us support for the Petrine doctrine they find in Matthew 16:18ff but Tertullian was critical of the idolatrous Pontifex Maximus of his time! Tertullian (in another work of his) also goes after the ‘Christian’ Pontifex Maximus:

In opposition to this (modesty), could I not have acted the dissembler? I hear that there has even been an edict set forth, and a peremptory one too. The Pontifex Maximus—that is, the bishop of bishops§—issues an edict: “I remit, to such as have discharged (the requirements of) repentance, the sins both of adultery and of fornication.” O edict, on which cannot be inscribed, “Good deed!” And where shall this liberality be posted up? On the very spot, I suppose, on the very gates of the sensual appetites, beneath the very titles of the sensual appetites. ^{^[15]}

Where someone came down on these issues (at least you would think) may have been colored by where they came down on controversies facing the Church – but that doesn’t seem to be a completely reliable indicator. Cyprian was part of the accepted Catholic Church and his view was that Bishops were equals (see above page 3). The strongest statement supporting the authority of the Papacy was by Tertullian (a Montanist, never canonized as a ‘Saint’ by Rome[16]). The writings of Cyprian do seem to leave the impression that the Novatianists valued the office of the Papacy though:

To these also it was not sufficient that they had withdrawn from the Gospel, that they had taken away from the lapsed the hope of satisfaction and repentance, that they had taken away those involved in frauds or stained with adulteries, or polluted with the deadly contagion of sacrifices, lest they should entreat God, or make confession of their crimes in the Church, from all feeling and fruit of repentance; that they had set up outside for themselves—outside the Church, and opposed to the Church, a conventicle of their abandoned faction, when there had flowed together a band of creatures with evil consciences, and unwilling to entreat and to satisfy God. After such things as these, moreover, they still dare—a false bishop having been appointed for them by heretics—to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the throne of Peter, and to the chief church whence priestly unity takes its source; § and not to consider that these were the Romans whose faith was praised in the preaching of the apostle, to whom faithlessness could have no access.^{^[17]} – Emphasis mine.

At the time Cyprian was being elected as the Catholic Bishop of Carthage, he was opposed by Fortunatus, a Presbyter of Carthage who was of the Novatianist party and who supported a rival candidate named Felicissimus.[18]

I think it is here worthwhile to make a brief excursus and bring to mind the warnings regarding the Anti-Christ in Scripture:

1) ³⁶ “Then the king shall do according to his own will: he shall exalt and magnify himself above every god, shall speak blasphemies against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the wrath has been accomplished; for what has been determined shall be done. ³⁷ He shall regard neither the God of his fathers nor the desire of women, nor regard any god; for he shall exalt himself above them all.^{^[19]} – Emphasis mine.

2) ²⁰If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations— ²¹“Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch” ²²(referring to things that all perish as they are used)—according to human precepts and teachings? ²³These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh. ^{^[20]} – Emphasis mine.

3) ¹Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, ²through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared, ³who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.^{^[21]} – Emphasis mine.

It is well worth while to remember that the Novatianist sect was a rigorist sect while the Catholic Church at this time was more tolerant of human failings.[22]So Cyprian who has a more democratic (equality among Bishops) ideal of Church polity found himself at odds with a rigorist sect which wanted to install both an alternative Bishop (to Cyprian) and assume the “throne of Peter” to use Cyprian’s words. An interesting development here is that while Cyprian was more forgiving of the lapsed than the Novatianists were, Stephen, the present Bishop of Rome was more tolerant in regard to the Baptism received from heretics, etc.[23]It is also noteworthy that Stephen was the 1^st Bishop of Rome to lay claim to Matthew 16;18ff.[24]Cyprian did not like Stephen’s authoritarian view of his own importance and made no bones about his feelings:

And in this respect I am justly indignant at this so open and manifest folly of Stephen, that he who so boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter ^§, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid, should introduce many other rocks and establish new buildings of many churches; maintaining that there is baptism in them by his authority. For they who are baptized, doubtless, fill up the number of the Church. But he who approves their baptism maintains, of those baptized, that the Church is also with them. Nor does he understand that the truth of the Christian Rock is overshadowed, and in some measure abolished, by him when he thus betrays and deserts unity^§§. The apostle acknowledges that the Jews, although blinded by ignorance, and bound by the grossest wickedness, have yet a zeal for God. Stephen, who announces that he holds by succession the throne of Peter, is stirred with no zeal against heretics, when he concedes to them, not a moderate, but the very greatest power of grace: so far as to say and assert that, by the sacrament of baptism, the filth of the old man is washed away by them, that they pardon the former mortal sins, that they make sons of God by heavenly regeneration, and renew to eternal life by the sanctification of the divine laver. He who concedes and gives up to heretics in this way the great and heavenly gifts of the Church, what else does he do but communicate with them for whom he maintains and claims so much grace? And now he hesitates in vain to consent to them, and to be a partaker with them in other matters also, to meet together with them, and equally with them to mingle their prayers, and appoint a common altar and sacrifice.^{^[25]} – Emphasis mine.

Cyprian probably saw Stephen as a power-hungry compromiser. The same schismatics who didn’t think Cyprian was strict enough over his tolerance of the lapsed had a positive view of Stephen because he accepted their baptisms as valid (they were Trinitarian after all and Stephen was opposed to rebaptism on principle) while Cyprian believed that only baptisms done by the true Church were valid. So Cyprian believed in a democratic polity of bishops within an authoritarian Church while Stephen believed in a single, authoritarian Bishop and democratic sacraments. Cyprian thought he was watching the rise of the Anti-Christ when Stephen was Bishop of Rome:

It remains, that upon this same matter each of us should bring forward what we think, judging no man, nor rejecting any one from the right of communion, if he should think differently from us. For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another.⁴ But let us all wait for the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the only one that has the power both of preferring us in the government of His Church, and of judging us in our conduct there.

Cæcilius of Bilta said: I know only one baptism in the Church, and none out of the Church. This one will be here, where there is the true hope and the certain faith. For thus it is written: “One faith, one hope, one baptism;”⁶ not among heretics, where there is no hope, and the faith is false, where all things are carried on by lying; where a demoniac exorcises; where one whose mouth and words send forth a cancer puts the sacramental interrogation;⁸ the faithless gives faith; the wicked bestows pardon of sins; and Antichrist baptizes in the name of Christ; he who is cursed of God blesses; he who is dead promises life; he who is unpeaceful gives peace; the blasphemer calls upon God; the profane person administers the office of the priesthood; the sacrilegious person establishes an altar. In addition to all these things, there is also this evil, that the priests of the devil dare to celebrate the Eucharist; or else let those who stand by them say that all these things concerning heretics are false. ^{^[26]} - Emphasis mine.

Was Cyprian correct in asserting that Stephen was an Anti-Christ? There are some things to be considered:

Stephen made himself the ‘rock’ of the Church when Scripture says that Christ is the Rock (Ps. 118:22, Isa. 28:16,1 Cor. 10:4, Eph. 2:20, 1 Peter 2:4-6).
The Papacy usurps the Trinity, Pope = Father, but we are to call no man ‘Father’ in the spiritual sense but God,[27] as Pontifex Maximus[28] and Vicar of Christ the Papacy puts itself between God and man, usurping the role of mediator[29] that the Son serves and the Pope’s role of ‘teacher of the whole Christian Church’ usurps the role of the Holy Spirit:

I write these things to you about those who are trying to deceive you. But the anointing that you received from him abides in you, and you have no need that anyone should teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about everything, and is true, and is no lie—just as it has taught you, abide in him. ^{^[30]}

EPILOGUE

It would be to go after low hanging fruit to delve into the Avignon Popes, the crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the growth of the cult of the saints and Mariolatry especially but I decided going into this I was going to write a paper, not a tome. It is enough for me for the purposes of this paper to show that men of faith and good character saw that men who cared more about power than truth and who abused the Word of God in order to secure that power did so:

. . . There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. ¹⁷You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless people and lose your own stability. ^{^[31]}

[1] The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. 2001 (2 Th 2:3–4). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

^{^[2]} The Holy Bible, Translated from the Latin Vulgate. 2009 (Mt 16:18–19). Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software.

^{^[3]} Holmes, M. W. (2010). The Greek New Testament: SBL Edition (Mt 16:18). Logos Bible Software.

[4] Bauer, Walter, William F. Arndt, F. Wilbur Gingrich and Frederick W. Danker. A Greek-English Lexicon oh the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 2^nd Ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979, 654-655.

^{^[5]} Tertullian. (1885). The Prescription against Heretics P. Holmes, Trans.). In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume III: Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian (A. Roberts, J. Donaldson & A. C. Coxe, Ed.) (253). Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company.

^{^[6]} Tertullian. (1885). On Modesty S. Thelwall, Trans.). In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume IV: Fathers of the Third Century: Tertullian, Part Fourth; Minucius Felix; Commodian; Origen, Parts First and Second (A. Roberts, J. Donaldson & A. C. Coxe, Ed.) (99). Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company.

^{^[7]} Hippolytus of Rome. (1886). The Discourse on the Holy Theophany S. D. F. Salmond, Trans.). In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume V: Fathers of the Third Century: Hippolytus, Cyprian, Novatian, Appendix (A. Roberts, J. Donaldson & A. C. Coxe, Ed.) (237). Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company.

^{^[8]} Cyprian of Carthage. The Epistles of Cyprian, ANF, Vol. V (305).

^{^[9]} Cyprian of Carthage. On the Unity of the Church, ANF, Vol. V (422).

^{^[10]} Tertullian. The Prescription against Heretics, ANF, Vol. III: 256.

§ [Tertullian knows no other Vicar of Christ than the Holy Spirit. They who attribute infallibility to any mortal man become Montanists; they attribute the Paraclete’s voice to their oracle.]

^{^[11]} The Captions of the Arabic Canons Attributed to the Council of Nice H. R. Percival, Trans.). (1900). In P. Schaff & H. Wace (Eds.), A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series, Volume XIV: The Seven Ecumenical Councils. 1900 (P. Schaff & H. Wace, Ed.) (48). New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.

^{^[12]} Ibid.

^{^[13]} ANF, Vol. V: 561–562.

^{^[14]} Tertullian. On Monogamy, ANF, Vol. IV: 72.

^{^[15]} Tertullian. On Modesty. ANF, Vol. IV, 74.

§ Zephyrinus or (his predecessor).

[16] He is not included in The Book Of Saints, a popular and very complete devotional reference compiled by the Benedictine Monks of St. Augustine’s Abbey.

^{^[17]} Cyprian of Carthage. (1886). The Epistles of Cyprian, ANF, Vol. V: 344.

§ [The Apostolic See of the West was necessarily all this in the eyes of an unambitious faithful Western co-bishop; but the letter itself proves that it was not the See of one who had any authority over or apart from his co-bishops. Let us not read into his expressions ideas which are an after-thought, and which conflict with the life and all the testimony of Cyprian.]

^{^[18]} Smith, William and Henry Wace. A Dictionary of Christian Biography, Literature, Sects and Doctrines A to D Vol. 2. London: William Clowes and Sons, 1877, 555. Some authors used Novatianist and Donatist interchangeably or anachronistically.

^{^[19]} The New King James Version. 1982 (Daniel 11:36–37). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

^{^[20]} ESV, Colossians 2:20–23.

^{^[21]} ESV (1 Ti 4:1–3).

[22] Schaff, Philip, and David Schley Schaff. History of the Christian Church: Nicene And Post-Nicene, Volume III. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1910, 187.

[23] Kelly, J. N. D. and M. J. Walsh, Oxford Dictionary of Popes. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986, 16-17.

[24] Ibid.

^{^[25]} Cyprian of Carthage. (1886). The Epistles of Cyprian R. E. Wallis, Trans.). In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume V: Fathers of the Third Century: Hippolytus, Cyprian, Novatian, Appendix (A. Roberts, J. Donaldson & A. C. Coxe, Ed.) (394–395). Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company.

§ [This place and succession are conceded in the argument; but Stephen himself does not appear to have claimed to be the Rock or to exercise the authority of Peter. Vol. iii. p. 266.]

§§ [Stephen abolishes the Rock, and “deserts unity;” here, then, is evidence that he was not the one, nor the criterion of the other.]

^{^[26]} The Seventh Council of Carthage under Cyprian R. E. Wallis, Trans.). (1886). In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume V: Fathers of the Third Century: Hippolytus, Cyprian, Novatian, Appendix. 1886 (A. Roberts, J. Donaldson & A. C. Coxe, Ed.) (565–566). Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company.

[27] ESV, Matthew 23:8–10.

[28] Walvoord, J. F., Zuck, R. B., & Dallas Theological Seminary. (1985). The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures (Re 17:3–5). Wheaton, IL: Victor Books. This handle was adopted by the Roman emperors, who used the Latin title Pontifex Maximus, which means “Major Keeper of the Bridge.” And the same title was later used by the bishop of Rome. The pope today is often called the pontiff, which comes from pontifex.

[29] ESV, 1 Timothy 2:5, Hebrews 9:15 & Hebrews 12:24.

^{^[30]} ESV, 1 John 2:26–27.

^{^[31]} ESV, 2 Peter 3:16–17.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bauer, Walter, William F. Arndt, F. Wilbur Gingrich and Frederick W. Danker. A Greek-English Lexicon oh the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 2^nd Ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979.

Holmes, M. W. The Greek New Testament: SBL Edition. Logos Bible Software. 2010.

Kelly, J. N. D. and M. J. Walsh, Oxford Dictionary of Popes. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986.

Schaff, Phillip & Henry Wace (Eds.), A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series, Volume XIV: The Seven Ecumenical Councils. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1900.

Schaff, Philip, and David Schley Schaff. History of the Christian Church: Nicene And Post-Nicene, Volume III. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1910.

Smith, William and Henry Wace. A Dictionary of Christian Biography, Literature, Sects and Doctrines A to D Vol. 2. London: William Clowes and Sons, 1877.

The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume III: Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian (A. Roberts, J. Donaldson & A. C. Coxe, Ed.). Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885.

