THE FORMULA OF CONCORD
Unity through Clarity
Course
Outline
Course Goals
What do we seek to accomplish together?
Cognitive
I pray that through this course you attain a solid grasp on the Formula of Concord and Biblical doctrine as a whole. I pray that you are challenged and stimulated mentally through discussion and application. I pray that you use logic and reason thoroughly as servants of God’s Word. I pray that you find yourself more aware of how the past repeats and how the Devil seeks to destroy God’s truth. I pray that you understand how all doctrine is connected and self-supportive. I pray that you grow in your understanding of your historical roots as a Lutheran. I pray that you see how the Bible elevates Christ and his salvation clearly as a pure gift of God’s grace.
Affective
I pray that through this course the Holy Spirit would instill greater confidence in Christ and a true Lutheran confession of biblical faith which glorifies Christ. I pray that you are renewed in thankfulness for the Word that is purely taught and preached in our churches and schools. I pray that you grow in your determination to defend and support this confession. I pray that you grow in appreciation of your Lutheran forefathers in faith and the way the Lord preserved his Word among them. I pray that you are comforted in the sufficiency of Christ. I pray that we grow in fellowship and friendship through this course.
Active
I pray that through this course you would grow in your ability to articulate the Confession you hold as a Lutheran. I pray that you are equipped to recognize the subtlety of time-tested heresy and the nuances of false teaching. I pray that you grow in discernment of the correct use of reason and experience in submission to God’s truth. I pray that you are able to educate your family about the importance of growing in Confessional Lutheran faith. I pray that you are better equipped to read the Bible and correctly interpret it. I pray that you are encouraged to read more of the Lutheran Confessions. I pray that you attend more Bible studies, especially those included in the “Why This Conflict” series, of which this course begins.
Introduction
The Story of the Formula of Concord
Martin Luther died on February 18, 1546. A year later, in the short-lived Smalcald War, Lutheran princes were defeated by Catholic armies. As if Luther’s death, persecution, and doctrinal contention were not enough for the Lutherans to deal with, Philip Melanchthon, Martin Luther’s right hand man, succumbed to ecumenical pressure and altered The Augsburg Confession. The next three decades were marked by great doctrinal contention within the newly formed Lutheran church. It was a time of anything but concord.
Many controversies needed to be addressed for the sake of eternal salvation, not to mention Lutheran unity. The following is a list of the main controversies:
❖ The Flacian Controversy (whether original sin is the very essence of man’s nature or a very deep corruption of it).
❖ The Osiandrian and Stancarian Controversies (whether our righteousness comes from God’s declaration that our sins are forgiven for Christ’s sake or if it is infused by Christ dwelling in us, causing us to be righteous and do righteous things).
❖ The Adiaphoristic Controversy (whether some abolished ceremonies neither commanded nor forbidden in Scripture must be reestablished for the sake of peace)
❖ The Majoristic Controversy (whether good works are necessary for salvation)
❖ The Synergistic Controversy (whether man contributes anything to his conversion)
❖ The Antinomian Controversy (whether Christians need the preaching of God’s Law and whether there is a Third Use of the Law)
❖ The Crypto-Calvinistic Controversy (whether Christ’s body and blood are present in the bread and wine by all who partake or not)
❖ The Controversy of Christ’s Descent into Hell
In addition to these major controversies, there was trouble brewing over the teaching of predestination and what we can know about it according to the Scriptures and what we must leave to the hidden counsel of God in his divine wisdom.
Lutheran leaders in Germany worked tirelessly, through the Spirit, to combat these unscriptural advances of the Philipists, Calvinists, and the other heretical sects that broke away from the Lutheran church in this period. Martin Chemnitz and Jacob Andreae were instrumental in this effort. Chemnitz, “the second Martin”, provided much needed leadership and scholarship, while Andreae’s “Six Christian Sermons” (1573) served as the spark that ignited the fire of reconciliation.
Elector August of Saxony called together some of the best Lutheran minds of the day to bring these controversies to a God-pleasing resolution. They met in May of 1576. The theologians involved included six primary authors: Jacob Andreae (1528-90), Martin Chemnitz (1522-86), Nicholas Selnecker (1528-92), David Chytraeus (1531-1600), Andrew Musculus (1514-81), and Christopher Cornerus (1518-94). These men wrestled with the pertinent Scripture passages, the writings of Luther and the Church Fathers, and the arguments made by the several sides of each controversy. This led to them formulating the biblical, orthodox, and distinctively Lutheran doctrine in twelve articles.
What eventually emerged was called the Konkordienformel, the Formula of Concord, a document in thesis/antithesis format signed near Magdeburg on May 29, 1577, by the six chosen theologians. The Formula of Concord enjoyed large support upon its initial reception. It was accepted in eighty-six territories and cities, amounting to over two-thirds of Lutherans in Germany, and was signed by 8,188 theologians, pastors, and teachers.
The Formula of Concord has two parts, the Epitome and the Solid Declaration. Together, these comprise the final document of the Book of Concord (1580), or the Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church.
Originally, the authors met in the city of Torgau to bring together a couple of previous formulations—the Swabian-Saxon Concord and the Maulbronn Formula—into a single document. The result was known as the Torgau Book. By request of Elector August, Jacob Andreae distilled the Torgau Book down into a more digestible summary. That summary is the Epitome of the Formula of Concord.
Based on comments received after circulation of the Epitome, Martin Chemnitz and Nicholas Selnecker met with Andreae at a monastery in Bergen (eventually joined by the other authors) to revise the original Torgau Book. The result was the Bergen Book, which came to be known as the Solid Declaration, originally titled “A Thorough, Pure, Correct, and Final Repetition and Declaration of Some Articles of the Augsburg Confession about Which, for Some Time, There Has Been Controversy among Some Theologians Who Subscribe to Them, Decided and Settled according to the Analogy of God’s Word and the Summary Contents of Our Christian Doctrine.” By the grace of God, this foundational document is what we are blessed to confess and defend still today.
.
The work of the second-generation Lutherans, led by Martin Chemnitz, returned the Lutheran Church to the solid biblical foundation of Luther’s important teachings. Their efforts blocked the spread of the Roman Catholic Counter-Reformation (1545-1658) and rescued Protestant congregations throughout Europe from extermination. Following the publication of the Book of Concord in 1580 and its circulation, the Lutheran Church was blessed with a period of remarkable growth and development and a full flowering of uniquely Lutheran schools and culture.
.
The unity and doctrinal stability brought by the Formula of Concord also equipped Lutherans to begin mission work in North America, Ethiopia, India, and other places. New pastors could be taught and measured against an agreed upon confession and ordained in the acceptance of this formula. So too today, our synod requires pastors to subscribe to the Formula of Concord, both to what it commends concerning God’s Word and to what it condemns as misrepresentative of God’s Word.
.
This study will help us to discover how the Formula of Concord helps the Church today with theological, doctrinal, and daily life issues. The Solid Declaration (Sometimes referred to as the Thorough Declaration) will be the basis of reading assignments each week. We will address specific controversies along with the articles that address them. We, like the Lutherans of old, must know the Formula of Concord and establish our unity through clarity.
.
Confession & Concord
“Why do we need a Confession?”
“It is our intent to give witness before God and all Christendom, among those who are alive today and those who will come after us, that the explanation here set forth regarding all the controversial articles of faith which we have addressed and explained—and no other explanation—is our teaching, faith, and confession. In it we shall appear before the judgment throne of Jesus Christ, by God’s grace, with fearless hearts and thus give account of our faith, and we will neither secretly nor publicly speak or write anything contrary to it. Instead, on the strength of God’s grace we intend to abide by this confession.” (SD; XII:40)
.
“Therefore, since through God’s mercy we have this ministry, we do not lose heart. Rather, we have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to everyone’s conscience in the sight of God.” (2 Corinthians 4:1-2)
1. Someone asks, “Why do you need a confession. All you need is the Bible!” After reading the closing words of the Formula of Concord and 2 Corinthians 4:1-2, what might you say in response?
2. Why do you think it is important that a confession be written down?
.
“Right after the time of the apostles, and even while they were still living, false teachers and heretics arose [Titus 3:9–10]. Therefore, symbols (i.e., brief, concise confessions) were written against the heretics in the Early Church. These symbols were regarded as the unanimous, universal Christian faith and confession of the orthodox and true Church. They are the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed. We pledge ourselves to these symbols, and in this way we reject all heresies and teachings that have been introduced into God’s Church against them.
.
…In this way the distinction between the Holy Scriptures of the Old and of the New Testament and all other writings is preserved. The Holy Scriptures alone remain the judge, rule, and norm. According to them—as the only touchstone—all teachings shall and must be discerned and judged to see whether they are good or evil [1 Thessalonians 5:21–22], right or wrong. The other symbols and writings mentioned above are not judges like the Holy Scriptures. They are only a testimony and declaration of the faith. They show how the Holy Scriptures have been understood and explained in regard to controversial articles in God’s Church by those living at that time. Also, they show how the opposite teaching was rejected and condemned.” (FC Ep Summary)
1. Evaluate: “The Lutheran Confessions you hold so dear are more a result of your synod’s German ethnicity than a real care for the Bible.”