The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume IV: Fathers of the Third Century: Tertullian, Part Fourth; Minucius Felix; Commodian; Origen, Parts First and Second (A. Roberts, J. Donaldson & A. C. Coxe, Ed.). Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company. 1885.

The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume V: Fathers of the Third Century: Hippolytus, Cyprian, Novatian, Appendix (A. Roberts, J. Donaldson & A. C. Coxe, Ed.) Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1886.

The Book Of Saints: A Dictionary Of Servants Of God Canonized By The Catholic Church: Extracted From The Roman & OtherMartyrologies, Compiled by The Benedictine Monks Of St. Augustine’s Abbey, Ramsgate, 4^th Ed. Revised and Enlarged, New York: The Macmillan Company, 1947.

The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. Wheaton: Standard Bible Society, 2001.

The Holy Bible, Translated from the Latin Vulgate. Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2009.

The New King James Version. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1982.

Walvoord, J. F., Zuck, R. B., & Dallas Theological Seminary. (1985). The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures (Re 17:3–5). Wheaton, IL: Victor Books.

Lutheranism & The Use of Reason in Theology -AND- Luther's Attitudes Toward Thomism In Brief

2013-12-23T11:20:00.000-08:00

My favorite resource on this topic is probably Heinrich Schmid's THE DOCTRINAL THEOLOGY OF THE Evangelical Lutheran Church, VERIFIED FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCES (which can be downloaded from Google Books for free or from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library) because Schmid goes back to the early, orthodox Lutheran Fathers and quotes them verbatim to justify his summary of Christian doctrine.

There is a bit of abbreviating and what it refers to are a number of older orthodox Lutheran theologians:

CAL = Calovius
HALL = Hollazius
QUEN = Quenstedt
GRH = Gerhard
BR = Baier

Here is his treatment of Reason:

§ 5. Excursus. Concerning the Use of Reason in Theology

By the term Reason, we may understand either the capacity of intellectual apprehension in general, and this is essential to man, for it is only by means of this capacity, which distinguishes him from irrational animals, that he can comprehend the truths of religion. [1] Or, we may understand by Reason the capacity of acquiring knowledge and appropriating truths. [2] The knowledge, however, which one thus acquires is, even if true, still defective and unsatisfactory, [3] and therefore Reason is by no means the source from which man can draw the knowledge of saving truths, [4] but for these the revelation contained in Sacred Scripture remains ever the only source.

The question now arises, how is Reason related to this revelation, and what use can Theology make of Reason?

Inasmuch as Reason also derives its knowledge from God, Reason and Revelation are, of course, not opposed to each other. [5] This holds true, however, only of Reason considered per se., of Reason as it was before the fall of man. This would have remained conscious of the limits of its sphere; would not have sought to measure divine things by the rule of natural knowledge; would have subordinated itself to Revelation, [6] and would have known that there are truths which, although not in antagonism with it, are yet far beyond its reach. [7]

But the case is very different with Reason as it dwells now in fallen man; for we must concede that, by man’s fall, such a change has occurred that Reason now often assumes a position of antagonism to revealed truth. [8] It still, indeed, possesses some knowledge of divine things, but this knowledge is obscured in proportion to the moral depravity of man, and it now, more easily than before, transcends the assigned limits. If now Reason, already before the fall of man, had to keep within modest limits, with respect to the truths of Revelation, much less dare it now, in the fallen condition of man, assume to judge in regard to divine things, or subject the truths of Revelation to its tests; still less dare it reject that which does not seem to agree with its knowledge: its duty rather is to subject itself to Revelation and learn therefrom. If this be done, however, much will again become intelligible that previously appeared contradictory, and it will again approach the condition occupied before the fall. But this will be only an approach to that condition; for just as man, even through regeneration, never again becomes entirely sinless, so the Reason of the regenerate never attains its original power. [9] We may therefore say of Reason, even when enlightened, that it can have no decisive judgment in regard to matters of faith, and possesses in such matters no normative authority, all the more since this was true of Reason before the fall. [10]

As to the use, then, that is to be made of Reason in Theology, it follows, from what has been said, that Reason stands in the relation merely of a handmaid to Theology. [11] In so far as it is the capacity for intellectual apprehension in general, the use that is to be made of it will consist in this, that man, by its help, intellectually apprehends the truths of Theology, and accepts from it the means of refuting opponents. In so far, however, as it also conveys knowledge, one may also employ it in the demonstration of a divine truth; in such a case, Reason would contribute whatever of natural knowledge it has acquired. And just in the same proportion as Reason has suffered itself to be enlightened by divine Revelation, will it be able to demonstrate the harmony of divine truth with natural knowledge. [12]

[1] Cal. (I, 358): “Human reason denotes either the intellect of man, that faculty of the rational soul (Holl., ‘the intellectual faculty of man’) which we doubtless must employ in every kind of knowledge, since man understands alone by the reason or intellect.” … Holl. (69): “Without the use of reason we cannot understand or prove theological doctrines, or defend them against the artful objections of opponents. Surely not to brutes, but to men using their sound reason, has God revealed the knowledge of eternal salvation in his word, and upon them he has imposed the earnest injunction to read, hear, and meditate upon his word. The intellect is therefore required, as the receiving subject or apprehending instrument. For, just as we can see nothing without eyes, and hear nothing without ears, so we understand nothing without reason.”

[2] Cal. (ibid.): “Or, reason denotes (philosophy itself, or) the principles known from nature (by the light of nature), and the discussion or ratiocination based upon these known principles.” These principles are divided “into organic and philosophical (strictly so called). The former (organic) relate to the mediate disciplines, grammar, rhetoric, and logic.”—(Quen. (I, 39): “These are to be employed in Theology (as the means of becoming acquainted with Theology), since without them neither the sense nor significance of the words can be derived, nor the figures and modes of speech be properly weighed, nor the connection and consequences be perceived, nor discussions be instituted”). The latter (the philosophical) are again divided into “philosophical principles absolutely and unrestrictedly universal (general or transcendental), which consist of a combination of terms essential and simply necessary, so that they cannot be overthrown by any argument, not even by the Scriptures; e.g., ‘It is impossible for anything to be and not to be at the same time;’ ” and “philosophical principles restrictedly universal (special or particular,) which are indeed true, to a certain extent, hypothetically, or so far as mere natural knowledge extends, but which, nevertheless, admit of limitation, and which may be invalidated by counter evidence drawn from revelation, if not from nature; e.g., ‘As many as are the persons, so many are the essences,’ etc.” Holl. (68): “Through these philosophical sources we can also gain a knowledge of God, for there is a natural knowledge of God, innate and acquired [cognitio Dei naturalis, insita et acquisita] (of which the Theologians elsewhere speak more at length), knowledge which is also communicated by divine revelation.” Holl. (69): “Thus from the principles of reason philosophers attempt to prove the existence and attributes of God, as subjects belonging to the sciences of Metaphysics and Pneumatology.”

[3] Cal. (II, 47): “Of the natural knowledge of God there is predicated, as to those things that are revealed in nature, imperfection; and as to the supernatural mysteries of faith, entire worthlessness [nullitas].

[4] Holl. (69): “Meanwhile, nevertheless, human reason is not a fountain, or primordial element, from which the peculiar and fundamental principles of faith are derived.”

[5] Flacius, with his assertion, that “the knowledge of God, naturally implanted, is a light full of error, fallacious and deceptive,” and subsequently, Daniel Hofmann (“Philosophy is hostile to Theology; what is true in Philosophy is false in Theology”), gave especial occasion to dispute the antagonism between Reason and Revelation.

Cal. (I, 68): “That Philosophy is not opposed to Theology, and is by no means to be rejected as brutish, terrene, impure, diabolical, we thus demonstrate: 1. Because the true agrees with the true, and does not antagonize it. But what is known by the light of nature is no less true than what is revealed in Scripture; 2. Because natural and philosophical knowledge has its origin from God; 3. Because Philosophy leads us to the knowledge of God.”

As this antagonism was still asserted, the Theologians endeavored to prove it to be only apparent. Cal. (I, 74): “We must distinguish between a real and an apparent contradiction. The maxims of Philosophy and the conclusions of Theology do not really contradict each other, but only appear to do so; for they either do not discuss the same subject, or they do not describe the same condition, mode, or relation of it; as when the philosopher says that the essence is multiplied with the multiplication of persons, he declares this of finite and created persons, not of divine, of which he knows nothing; concerning the latter, the theologian teaches that this is not true. When the philosopher says, ‘Of nothing, nothing comes,’ i.e., by way of generation, he does not contradict the theologian, who teaches that by the way of creation something does come from nothing. Let Philosophy remain within the limits of its own sphere, then it will not contradict Theology, for this treats of a different subject. But it is not wonderful that those who confound Philosophy with Theology should find contradictions between them, for they pervert both.” Quen. (I, 43): “We must distinguish between contrariety and diversity. Philosophy and the principles of Reason are not indeed contrary to Theology, nor the former to the latter; but there is a very great difference between those things that are divinely revealed in Scripture and those which are known by the light of nature.”—As the Theologians here opposed those who asserted a contradiction between Reason and Revelation, they also controverted those who claimed too much for Reason, as over against Revelation, by maintaining that, because Reason came from God, that which opposes it cannot be true. This charge was brought against the Calvinists, Socinians, and Arminians. It was admitted, in opposition to them, that Reason in itself does not contradict Revelation; an inference, however, which might have become derogatory to divine truth, was obviated by explaining any seeming contradiction on the ground that Reason, in such a case, had overstepped its proper limits. To the proposition: “In nowise can that be true which is repugnant to reason,” Grh. (II, 371) replies: “Not human Reason, but divine Revelation, is the source of faith, nor are we to judge concerning the articles of faith according to the dictation of Reason, otherwise we should have no articles of faith, but only decisions of Reason. The cogitations and utterances of Reason are to be restricted and restrained within the sphere of those things which are subject to the decision of reason, and not to be extended to the sphere of those things which are placed entirely beyond the reach of reason; otherwise, if they should be received as absolutely universal, and are found opposed to the mysteries of the faith, there arise oppositions of science falsely so called, ὰντιθέσεις ψευδωνύμου γνώσεως.” To the objection: “As a smaller light to a greater, so Reason is not contrary to Scripture,” Grh. (II, 372) answers: “This contrariety is not necessary, but accidental. Reason restricted to its proper sphere is not contrary to Scripture, but when it wishes to overleap and surpass (μεταβαίνειν και ὑπερβαίνειν) this, and to pass judgment upon the highest mysteries of the faith, by the aid of its own principles, then, by accident (casually), it comes in conflict with Scripture which informs us in regard to the mysteries of faith. Just as the stronger light often reveals those things which were hidden in the weaker, so the light of grace, enkindled for us in the Word, makes manifest those things which were hidden in the light of nature. Just as any one, therefore, who would deny those things which are visible in the greater light because he had not seen them in the smaller, would fail to appreciate the design and benefit of the smaller, so also he who denies or impugns the mysteries of faith revealed in the light of grace, on the ground that they are incongruous with Reason and the light of nature, fails, at the same time, to make a proper use of the office and benefits of Reason and the light of nature.” To the proposition: “What is true theologically cannot be false philosophically, for truth is one,” Grh. (ibid.) answers: “In themselves considered, there is no contrariety, no contradiction between Philosophy and Theology, because whatever things concerning the deepest mystery of the faith Theology propounds from Revelation, these a wiser and sincere Philosophy knows are not to be discussed aud estimated according to the principles of Reason, lest there be a μετάβασις εἰς ἅλλο γένος (a passing over to another sphere), lest there be a confounding of the distinctive principles of distinct departments. So when Theology teaches that Mary brought forth and yet remained a virgin, a truly sensible Philosophy does not say this assertion is contrary to its conclusion, that it is impossible for a virgin to bear a child, because it knows that that conclusion must necessarily be received with this limitation, that for a virgin to bring forth a child naturally and yet remain a virgin, is impossible. Nor does Theology assert the contrary of this, for it says, by supernatural and divine power it came to pass that a virgin brought forth a child. But when some philosophizer wishes his axioms and assertions to be so general that the highest mysteries of the faith are to be adjudged by them, and so invades other spheres, then it comes to pass, by way of accident, that what is true theologically is pronounced false philosophically; i.e., not according to the proper use of a sound Philosophy, but according to the miserable abuse of it. Thus, justice and the nature of law is everywhere the same, i.e., in its general conception, while, nevertheless, the law of this province is not the same with the law of that, but each government lives under its own special laws. So truth is one in its general conception, while each discipline has its own axioms which are not to be dragged before another tribunal, but to be left in their own sphere.”

[6] Grh. (II, 372): “Sound reason is not opposed to the faith, if we accept as such that which is truly and properly so-called, namely that which does not transcend the limits of its sphere, and does not arrogate to itself decisions in regard to the mysteries of faith; or which, enlightened by the Word, and sanctified by the Holy Spirit, does not follow its own principles in the investigation of the mysteries of faith, but the light of the Word and the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

[7] Grh. (II, 372): “The articles of faith are not in and of themselves contrary to Reason, but only above Reason. It may happen, by accident, that they be contrary to Reason, namely, when Reason assumes to decide concerning them upon its own principles, and does not follow the light of the Word, but denies and assails them. Hence the articles of faith are not contrary to, but merely above Reason, since Reason before the fall was not yet corrupt and depraved; but after the fall they are not only above but also contrary to corrupt Reason, for this, in so far as it is thus corrupt, cannot control itself, much less should it wish to judge concerning these by its own principles.”

[8] Grh. (II, 371): “We must distinguish between Reason in man before and since the fall. The former, as such, was never opposed to divine Revelation; the latter was very frequently thus opposed through the influence of corruption.” Grh. (II, 362): “Natural human Reason since the fall (1) is blind, darkened by the mist of error, inwrapped in the shades of ignorance, exposed to vanity and error; Rom. 1:21; 1 Cor. 3:1; Gal. 4:8; Eph. 4:17; (2) unskilled in perceiving divine mysteries and judging concerning them; Matt. 11:27; 16:17; 1 Cor. 2:14 sq.; (3) opposed to them; Rom. 8:6; 1 Cor. 2:11 sq., 3:18 sq., hence is to be brought into captivity to the obedience of Christ, 2 Cor. 10:4, 5; (4) and we are commanded to beware of its seduction, Col. 2:8. Therefore natural human Reason cannot be a rule for judging in matters of faith, and any one pronouncing according to its dictation cannot be a judge in theological controversies.” Quen, (I, 43): “We must distinguish between Philosophy (i.e., Reason) considered abstractly and in view of its essence, and Philosophy considered concretely and in view of its existence in a subject corrupted by sin: viewed in the former light it is never opposed to divine truth (for the truth is ever presented as uniform and in harmony with the nature of the objects successively subordinated to it), but viewed in the latter light, in consequence of the ignorance of the intellect and the perversion of the will, it is often preposterously applied by the philosopher to the purposes of perversion and hollow deception. Col. 2:8.”

[9] Grh. (II, 371): “We are to make a distinction between the reason of man unregenerate and regenerate. The former counts the mysteries of faith foolishness, but the latter, in so far as it is such, does not object to them. Then only and only so long is it regenerate as it follows the light of the Word, and judges concerning the mysteries of the faith, not by its own principles, but by the Scriptures. We do not reject Reason when regenerated, renewed, illuminated by the Word of God, restrained and brought into captivity to the obedience of Christ; this does not draw its opinions, in matters of faith, from its own sources, but from Scripture; this does not impugn the articles of belief as does Reason when corrupt, left to itself, etc. We must distinguish also between Reason partially rectified in this life, and that which is fully rectified in the life to come. The former is not yet so completely renewed, illuminated, and rectified that it should be impossible for it to oppose the articles of faith and impugn them, if it should follow its own guidance. Just as there remains in the regenerate a struggle between the flesh and the spirit, by which they are tempted to sin, so there remains in them a struggle between faith and Reason, in so far as it is not yet fully renewed; this, however, excludes all opposition between faith and Reason.”

[10] Quen. (I, 43): “Reason is admissible as an instrument, but not as a rule and a judge: the formal principles of Reason no one rejects; its material principles, which constitute its rule for judging of mysteries, no wise man accepts. No material principle of Reason, as such, but only as it is at the same time a part of Revelation, produces faith theologically: that God is, we know from nature; we believe it, however, only through the Scriptures. It does not follow, because some parts of Scripture are axioms known by nature, that therefore Reason is the regulator of theological controversies.” Id. (I, 43): “Theology does not not condemn the use of Reason, but its abuse and its affectation of directorship or its magisterial use, as normative and decisive in divine things”

[11] Holl. (71): “Reason is not a leader, but an humble follower of Theology. Hagar serves as the handmaid of her mistress, she does not command; when she affects to command she is banished from the sacred home.”

[12] Quen. (I, 42): “A distinction must be made between the organic or instrumental use of Reason and its principles, when they are employed as instruments for the interpretation and exposition of the Sacred Scriptures, in refuting the arguments of opponents, drawn from nature and reason, in discussing the signification and construction of words, and rhetorical figures and modes of speech; and the normal use of philosophical principles, when they are regarded as principles by which supernatural doctrines are to be tested. The former we admit, the latter we repudiate.” The following from Quen. explains and expands this idea; “It is one thing to employ in Theology the principles and axioms of philosophy for the purpose of illustration, explanation, and as a secondary proof, when a matter is decided by the Scriptures; and another to employ them for the purpose of deciding and demonstrating, or to recognize philosophical principles, or the argumentation based upon them, as authoritative in Theology, or to decide by means of them, the matters of faith. The former we do, the latter we do not. There must be a distinction made between consequences deduced by the aid of reason from the Sacred Scriptures, and conclusions collected from the sources of nature and reason. The former must not be confounded with the latter. For it is one thing to use legitimate, necessary consequences, and another to use the principles of Reason. It is one thing to draw a conclusion and deduce consequences from the declarations of Scripture, according to logical rules, and another to collect consequences from natural principles. A sort of illustration of heavenly matters can be sought for among those things which Reason supplies, but a demonstration can never be obtained from that source, since it is necessary that this should proceed (non ἐξ άλλοτρὶων sed ἐξ ὀικείων) from the same sphere to which the truth which is to be proved belongs, and not to a foreign one.”

This doctrine of the use of reason Grh. develops in a manner somewhat different, although substantially the same; as follows, under the topic, “The Use of Reason in the Rule of Faith.” (I, 76, seq.): (1) The organic use is the following: When our reason brings with it, to the work of drawing out the treasures of divine wisdom hidden in the Scriptures, knowledge of the grammatical force of words, logical observance of order, rhetorical elucidation of figures and acquaintance with the facts of nature, derived from the philosophical branches. This use we greatly commend, yea, we even declare it to be necessary. (2) As to the edificative (κατασκευαστικός) use of reason, it is to be thus regarded. There is a certain natural knowledge of God, Rom. 1:19, 20, but this should be subordinate to that which is divinely revealed in the Word; so that, where there is a disagreement, the former should yield to the latter; and where they agree, the former confirms and strengthens the latter. In short, as a servant it should, with all due reverence, minister to the latter. (3) The destructive (ἀνασκευαστικός seu ἐλεγκτικός) use, when legitimate, is the following: Errors in doctrine are first to be confuted by arguments drawn from the Sacred Scriptures, as the only and proper source of Theology, but afterwards philosophical reasons may be added, so that it may be shown that the false dogma is repugnant, not only to the light of grace, but also to the light of nature. But when the truth of any doctrine has been clearly proved by unanswerable scriptural arguments, we should never allow our confidence in it to be shaken by any philosophical reasons, however specious they may be.”

Id. (II, 9): “Although some things are taught in Theology, which can be learned in some measure by the light of nature and Reason, yet human Reason cannot undertake to become thoroughly acquainted with the mysteries of faith, properly so called, by means of its own powers; and as to such things as, already known from nature, are taught in Theology, it need not seek for proof elsewhere than in their own proper source, the Word of God, which is abundantly able to prove them.… In this latter manner the Theologian becomes indebted, for some things, to the philosopher; not, indeed, as though he were not able to know them without the aid of philosophical principles, from Scripture, as the proper and native (οἰκειῳ) source of his own science, but because, in the course of the investigation, he perceives the truth of the proposition according to the principles of philosophy.”

That to which Grh. here merely alludes, the later Theologians, such as Quen., Br., and Holl. develop at greater length when treating of the pure and mixed articles; by the former of which are understood those which contain truths that can be known only by Revelation, by the latter such as contain truths which may, at least in part, be otherwise known. Holl. (68): “Mixed articles of faith may, in some measure, be known by the principles of Philosophy. But the pure articles of faith can be learned and proved only from Sacred Scripture as the appropriate, fundamental, and original source.” But the remark of Quen. is well worthy of attention, that (I, 39) “in the mixed articles we grant that special (philosophical) principles may be employed; not, indeed, for the purpose of decision or demonstration, but merely for illustration, or as a sort of secondary proof of that which has already been decided by the Scriptures.” And here belongs also the statement of Quen., concerning the formal and material principles of Reason, already quoted in the tenth note. This statement of Quen. conveys the same idea as the last, quoted from Grh., and is designed to prevent the assignment of the right of decision in the mixed articles to Reason, although it is to have something to do with them. Those Theologians who adhere to the distinctive arrangement, described in note second, of organic and philosophical principles, admit also the use of the absolutely universal principles in Theology. It may be questioned, however, whether these are so accurately distinguished from the restrictedly universal principles which are not admissible, that mistakes may not easily arise. In regard to this Br. (157) thus expresses himself: “The material principles of Reason are also with propriety employed; however, when they are particular or specific, they are subordinated to the universal principle (the grand source) of Theology; but the universal principles of Reason may be employed only when they are absolutely necessary, namely, when the demonstration of the opposite would imply a contradiction. For otherwise, if the principles of Reason were employed, not absolutely, but relatively, or, so to speak, universally and necessarily, it might easily happen that a conclusion would be reached repugnant to the mysteries or to the articles of faith, even to those of fundamental importance.”^{^[1]}

^{^[1]} Schmid, H. (1889). The Doctrinal Theology of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, Verified from the Original Sources. (C. A. Hay & H. E. Jacobs, Trans.) (Second English Edition, Revised according to the Sixth German Edition., pp. 39–49). Philadelphia, PA: Lutheran Publication Society.

Here are also some select quotes where Luther deals with Aquinas, Aristotle & Reason and his attitudes towards them:

We know from Moses that the world was not in existence before 6,000 years ago. Of this it is altogether impossible to convince a philosopher, because, according to Aristotle, no first man or last man can be conceded. Although Aristotle leaves unsettled the problem whether the world is eternal, he leans toward the opinion that it is eternal. Human reason cannot rise to a higher level than to conclude that the world is eternal and that countless men have gone before us and are coming after us; here it is forced to call a halt. But from this very conclusion there follows the most dangerous opinion that the soul is mortal, for philosophy knows no more than one infinite. Indeed, human reason cannot avoid being overwhelmed by the grandeur of this subject matter and coming into conflict with it. - Martin Luther, “Lectures on Genesis: Chapters 1-5,” AE 1:3-4.

Always be prepared to make a defense to anyone who calls you to account for the hope that is in you.

Here we shall have to admit that St. Peter is addressing these words to all Christians, to priests, laymen, men and women, young and old, and in whatever station they are. Therefore it follows from this that every Christian should account for his faith and be able to give a reason and an answer when necessary. Now up to this time the laity has been forbidden to read Scripture. For here the devil came up with a pretty trick for the purpose of tearing the people away from Scripture. He thought: “If I can keep the laity from reading Scripture, then I shall bring the priests from the Bible into Aristotle.” Then the priests can babble what they please, and the laity has to listen to what they preach to them. Otherwise, if the laity were to read Scripture, the priests would also have to study, lest they be rebuked and overridden. But note that St. Peter tells every one of us to be prepared to make a defense of our faith. When the time comes for you to die, neither I nor the pope will be at your side; and if you know no reason for your hope and say: “I want to believe what the councils, the pope, and our fathers believed,” then the devil will answer: “But what if they were in error?” Then he has won, and he drags you into hell. Therefore we must know what we believe, namely, what God’s Word says, not what the pope or the saintly fathers believe or say. For you must not rely on a person. No, you must rely on the Word of God alone.

Hence if someone tackles you, as if you were a heretic, and asks: “Why do you believe that you are saved through faith?” then reply: “I have God’s Word and clear statements of Scripture. Thus St. Paul says in Rom. 1:17: ‘He who through faith is righteous shall live.’ And above (1 Peter 2:6), when St. Peter, on the basis of the prophet Isaiah (28:16), speaks of Christ, the Living Stone, he says: ‘He who believes in Him will not be put to shame.’ I build on this, and I know that the Word does not deceive me.” But if, as other fools do, you want to say: “Ah, we want to hear how the council decrees! To this we want to cling,” then you are lost. Therefore you should say: “What do I care about what this or that person believes or decrees? If the Word of God is not preached, I do not want to hear what is said.”

You may say: “There is such confusion that no one knows what to believe. Therefore it is necessary to wait until it is decreed what one should accept.” Answer: Meanwhile you will also go to the devil. For when you are lying at death’s door and do not know what to believe, neither I nor anyone else can help you. Therefore you yourself must know. You must pay no attention to anyone, and you must cling firmly to the Word of God if you want to escape hell. And it is also necessary for those who are not able to read to take hold of and retain several—at least one or two—clear passages from Scripture and to stand firmly on this ground. For example, there is Gen. 22:18, where God says to Abraham: “And in your Seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed.” If you have understood this, you can rely on it and say: “Even if the pope, the bishops, and all the councils confronted me and said otherwise, I say: ‘This is God’s Word; for me it is certain; it does not lie. What is to be blessed must be blessed through the Seed. What does the blessing mean? It means to deliver from the curse, that is, from sin, death, and hell. Therefore it follows from this statement that he who is not blessed through the Seed must be lost. Accordingly, my works and merits cannot contribute anything toward salvation.’ ”

St. Peter’s statement that he who believes in the Stone will not be put to shame (cf. 2:6) reaches the same conclusion. Now if someone tackles you and demands the reason for your faith, you must reply: “Here is the foundation; it cannot deceive me. Therefore I do not care about what the pope or the bishops teach and decide. If they were true bishops, they would have to teach the foundation of faith, in order that all Christians might know it. Yet they continue to cry out that one should not let the laity read the Scriptures!”

If someone asks you whether you want to have the pope as a head, you must answer: “Yes, I want to have him as a head, a head of scoundrels and rascals. And I have a statement made by St. Paul in 1 Tim. 4:1, 3, where he says that some will give heed to doctrines of demons, who forbid marriage and enjoin abstinence from foods which God created. It is evident that the pope has forbidden marriage. Therefore he is the Antichrist. For he acts contrary to what Christ commands and teaches. What Christ sets free, this the pope binds. When Christ says that it is not sin, the pope says that it is a sin.”

Therefore we must now learn to give an account for our faith, for it surely must come to this. If it does not happen here, it must happen when death comes. Then the devil will step forth and say: “Why have you called the pope an antichrist?” If you are not prepared to stand your ground and give a reason, then he has won. Therefore St. Peter now wants to say here: Now that you have become believers, you will encounter much persecution from now on. But in persecution you must have a hope and wait for eternal life. And when you are asked why you have this hope, you must have God’s Word on which to be able to build.

The sophists have also perverted this text. They say that one must vanquish the heretics with reason and on the basis of the natural light of Aristotle, since the Latin expression rationem reddere is used here, as though St. Peter meant that this should be done by means of human reason. Therefore they say that Scripture is far too weak to overthrow heretics. This, they say, must be done by reason and must come from the brain, which must be the source of the proof that faith is right, even though our faith transcends all reason and is solely a power of God. Therefore if people refuse to believe, you should keep silence; for you have no obligation to force them to regard Scripture as God’s Book or Word. It is sufficient for you to base your proof on Scripture. This you must do when they take it upon themselves to say: “You preach that one should not hold to the teaching of men, even though Peter and Paul, yes, even Christ, were men too.” If you hear people who are so completely blinded and hardened that they deny that this is God’s Word or are in doubt about it, just keep silence, do not say a word to them, and let them go their way. Just say: “I will give you enough proof from Scripture. If you want to believe it, this is good; if not, I will give you nothing else.” Then you may say: “Ah, in this way God’s Word must needs be brought into disgrace!” Leave this to God. Therefore it is necessary to grasp this well and to know how to meet those who stand up now and make such allegations. - Martin Luther, “The Catholic Epistles,” AE 30:105-108.