2. Evaluate: “This talk of confessions and Lutheran history is so myopic. Christians should be more concerned with living for God than holding onto traditions.”
3. Why do you think the writers of the Formula of Concord would conclude their Confession’s introduction in this way?
Quia or Quatenus?
Quia and Quatenus are two Latin words that express how a person subscribes to a confession. Quia means “because” and Quatenus means “in so far as” or, more colloquially, “as long as”. A person can accept the confessions “because” they correctly express the truths of God’s Word. Or a person can accept the confessions “in so far as” they express the truths of God’s Word.
1. What is the significance of this difference?
2. Which word do your Pastors use?
3. Say you go to the doctor and after the visit they ask you to sign a document containing incorrect information about your health history. Would you agree to sign the paper “in so far as it is true”? Why or why not?
Unity through Clarity
“For thorough, permanent unity in the Church, it is necessary, above all things, that we have a comprehensive, unanimously approved summary and form of teaching. The common doctrine must be brought together from God’s Word and reduced to a small circle of teaching, which the churches that are of the true Christian religion must confess. They must do this just as the Ancient Church always had its fixed symbols (i.e. creeds) for this use.
Furthermore, this should not be based on private writings, but on the kind of books that have been composed, approved, and received in the name of the churches that pledge themselves to one doctrine and religion. Therefore, we have declared to one another with heart and mouth that we will not make or receive a separate or new confession of our faith.” (FC SD Rule and Norm 1-2)
“Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.” (Ephesians 4:3-6)
After reading the selections above, consider individually, or discuss the following questions with someone near you.
1. How does clarity in confession lead to unity?
2. What are things does confessional concord defend us against as individuals? As congregations? As a synod?
3. Evaluate: Since we have a clear confession, maintaining concord and defending that confession shouldn’t be hard.
4. Evaluate: The Lutheran Confessions are not known or accepted even by most faithful WELS members.
5. The WELS is often known for “what it is against.” This is sometimes fair and sometimes unfair, based on an individual’s experience with our synod. But how can understanding the purpose of our Confession focus our discussion with other Christians when we talk about doctrinal differences?
Personal Reflection
After reading the selections in this study, one might be tempted to leave these “deeper” doctrines to pastors and theologians. What risks does this attitude pose?
What are some concerns you’d have if your church didn’t have a time-tested, biblical confession?
Think about the complete concord you enjoy with other members at Eastside and Peace, and throughout the WELS and ELS. Say a prayer of thanksgiving to God for a clear confession of his Word and for strength to defend and uphold that truth whatever the cost.
Family Connections
Discuss with your family the importance of knowing what a church teaches and its views on Scripture. Ask them, “Why is it important that we are Lutheran?” to begin the conversation.
If someone were leaving your church because they were moving to a new state, how would you counsel them to look for a new church? What if there are no WELS churches near?
“Preserve Your Word, O Savior” (CW283)
Preserve Your Word, O Savior,
To us this latter day,
And let Your kingdom flourish;
Enlarge Your Church, we pray.
Oh, keep our faith from failing;
Keep hope’s bright star aglow.
Let nothing from truth turn us
While living here below.
Preserve Your Word and preaching,
The truth that makes us whole,
The mirror of Your glory,
The pow’r that saves the soul.
Oh, may this living water,
This dew of heav’nly grace,
Sustain us while here living
Until we see Your face.
For Next Week
Assigned Reading: Article I. of the Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration (On Original Sin).
Article I:
Original Sin
Lesson 2: “Am I sinful or am I sin?”
Article I deals with the biblical doctrine of Original Sin. All doctrine is mutually supported and understood. Original Sin is therefore an excellent article to start with, as it leads directly to a correct understanding of free will, righteousness through faith, and all other doctrines defended within the Formula of Concord. Original Sin is a doctrine that we confess together every Sunday and that is denied by many Christian denominations. As a Seminary professor often said, “If everyone understood the doctrine of Original Sin, we wouldn’t have enough room in our churches.”
Status of the Controversy
In 1560, Matthias Flacius wanted to stress the sinfulness and utter depravity of human nature so strongly that he argued that original sin is “the very substance of man.” Although his friends believed he had overstated his case, Flacius persisted. He could not admit that his position implicated many other errors that would deny Scripture. Flacius doubled down on his position and thus the Flacian Controversy was born. Article 1 of the Formula of Concord addresses this key issue for God’s people.
The Flacian controversy brings up many questions introduced by the Epitome: Is original sin really, without any distinction, a person’s corrupt nature, substance, and essence? Is it the chief and greater part of his essence (i.e., the rational soul itself in its highest state and powers)? Or even after the fall, is there a distinction between original sin and a person’s substance, nature, essence, body, and soul, so that the nature itself is one thing and original sin is another, which belongs to the corrupt nature and corrupts the nature? (FC Ep 1)
1. Write down a definition of Original Sin.
2. Write down a definition of Human Nature.
The Essence-ial Distinction
The nature of this controversy can get a little technical. Two words used in the study of philosophy were being used in the debate. The use of those words clarified what the debaters were saying but needed to be defined clearly. The two words are accidens (accident) and substantia (substance).
The terms are defined in Melanchthon’s “Dialectical Questions” as follows: “Substance is something which in reality has a being of its own and is not in another as having its being from the subject.” (C. R. 13, 528.) “Accident is something which does not exist as such nor is a part of the substance, but is changeable in something else.” (522.) Melanchthon continues: “Whatever is present or absent without the corruption of the subject is an accident.” (C. R. 13, 523; Preger 2, 396. 407; Seeberg 4, 494.)
An accidens is a quality something has. A substantia is the substance or essence of something itself. For example, if I had a red bouncy ball, the red color would be the accidens of the ball, and the ball itself would be the substantia. The ball can still be a ball even if it is not red, so while the entire bouncy ball may be red inside and out, it does not constitute the essence of the ball itself. These terms are not what you should be worried about, but as we read the Affirmativa of Article 1, keep in mind that the idea of Original Sin as the “redness” and Human Nature as the ball itself.
1. “We believe, teach, and confess that there is a distinction between man’s nature and original sin. This applied not only when he was originally created by God pure and holy and without sin [Genesis 1:31], but it also applies to the way we have that nature now after the fall. In other words, we distinguish between the nature itself (which even after the fall is and remains God’s creature) and original sin. This distinction is as great as the distinction between God’s work and the devil’s work.
2. We believe, teach, and confess that this distinction should be maintained with the greatest care. For this doctrine (that no distinction is to be made between our corrupt human nature and original sin) conflicts with the chief articles of our Christian faith about creation, redemption, sanctification, and the resurrection of our body. It cannot stand with them. God created the body and soul of Adam and Eve before the fall. But He also created our bodies and souls after the fall. Even though they are corrupt, God still acknowledges them as His work, as it is written in Job 10:8, “Your hands fashioned and made me.” (See also Deuteronomy 32:18; Isaiah 45:9–10; 54:5; 64:8; Acts 17:28; Psalm 100:3; 139:14; Ecclesiastes 12:1.)
Furthermore, God’s Son has received this human nature [John 1:14], but without sin. Therefore, He did not receive a foreign nature, but our own flesh in the unity of His person. In this way He has become our true Brother. Hebrews 2:14 says, “Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise partook of the same things.” Again, “For surely it is not angels that He helps, but He helps the offspring of Abraham. He had to be made like His brothers in every respect...yet without sin” [2:16; 4:15] (SD 1-2)
1. Notice how the confessors affirm the Word of God as they wrote the Formula of Concord. What does that tell you about the clarity of Scriptures on this issue?
2. In Genesis 1 God says repeatedly that his creation is “very good”. We can only wonder at how beautiful and pure that first creation was. No pollution, no construction, no damage from human wars, and most of all, no sin. Everything created to last forever in perfection. “Very “Good” is almost an understatement! In what ways does the false view of Article 1, that human nature is synonymous with original sin, undermine the work of God?
3. How does Jesus’ incarnation (The Word becoming flesh) affirm the distinction between human nature and original sin?
4. When you think about your own body and soul and that of other people, family, friends, etc., what comfort do you have, knowing the distinction of human nature and original sin?
A Deep Corruption
“On the other hand, we believe, teach, and confess that original sin is not a minor corruption. It is so deep a corruption of human nature that nothing healthy or uncorrupt remains in man’s body or soul, in his inward or outward powers [Romans 3:10–12]. As the Church sings: Through Adam’s fall is all corrupt, Nature and essence human.” (Epitome, 8)
1. What’s the biblical definition of sin?
2. What is the difference between Original Sin and Actual Sin?
3. What is the relationship between Original Sin and Actual Sin?
4. Think about the deep and terrible ways that sin affects individual hearts and souls, families, marriages, institutions, governments, etc. The reality is that everything in Creation has been thoroughly “subject to frustration” because of sin. What are some reasons it is good to acknowledge the pervasive and thorough nature of sin in our hearts and in the world?
5. How does understanding Original Sin more thoroughly help you understand the Gospel more clearly?
How Would You Respond?
“This controversy regarding original sin is not an idle quarrel. On the contrary, if this teaching is correctly drawn from God’s Word . . . people will better recognize and praise all the more the benefits of the Lord Christ and his precious merit, as well as the gracious work of the Holy Spirit” (SD; I:3).
1. John visited Indonesia and tells you how he learned about the Buddhist monks there who lived apart from themselves, their needs, and their desires. He is tempted to get more deeply into Buddhism and escape the evil of this physical world. How would you respond?
2. Someone says to you that they don’t think their baby needs to be baptized, because babies can’t consciously sin. They are so helpless and cute. How would you respond?
3. Jacob says that he loves Jesus and is so happy that he made his decision for Christ. How would you respond?
Personal Reflection
Take a half-hour or more sometime this week for personal confession and absolution. Don’t just list sins, but focus on motives and your more fundamental thoughts which are inspired by your original sin. Confess your Original Sin and the Actual Sin privately to God and then bask in his forgiveness. Remember to focus more on your forgiveness than your depravity. You are a child of God; you are not identified by your old Adam, but by the new creation you have become in Christ.
Why does original sin give you reason to thank God rather than criticize him for your condition?
Family Connection
See if you can locate your baptismal certificates. Discuss why you needed baptism even before you could consciously sin. Speak about the drowning of original sin in baptism. Say a family prayer thanking God for your baptisms.
“Come to Calvary’s Holy Mountain” (CW 106)
Come to Calvary's holy mountain
sinners ruined by the fall;
Here a pure and healing fountain
Flows to you, to me, to all,
In a full perpetual tide,
Opened when our Savior died.
Come in poverty and meanness,
Come defiled, without, within;
From infection and uncleaness,
From the leprosy of sin,
Wash your robes and make them white;
You shall walk with God in light.
For Next Week
Assigned Reading: Article II. of the Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration (On Free Will).
Optional: The Instability of Melanchthon (Pastor Schlicht’s notes from class with Joel Otto at WLS)
Article II:
Free Will
Lesson 3: Capability or incapability in spiritual matters
Free will was no academic question to Luther; the whole Gospel of the grace of God, he held, was bound up with it, and stood or fell according to the way one decided it… It is not the part of a true theologian, Luther holds, to be unconcerned, or to pretend to be unconcerned, when the Gospel is in danger… Do we choose to believe in Christ? After Luther’s death, many began to say, “Yes!” The issue remains today.
“I have decided to follow Jesus!” passionately croons the singer out of the car radio, ironically a sentiment that contradicts the song’s title: Christ is Enough (Written by the band Hillsong). “IF” in large, bolded font begins a web-comic entitled “IF You Could Lose Your Salvation” which ends emphatically with the words, “You would.” (adam4d.com)
In the year 2021, the followers of Melancthon and Calvin continue to chip away at the biblical doctrine of conversion, just as they did in the 1500s. A confessional Lutheran is faced with a difficult task when walking the narrow middle of biblical truth regarding free will. Thankfully, the same opponents are refuted by the same solution: the clear Word of God as confessed in Article II of the Formula of Concord.
The chief question in this article concerns the will and ability of mankind in spiritual matters. That is, what powers in spiritual matters does a person have after the fall of our first parents and before coming to faith? Can a person by his own will—prior to faith given by God’s Spirit—get ready and prepare himself for God’s grace? Can a person accept or reject the grace offered through the Holy Spirit in the Word and holy Sacraments?
1. In what way is freedom cherished by people in America?
2. Why do people want to believe in “free will” concerning spiritual matters?
The Synergistic Controversy
Article II was written in response to the Synergistic controversy. In Christian theology, synergism is the position of those who hold that salvation involves some form of cooperation between divine grace and human will. Synergism is upheld by the Roman Catholic Church, Orthodox Churches, Methodist Churches, and is an integral part of Arminian theology.
Synergism stands opposed to Monergism which rejects the idea that humans have free choice, a doctrine most commonly associated with Lutherans and Reformed Protestants. Synergism is closely related to Semipelagianism, each teaching some collaboration in salvation between God and humans, but Semipelagian thought teaches that the impulse of faith is an act of human will, while Synergism, narrowly defined, says that the Spirit initiates conversion. In either case, humans are exalted as responsible in part for their faith.
The roots of synergism stretch back to the battles between Luther and Erasmus in the 1520s. Erasmus in his Diatribe on the Free Will (1524) defines the “power of free will” as “the faculty of applying oneself to grace.” Luther was very careful in his distinction of Law and Gospel in this matter. He refused to resolve any apparent tensions between a believer’s responsibility in following God’s law and God’s sole responsibility in conversion. Philip Melancthon at first fought valiantly for this truth, but human reason would later corrupt his stance and pollute his pupils as well.
One of those students, Johann Pfeffinger, wanted to protect God from accusations of evil in a rational way, by placing the responsibility of conversion partially on man. The majority of what he wrote was biblical, but near the end he went too far in explanation. He wrote, “The difference between the elect and the damned must lie in themselves.”
On the other hand, the “Genesio” or Original Lutherans (as they were now called) held to the biblical view which Luther supported on the issue. They came to the conclusion, founded upon the Word, that the human will is not simply a stone in conversion, but actively rejects the Word unless the Spirit has worked faith. Amsdorf led the charge against this heresy. The opposing sides took their stances behind Amsdorf or Pfeffinger.
The Genesio Lutherans were led by Amsdorf, Flacius, Gallus, and Stolz. The Philippists opposition was led by Pfeffinger, Melancthon, Strigel, and Hügel of Jena. Gallus attacked the heart of the problem as he saw it: Melancthon and his apostasy. Soon the synergistic controversy boiled over into debate and lecture halls. The opposition of the Genesio Lutherans and the Philippists, heightened by the synergistic controversy, led directly to the birth of the controversies over Original Sin and Election. The issues which arose from the Synergistic controversy called for a clear confession of biblical truth. The confessional statement regarding free will which followed was Article II of the Formula of Concord.
Dead to God
“This is our teaching, faith, and confession on this subject: in spiritual matters the understanding and reason of mankind are completely blind and by their own powers understand nothing, as it is written in 1 Corinthians 2:14, “The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.”
Likewise, we believe, teach, and confess that the unregenerate will of mankind is not only turned away from God, but also has become God’s enemy. So it only has an inclination and desire for that which is evil and contrary to God, as it is written in Genesis 8:21, “the intention of man’s heart is evil from his youth.” Romans 8:7 says, “The mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it 2 does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot.” Just as a dead body cannot raise itself to bodily, earthly life, so a person who by sin is spiritually dead cannot raise himself to spiritual life. For it is written in Ephesians 2:5, “even when we were dead in our trespasses, [He] made us alive together with Christ.” And 2 Corinthians 3:5 says, “Not that we are sufficient in ourselves to claim anything as coming from us, but our sufficiency is from God.” [Epitome, II, 1-2]
1. Describe our condition apart from God’s saving work in Christ.
2. What things do you observe in the world that provide evidence that, by nature, people are opposed to God?
3. In what ways is the Gospel still “foolishness” in our world?
4. How does the analogy of a corpse help to picture our inability to come to faith on our own?
But Alive in Christ
“God the Holy Spirit, however, does not bring about conversion without means. For this purpose He uses the preaching and hearing of God’s Word, as it is written in Romans 1:16, the Gospel “is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes.” Also Romans 10:17 says, “Faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.” It is God’s will that His Word should be heard and that a person’s ears should not be closed (Psalm 95:8). With this Word the Holy Spirit is present and opens hearts, so that people (like Lydia in Acts 16:14) pay attention to it and are converted only...
...through the Holy Spirit’s grace and power, who alone does the work of converting a person. For without His grace, and if He does not grant the increase, our willing and running, our planting, sowing, and watering (1 Corinthians 3:5–7)—are all nothing. As Christ says in John 15:5, “apart from me you can do nothing.” With these brief words the Spirit denies free will its powers and ascribes everything to God’s grace, in order that no one may boast before God (1 Corinthians 1:29; 2 Corinthians 12:5; Jeremiah 9:23).” [Epitome, II, 3]
1. What applications for the ministry of the Church do you find in this paragraph?
2. Maybe you don’t think you have an incredible “conversion story” or “testimony” of coming to faith. How does the Bible’s teaching about our conversion say otherwise?
Jesus said, “apart from me you can do nothing”. Some people would find that thought offensive, but to Christians who feel and experience in their hearts a small spark or longing for divine grace and eternal salvation this precious passage is very comforting. For we know that God has kindled in our hearts this beginning of true godliness. And that he will further strengthen and help us to persevere in true faith unto the end (1 Peter 5:10). [A summary of SD 14.]
3. What comfort do Jesus’ words “Apart from me you can do nothing,” give to those who wonder if their faith is strong enough to save them?
4. Evaluate: A focus on God in conversion and faith distracts from practical application and personal growth in faith.
5. Say that someone says that they made “the decision” for Christ. How can you respond kindly, gently directing them to glorify the Holy Spirit for their conversion?
Is the Holy Spirit Irresistible?