____________________

The second captivity of this sacrament is less grievous as far as the conscience is concerned, yet the gravest of dangers threatens the man who would attack it, to say nothing of condemning it. Here I shall be called a Wycliffite and a heretic by six hundred names. But what of it? Since the Roman bishop has ceased to be a bishop and has become a tyrant, I fear none of his decrees; for I know that it is not within his power, nor that of any general council, to make new articles of faith.

Some time ago, when I was drinking in scholastic theology, the learned Cardinal of Cambrai gave me food for thought in his comments on the fourth book of the Sentences. He argues with great acumen that to hold that real bread and real wine, and not merely their accidents, are present on the altar, would be much more probable and require fewer superfluous miracles—if only the church had not decreed otherwise. When I learned later what church it was that had decreed this, namely the Thomistic—that is, the Aristotelian church—I grew bolder, and after floating in a sea of doubt, I at last found rest for my conscience in the above view, namely, that it is real bread and real wine, in which Christ’s real flesh and real blood are present in no other way and to no less a degree than the others assert them to be under their accidents. I reached this conclusion because I saw that the opinions of the Thomists, whether approved by pope or by council, remain only opinions, and would not become articles of faith even if an angel from heaven were to decree otherwise [Gal. 1:8]. For what is asserted without the Scriptures or proven revelation may be held as an opinion, but need not be believed. But this opinion of Thomas hangs so completely in the air without support of Scripture or reason that it seems to me he knows neither his philosophy nor his logic. For Aristotle speaks of subject and accidents so very differently from St. Thomas that it seems to me this great man is to be pitied not only for attempting to draw his opinions in matters of faith from Aristotle, but also for attempting to base them upon a man whom he did not understand, thus building an unfortunate superstructure upon an unfortunate foundation.

Therefore I permit every man to hold either of these opinions, as he chooses. My one concern at present is to remove all scruples of conscience, so that no one may fear being called a heretic if he believes that real bread and real wine are present on the altar, and that every one may feel at liberty to ponder, hold, and believe either one view or the other without endangering his salvation. However, I shall now set forth my own view.

In the first place, I do not intend to listen or attach the least importance to those who will cry out that this teaching of mine is Wycliffite, Hussite, heretical, and contrary to the decree of the church. No one will do this except those very persons whom I have convicted of manifold heresies in the matter of indulgences, freedom of the will and the grace of God, good works and sins, etc. If Wycliffe was once a heretic, they are heretics ten times over; and it is a pleasure to be blamed and accused by heretics and perverse sophists, since to please them would be the height of impiety. Besides, the only way in which they can prove their opinions and disprove contrary ones is by saying: “That is Wycliffite, Hussite, heretical!” They carry this feeble argument always on the tip of their tongues, and they have nothing else. If you ask for scriptural proof, they say: “This is our opinion, and the church (that is, we ourselves) has decided thus.” To such an extent these men, who are reprobate concerning the faith [II Tim. 3:8] and untrustworthy, have the effrontery to set their own fancies before us in the name of the church as articles of faith.

But there are good grounds for my view, and this above all—no violence is to be done to the words of God, whether by man or angel. They are to be retained in their simplest meaning as far as possible. Unless the context manifestly compels it, they are not to be understood apart from their grammatical and proper sense, lest we give our adversaries occasion to make a mockery of all the Scriptures. Thus Origen was rightly repudiated long ago because, ignoring the grammatical sense, he turned the trees and everything else written concerning Paradise into allegories, from which one could have inferred that trees were not created by God. Even so here, when the Evangelists plainly write that Christ took bread [Matt. 26:26; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19] and blessed it, and when the Book of Acts and the Apostle Paul in turn call it bread [Acts 2:46; I Cor. 10:16; 11:23, 26–28], we have to think of real bread and real wine, just as we do of a real cup (for even they do not say that the cup was transubstantiated). Since it is not necessary, therefore, to assume a transubstantiation effected by divine power, it must be regarded as a figment of the human mind, for it rests neither on the Scriptures nor on reason, as we shall see.

Therefore it is an absurd and unheard-of juggling with words to understand “bread” to mean “the form or accidents of bread,” and “wine” to mean “the form or accidents of wine.” Why do they not also understand all other things to mean their “forms or accidents”? And even if this might be done with all other things, it would still not be right to enfeeble the words of God in this way, and by depriving them of their meaning to cause so much harm.

Moreover, the church kept the true faith for more than twelve hundred years, during which time the holy fathers never, at any time or place, mentioned this transubstantiation (a monstrous word and a monstrous idea), until the pseudo philosophy of Aristotle began to make its inroads into the church in these last three hundred years. During this time many things have been wrongly defined, as for example, that the divine essence is neither begotten nor begets; that the soul is the substantial form of the human body. These and like assertions are made without any reason or cause, as the Cardinal of Cambrai⁶⁸ himself admits.

Perhaps they will say that the danger of idolatry demands that the bread and wine should not be really present. How ridiculous! The laymen have never become familiar with their fine-spun philosophy of substance and accidents, and could not grasp it if it were taught to them. Besides, there is the same danger in the accidents which remain and which they see, as in the case of the substance which they do not see. If they do not worship the accidents, but the Christ hidden under them, why should they worship the [substance of the] bread, which they do not see?

And why could not Christ include his body in the substance of the bread just as well as in the accidents? In red-hot iron, for instance, the two substances, fire and iron, are so mingled that every part is both iron and fire. Why is it not even more possible that the body of Christ be contained in every part of the substance of the bread?

What will they reply? Christ is believed to have been born from the inviolate womb of his mother. Let them say here too that the flesh of the Virgin was meanwhile annihilated, or as they would more aptly say, transubstantiated, so that Christ, after being enfolded in its accidents, finally came forth through the accidents! The same thing will have to be said of the shut door [John 20:19, 26] and of the closed mouth of the sepulchre, through which he went in and out without disturbing them.

Out of this has arisen that Babel of a philosophy of a constant quantity distinct from the substance, until it has come to such a pass that they themselves no longer know what are accidents and what is substance. For who has ever proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that heat, color, cold, light, weight, or shape are mere accidents? Finally, they have been driven to pretend that a new substance is created by God for those accidents on the altar, all on account of Aristotle, who says: “It is the nature of an accident to be in something,” and endless other monstrosities. They would be rid of all these if they simply permitted real bread to be present. I rejoice greatly that the simple faith of this sacrament is still to be found, at least among the common people. For as they do not understand, neither do they dispute whether accidents are present without substance, but believe with a simple faith that Christ’s body and blood are truly contained there, and leave to those who have nothing else to do the argument about what contains them.

But perhaps they will say: “Aristotle teaches that in an affirmative proposition subject and predicate must be identical,” or (to quote the monster’s own words in the sixth book of his Metaphysics): “An affirmative proposition requires the agreement of the subject and the predicate.” They interpret agreement to mean identity. Hence, when I say: “This is my body,” the subject cannot be identical with the bread, but must be identical with the body of Christ.

What shall we say when Aristotle and the doctrines of men are made to be the arbiters of such lofty and divine matters? Why do we not put aside such curiosity and cling simply to the words of Christ, willing to remain in ignorance of what takes place here and content that the real body of Christ is present by virtue of the words? Or is it necessary to comprehend the manner of the divine working in every detail?

But what do they say when Aristotle admits that all of the categories of accidents are themselves a subject—although he grants that substance is the chief subject? Hence for him “this white,” “this large,” “this something,” are all subjects, of which something is predicated. If that is correct, I ask: If a “transubstantiation” must be assumed in order that Christ’s body may not be identified with the bread, why not also a “transaccidentation,” in order that the body of Christ may not be identified with the accidents? For the same danger remains if one understands the subject to be “this white or this round⁷⁴ is my body.” And for the same reason that a “transubstantiation” must be assumed, a “transaccidentation” must also be assumed, because of this identity of subject and predicate.

If however, merely by an act of the intellect, you can do away with the accident, so that it will not be regarded as the subject when you say, “this is my body,” why not with equal ease transcend the substance of the bread, if you do not want it to be regarded either as the subject, so that “this my body” is no less in the substance than in the accident? After all, this is a divine work performed by God’s almighty power, which can operate just as much and just as well in the accident as it can in the substance.

Let us not dabble too much in philosophy, however. Does not Christ appear to have anticipated this curiosity admirably by saying of the wine, not Hoc est sanguis meus, but Hic est sanguis meus? [Mark 14:24]. He speaks even more clearly when he brings in the word “cup” and says: “This cup [Hic calix] is the new testament in my blood” [Luke 22:20; I Cor. 11:25]. Does it not seem as though he desired to keep us in a simple faith, sufficient for us to believe that his blood was in the cup? For my part, if I cannot fathom how the bread is the body of Christ, yet I will take my reason captive to the obedience of Christ [II Cor. 10:5], and clinging simply to his words, firmly believe not only that the body of Christ is in the bread, but that the bread is the body of Christ. My warrant for this is the words which say: “He took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, ‘Take, eat, this (that is, this bread, which he had taken and broken) is my body’ ” [I Cor. 11:23–24]. And Paul says: “The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?” [I Cor. 10:16]. He does not say “in the bread there is,” but “the bread itself is the participation in the body of Christ.” What does it matter if philosophy cannot fathom this? The Holy Spirit is greater than Aristotle. Does philosophy fathom their transubstantiation? Why, they themselves admit that here all philosophy breaks down. That the pronoun “this,” in both Greek and Latin, is referred to “body,” is due to the fact that in both of these languages the two words are of the same gender. In Hebrew, however, which has no neuter gender, “this” is referred to “bread,” so that it would be proper to say Hic [bread] est corpus meum. Actually, the idiom of the language and common sense both prove that the subject [“this”] obviously points to the bread and not to the body, when he says: Hoc est corpus meum, dos ist meyn leyp, that is, “This very bread here [iste panis] is my body.”

Thus, what is true in regard to Christ is also true in regard to the sacrament. In order for the divine nature to dwell in him bodily [Col. 2:9], it is not necessary for the human nature to be transubstantiated and the divine nature contained under the accidents of the human nature. Both natures are simply there in their entirety, and it is truly said: “This man is God; this God is man.” Even though philosophy cannot grasp this, faith grasps it nonetheless. And the authority of God’s Word is greater than the capacity of our intellect to grasp it. In like manner, it is not necessary in the sacrament that the bread and wine be transubstantiated and that Christ be contained under their accidents in order that the real body and real blood may be present. But both remain there at the same time, and it is truly said: “This bread is my body; this wine is my blood,” and vice versa. Thus I will understand it for the time being to the honor of the holy words of God, to which I will allow no violence to be done by petty human arguments, nor will I allow them to be twisted into meanings which are foreign to them. At the same time, I permit other men to follow the other opinion, which is laid down in the decree, Firmiter, only let them not press us to accept their opinions as articles of faith (as I have said above). - Martin Luther, “Word and Sacrament II” AE 36:28-35.

There is quite a bit more but suffice it to say, the Creation of the world, the authority of tradition and use of Aristotelian logic as a way of explaining the sacrament of the altar ontologically & metaphysically are good examples of Luther's thinking on Aristotle, Thomism & the use of Reason in Theology. Luther put it well when he said,

“I reached this conclusion because I saw that the opinions of the Thomists, whether approved by pope or by council, remain only opinions, and would not become articles of faith even if an angel from heaven were to decree otherwise [Gal. 1:8]. For what is asserted without the Scriptures or proven revelation may be held as an opinion, but need not be believed.”

Amen.

Perseverance - A Lutheran Overview With Critiques Of The Calvinist & Arminian Views - Part 1

2013-12-05T18:42:00.000-08:00

After having several long and occasionally heated discussions with Calvinists and others over the topic of eternal security or as it's popularly called "once saved always saved" (OSAS hereafter) which is a more vulgar version that tends to ignore reality. Eternal Security will admit to people temporarily losing faith but coming back to it later in life or experiencing "backsliding" but returning to Christian faith later. OSAS tends to deny the obvious by coming up with mini-theodicies. For example, if a person loses their faith or 'backslides', they never really were a Christian to begin with the OSAS adherent will say. This might work in cases of people who have fleeting conversion experiences but it is harder to explain when a person who was a career church worker loses their faith and has a prior career of profitable good works in their past. One famous agnostic religion scholar used to be a fundamentalist who defended Scriptural inerrancy!

So being the kind of person I am (stubborn and intelligent) and trained a certain way (Christian apologetics) I dug into criticizing eternal security/OSAS with a vengeance but did little to leave anything in its place. From my point of view, OSAS is a false teaching and deserves to be rebutted but I probably could be a bit more charitable with those who haven't arrived at that conclusion yet. I imagine from some things I have read on Facebook that it is the linchpin of some people's faith (which is sad) and if it is to be torn down, it should have something there in it's place.

So I am going to put some pertinent quotes, long and short from Lutheran resources here that deal with perseverance in the hopes that it will be edifying, especially for those who are only aware of the extremes of the Arminian & Calvinist Reformed positions. There is a happy medium and it is found in the doctrines of the Lutheran Reformation.

I will start with a lengthy quote from Koehler's Christian Doctrine. For the Benefit of non-Lutherans, I am putting color-coded citations from the Book of Concord (Concordia Triglotta edition) and other resources below.

35] Since, then, it is manifest from God’s Word that faith is the proper and only means by which righteousness and salvation are not only received, but also preserved by God, the decree of the Council of Trent, and whatever elsewhere is set forth in the same sense, is justly to be rejected, namely, that our good works preserve salvation, or that the righteousness of faith which has been received, or even faith itself, is either entirely or in part kept and preserved by our works^[2]

77] 4. Fourthly, the doctrine of the Synergists, who pretend that man is not absolutely dead to good in spiritual things, but is badly wounded and half dead. Therefore, although the free will is too weak to make a beginning, and to convert itself to God by its own powers, and to be obedient to God’s Law from the heart, nevertheless, when the Holy Ghost makes a beginning, and calls us through the Gospel, and offers His grace, the forgiveness of sins, and eternal salvation, that then the free will, from its own natural powers, can meet God, and to a certain extent, although feebly, do something towards it, help and cooperate thereto, can qualify itself for, and apply itself to, grace, and apprehend accept it, and believe the Gospel, and can also cooperate, by its own powers, with the Holy Ghost, in the continuation and maintenance of this work^.[3]

62] For He has not yet brought together all His Christian Church nor dispensed forgiveness. Therefore we believe in Him who through the Word daily brings us into the fellowship of this Christian Church, and through the same Word and the forgiveness of sins bestows, increases, and strengthens faith, in order that when He has accomplished it all, and we abide therein, and die to the world and to all evil, He may finally make us perfectly and forever holy; which now we expect in faith through the Word.

16] And after God through the Holy Ghost in Baptism has kindled and effected a beginning of the true knowledge of God and faith, we should pray Him without ceasing that through the same spirit and His grace, by means of the daily exercise of reading and practising God’s Word, He would preserve in us faith and His heavenly gifts, strengthen us from day to day, and keep us to the end. For unless God Himself be our schoolmaster, we can study and learn nothing that is acceptable to Him and salutary to ourselves and others.

9. A difficulty.—In this connection a certain difficulty presents itself to man’s way of thinking.

There is no difference in the attitude of God towards men; He earnestly would convert and save all men (1 Tim. 2:4), and He alone can convert if man is to be converted (1 Cor. 12:3; Jer. 31:18).

Calvinism would explain the different result by a difference in God, namely, that God does not seriously intend to convert and save all men, that He passes certain ones by with His grace.

Here is a passage about the certainty of possessing saving faith by John Theodore Müeller in his Christian Dogmatics:

8. Can the Believer Be Sure of Possessing Saving Faith?

In the controversies on faith the question has been propounded whether a Christian may be sure of possessing true faith. The question has been emphatically denied by Romanists and Romanizing Protestants, while Holy Scripture very strenuously affirms it, 2 Tim. 1:12; 4:7.

It is true, a believer may not always be conscious of his faith. Saving faith (fides directa, fides actualis) need not always be conscious faith (fides reflexa), or faith which is perceived by the believer. (Fides reflexa et discursiva, qua homo renatus credit et sentit se credere.) Thus Christian adults, while asleep or engrossed with their daily occupation, indeed possess direct faith, which truly apprehends the grace of God in Christ Jesus, yet not reflex and discursive faith. That is to say, they meditate neither on their act of faith nor on their state of faith. For the time being faith with all that it implies has passed out of their direct consciousness. They may even be in a condition of coma, not being able to reflect on spiritual things at all; or they may be in a state of trial (in statu tentationis), when they believe themselves to be without faith because they have lost the sense, or feeling, of faith (sensus fidei). In all such cases saving faith truly exists, though the believer is not conscious of it. Even in baptized infants, faith is not a mere potentiality to believe (potentia credendi) or an inactive quality (otiosus habitus), but fides actualis, or actual trust in, and active apprehension of, divine grace (actus apprehendendi), as Christ directly testifies (Matt. 18:6: οἱ μικροὶ οἱ πιστεύοντες εἰς ἐμέ).

However, the doctrine regarding reflex faith must not be abused in the interest of carnal security and indifferentism; for it is God’s will that all believers should be sure of their state of faith and grace, Rom. 5:1, 2. If Christians entertain doubts concerning their faith, such doubts should be removed. This necessitates the preaching of the Law in order to show that unbelief and doubt are sinful and displeasing to God, John 8:46; Matt. 14:31. But above all the preaching of the Gospel is necessary, Rom. 5:20; 8:15–17, which alone works certainty of faith, John 8:31, 32, and dispels all doubts.

It is well to remind the doubting, fearing Christian also of the fact that even the desire to be saved through Jesus Christ is already actual, or direct, faith; for such a desire is never found in the natural, unregenerate heart, 1 Cor. 2:14, but is the gift of the Holy Spirit, Eph. 1:19; Rom. 8:23. The Formula of Concord rightly says (Thor. Decl., II, 14): “To all godly Christians who feel and experience in their hearts a small spark or longing for divine grace (scintillula aliqua et desiderium gratiae divinae) and eternal salvation this precious passage [Phil. 2:13] is very comforting; for they know that God has kindled in their hearts this beginning of true godliness and that He will further strengthen and help them in their great weakness to persevere in true faith unto the end.” (Cf. Matt. 17:20: Ἐὰν ἔχητε πίστιν ὡς κόκκον σινάπεως.)

Because the assurance which a believer has concerning His state of grace (certitudo gratiae) is not found in man’s heart by nature, but is engendered in him by the Holy Spirit, it is rightly said that such certainty rests upon the testimony of the Holy Ghost (testimonium Spiritus Sancti). The testimony of the Holy Spirit is both internal (testimonium Spiritus Sancti internum) and external (testimonium Spiritus Sancti externum). The internal, or direct, witness of the Holy Spirit is nothing else than faith, which assures the believer that he is a child of God, consoles and strengthens him in all adversity and temptation, and preserves him in the hope of eternal life, Rom. 8:15, 16; 1 John 5:10; Phil. 1:6. The internal testimony of the Holy Spirit is therefore not something that exists without faith or by the side of faith, but it is faith itself, 1 John 5:10. Cp. the Apology (Trigl., p. 154, § 113, German text): “But faith, properly so called (proprie dicta), is when my heart and the Holy Ghost in the heart says: The promise of God is true and certain. Of this faith Scripture speaks.”

The external testimony of the Holy Spirit consists in this, that God through the means of grace works in the believer manifest fruits of faith, such as love for God and His Word, John 8:47; 1 Thess. 1:3–6; 2 Thess. 2:13–15, and love for the neighbor, 1 John 3:14, which bear witness to his state of grace, Gal. 5:22–24. This external witness of the Holy Ghost, which occurs only in true believers, must be distinguished from the carnal trust which the unregenerate put in their external “good works,” which carnal trust in their “dead good works” proves convincingly that they are self-righteous and therefore not children of God, Luke 18:10–14.

Every true believer in Christ therefore is sure of his state of grace and salvation; for the Holy Spirit, who through the Gospel has engendered faith in him, assures him by that very faith that he is a child of God and an heir of eternal life, Rom. 8:15–17.[4]

^[1] Koehler, E. W. A. (1999). A summary of Christian doctrine: a popular presentation of the teachings of the Bible (pp. 176–177). St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House.

^[2] Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod. (1996). Concordia Triglotta—English: The Symbolical Books of the Evangelical Lutheran Church (electronic ed., p. 949). Milwaukee, WI: Northwestern Publishing House.

^[3] Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod. (1996). Concordia Triglotta—English: The Symbolical Books of the Evangelical Lutheran Church (electronic ed., p. 911). Milwaukee, WI: Northwestern Publishing House.

^{^[4]} Mueller, J. T. (1999). Christian dogmatics (330–332). St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House.

Lutherans, Infant Communion & 1 Corinthians 11:28

2013-09-26T20:09:00.000-07:00

Greetings,

I personally DO NOT subscribe to infant communion, let that be told up front to avoid any misunderstanding.

I have assembled below some resources which I found in a variety of Lutheran sources, the Church Fathers and works of Biblical languages.

Here they are:

1 Corinthians 11:28
δοκιμαζέτω δὲ ἄνθρωπος ἑαυτόν, καὶ οὕτως ἐκ τοῦ ἄρτου ἐσθιέτω καὶ ἐκ τοῦ ποτηρίου πινέτω

Lutheran Sources on 1 Corinthians 11:28

Who is to Be Admitted to the Lord’s Supper

(Finis Cui Coenae Sacrae)

However, not even all Christians are to be admitted to the Lord’s Table. To be admitted are:

1. Such as have been baptized. On this order of sequence in the use of the two New Testament Sacraments see p. 292.

2. Such as are able to examine themselves. Scripture expressly declares spiritual self-examination necessary for a salutary use of the Holy Supper: “Let a man examine himself [δοκιμαζέτω δὲ ἄνθρωπος ἑαυτόν], and so [οὕτως] let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup” (1 Cor. 11:28). Excluded therefore are children, the sleeping, the unconscious, the dying deprived of the use of their senses, the insane and possessed while not in their right mind, etc.

3. Only such as believe the words of institution, hence believe both that they receive the true body and blood of Christ in the Lord’s Supper and that Christ gives them this priceless gift for the remission of their sins. This provision excludes the Christians in Reformed denominations. There certainly are children of God among the Reformed who still preach Christ’s satisfactio vicaria. Since, however, they lack the right understanding of, and therefore faith in, the words of institution, they are not in condition to use the Lord’s Supper to their benefit. Paul expressly disqualified all who do not believe the Real Presence, since they do not discern the Lord’s body (διακρίνειν τὸ σῶμα τοῦ Κυρίου), 1 Cor. 11:29. With their denial of the Real Presence they also lose the finis cuius of the Lord’s Supper, namely, that Christ’s body and blood is given us in the Sacrament for the remission of our sins. This applies, of course, also to such Lutherans as are afflicted with grave doubts as to the Real Presence of Christ’s body and blood, or who, though they confess the Real Presence, are not seeking the forgiveness of sins in the Sacrament, but ascribe to it a salutary effect ex opere operato.

- Pieper, F. (1953). Christian Dogmatics (Vol. 3, pp. 383–384). St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Worthiness for receiving the Sacrament consists of our recognition that we are unworthy, that we need God’s love and forgiveness. Luther suggested that if the devil, the world, and the flesh still threaten to tarnish or take away the joy of our faith, we need the Sacrament. Christ offers it to the hungry, not to the satisfied. It is Christ whose worth is at issue in the Lord’s Supper. The meal is planned for those whose worth has disappeared, who need the gift of worth.

Paul insisted that believers examine themselves (1 Cor. 11:28) as they come to the Supper. That examination, Paul continues, includes the recognition of what God is giving in the Sacrament. Those who do not discern the Lord’s body receive judgment (1 Cor. 11:29). Although some have suggested that this body is the body of Christ, the church, the context, particularly verse 27, prevents that interpretation. This judgment that we can receive in connection with an unfaithful use of the Lord’s Supper is no different than the judgment that falls upon those who hear his Word in a frivolous or apathetic manner.

Because of Paul’s command to examine ourselves, the Western church has offered the Lord’s Supper only to those who are able to do so. The Eastern church has communed infants as soon as they are baptized. There is no biblical warrant for this practice. Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are not to be equated even though the church has placed them both in the category of “sacrament.” There has been no general agreement on the proper age for admission to the Lord’s Supper. In Luther’s own time children began to commune at an earlier age than they normally do today.

“Examination” in preparation for the Lord’s Supper recognizes no more and no less than who God is as he comes to us in the Supper and who we are as we receive it. We recognize with joy and thanksgiving that God gives in the Sacrament and that we receive. We recognize that we need the blessings God gives in this meal of life. We recognize that our own unworthiness draws us to the Lord’s life-giving body and blood. Believers approach the Lord’s Supper craving not only the forgiveness of sins but also the power to live out God’s callings in daily life. The spirit of repentance guides us to come to receive death and to be raised to genuine human life once again. At his Supper our God feeds us for living.

- Kolb, R. (2000). The Christian faith: a Lutheran exposition (pp. 241–242). St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House.

- - - - - - - - - -

11:27 unworthy manner. Includes celebrating the Sacrament in a manner that is inconsistent with Jesus’ institution, particularly the creation of divisions (see note, v 17). It also includes not recognizing what is given and received in the “body and blood.” Were Paul discussing exclusively the Church as the Body of Christ, there would have been no mention of the blood. However, eating and drinking in an unworthy manner also includes not recognizing the sacramental presence of Christ’s body and blood (cf v 29). guilty. Abusing the Sacrament by making it an occasion for sin, not for its intended purpose of forgiveness and unity makes one guilty and liable to judgment (vv 29–32). “Those who go to the Sacrament [Lord’s Supper] unworthily yet still receive the true Sacrament, even though they do not believe” (LC IV 54).

11:28 examine himself. To see whether or not the person is receiving the Sacrament according to Christ’s institution, not in an “unworthy manner” (see note, v 27). This does not require a perfect, sinless life before reception of the Sacrament but a desire to receive the blessings of the Sacrament, including forgiveness and being formed with fellow recipients as the Body of Christ. Paul illustrates pastoral oversight in the examination by rebuking their sin and returning them to their catechesis (v 23; see p 1965). “Confession in the churches is not abolished among us. The body of the Lord is not usually given to those who have not been examined [1 Corinthians 11:27–28] and absolved” (AC XXV 1; see also LC V 49–50).

11:29 without discerning the body. Short for “body and blood” used throughout this section. Note parallels at vv 27–28. “Discerning” includes recognizing the “true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ under the bread and wine” (SC, Sacrament of the Altar, p xli). It also implies a desire for the “forgiveness of sins, life, and salvation” offered in the Sacrament. Finally, in the context of vv 17–34, it also includes a desire to end the human divisions that destroy the unity of the Body of Christ created through the Sacrament. eats and drinks judgment on himself. Not everyone who was participating in the sacramental meal in Corinth was condemned—only those who did not discern the body and so came under God’s judgment (vv 31–32). “The pastors do not force those who are not qualified to use the Sacraments” (Ap XI 62).

- Engelbrecht, E. A. (2009). The Lutheran Study Bible (p. 1964). St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House.

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

19. Self-examination.—To partake of the Sacrament worthily, and to receive its blessings, one is to examine himself. “Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup” (1 Cor 11:28). Every communicant should examine himself:

(a) Whether he understands and believes the words of institution, for he must “discern,” distinguish and recognize the Lord’s body and blood in, with, and under the bread and wine. (Cf., 1 Cor. 11:29). To discern the Lord’s body means to perceive that body in the Sacrament as really present and received.