If we are not responsible for our active resistance of the Holy Spirit, then we are also not responsible for active ways in which we resist the work of God in all our sin. The folly of the Stoics and Manichaeans leached into Calvin’s teachings, who asserted that everything that happens does so because of divine coercion. God is the author of both sin and grace, of conversion and damnation in his sovereignty.
“When such a person despises the instrument of the Holy Spirit and will not listen, no injustice is done to him if the Holy Spirit does not enlighten him but allows him to remain in the darkness of his unbelief and to perish. For it is written “How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!” (Matthew 23:37).
In this respect it may well be said that a person is not a stone or block. For a stone or block does not resist the person who moves it. It does not understand and doesn’t care what is being done with it. But a person with his will resists the Lord until he is converted...God does not force a person to become godly...Yet he God the Lord draws the person whom He wants to convert (John 6:44). He draws him in such a way that his darkened understanding is turned into an enlightened one and his
perverse will into an obedient one. This is what the Scriptures call creating a clean heart (Psalm 51:10) [SD 58-60]
Luther correctly agreed with Calvin that a person is purely passive in conversion, but he explained this passivity differently: “Luther does not mean that conversion takes place without the preaching and hearing of God’s Word. Nor does he mean that in conversion no new emotion whatever is awakened in us by the Holy Spirit and no spiritual operation begun...It is not like a figure cut into stone or a seal impressed into wax. which knows nothing about it, which neither sees or wills it. [SD 89]
1. “If conversion is all God’s work, if he draws and enlightens those whom he chooses, how could you believe that any man would be able to ruin the plan of God by resisting the work of the Holy Spirit!” How would you respond?
2. Evaluate: Scripture speaks of the sinful person as a corpse as in Ephesians 2, surely a corpse cannot resist the one who raises it to life!
3. How does the biblical teaching of sinful resistance to the Holy Spirit give Christ more glory?
What About Free Will Now?
The Bible clearly teaches that we do not have free will in spiritual matters before we come to faith, but now that we have faith in Christ we can choose to follow God’s Word through the new creation inside of us. However, this is not saying that we are the agents of this choice. As our sinful nature is bound to sin, our new person is bound to righteousness. Once converted, we are—beautifully and paradoxically—finally free to obey God. Simply put, our sanctification is fully God’s work, just as our...
...justification. Yet we are not split into two people. We are both sinner and saint, but one person with one mind. Therefore, God often commands us to choose righteousness. He exhorts us to righteousness as he dignifies us, addressing us as mature children, as believers.
As when Moses speaks, “This day I call the heavens and the earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live and that you may love the LORD your God, listen to his voice, and hold fast to him. For the LORD is your life, and he will give you many years in the land he swore to give to your fathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.” (Deuteronomy 30:19-20)
1. How does the Holy Spirit, through Moses, remind us of the Gospel-driven impetus for the choosing of life in the above verses?
As Luther says, “...the will of mankind works nothing at all in his conversion and justification; (Non est efficiens causa justificationis sed marerialis tantum) “not an efficient cause of justification, but only as far as material things. It is the matter on which the Holy Ghost works (as a potter makes a pot out of clay), equally in those that resist and are averse, as in St Paul. But after the Holy Ghost has wrought in the wills of such resistants, then he also manages that the will be consenting thereunto.” [CCLXIII]
As the Solid Declaration explains: “From this evidence the following is certain: as soon as the Holy Spirit has begun His work of regeneration and renewal in us through the Word and holy Sacraments, we can and should cooperate through His power, although still in great weakness. This cooperation does not come from our fleshly natural powers, but from the new powers and gifts that the Holy Spirit has begun in us in conversion. St. Paul clearly and eagerly encourages that “working together with Him, we appeal to you not to receive the grace of God in vain” ) 2 Corinthians 6:1)...
...But if anyone would take St. Paul’s words in this sense—the converted person cooperates with the Holy Spirit in the way two horses draw a wagon together—this could not be allowed in any way without damaging the divine truth. ...They [speaking of the baptized] now have a freed will. As Christ says, they have been made free again (John 8:36). Therefore, they are able not only to hear the Word, but also to agree with it and accept it, although in great weakness. [SD, 65-67]
1. How does the Formula’s treatment of Free Will deny pride in sanctification?
2. How does the Formula’s treatment of Free Will deny apathy in sanctification?
3. When a brother or sister falls into sin repeatedly, how might you comfort them by understanding the Scriptural position on Free Will?
4. The Devil is defeated but he still rages. Sin still seduces. The world is hostile. Church numbers are in decline. How do the truths of this lesson comfort you?
Personal Reflection
How did you become a believer? Reflect on the miracle of your conversion and the wonder that you believe what the Spirit has inspired: God loves you and died to call you his own! In light of God’s Word, assess your daily battle between the hostile old Adam and the perfect new person you have become in Christ.
Family Connection
The same Word that brought you to faith remains a necessary nutrient of your active faith. Plan regular family devotions. Use resources that are appropriate for the younger members of your family. Ask your pastor to recommend family devotional material if needed.
While you cannot cooperate in your own conversion, you can strive to serve Christ after you come to faith. What can you do to serve the Lord within your home? With neighbors? At work or school?
“Holy Spirit, Light Divine” (CW 183)
Holy Spirit, Love divine,
Cleanse this guilty heart of mine; In your mercy pity me;
From sin's bondage set me free.
Holy Spirit, Pow’r divine,
Dwell within this heart of mine;
Cast down ev’ry idol throne;
Reign supreme and reign alone.
For Next Week
Assigned Reading: Article III of the Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration (The Righteousness of Faith).
Article III:
The Righteousness of Faith
Lesson 4: Is Justification a declaration or a process?
The justification of the sinner before God by faith alone without works was the Reformation’s pivotal, watershed article. This teaching is the most precious of Christianity’s crown jewels. By God’s grace through the merits of Christ, forgiveness of sins is declared to the world. This doctrine is the central article of Christian faith by which the Church either stands or falls. With it, all doctrine hangs in a harmonious whole; without it, the articles of faith fall like dominoes. No wonder Satan has made it the target of incessant attack from the beginning. All man-made religions point us inwards, to our own attainments or supposed moral competence. Only Christianity, points the human outward, to Christ, the Lamb of God, who atoned for all sin by his perfect obedience of God’s law (active obedience) and taking all out guilt on himself and suffering the just punishment for all (passive obedience). He is our righteousness.
Knowing the tendency of the sinful nature and the Devil’s cunning, Martin Luther forecast that this doctrine would be threatened after his death. Again and again, especially in his commentary on Galatians and on Genesis, Luther warned of the impending attacks upon this central article. He was wise to warn us. Death had barely taken him when his predictions were fulfilled. Confusing teachings and distortion threatened to obscure the clarity of Scripture on the righteousness of faith. Article III of the Formula of Concord established unity through Scriptural clarity.
Cause or Effect: The Osiandrian and Stancarian Controversies
The trouble began with a man named Andrew Osiander. He was a gifted and eloquent man who served the Lord, but was known by many to scowl at the triumphs and recognition of other men. While Luther was alive, this was a small issue since Osiander was far overshadowed by Luther
theologically and intellectually. But after Luther’s death, Osiander found an opportunity to promote himself following the Augsburg Interim.
Osiander had spent most of his ministry at a pastorate in Nuernberg (1522-1548) and worked in many ways to support the reformation and the Wittenberg theologians. But after Nuremberg accepted the Augsburg Interim, he fled to Koenigsberg under the patronage of an old friend, Count Albrecht of Prussia. Against protestations, the count appointed him as pastor of the city church and gave him the post of first professor of theology at the university, a position Osiander readily accepted even though lacked the necessary academic qualifications. Controversy followed close behind. In his inaugural disputation, Osiander criticized Philipp Melanchthon’s emphasis on forensic justification against an unconvinced opponent, one Martin Chemnitz.
Osiander had drawn a bead on the Reformation’s teaching that God for Christ’s sake declares sinners righteous. He claimed that our righteousness before God does not come from being declared righteous, but by becoming righteous gradually, progressively, through the indwelling of the Son of God in us. We are not saved, said Osiander, by what Luther called alien, foreign, or imputed righteousness, the righteousness of Christ that is outside of us and only received by faith; he said that we are saved by inward righteousness, the righteousness which is worked in us, as when medicine gradually works its healing. (Even Catholic theologians at the time recognized the similarity between his position and their teaching of “infused grace”.)
The Lutheran theologians, led by Melancthon and Flacius, opposed Osiander’s view. They correctly perceived that Osiander was making the effect of justification into its cause. (i.e. turning our fruits of faith into the cause of our salvation.)
Osiander died in 1552 at the height of the controversy to which he had given birth and his ill-begotten child spawned.. Foremost among those resulting issues was one of Osiander’s colleagues, Stancarus, an ex-priest from Mantura, Italy. While Osiander had overemphasized the divine nature of Christ, Stancarius taught that it was only the human nature of Christ, not the divine, that was involved in our redemption, unnecessarily convoluting the whole issue. Stancarus bumped around from place to place in Europe, never able to win any following for his controversial, often bizarre, views. However, because he spread his false views widely in his travels, the writers of the Formula of Concord found it necessary to repudiate his ideas as well. Thank the Lord for a clear confession!
1. Why is a correct understanding of Justification the integral key to all of theology?
2. How does human pride often lead to factions in God’s church?
3. Why is Christ’s righteousness truly something “foreign” to sinners?
4. We would be foolish to think that the doctrine of Justification is not under attack today. What problems do you foresee with the idea that we become righteous gradually before God?
The Relationship of Faith, Righteousness, and Justification
“We believe, teach, and confess what our righteousness before God is this: God forgives our sins out of pure grace, without any work, merit, or worthiness of ours preceding, present, or following.
He presents and credits to us the righteousness of Christ’s obedience [Romans 5:17–19]. Because of this righteousness, we are received into grace by God and regarded as righteous.
We believe, teach, and confess that faith alone is the means and instrument through which we lay hold of Christ. So in Christ we lay hold of that righteousness that benefits us before God [Romans 1:17], for whose sake this faith is credited to us for righteousness (Romans 4:5).
We believe, teach, and confess that this faith is not a bare knowledge of Christ’s history, but it is God’s gift [Ephesians 2:8]. By this gift we come to the right knowledge of Christ as our Redeemer in the Word of the Gospel. And we trust in Him that for the sake of His obedience alone we have—by grace—the forgiveness of sins and are regarded as holy and righteous before God the Father and are eternally saved.
We believe, teach, and confess that according to the usage of Holy Scripture the word justify means, in this article, “to absolve, that is, to declare free from sins.” Proverbs 17:15 says, “He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous are both alike an abomination to the LORD.” Also Romans 8:33 says, “Who shall bring any charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies.” (FC Ep III 2-5)
1. Put it into your own words: “Faith alone is the means and instrument through which we lay hold of Christ.”
2. Why does faith require knowledge? How is saving faith more than just knowledge?
3. We rightly speak of growing in faith in terms of a “progression”. Why is this categorically different from Osiander’s viewpoint on justification?
4. Why is the difference between being declared righteous and progressively becoming righteous vital for God’s people?
5. What Biblical examples might you use to show that justification is a declaration, not a process?
Comfort and Confidence in Christ
“We believe, teach, and confess that many weaknesses and defects cling to the true believers and truly regenerate, even up to the day they are buried [1 John 1:8]. Still, they must not on that account doubt either their righteousness, which has been credited to them through faith, or the salvation of their souls. They must regard it as certain that for Christ’s sake, according to the promise and ‹immovable› Word of the Holy Gospel, they have a gracious God.
We believe, teach, and confess that it is necessary to teach with special diligence the particulae exclusivae (“terms of exclusivity”: the solas: Christ alone, grace alone, faith alone, Scripture alone) for the preservation of the pure doctrine about the righteousness of faith before God. We mean the exclusive particles, that is, the following words of the holy apostle Paul, by which Christ’s merit is entirely separated from our works and the honor is given to Christ alone. For the holy apostle Paul writes, “Of grace,” “without merit,” “without Law,” “without works,” “not of works.” All these words together mean that we are justified and saved through faith alone in Christ [Ephesians 2:8; Romans 1:17; 3:24; 4:3–25; Galatians 3:11; Hebrews 11].
We believe, teach, and confess that the contrition that comes before justification, and the good works that follow it, do not belong to the article of justification before God. Yet one is not to imagine a kind of faith that can exist and abide with, and alongside of, a wicked intention to sin and to act against the conscience. But after man has been justified through faith, then a true living faith works by love (Galatians 5:6). Good works always follow justifying faith and are surely found with it—if it is true and living faith [James 2:26]. Faith is never alone, but always has love and hope with it [1 Corinthians 13:13].” (FC Ep III 6-8)
1. Many people recoil at the very thought of spiritual exclusivity: that faith in Christ alone saves. How do the solas of the Reformation give us a chance to speak positively about exclusive truth?
2. How would you explain that the “contrition that comes before Justification” does not belong to the article of Justification?
3. Paragraph 8 is a great exposition of James 2:26: “As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.” How would you explain this passage to someone who heard it for the first time?
4. How should a correct understanding of Justification guard us from apathy in good works?
The Unity of Christ’s Nature in the Righteousness of Faith
The concept of justification and righteousness, as the confessors understood it, relies upon the perfect union of Christ’s two natures: divine and human. Osiander and Stancarius threatened to overemphasize one and deny the other. The Solid Declaration clarifies the necessity of both natures in the one person of Christ and the complete victory his obedience assures for us.
“Our righteousness rests alone on Christ the Lord. Therefore, how Christ is called our Righteousness in this matter of justification must be carefully considered. I mean, that our righteousness rests not on one or the other nature in Christ, but on Christ’s entire person, who as God and man is our Righteousness in His only, entire, and complete obedience.
Even if Christ had been conceived and born without sin by the Holy Spirit and had fulfilled all righteousness in His human nature alone, and yet had not been true and eternal God, this obedience and suffering of His human nature could not be credited to us for righteousness. Also, if God’s Son had not become man, the divine nature alone could not be our righteousness.
Therefore, we believe, teach, and confess that the entire obedience of Christ’s entire person (which He has offered to the Father for us, even to His most humiliating death on the cross) is credited to us for righteousness. For the human nature alone, without the divine, could not by obedience or suffering make satisfaction to eternal, almighty God for the sins of all the world. However, the divinity alone, without the humanity, could not mediate between God and us.
As mentioned above, the obedience not only of one nature, but of the entire person, is a complete satisfaction and atonement for the human race. By this obedience God’s eternal, unchangeable righteousness, revealed in the Law, has been satisfied. So our righteousness benefits us before God and is revealed in the Gospel. Faith relies on this before God, which God credits to faith, as it is written in Romans 5:19: “For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous.” “The blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin.” (1 John 1:7) “The righteous shall live by his faith.” (Habakkuk 2:4; [see also Romans 1:17]) (FC SD III 55–57)
5. Describe how both of Christ’s natures contribute to the righteousness of faith.
6. In what ways does a Christian’s perspective benefit from firmer conviction that Christ’s righteousness is “complete satisfaction” for the sinner before God?
7. How does God view us clothed in Christ’s righteousness?
Personal Reflection
After a chapel service in college, I used to write on my forearm with a pen (I know, I know, not good.), “God is proud of me in Christ!” What can you do around your home, office, etc. or in another creative way to remind you of the righteousness of Christ that we receive through faith?
How does the outward declaration of your justification comfort you as you struggle with addictive sin?
Family Connection
Prepare a small gift for each family member. Give the gifts, attaching to them no significant day or event. When recipients ask why they received the gift, tell them it’s simply a gift of love—just as God sent Jesus because He loved us.
Speak to your children and remind them that they are not just tolerated by God because of Christ, but loved and cherished. They are clothed with Christ’s righteousness! For young kids: Dress them in a robe (a bath towel would even work) and talk about how they were clothed with Jesus righteousness at their baptism!
“Jesus, Your Blood and Righteousness” (CW 376)
1 Jesus, your blood and righteousness
my beauty are, my glorious dress;
Mid flaming worlds, in these arrayed, with joy shall I lift up my head.
2 Bold shall I stand in that great day-
Who can a word against me say?
Fully through you absolved I am
From sin and fear, from guilt and shame.
3 When from the dust of death I rise
To claim my mansion in the skies,
E'en then this shall be all my plea,
Jesus has lived and died for me.
For Next Week
Assigned Reading: Article IV of the Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration (Good Works).
Article IV: Good Works
Lesson 5: Are good works required or obsolete?
One of the sharpest criticisms of Lutheran theology revolves around the subject of good works. The argument is directed against the teaching that a person is saved by grace alone through faith alone. Some object saying, “If salvation by grace is true, then no one will do good works. The incentive to live a godly life is gone.”
Luther was sensitive to this criticism. That’s why he went out of his way to show that he encouraged Christians to do good works. But he was careful to put good works in their proper place. Good works neither earn grace and forgiveness nor are they somehow combined with faith to win heaven. Rather, good works flow from faith. Good works are what Christians who have been saved by grace through faith naturally do. Good works are done not to earn heaven but to thank God for his gift of heaven.
The MAjoristic Controversy
Controversy in the Lutheran Church concerning the role of good works in the Christian life was severe. Philip Melanchthon persisted in using such language as “good works are necessary to salvation.” Luther had cautioned Philip that this phrase could be misleading, but Melancthon continued to use it from 1535 onward. John Major, who would become president of Wittenberg University after Luther’s death, openly espoused Philip’s misleading language and proclaimed that good works do not achieve grace but maintain salvation within the believer so as not to fall into disobedience. The Majoristic controversy took its name from his error.
Nicholas Amsdorf entered the fray of debate, but swung the pendulum to the other extreme, suggesting that good works are injurious to salvation and misquoted Luther from his Galatians commentary. John Agricola resisted even further, saying that good works should not be spoken of at all and that the Law had no further place in the life of the Christian. Article IV of the Formula of Concord stands upon God’s Word, clearly delineating the nature of good works and their relationship to faith and salvation, and precisely distinguishing between justification and sanctification, and between Law and Gospel.