(b) Whether he knows himself to be a sinner before God, and is sincerely sorry for his sins. Neither the number nor the greatness of our sins make us unworthy; it depends on how we feel about our sins, whether we are penitent or not, that determines our worthiness or unworthiness. He, who does not know his sins, cannot repent, and sees no need of forgiveness, and, therefore, has no faith in the forgiveness through Christ. God wants us to realize our natural evil condition and our total insufficiency before Him.

(c) Whether he knows what Christ did for him, whether he truly desires forgiveness and applies the promise of Christ to himself, believing that all his sins are forgiven. No special degree of faith is required. The weak in faith, who lack the firm assurance of, and experience only a sincere longing for, the forgiveness of their sins, should by all means approach the Lord’s Table for the strengthening of their faith.

(d) Whether he is willing to amend his life and bring forth fruit meet for repentance (Matt. 3:8). For this we need the help of God, who through the Sacrament will so strengthen our faith, that we grow in holiness of life. A willingness and a desire to improve one’s life before God go hand in hand with faith in God’s promise of forgiveness.

- Koehler, E. W. A. (1999). A summary of Christian doctrine: a popular presentation of the teachings of the Bible (pp. 229–230). St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

The doctrine of close communion must be maintained not only against Reformed sects, but also against Lutheran errorists. (Cp. Geschichte der Luth. Kirche, by A. L. Graebner, sub Abendmahl; Lehre und Wehre, 1888, pp. 257 ff. 302 ff.)

b. Of Christians only those may be admitted to the Lords Table—

1. Who are already baptized;

2. Who are able to examine themselves, 1 Cor. 11:28. This excludes children, unconscious persons, patients in a coma, and all persons who are not compos mentis (insanity);

3. Who believe that in Holy Communion they receive Christ’s body and blood in, with, and under the bread and wine for the gracious remission of their sins, Matt. 26:26–28. This excludes all Reformed, rationalists, etc., who deny the real presence, as well as all papists (Romanizing Lutherans), who teach that the Sacrament works ex opere operato and so deny that faith is the medium ληπτικόν of the proffered forgiveness of sins;

4. Who may do so without giving offense to others, 2 Cor. 6:3; Matt. 18:7. This excludes all those 1) who live in gross sins, 1 Cor. 5:11; 2) who refuse to forgive and be reconciled, Matt. 18:15–17, 35; 5:23, 24; and 3) who are guilty of unionism or syncretism, Rom. 16:17; 2 John 10, 11. The Sacrament must be withheld from all who are connected with erring churches and unchristian or antichristian cults, Eph. 4:1–6; 5:7–11; 2 Cor. 6:14–18.

Since lodgery is a pagan cult, based upon work-righteousness, and as such denies the very purpose of Holy Communion, namely, the imparting of the forgiveness of sins through faith in Christ (sola fide), it is self-evident that lodge-fellowship is inconsistent with the true profession of the Christian faith. Lodge members should therefore be excluded from Holy Communion a) because, as members of antichristian cults, they deny the specific teachings of the Christian religion (the Holy Trinity, the deity of Christ, His vicarious atonement, salvation by grace, etc.) and b) because they give offense to confessing Christians by going to the Lords Supper while holding membership in antichristian societies, Matt. 10:32–39.

Because the Holy Supper may be received to judgment (1 Cor. 11:29: κρίμα), the Christian minister must not only urge all communicants diligently to examine themselves, 1 Cor. 11:28, but also aid them in their self-examination. To this end he should retain both the confessional service and the Lutheran custom of “announcing for Communion” (Beichtanmeldung), which gives him an opportunity to deal individually with those who desire to attend the Lord’s Table.

However, while the pastor should not admit to Holy Communion any unworthy guest, he must take care not to restrain from it any who are entitled to it. In general, it may be said that all baptized Christians who heartily repent of their sins, truly believe in Jesus Christ, regard the ordinance of Holy Communion as Christ instituted it, are open to Christian instruction on every point of doctrine and life, are able to examine themselves, lead a Christian life, and purpose to amend their lives by the aid of the Holy Spirit should be admitted to the Lord’s Table.

- Mueller, J. T. (1999). Christian dogmatics (pp. 538–539). St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

3] And Paul says, 1 Cor. 11, 23ff., that he had received of the Lord that which he delivered. But he had delivered the use of both kinds, as the text, 1 Cor. 11, clearly shows. This do [in remembrance of Me], he says first concerning His body; afterwards he repeats the same words concerning the cup [the blood of Christ]. And then: Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup. [Here he names both.] These are the words of Him who has instituted the Sacrament. And, indeed, he says before that those who will use the Lord’s Supper should use both.

- Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod. (1996). Concordia Triglotta—English: The Symbolical Books of the Evangelical Lutheran Church (pp. 357–359). Milwaukee, WI: Northwestern Publishing House.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

By δοκιμάζω the action of properly testing is referred to as coins are tested, those of genuine metal and full weight being accepted, the rest being rejected, 9:27. The communicant is to test himself as to his fitness for the Sacrament. He alone can do that. In the command there lies the supposition that the test will result favorably.

Paul does not state directly into what the communicant is to probe when he is testing himself. The context, however, indicates what is in Paul’s mind. It will first be in regard to faith in Christ’s words which are used in the very institution of the Sacrament, v. 23–25. Secondly, it will be in regard to the removal of anything from the heart that would clash with the reception of Christ’s body and blood. This is done by true contrition and repentance.

On this injunction of Paul’s is based the so-called preparatory or confessional service that precedes the Communion service proper. The demonstrative adverb “so” once more emphasizes the preparation which Paul has indicated. Note how the eating and the drinking are repeated throughout v. 27–30 as if the tremendous significance of these simple acts is to be deeply impressed. Luther has caught the full import of these repetitions.

- Lenski, R. C. H. (1963). The interpretation of St. Paul’s First and Second epistle to the Corinthians (p. 480). Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Publishing House.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Ancient Sources on 1 Corinthians 11:28

Ambrosiaster: Paul teaches that one should come to Communion with a reverent mind and with fear, so that the mind will understand that it must revere the one whose body it is coming to consume. Commentary on Paul’s Epistles.

- Bray, G. L. (1999). 1-2 Corinthians (p. 115). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Chrysostom: In your conscience, where no one is present except God who sees all, there judge yourself, examine your sins. When you reflect upon your whole life, bring your sins to the court of the mind. Correct your mistakes, and in this way, with a clean conscience, touch the sacred table and participate in the holy sacrifice. On Fasting, Homily 6.5.22.

- Bray, G. L. (1999). 1-2 Corinthians (p. 115). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Both must therefore test themselves: the one, if he is qualified to speak and leave behind him written records; the other, if he is in a right state to hear and read: as also some in the dispensation of the Eucharist, according to custom, enjoin that each one of the people individually should take his part. One’s own conscience is best for choosing accurately or shunning. And its firm foundation is a right life, with suitable instruction. But the imitation of those who have already been proved, and who have led correct lives, is most excellent for the understanding and practice of the commandments. “So that whosoever shall eat the bread and drink the 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 the bread and drink of the cup.”⁵ It therefore follows, that every one of those who undertake to promote the good of their neighbours, ought to consider whether he has betaken himself to teaching rashly and out of rivalry to any; if his communication of the word is out of vainglory; if the only reward he reaps is the salvation of those who hear, and if he speaks not in order to win favour: if so, he who speaks by writings escapes the reproach of mercenary motives.

- Clem. Al., Str. 1.1. Clement of Alexandria. (1885). The Stromata, or Miscellanies. In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson, & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Fathers of the Second Century: Hermas, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, and Clement of Alexandria (Entire) (Vol. 2, p. 300). Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

25. healing precedes participation in the loaves of jesus

After this the word says, “And when even was come, His disciples came to Him, saying, The place is desert and the time is already past; send, therefore, the multitudes away, that they may go into the villages and buy themselves food.” And first observe that when about to give to the disciples the loaves of blessing, that they might set them before the multitudes, He healed the sick, in order that, having been restored to health, they might participate in the loaves of blessing; for while they are yet sickly, they are not able to receive the loaves of the blessing of Jesus. But if any one, when he ought to listen to the precept, “But let each prove himself, and so let him eat of the bread,” etc.,² does not obey these words, but in haphazard fashion participates in the bread of the Lord and His cup, he becomes weak or sickly, or even—if I may use the expression—on account of being stupefied by the power of the bread, asleep.

- Comm. Matt. 10.25. Origen. (1897). Origen’s Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew. In A. Menzies (Ed.), J. Patrick (Trans.), The Ante-Nicene Fathers: The Gospel of Peter, the Diatessaron of Tatian, the Apocalypse of Peter, the Visio Pauli, the Apocalypses of the Virgil and Sedrach, the Testament of Abraham, the Acts of Xanthippe and Polyxena, the Narrative of Zosimus, the Apology of Aristides, the Epistles of Clement (Complete Text), Origen’s Commentary on John, Books I-X, and Commentary on Matthew, Books I, II, and X-XIV (Vol. 9, pp. 430–431). New York: Christian Literature Company.

- - - - - - - - - - -

Historical Sources

In the Oriental and North African churches prevailed the incongruous custom of infant communion, which seemed to follow from infant baptism, and was advocated by Augustine and Innocent I. on the authority of John 6:53. In the Greek church this custom continues to this day, but in the Latin, after the ninth century, it was disputed or forbidden, because the apostle (1 Cor. 11:28, 29) requires self-examination as the condition of worthy participation.

- Schaff, P., & Schaff, D. S. (1910). History of the Christian church (Vol. 3, p. 516). New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.

Journals

ALC Convention

The Ninth General Convention of the ALC met in October at Concordia College, Moorhead, Minnesota. Lutheran unity, international justice, social concerns, and human rights were probably the key items for consideration by the 986 delegates. The ALC’s interest in justice, social concerns, and human rights was demonstrated in an invitation extended to and accepted by Vice President Walter Mondale to address the convention.

In matters of church union, the delegates approved altar and pulpit fellowship between the ALC and the new AELC, an action which requires approval of two thirds of the congregations of the Synod for finalization. In his state-of-the-church report to the convention, President David Preus had suggested that the AELC become a non-geographical district of the Synod, an invitation which AELC president William Kohn respectfully declined.

In Dr. Preus’ evaluation of the question of a larger Lutheran union, the president said, “The churches do not have to seek ever larger organizational unions in order to express the unity of the church. The ALC and other U. S. Lutherans have found the way to express Lutheran unity without organizational uniformity.” It is apparent that for Preus, the definition of unity does not involve unanimity in doctrine together with loyalty to the confessions which set forth that doctrine.

Preus described relations with the LC-MS as a continuing mixture of positives and negatives. Preus and the ALC are of the “conviction that Lutheran unity (already) exists for U. S. Lutherans, and that altar and pulpit fellowship ought to bear testimony to that unity.” Preus expressed the hope that increasing numbers of LC-MS members will discover that to be true.

Other convention actions of varying import and interest include:

—Formation of a task force to prepare a position paper on abortion.

—A resolution asking all congregations to adopt evangelism goals and objectives.

—A report that over half of the ALC’s 4,836 congregations have ordered the new LBW for use in worship services.

—Approved a budget of $31.2 million for 1979.

—In the interest of promoting racial justice, endorsed its Board of Trustees’ plan for dealing with companies which do business with South Africa.

—Accepted almost unanimously a statement on “Christian Social Responsibility,” and received another document dealing with “Ethical Issues in Human Medicine.”

—Adopted the joint ALC-LCA “Statement on Communion Practices” which the LCA had adopted at its July convention.

The Communion Practices statement produced some of the longest and most spirited debate of the convention. The debate focused on the declaration that “readiness to participate (in Holy Communion) normally occurs at age 10 or the level of fifth grade, but it may occur earlier or later.… Thus infant communion is precluded.” Three proposed amendments were defeated, one deleting the preclusion of infants, a second discouraging but not prohibiting it, and a third denying communion to children under 10 years of age.

Wartburg Seminary faculty members urged a stand which would not preclude infant communion, not because they favored it, but because it is not precluded by Scripture or by Lutheran doctrine.

Convention coverage in The Lutheran Standard highlighted the emphasis on human rights and justice. It is perhaps understandable that a Lutheran church body which cannot answer the question of infant communion on the basis of Scripture (1 Cor 11:28) sees its role increasingly as an arbiter of “human rights, social responsibility, and international justice.” The invitation extended to Vice President Mondale to address the convention is perhaps more of a commentary on the state of the church in the ALC than were the comments of the Synod’s president on the state of the church.

Joel C. Gerlach

Volume 76 • January, 1979 • Number 1 Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly (electronic edition.), 67–68.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Infant Communion

For over a decade we have been hearing rattlings about a Lutheran return to the practice of infant communion. Although the majority remains uninterested, the issue has become big enough that two Missourians, a parish pastor and a seminary professor, were moved recently to comment on the matter. In its Pentecost issue, which dealt with the general subject of confirmation, The Bride of Christ included an article by William Reese entitled, “Infant Communion and the Spirit of the Age.” Edward Kettner’s article on the same subject appeared in the fall-winter edition of Lutheran Theological Review. Reese serves a congregation in suburban St. Louis. Kettner is on the faculty of Concordia Seminary in Edmonton, Alberta.

There is documentation which indicates that the communing of infants and small children was practiced already in Cyprian’s era (mid-third century) and continued throughout the first millennium. When Rome officially confirmed the doctrine of transubstantiation at Lateran Council IV in 1215, it also abolished infant communion, although only in those churches it controlled. The Eastern Orthodox continue the practice to the present day. Proponents of infant communion claim that Lutheran teaching on the issue, although consistent since the Reformation, has been based on faulty exegesis and influenced by scholastic and pietistic thought. These arguments are those most often mustered in any effort to create a new interest in the old custom of infant communion.