1. Heresy often begins as a misplacement of emphasis. How is this true in the case of the Majoristic Controversy?
2. Misleading statements of faith allow for multiple interpretations. Melancthon allowed this in the hope that both sides could read into his words what they preferred. How is this a dishonest practice?
The Fruit of Faith
“Good works certainly and without doubt follow true faith—if it is not a dead, but a living faith—just as fruit grows on a good tree [Matthew 7:17].
We believe, teach, and confess that good works should be entirely excluded from the question about salvation, just as they are excluded from the article of justification before God. The apostle testifies with clear words when he writes as follows, “Just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works: . . . ‘Blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin’” (Romans 4:6–8). And again, “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast” (Ephesians 2:8–9).
We also believe, teach, and confess that all people, but especially those who are born again and renewed by the Holy Spirit, are obligated to do good works [Ephesians 2:10].
In this sense the words necessary, shall, and must are used correctly and in a Christian way to describe the regenerate, and are in no way contrary to the form of sound words and speech.” (FC Ep IV 1-4)
1. Evaluate: “Paragraph 2 seems to be contradicted by paragraph 3.”
2. How does the biblical picture of fruit on a tree support the teaching that good works are not necessary for salvation, but an obligation for those with faith?
3. To whom are we speaking when we say good works are necessary, in a correct way, and why is that important to remember when it comes to speaking with unbelievers?
Maintenance or Evidence?
“Nevertheless, if the words mentioned (i.e., necessity and necessary) are used when talking about regenerate people, then only due obedience—not coercion—is to be understood. For the truly believing, so far as they are regenerate, do not offer obedience from coercion or the driving of the Law, but from a voluntary spirit. For they are no more under the Law, but under grace (Romans 6:14; 7:6; 8:14).
We also believe, teach, and confess that when it is said, “The regenerate do good works from a free spirit,” this is not to be understood as though it were an option for the regenerate person to do or not to do good when he wants, as though a person can still retain faith if he intentionally perseveres in sins [1 John 2:5–9].
This is not to be understood in any other way than as the Lord Christ and His apostles themselves declare. In other words, the free spirit does not obey from fear of punishment, like a servant, but from love of righteousness, like children (Romans 8:15).
However, this willingness ‹liberty of spirit› in God’s elect children is not perfect. It is burdened with great weakness, as St. Paul complains about himself in Romans 7:14–25 and Galatians 5:17.
Nevertheless, for the sake of the Lord Christ, the Lord does not charge this weakness to His elect, as it is written, “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” (Romans 8:1).
We believe, teach, and confess also that works do not maintain faith and salvation in us, but God’s Spirit alone does this, through faith. Good works are evidences of His presence and indwelling [Romans 8:5, 14].” (FC Ep IV 5-10)
1. Describe the difference between obedience under slavery and as a beloved child.
2. In what ways do paragraphs 8 and 9 guard us from becoming too quick to judge the faith of other Christians on the basis of their works?
3. How does paragraph 10 help us to speak the truth in love to a brother or sister who is failing to produce fruit?
4. List a few reasons why it is important to remember that your own good works are the evidence of your faith, not the maintenance of your faith.
Mother and Source
First, there is no controversy among our theologians about the following points in this article: it is God’s will, order, and command that believers should walk in good works. Truly good works are not those that everyone does himself from a good intention, or which are done according to human traditions, but those that God Himself has prescribed and commanded in His Word. Also, truly good works are done not by our own natural powers, but in this way: when a person is reconciled with God through faith and renewed by the Holy Spirit. Or, as Paul says, a person is “created in Christ Jesus for good works” [Ephesians 2:10]. . . .
“Faith must be the mother and source of works that are truly good and well pleasing to God, which God will reward in this world and in the world to come. This is why St. Paul calls them true fruit of faith, also fruit of the Spirit [Galatians 5:22–23]. For, as Dr. Luther writes in the Preface to St.
Paul’s Epistle to the Romans:
Faith, however, is a divine work in us that changes us and makes us to be born anew of God, John 1[:12–13]. It kills the old Adam and makes us altogether different men, in heart and spirit and mind and powers; it brings with it the Holy Spirit. O, it is a living, busy, active, mighty thing, this faith. It is impossible for it not to be doing good works incessantly. It does not ask whether good works are to be done, but before the question is asked, it has already done them, and is constantly doing them. Whoever does not do such works, however, is an unbeliever. He gropes and looks around for faith and good works, but knows neither what faith is nor what good works are. Yet he talks and talks, with many words, about faith and good works.
Faith is a living, daring confidence in God’s grace, so sure and certain that the believer would stake his life on it a thousand times. This knowledge of and confidence in God’s grace makes men glad and bold and happy in dealing with God and all creatures. And this is the work that the Holy Spirit
performs in faith. Because of it, without compulsion, a person is ready and glad to do good to everyone, to serve everyone, to suffer everything, out of love and praise to God, who has shown him this grace. Thus it is impossible to separate works from faith, quite as impossible as to separate heat and light from fire.” [LW 35:370–71] (FC SD IV 7, 9–12)
1. Ephesians 2: 10 says that “For we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared in advance so that we would walk in them.” (EHV) Notice that the apostle Paul uses the word “work” twice in this instructive verse. How do his words clarify who deserves the glory for our good works?
2. Luther wrote that an unbeliever knows neither what faith or good works are, “yet he talks and talks, with many words, about faith and good works.” What examples of this observation can you think of?
3. Luther said, “It is impossible for it [faith] not to be doing good works incessantly. It does not ask whether good works are to be done, but before the question is asked, it has already done them, and is constantly doing them.” (This does not always seem like my faith!) How can we understand his words correctly?
4. How does this biblical teaching on Good Works comfort and inspire us in Christian living?
Personal Reflection
Think of several Bible passages that comfort you and bring you joy. Look them up. Do the verses preceding or following your favorite passages suggest good works in response to God’s love?
Think about the heat and light of a fire or the trees outside as illustrative of faith and good works. Ponder how the Lord has woven these beautiful illustrations into his creation.
Family Connection
Volunteer as a family for community service. Consider regular cleaning of an area near your home or apartment. Bake brownies for the local fire department or pray for police officers. Help out at church. Plan how you will direct people to the Lord’s grace when they thank you for your service.
“May the Mind of Christ My Savior” (CW 467)
1 May the mind of Christ my Savior
Live in me from day to day,
By his love and pow’r inspiring
All I do or say.
2 May the Word of God dwell richly
In my heart from hour to hour,
So that all may see I triumph
Only through his pow’r.
6 May his spirit live within me
As I seek the lost to win,
And may they forget the channel,
Seeing only him.
For Next Week
Assigned Reading: Article V of the Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration (Law and Gospel).
Article V: Law and Gospel
Lesson 6: The vital distinction.
Near the beginning of The Proper Distinction between Law and Gospel, C. F. W. Walther compiles a list of differences between law and gospel. One point of difference is that the law’s promises are conditional, while the promises of the gospel are unconditional. How tempting and easy it is to confuse law and gospel by attaching conditions to God’s free promise of grace in Christ revealed in the gospel. How easy to turn that promise into something like: “You will be forgiven once you shape up and live right.” Yet Walther’s insight concurs with the fifth article of the Formula of Concord. Both warn against such confusion of law and gospel.
The harm (such as despair, pride, or hypocrisy) arising from a confusion of law and gospel highlights the importance of the question raised in Article V of the Formula of Concord. This article considers whether the gospel may include a preaching of repentance that rebukes sin and unbelief. The authors of the Formula conclude that the answer depends on what you mean by “gospel.”
Scriptural passages sometimes use “gospel” to include all of Christ’s teaching, including an explanation of the law and the proclamation of God’s grace and favor. When “gospel” is used in this sense, it includes a preaching of repentance along with forgiveness. However, other Scriptural passages contrast these as two separate doctrines, so that repentance and belief in the gospel are two distinct teachings. When “gospel” is used in this sense, it does not include the preaching of repentance. To help pastors and laypeople distinguish between Law and Gospel, the confessors wrote the truth of God’s Word in Article V.
(Articles V and VI of the Formula are to be read in conjunction with one another for a full understanding of God’s law. The sixth article takes up the question of the third use of the law as instruction in godly living, and determines that this is a proper use of the law. At the same time, the fifth article emphasizes that the third use of the law ought not become an occasion for hypocrisy and pride.)
1. What do Law and Gospel mean in their simplest sense (SOS)?
2. What does the Gospel include in the narrow sense?
3. Why is it often difficult to distinguish Law and Gospel?
A Brilliant Light
“We believe, teach, and confess that the distinction between the Law and the Gospel is to be kept in the Church with great diligence as a particularly brilliant light. By this distinction, according to the admonition of St. Paul, God’s Word is rightly divided [2 Timothy 2:15].
We believe, teach, and confess that the Law is properly a divine doctrine [Romans 7:12]. It teaches what is right and pleasing to God, and it rebukes everything that is sin and contrary to God’s will. For this reason, then, everything that rebukes sin is, and belongs to, the preaching of the Law.
But the Gospel is properly the kind of teaching that shows what a person who has not kept the Law (and therefore is condemned by it) is to believe. It teaches that Christ has paid for and made satisfaction for all sins [Romans 5:9]. Christ has gained and acquired for an individual—without any of his own merit—forgiveness of sins, righteousness that avails before God, and eternal life [Romans 5:10].
The term Gospel is not used in one and the same sense in the Holy Scriptures. That’s why this disagreement originally arose. Therefore, we believe, teach, and confess that if the term Gospel is understood to mean Christ’s entire teaching that He proposed in His ministry, as His apostles did also (this is how it is used in Mark 1:15; Acts 20:21), then it is correctly said and written that the Gospel is a preaching of repentance and of the forgiveness of sins.” (FC Ep V 1–5)
1. Why did the confessors label the subject of Law and Gospel “a particularly brilliant light”?
2. Why is the Holy Spirit needed to correctly understand the Law?
3. How do unbelievers generally view the laws of God’s Word?
4. What is the Gospel defined broadly? Describe who takes action in the gospel?
The Difference Between Moses and Jesus
“The Law and the Gospel are also contrasted with each other. Likewise also, Moses himself as a teacher of the Law and Christ as a preacher of the Gospel are contrasted with each other [John 1:17]. In these cases we believe, teach, and confess that the Gospel is not a preaching of repentance or rebuke. But it is properly nothing other than a preaching of consolation and a joyful message that does not rebuke or terrify. The Gospel comforts consciences
against the terrors of the Law, points only to Christ’s merit, and raises them up again by the lovely preaching of God’s grace and favor, gained through Christ’s merit.
Concerning the revelation of sin, Moses’ veil hangs [2 Corinthians 3:12–16] before the eyes of all people as long as they hear the bare preaching of the Law, and nothing about Christ. Therefore, they do not learn from the Law to see their sins correctly. They either become bold hypocrites ‹who swell with the opinion of their own righteousness› like the Pharisees [Matthew 23], or they despair like Judas [Matthew 27:3–5]. Therefore, Christ takes the Law into His hands and explains it spiritually (Matthew 5:21–48; Romans 7:14). In this way God’s wrath is revealed from heaven against all sinners [Romans 1:18], so that they see how great it is. In this way they are directed back to the Law, and then they first learn from it to know their sins correctly a knowledge that Moses never could have forced out of them.
According to this, the preaching of the suffering and death of Christ, the Son of God, is a serious and terrifying proclamation and declaration of God’s wrath. By such preaching people are first led into the Law correctly—after Moses’ veil has been removed from them. Then they understand correctly for the first time what great things God requires of us in His Law, none of which we can keep. Therefore, they know we are to seek all our righteousness in Christ.
Yet as long as all this (namely, Christ’s suffering and death) proclaims God’s wrath and terrifies a person, it is still not properly the preaching of the Gospel. It remains the preaching of Moses and the Law, and it is, therefore, an alien work of Christ. Passing through this teaching, Christ arrives at His proper office, that is, to preach grace, console, and give life, which is properly the preaching of the Gospel.” (FC Ep V 6–8)
1. In what ways are Law and Gospel different? Why is it important to maintain this vast difference?
2. What can result when we mix the Law with the Gospel?
3. Jesus talked a lot about sin and hell. He preached the Law with passion on earth! Why is the Law considered his “alien” work? Why can’t the Law be his proper office?
The Need for Both Law and Gospel
The Formula holds up the distinction between law and gospel to protect both doctrines from confusion and dilution. In order to lay out how the two teachings should be kept distinct, the Formula defines them by both their content and their function. The law is defined as a doctrine that reveals God’s righteous will (content) and threatens transgressors with punishments (function). This definition fits the preaching of Christ, who takes up the law and explains it spiritually. That is, Christ amplifies the law to show the full extent of man’s sin and God’s wrath against it so that no one may imagine that outward works alone will fulfill the law….
Law is confused with gospel when the law is softened to allow people to think that they have fulfilled the law by their own works.
The gospel in its narrow sense, not including the rebuke of sin, is the preaching of God’s grace in Christ Jesus in whom we receive forgiveness (content). It comforts the sinner by granting the Spirit, grace, and forgiveness (function). When the gospel is confused by turning it into law, Christ’s merit and benefit are hidden. That is, whenever salvation is based not on God’s free gift but on a person’s obedience, the gospel becomes a law. This robs sinners of the comfort of the gospel. Here the Formula warns against the error of attaching conditions to the gospel. The Law and Gospel must be distinguished, and yet always preached together.
All people need to know their sinful nature and the consequences of sin; this Law, in turn, reveals their need for a Savior. God’s salvation is shown in the unconditional love of Christ, the narrowly defined Gospel. Paul demonstrates this marriage by speaking both Law and Gospel when he writes, “The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that
Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the worst” (1 Timothy 1:15).
1. How can Jesus’ death on the cross be heard as Law and Gospel?
2. In Galatians, Paul contrasts a false gospel with the true gospel (Galatians 1:6–9). This false gospel was filled with conditions. In the end, Paul summed it up by saying that this is “no gospel at all”. Why is any gospel with conditions really not a gospel?
3. Are there any situations where we could proclaim the Law without proclaiming the Gospel and vice versa? Why or why not?
Personal Reflection
Read Romans 5. What words here correspond to the Formula’s definition of law? Of gospel?
In Thesis 62 of his Ninety-five Theses, Luther said, “The true treasure of the church is the most holy gospel of the glory and grace of God.” How is this true of our church? How does our worship reflect this? How does your life reflect it?
Family Connection
Make a habit of ending all family disputes and disciplinary situations with the same Gospel God gave to all sinners. “I forgive you, but, most importantly, Jesus forgives you.”
Grab a copy of one of your pastor’s sermons. Look for clear teaching about God’s Law and his Gospel. Highlight the portions which are most clearly Law in Yellow, the parts which are clearly Gospel in Blue, and the parts which seem to contain both in Green. What do you notice? Any patterns?
“The Law Commands and Makes Us Know” (CW 286)
1 The law commands and makes us know
What duties to our God we owe,
But ‘tis the gospel mus reveal
Where lies our strength to do his will.
2 The Law uncovers guilt and sin
And shows how vile our hearts have been;
The gospel only can express
Forgiving love and cleansing grace.
For Next Week
Assigned Reading: Article VI of the Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration (The Third Use of the Law).
Article VI: The Third
Use of the Law
Lesson 7: God’s law in the life of a Christian.
Even during Luther’s lifetime, a strong antinomian spirit had risen up among certain theologians. Championed by Johann Agricola, they claimed that once a person truly believes the Gospel the Law is no longer needed. Luther defended against this dangerous notion saying, “The Law must be retained, that the saints may know what kind of works God requires in which they may exercise their obedience toward God.” Despite Luther’s condemnation of antinomianism, the false teachings persisted so that the confessors of the Formula of Concord needed to address the situation.
On the heels of Article V (Law and Gospel) comes the Formula of Concord’s article on the third use of the Law. Its placement, almost an addendum to Article V, reminds us that just as the purity of the Gospel must be safeguarded from mixing with the Law, so must the Law be safeguarded from being considered “abolished” by the Gospel. How important, for those who rejoice in the free gospel of Jesus Christ, that we cherish the Law of God, by which he teaches us his will.
Luther, Agricola, and the Rise of Antinomianism
One of the difficulties in grasping the theological tensions and battles that followed the Reformation is the close association of the individuals involved. Of particular interest, in conjunction with Article VI, is the relationship between Martin Luther and Johann Agricola.
As a young man at Wittenberg, Luther took great pride in Agricola, entertaining him at his own table, singing hymns and drinking beer with him, praying for him and instructing him personally. In fact, it was Luther who persuaded Agricola to change his course of study from medicine to theology. Increasingly under Luther’s influence, Agricola accompanied him as recording secretary to his Leipzig debate of 1519 with the scholar Johann Eck.
In 1525, Luther procured for him the position of Rector of St. Andrew's School at Eisleben, and preacher at St. Nicholas's Church there. Unfortunately, as Johann developed in his teaching, he began to assert antinomianism (Greek: anti, “against”; nomos, “law”), condemning the law as an unnecessary carry-over from the Old Testament and as too similar to the Roman Catholic stress on good works, writing: “The Decalog (Ten Commandments) belongs in the courthouse, not in the pulpit. . . . To the gallows with Moses!”
In 1527 he became more forceful, attacking the Reformer Philipp Melanchthon, an associate of Luther, for Lutheran inclusion of the law in Reformation theology. The conflict was enlarged when Agricola returned to Wittenberg in 1536, and Luther responded with five disputations and the treatise “Against the Antinomians.” Under persecution for his attacks on Luther’s position, in 1540 Agricola went to Berlin, where he retracted his views and in the same year was made court preacher by the Protestant prince Joachim II of Brandenburg. Shortly afterward he returned to Saxony but he had lost Luther’s trust.