Both Reese and Kettner effectively take issue with the presuppositions advanced by infant communion advocates. Kettner insists that there is no indication that the practice had any ties to the apostolic church despite efforts to find evidence for the same in the Didache (ca. 125) and Justin’s First Apology (ca. 150). In fact, Reese notes, the emphasis on the Lord’s Supper had changed already by the third century as more attention was given to “doing” the sacrament than receiving it. They conclude that any argument that infant communion was part of the church’s pristine purity will not hold.

Both authors identify false exegetical presuppositions which led proponents to their false conclusions about infant communion. The fact that women and children were miraculously fed by Jesus along with 5000 men and that Jesus encouraged all to eat what was better, i.e., his flesh and blood (Jn 6), is not applicable in a discussion of the Lord’s Supper and certainly not a defense of infant communion. Nor can it be argued that the “body of the Lord” in 1 Corinthians 11:29 is the church and that Paul’s insistence that there be discernment before receiving the sacrament was intended only for the bickering Corinthian congregation. (An oft-proposed argument runs that the Corinthians were not to receive the sacrament until they were able to discern anew what the church was.) The “body of the Lord” in this passage is nothing else than the body of Christ offered in the sacrament, and therefore Paul’s words have a continuous New Testament application. Any contention, furthermore, that an infant is able to discern the body of Christ because his family discerns that body leads naturally to the conclusion that the baptized infants have faith because their families have faith. Such a teaching has no basis in Scripture.

Kettner clearly understands what lies at the heart of the suggestion that infants should be communed. It is a misunderstanding of the essence of both baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Like the Eastern Orthodox, the proponents of infant communion see blessings in the Supper which are not present in baptism. Such a contention clearly violates the thoroughly Lutheran and thoroughly scriptural teaching that the means of grace, the gospel in the Word and in both sacraments, equally offer the forgiveness of sins, life and salvation. Insisting that a withholding of communion from infants denies them the fullness of God’s grace downgrades the power of baptism and redefines the blessings of the Lord’s Supper. The fact is, the defenders of infant communion often enough imply that the Supper has benefit also ex opere operato and not only when it is received in faith.

Both Kettner and Reese are willing to grant that the call for infant communion may well come from fairly pious intentions. It may be true that some Lutherans have put such a strong emphasis on discernment and preparation that communion-bound Christians have felt almost paranoid about their attendance. We also need to take care that the Lord’s Table is never presented as a reward received after a long stint in catechism instruction. We should certainly ask ourselves if admission to the Supper is too much governed by chronological age, physical maturity or church custom. We need to find ways to assimilate young families into the church’s worship and to promote the nuclear family. But no matter how strongly one feels about correcting faulty perceptions and achieving noble goals, these ends cannot be justified if the means to attain them are misapplied history, faulty exegesis and wrong doctrine.

James P. Tiefel

Volume 86 • Number 4 • Fall 1989 Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly, (electronic edition.), 309–310.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Infant Communion?

One of the issues before the assembly of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America this summer in Philadelphia is infant communion. A proposal for consideration states that “infants and children may be communed for the first time during the service in which they are baptized.” Although the Eastern Orthodox practice infant communion, the practice is an innovation for Lutheranism. A recent issue of Lutheran Forum (Winter 1996) and Lutheran Quarterly (Autumn 1996) discuss the subject in some detail.

Marc Kolden in the Lutheran Quarterly summarizes the arguments usually advanced in favor of the practice.

• The practice has a long history. It was first mentioned by Cyprian about 250 a.d. The West practiced infant communion for centuries. The East still does.

• Baptism is the necessary and sufficient prerequisite for receiving Holy Communion.

• Receiving communion is the right of the baptized.

• Refusing to commune infants calls into question infant baptism.

Some have also seen a justification for infant communion in Jesus’ bread of life discourse. They believe that the following words are a reference to the Lord’s Supper and are at least a justification for communing infants if not a command to do so. “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink” (John 6:53–55).

Lyman Lundeen writing in Lutheran Forum sees outside pressures and the spirit of the times causing Lutherans to depart from historic Lutheran practice. He laments,

We are pressed by the secular culture to be inclusive and respectful of wide ranges of theological opinion. To have children wait for Communion until they have thought a little or learned something about the specific Jesus message seems overly demanding. Since Lutherans have had especially high concerns for theological agreement there are special pressures on us not to ask for too much definite theological understanding. We tend to be embarrassed by our past concern for theological precision and therefore may turn away too quickly from expecting doctrinal agreement from adults or young children. Combine that with the current rage against excluding anyone or asking anyone to wait for something and you get public invitations to Communion that make faith or even Baptism unnecessary.

Many of the arguments for infant communion are sentimental in nature rather than doctrinal or theological. The arguments from history are weak on two points: (1) Lutherans do not base their practice on historical precedent, but on the clear words of Scripture, and (2) the historical evidence for infant communion in the early church is scanty at best. A careful reading of the bread of life discourse will show that Jesus is using a metaphor. He is talking about faith in very graphic language. The bread of life discourse is not a commentary on the Lord’s Supper.

A careful study of St. Paul’s warning in 1 Corinthians 11 will reveal several reasons why infants should not be admitted to the Lord’s Supper. Jesus instituted this sacrament for those who can remember and show forth his death until he comes. Participants are to be able to examine themselves. Those who cannot or do not discern the Lord’s body in the sacrament eat and drink to their judgment rather than their benefit.

Denying infant communion does not mean denying infant baptism. Rather than drawing conclusions from a sacramental paradigm, we must understand each sacrament according to the passages of Scripture that deal with each specific sacrament. There are some important differences between the two sacraments. Baptism is the sacrament of initiation to bring people into God’s family. The Lord’s Supper is meant to confirm and strengthen faith. Participation in the Lord’s Supper is limited to those who can examine themselves, remember Jesus’ death, and discern his body. The Bible does not place the same limitations on those who are presented for baptism. Baptism is not repeatable. The Lord’s Supper is to be received often. We cannot draw conclusions about one sacrament from what Scripture says about the other.

Those in the ELCA who are opposed to infant communion are probably arguing for naught since it is already an established practice in some ELCA congregations. Whatever the decision this summer, those who are already practicing infant communion will undoubtedly continue to do so. When a church body has made it a practice to adapt and adjust doctrine and practice to prevailing societal sentiment, how can anyone in that church body fault those who innovate?

John M. Brenner

Volume 94 • Summer 1997 • Number 3. Infant Communion? Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly, 207–208.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

The ELCA and LCMS

In 1964 the LCA, ALC, and LCMS established a Joint Committee on the Theology and Practice of Confirmation. In 1969 the Commission presented a report to be considered by the various synods. The report offered this definition of confirmation: “Confirmation is a pastoral and educational ministry of the church that is designed to help baptized children identify with the life and mission of the adult Christian community and that is celebrated in a public rite.” The commission unanimously recommended that first Communion and confirmation be separated as two distinct acts. This separation will allow children to partake of the Lord’s Supper at an earlier age and then permit the church to carry on its pastoral and educational ministry through confirmation instruction at a time when Christian children are more mature.⁵⁷

The Commission recommended fifth grade for first communion and tenth grade for confirmation. The Commission also made the following suggestions for the rite of confirmation (summary mine):

1. No impression should be given that confirmation completes or supplements baptism.

2. No formal vow is necessary. The confirmand is simply to assert or affirm, in his declaration of faith, his personal acceptance of God’s acts of grace and his resultant personal intent to express that grace in a Christian life.

3. The blessing is the spoken Word and intercessory prayer on behalf of the one who stands in the full and complete faith already received in Baptism.

4. The laying on of hands personalizes the prayers of the congregation as they intercede for the confirmands in prayer and petition God to impart the gifts of his Holy Spirit.

5. If the rite attests that the confirmand now may assume certain privileges and responsibilities in its organizational structure, it must be clearly stated lest the impression is given that he is receiving through confirmation what he already has by virtue of his baptism.

6. No statement should be made that the confirmand is now a “member of the church” or entering into “full communion” with the church.

The ALC, LCA, and the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Canada accepted the recommendations. The LCMS in 1971 refused to adopt a stand, but left it up to individual congregations to continue to study and establish a local practice.

Today in the ELCA there is a trend to replace the term confirmation with “affirmation of baptism.” Children of various ages may be invited to the Lord’s Supper with the responsibility for that decision shared by the pastor, parents, child, family sponsors, and the congregation. Confirmation programs now emphasize adult mentors and sponsors as well as more parental participation.

The LCMS hymnal Lutheran Worship has an order for confirmation. The order asks the confirmands this questions: “Do you desire to become a member of the Evangelical Lutheran Church and of this congregation?” After all the catechumens have answered several questions and received the blessing, the minister declares:

Upon this your profession and promise I invite and welcome you, as members of the Evangelical Lutheran Church and of this congregation, to share with us in all the gifts our Lord has for his Church and to live them out continually in his worship and service.

The wording leaves the impression that these young people were not members of the church by virtue of their baptism, but have now become members by virtue of their confirmation. The LCMS Commission on Worship warns that these statements must be carefully explained so that they are not misunderstood.⁶³

Lutheran Worship: Altar Book offers this definition of confirmation:

Confirmation is a public rite of the Church that is preceded by a period of instruction designed to help baptized Christians identify with the life and mission of the Christian community.

Having been instructed in the Christian faith prior to admission to the Lord’s Supper (1 Corinthians 11:28), the rite of Confirmation provides an opportunity for the individual Christian, relying on God’s promise of holy Baptism, to make a personal public confession of faith and a lifelong pledge of fidelity to Christ.

- Brenner, J. M. (1998). A Brief Study of Confirmation: Historical Development, Theological Considerations, and Practical Implications. Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly, 95, 100–102.

ELCA Approves Infant Communion

Voting members overwhelmingly approved “The Use of the Means of Grace: A Statement on the Practice of Word and Sacrament.” The new statement provides for “the communion of the baptized,” while an earlier ELCA guideline indicated “the communing of infants is precluded.” The new statement, while not mandating or even promoting infant communion, endorses the practice which has long been advocated and practiced by some members, mainly from the old LCA. Baptism is now the only required preparation for Communion. Pastor Paul R. Nelson, ELCA director for worship, said, “This will articulate the ELCA churchwide understanding of how administration of the sacraments should be practiced. It will encourage congregations and their pastors to discuss the sacraments, teach the sacraments and reflect on the way churches practice the sacraments in light of what the larger church says.”

John F. Brug

VOLUME 95 • WINTER 1998 • NUMBER 1 ELCA Approves Infant Communion. Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly, 50.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Confession of the real presence is the third precondition listed by Francis Pieper for participation in the holy sacrament (the first two being baptism and the ability to examine oneself in accordance with 1 Corinthians 11:28). Not only integrity but also pastoral concern demand this restriction. It would seem that Lutherans are increasingly open to the Reformed understanding of 1 Corinthians 11:29, taking the body to be discerned as the mystical body (the church) rather than the actual historic body of Christ present in the elements. A rereading of Paul, who connects the danger with the elements and not the congregation, and of Luther would be in order. Not a few bulletin announcements follow Luther and Paul, that is, our Lord Himself, in urging that only those commune who acknowledge the real presence. Such a printed restriction is undoubtedly intended to preclude "open communion" and hence to preserve the confessional principle. There are problems with this procedure, however. First, even regular communicants do not always read the bulletin, much less visitors. Secondly, even if non-Lutheran visitors do read the bulletin's communion invitation, is it likely that they understand what is written there? To begin with, a generic visitor is unlikely to concede that a Lutheran pastor may supervise the content of his faith. Moreover, teaching the real presence involves hours of catechesis, discussion back and forth, and the assimilation of the true faith in the setting of the worshipping congregation. Should a casual visitor sign a communion registration card phrased in an orthodox way, it is unlikely that he has any idea what is meant and even if the registration of a non-Lutheran communicant is to take the form of a personal announcement to the pastor, can we really take seriously as confession of faith a smile and a nod when the pastor, a few minutes before the Divine Service begins, says something about the bread and wine being the Lord's body and blood? Pieper's statement about confession of the real presence as a precondition for admission to the sacrament contains the law's accusing bite: "This provision excludes the Christians in Reformed denominations."

- Volume 53, Numbers 1-2 JANUARY-APRIL 1989 Admission to the Lutheran Altar: Reflections on Open Versus Close Communion. John Stephenson CTQ, p. 44.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

I hope this will provide some info for further discussion. I think it makes it fairly clear that the normative Lutheran expectation is that a person should be capable of examining him/herself before taking the sacrament of the altar.

Jim

My Pre-Grad School Education

2011-11-21T11:22:00.000-08:00

Greetings,

Although I have also been reading quite a few books (see book shelf above) I have also been viewing a number of courses offered (not for credit) by The Teaching Company. With one exception, I've been pretty pleased with the audio & DVD courses they offer. Here are some of them I've listened to / viewed:

History of Christian Theology

Taught By Professor Phillip Cary, Ph.D., Yale University,

Eastern University

Professor Cary teaches the class from a Christian point of view (he's Anglican) and with the exception of his admiration for Karl Barth sounds pretty orthodox. Cary has an excellent handle on the intellectual history of the Church and both Catholic & Protestant Christians. Cary is clearly passionate about what he is teaching and while he has a point of view, he remains pretty fair throughout to all parties concerned (Catholic, Protestant & Orthodox) and gives each their due.

Augustine: Philosopher and Saint

Taught By Professor Phillip Cary, Ph.D., Yale University, Eastern University

Another course by Prof. Cary. The 1st one I bought (it was really cheap on Amazon.com) and is available in audio format only. That said Cary really cares about Augustine as both a person and a subject and is one of today's experts on St. Augustine. He get's Augustine's theology, psychology and spirituality. He also sees both the commonalities and the differences between Augustine and his later admirers such as Luther & Calvin.

Luther: Gospel, Law, and Reformation

Taught By Professor Phillip Cary, Ph.D., Yale University, Eastern University

Another course by Prof. Phillip Cary. This one was good but Luther partisans probably would not like it for several reasons:
1) Cary seems uncomfortable with Luther's bondage of the will.
2) Cary seems disturbed with Luther's strong rhetoric.
3) Cary seems upset with Luther's attitude with 'others' such as Anabaptists, Catholics, Jews & Reformed.
4) Cary seems to have issues with Luther's psychology.
All that said it is a good course and while Cary does seem to fall into some traps (viewing Luther through modern eyes) he seems to otherwise understand Luther fairly well and appears to have a favorable view of parts of Luther's theology - but not all of it.

After the New Testament: The Writings of the Apostolic Fathers

Taught By Professor Bart D. Ehrman, M.Div., Ph.D., Princeton Theological Seminary, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

This is the one course I kind of gagged on. Bart Ehrman is a former 'born-again' Christian who went to a liberal grad school and lost his faith. He is often on shows on the History Channel, etc., usually spouting very hypothetical or speculative theories on religion. Much of his course wasted time on methodological issues such as historical criticism of the texts of the Church Fathers when more time should have been spent on the Fathers themselves. Don't waste your time on this one.

Early Middle Ages

Taught By Professor Philip Daileader, Ph.D., Harvard University, The College of William and Mary

Daileader is I imagine a former whiz kid / child prodigy. I can easily visualize him talking about his collection of Star Wars action figures or his high score on a video game - he just looks that boyish. That said, he must have the academic brain of a man 30 or more years his senior because the scope and depth of his command of the history of the medieval period is pretty impressive. His lectures gave me background and a bridge for my intellectual journey from the Church Fathers to Luther & the Reformation.

High Middle Ages

Taught By Professor Philip Daileader, Ph.D., Harvard University, The College of William and Mary

See above.

Late Middle Ages

Taught By Professor Philip Daileader, Ph.D., Harvard University, The College of William and Mary

Ditto that.

Renaissance, the Reformation, and the Rise of Nations

Taught By Professor Andrew C. Fix, Ph.D., Indiana University, Lafayette College

This course took me the longest amount of time to complete. Professor Fix obviously knows his topic and I learned a lot but often Fix sounded so tired and bored he put me to sleep. I found myself on more than 1 occasion waking up with an entire DVD having run it's course and I knew full well I only had viewed 1 or 2 lectures and slept through the rest. Thankfully I am not a student of his, I don't know how I'd stay awake in his lectures. That said, a lot of good content here if you can keep your eyes open.

History of Christianity in the Reformation Era

Taught By Professor Brad S. Gregory, Ph.D., Princeton University, University of Notre Dame

The Reformation taught from (probably) a moderate Catholic perspective - OK, I'll bite. I have just gotten into this particular class about 12 lessons in (24 to go) and Prof. Gregory seems to be the most thorough and systematic lecturer yet. His dry humor and enthusiasm for the topic help when his language gets a bit too dense (and he does do more than a little professional-speak bloviating) and you might find yourself hitting the << rewind button a few times as you think, "What did he say?" Still pretty good. The stand out thing with Gregory's lectures is he tries hard to remain 'fair & balanced' to all parties involved and especially tries to be fair to the Anabaptists rather than be an apologist for the Protestant or Catholic side.

BTW, many of these titles can be found on amazon.com for much less than the full retail that they cost on the Great Courses website.

Well, that's all for now.

TTFN & God Bless,

Jim
My Twitter Page
My Facebook Profile
My Wittenburg Trail Profile
My Church's Facebook Profile

Luther's Works on Sale!

2011-04-28T09:50:00.000-07:00

Greetings,

I already own it, I love it and it is selling for about $90 less than usual:

Luther's Works on CD-ROM

by Luther, Martin

Item #: 151774WEB / 2001 / CD-ROM

Price:: ~~$249.00~~
Sale Price:: $159.99 You Save $89.01 (36%)

Free shipping on orders of $75 or more.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

I don't work for Concordia nor get a 'kickback', I just think this is a great product. I use it daily to post quotes from Luther on my congregation's Facebook page. I don't know how long this sale lasts but I'll tell you now, I paid MORE and I still think it was worth it!

Well, that's all for now.

TTFN & God Bless,

Jim
My Twitter Page
My Facebook Profile
My Wittenburg Trail Profile
My Church's Facebook Profile

Twitter And The Problem Of Evil

2011-04-19T03:35:00.000-07:00

Greetings,

Recently on Twitter someone said their 8 yr old asked why God created earthquakes. I replied

God didn't make the earthquake, it's the effects of man's rebellion on creation Gen 3:17-18, Rom 5:12 & 8:22-23, 2 Pet 3:4-7.

Which is Scripturally true but woefully inadequate as a real answer. The reply I got (predictably) was if I had any advice on how to tell an 8 yr old that. That is definitely problematic. Each Family raises their children differently and for us, how we have raised our kids is part of the answer, not just the age of the child.

In our household we have been very factual and realistic in how we have raised our kids. We told them there was no Santa Claus, no Easter Bunny & no Tooth Fairy. This was deliberate because unfortunately, much children's Sunday School material (and yes, our kids have attended very little Sunday School) looks just like children's story books leaving the impression at a later age that Jesus is no more real than Santa or the Easter Bunny and often when a grown child goes off to college, they are met by a professor (even at 'Christian' colleges) who lumps Jesus, Santa & the Easter Bunny all in one lump together. Another similar case is the college prof who compares Jesus, Mary & God the Father to characters out of Egyptian, Greek & Roman mythology.

Having been through this myself in college, I decided my kids would be brought up differently. We do celebrate Christmas and Easter but it is no mystery that presents and candy come from Mom & Dad and other family members. I have encouraged my children to watch the news and watch documentaries with me and I have taken them to museums and encouraged them to read wholesome books on history so as to ground them in historical facts about their world and religion is not treated as an other-worldly mystery or as a collection of 'nice stories' to make us feel warm and fuzzy. God is a fact, Jesus walked the earth and Christianity=Reality. My kids have learned not just from the catechism but from life what it means when we as Christians confess that:

I believe in one God,

 the Father Almighty,

 maker of heaven and earth,

 and of all things visible and invisible

Or "seen and unseen" as it were. Once this is accepted the problem of evil (Why do we have wars? Tornados? Earthquakes?) becomes a simple recognition of Man's fall, his sinful nature and our need for a Saviour. If we neglect to teach our children that Christianity is objectively, historicly true and further neglect to teach them about man's sinful nature, then they won't be able to deal with evil or it's many manifestations such as war, sickness, poverty or hypocrisy.

Man's sinful nature, caused by his rebellion toward God is the cause of all our problems, not God. God gave Man (Adam) both a choice and a warning - Man selected the wrong choice in spite of the warning God gave him and all the suffering we see and feel around us is the result.

And there is comfort in knowing this surprisingly enough. As my children (who watch the Disney & Nickelodeon channels daily) have seen the habitual wrong turns taken by child stars such as Britney Spears, Lindsey Lohan, Miley Cyrus et. al., they have told me that they realize that these girls have given into the temptations that come with fame and money. They understand that these young women are struggling with their sinful nature and the decadence & materialism (probably not the words my kids would choose, probably "bad morals" and "lotsa stuff") are drawing them away from (all 3 have claimed to be Christian) God. My kids know that we all are sinners saved by Grace and if you are surrounded by fame and fortune, you will face temptations.

So perhaps maybe the way to unpack this for an 8 year old child is to begin:

1) Acknowledging that we all are sinners
2) Talk to them about a story they can relate to, the latest moral foible of a child star they see on TV
3) Take it back to the Fall of Adam & Eve
4) Reinforce that Adam & Eve were real people just like Jesus (& you & me)
5) Apply Scripture: Gen 3:17-18, Rom 5:12 & 8:22-23, 2 Pet 3:4-7.

Also, if you aren't now, begin to draw clear lines between the real world and the world of fantasy. You don't have to give up Christmas Presents or Easter candy, you just have to be truthful about where it really comes from. Additionally, once lines of demarcation are drawn between fantasy & reality - align your faith with the known world but also teach your child that there are some things we take by faith that we cannot see (like Angels and God Himself) and we know them to be true because it is contained in God's Word and the Gospels themselves are eyewitness accounts of the life of Jesus when He was here on earth - just as you and I are here.

It is like Shakespeare said through the mouth of Hamlet in his refutation of materialism,

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

No Christian parent wants to hear their child invoke 1 Corinthians 13:11 as the reason they became an atheist. We don't want our children to 'grow out of' God as if He were Santa or the Easter Bunny.

My 7 year old son understands that he can never jump off a building like Spiderman or Iron Man does because those are movies with special effects created by men with computers. He also knows that the Bible is true because it teaches that Man has a sinful nature and when he is picked on by his 3 big sisters or has a fight with a kid on the school playground, that is sufficient evidence that evil exists and we are all sinners.

But you can't say all that on Twitter.

Well, that's all for now.

TTFN & God Bless,

Jim
My Facebook Profile
My Church's Facebook Profile

Reading Through The Church Fathers - Justin Martyr

2011-04-15T20:00:00.000-07:00

Greetings,

Reading Justin Martyr was very different from reading Clement or Ignatius. Clement and Ignatius seemed more interested in how the Church was run, what was taught and martyrdom. Justin Martyr seems to be more concerned with arguing for Christianity and discrediting paganism. Today I think we would call him 'Justin the Apologist'. In Dialogue of Justin: Philosopher and Martyr, with Trypho, a Jew, Justin has a Platonic dialogue (a near monologue compared to the Socratic tradition) with a Jew named Trypho telling him why the Old Testament proves Christ. Some of Justin's ideas are well thought out, others stretch symbolism a little far and even make claims that just can't be supported like in this passage:

"When the people," replied I, "waged war with Amalek, and the son of Nave (Nun) by name Jesus (Joshua), led the fight, Moses himself prayed to God, stretching out both hands, and Hur with Aaron supported them during the whole day, so that they might not hang down when he got wearied. For if he gave up any part of this sign, which was an imitation of the cross, the people were beaten, as is recorded in the writings of Moses; but if he remained in this form, Amalek was proportionally defeated, and he who prevailed prevailed by the cross. For it was not because Moses so prayed that the people were stronger, but because, while one who bore the name of Jesus (Joshua) was in the forefront of the battle, he himself made the sign of the cross. For who of you knows not that the prayer of one who accompanies it with lamentation and tears, with the body prostrate, or with bended knees, propitiates God most of all? But in such a manner neither he nor any other one, while sitting on a stone, prayed. Nor even the stone symbolized Christ, as I have shown. - emphasis mine +

So are we to believe that Joshua genuflecting on the battlefield was what carried the day? To say that Moses is a type of of the Cross (with arms stretched outward) who is supporting Joshua (whose name makes him a type of Christ, aka, Jesus without the anglicized spelling) in the battle against the Amalekites (as a type of Satan) is believable (and further attested in the ANF, see St. Cyprian) but he then wants us also to believe that Joshua is crossing himself and adds on - as a curious afterthought that the stone here does not symbolize Christ? Now it could be a corruption of the text by a pious monk to protect Petrine Primacy but I don't have the manuscript evidence in front of me to say that for certain - call it a 'gut feeling'. I don't think the stone represents Christ here either so I can only assume this was said to deflect other allegorists from invoking passages like 1 Corinthians 10:4, Ephesians 2:20, 1 Peter 2:5, etc.

Justin can be hard to follow at times. He uses run-on sentences (or at least his translators did) and he can be repetitive, redundant and duplicative. That said, Justin was a man of expansive learning who tried to give an answer for everything, as the Bible says,

be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you - 1 Peter 3:15b

Answers for things like:

Chapter XX.-Why Choice of Meats Was Prescribed.

Chapter XXVII.-Why God Taught the Same Things by the Prophets as by Moses.

Chapter LIV.-What the Blood of the Grape Signifies.

After Justin finishes making his lengthy case for Christianity and against early Rabbinic Judaism he takes on the Greek world at shorter length but no less zeal in Justin's Hortatory Address to the Greeks in which he makes some interesting points. He contends that the gods of the Greek classical poets are not worthy of worship - they live lives of vice and violence. He 2ndly deals with the Greek philosophers and demonstrates how they conflict with one another (Pythagoras & Epicurus, Plato & Aristotle) in theory and even within themselves (Plato).

Surprisingly then, he validates the Bible by demonstrating that the poets and philosophers received some of their better ideas from the Bible, particularly from Moses! It takes a special kind of chutzpah to argue the way Justin did!

I particularly enjoyed some of the shorter writings such as the Other Fragments from the Lost Writings of Justin which contained some of his more aphoristic saying that were preserved in the writings of others. Here are a few:

VII. We shall not injure God by remaining ignorant of Him, but shall deprive ourselves of His friendship.

XIV. Neither shall light ever be darkness as long as light exists, nor shall the truth of the things pertaining to us be controverted. For truth is that than which nothing is more powerful. Every one who might speak the truth, and speaks it not, shall be judged by God.

XVI. Sound doctrine does not enter into the hard and disobedient heart; but, as if beaten back, enters anew into itself. XVII. As the good of the body is health, so the good of the soul is knowledge, which is indeed a kind of health of soul, by which a likeness to God is attained.

XVIII. To yield and give way to our passions is the lowest slavery, even as to rule over them is the only liberty.

Justin like many of his contemporary fellow-believers wanted to be freed from the corrupt world that was round-about them. 'Roman Civilization' meant the Circus Maximus, vomitoriums, legalized prostitution, infanticide, abortion, militarism - but really good roads! A pastoral faith of brotherhood, gentility and peace must have been extremely attractive, especially for anyone who felt 'trapped' by the vulgarity, efficiency & bellicosity of the Roman Empire. Justin was clearly a man who knew the Scriptures and understood the times he lived in and brought the full weight and power of his keen intellect to bear upon bringing down the vain facade of Rome and raising the Cross of Christ in it's place.

Dear God, thank-you for raising up men like Justin Martyr to speak truth to power, the power of the flesh, the devil and the world which hates Your Holy Law and despises Your Son and His Blessed Gospel.

Help us O LORD to be more like Justin and especially Your Son so that we might Glorify You to our neighbors in the unbelieving world and help rescue those who dwell in the kingdom of darkness and bring them into the kingdom of thy beloved Son, Jesus Christ our LORD who lives and reigns together with You and the Holy Spirit, One God, forever and ever, Amen.