In 1548, following Charles V’s victory over the Protestants in his effort to unify the Holy Roman Empire, Agricola was selected by the emperor as one of three theologians to draft a provisional religious settlement between Protestants and Roman Catholics, a document that became known as the Augsburg Interim. His role earned Agricola the hatred of Lutherans and many staunch protestants. Unfortunately, despite many times that he defended strict Lutheranism in his early life, Johann Agricola is primarily remembered for his teaching of antinomianism and caving to pressure from Rome.
Different Functions
The Law was given to people for three reasons: (1) that by the Law outward discipline might be maintained against wild, disobedient people; (2) that people may be led to the knowledge of their sins by the Law; and (3) that after they are saved and the flesh still cleaves to them, they might on this account have a fixed rule according to which they are to regulate and direct their whole life. A dissension has arisen between a few theologians about the third use of the Law, namely, whether it is to be taught to regenerate Christians. The one side has said Yes; the other, No.
We believe, teach, and confess that, even though people who are truly believing in Christ and truly converted to God have been freed and exempted from the curse and coercion of the Law, they are still not without the Law on this account. They have been redeemed by God’s Son in order that they may exercise themselves in the Law day and night ([Psalm 1:2]; Psalm 119). Even our first parents before the fall did not live without Law. They had God’s Law written into their hearts, because they were created in God’s image (Genesis 1:26–27; 2:16–17; 3:3).
We believe, teach, and confess that the preaching of the Law is to be encouraged diligently. This applies not only for the unbelieving and impenitent, but also for true believers, who are truly converted, regenerate, and justified through faith. (FC Ep VI SC,1-2)
1. What are the three uses of God’s Law?
First Use:
Second Use:
Third Use:
2. What are some reasons you are thankful for the First Use Law?
3. What are some reasons it is nice to know that Adam and Eve were given God’s Law, even before the Fall, in the perfect Eden?
4. Besides the many spiritual commands and blessings, why should we readily admit that God’s laws are wise?
5. Why is it only logical that believers delight in the Law of God?
The Law is Still Necessary
Although believers are regenerate and renewed in the spirit of their mind, in the present life this regeneration and renewal is not complete. It is only begun. Believers are, by the spirit of their mind, in a constant struggle against the flesh. They struggle constantly against the corrupt nature and character, which cleaves to us until death. This old Adam still dwells in the understanding, the will, and all the powers of humanity. It is necessary that the Law of the Lord always shine before them, so that they may not start evil and self-created forms of worship from human devotion...
...The Law of the Lord is also necessary so that the old Adam [Romans 6:6] may not use his own will, but may be subdued against his will. This happens not only by the warning and threatening of the Law, but also by punishments and blows, so that a person may follow and surrender himself as a captive to the Spirit. (See 1 Corinthians 9:27; Romans 6:12; Galatians 6:14; Psalm 119; Hebrews 13:21; 12:1.)
Now, consider the distinction between the works of the Law [Galatians 2:16] and the fruit of the Spirit [Galatians 5:22–23]. We believe, teach, and confess that the works of the Law are those that are done according to the Law. They are called works of the Law as long as they are only forced out of a person by teaching the punishment and threatening of God’s wrath.
Fruits of the Spirit, however, are the works wrought by God’s Spirit, who dwells in believers. The Spirit works through the regenerate spontaneously and freely. These works are done by believers, because they are regenerate, spontaneously and freely. They act as though they knew of no command, threat, or reward. In this way God’s children live in the Law and walk according to God’s Law. St. Paul calls this the “law of Christ” and the “Law of my mind” in his letters. (See Romans 7:23–25; 8:7; 8:2[; Galatians 6:2].)
The Law is and remains, both to the penitent and impenitent, both to regenerate and unregenerate people, one and the same Law. It is God’s unchangeable will. The difference, 3 as far as obedience is concerned, is only in the person. For one who is not yet regenerate follows the Law out of constraint and unwillingly does what it requires of him (as also the regenerate do according to the flesh). But the believer, so far as he is regenerate, acts without constraint and with a willing spirit to do what no threat of the Law, however severe, could ever force him to do. (FC Ep VI 3-6)
1. Why do “truly believing...and truly converted” people still need to hear the Law?
2. How would you respond kindly to a member who says to you, “I wish Pastor wouldn’t preach at us. I mean we get it, we’re sinful. Let’s move on!”
3. What distinction do the confessors make between works of the Law and the fruit of the Spirit?
4. Imagine two people at the same office working hard at their jobs. One is a Christian and the other is an unbeliever, one is performing a fruit of the Spirit and other a work of the Law. How would you explain this truth?
5. “The believer...acts without restraint and with willing spirit…” Apply this truth to giving offerings at church? How about evangelism?
A Healthy Faith
At first glance, the difference between works of the Law and the fruit of the Spirit appears to be abstract, unrelated to our ordinary life. Yet knowing the difference brings joy to Christians because we see God’s grace working through us as we serve him and others. Good works done from a willing spirit are evidence of a lively, healthy faith, freed from slavery to the Law by Jesus Christ.
As the apostle John writes: This is how we know that we belong to the truth and how we set our hearts at rest in his presence: 20 If our hearts condemn us, we know that God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything. 21 Dear friends, if our hearts do not condemn us, we have confidence before God 22 and receive from him anything we ask, because we keep his commands and do what pleases him. 23 And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us. 24 The one who keeps God’s commands lives in him, and he in them. And this is how we know that he lives in us: We know it by the Spirit he gave us. (1 John 3:19-24)
1. In what way can our joyful obedience to the law be a source of “confidence before God?”
2. Take a minute and think privately: What were some of the good works you did last week? Which were routine and which were new? What prompted you to do those good things?
3. Was it difficult to recall your good works of the previous week? In what ways is it good that it may be hard to recall them?
Personal Reflection
You are not ruled by the Law and yet you delight to follow it. Kind of like how little kids hate taking naps but now as adults many crave them. Apply this simple formula to areas of your spiritual life. What parts of your spiritual life are you still reluctant to exercise? How might you mature in faith by taking delight in them?
Since you are still both sinner and saint, the Second Use of the Law is still necessary for your sinful flesh. How does this help you appreciate the preaching of the law in a sermon?
Family Connection
Get out a map with your children or look at one online. Show them a few places that they don’t know about and discuss the route you would take to reach these destinations. Speak about how God’s Word is a lamp to our feet, a map for our conduct and life. Help them consider God’s laws as a blessed guide that we gladly follow, not a list of burdensome commands.
“Oh, That the Lord Would Guide My Ways” (CW 705)
1 Oh, that the Lord would guide my ways to keep his statutes still!
Oh, that my God would grant me grace to know and do his will!
2 Make me to walk in your commands—‘tis a delightful road—
nor let me head or heart or hands offend
against my God.
For Next Week
Assigned Reading: Article VII of the Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration (The Lord’s Supper)
Article VII:
The Lord’s Supper
Lesson 8: Defending the real presence.
By the late 1520s, sufficient discord on the true teaching concerning Holy Communion was present among the Reformers to cause them to meet at Marburg to hammer out their differences. Ulrich Zwingli, the Swiss reformer, argued at the Marburg Colloquy that since flesh and spirit are
incompatible, the presence of Christ in the Sacrament of Holy Communion can only be spiritual. To Zwingli it was obvious that the bread and wine of the Eucharist represent the absent body and blood of Christ.
Luther, however, drew a chalk circle on the meeting table and wrote, “This is my body.” Luther’s point was, of course, that the body and blood of Christ are truly present in the Sacrament. For Luther, the real presence was no harder to accept than the incarnation. Luther explained his view by using an analogy of an iron rod placed into a fire: both are united in the red-hot iron, yet both are also distinct.
Luther walked a narrow line of Scripture, not spiritualizing Christ’s body into symbolism, not teaching the Transubstantiation of Rome, and rejecting the view of the Lord’s Supper as “making present” Christ's sacrifice on the cross. Luther remained consistent and clear, but this pattern again took place: After Luther’s death in 1546, doctrinal division ripped apart the Lutheran camp.
Lutherans held two positions—the “spiritualized” or “Sacramentarian” view (Christ is not physically present, but is received only by faith) and the view of the Real Presence. Article VII defined this doctrine on the basis of the Word of God.
1. What are some different misunderstandings of the Lord’s Supper that exist today?
2. Share a memory of your first time taking Communion.
REAL-ly PRESENT
We believe, teach, and confess that in the Holy Supper Christ’s body and blood are truly and essentially present, and that they are truly distributed and received with the bread and wine.
We believe, teach, and confess that the words of Christ’s testament are not to be understood in any other way than the way they read, according to the letter. So the bread does not signify Christ’s absent body and the wine His absent blood. But, because of the sacramental union, ‹the bread and wine› are truly Christ’s body and blood.
Now, about the consecration, we believe, teach, and confess that no work of man or recitation of the minister produces this presence of Christ’s body and blood in the Holy Supper. Instead, this presence is to be credited only and alone to the almighty power of our Lord Jesus Christ.
At the same time we also believe, teach, and confess unanimously that in the use of the Holy Supper the words of Christ’s institution should in no way be left out. Instead, they should be publicly recited, as it is written in 1 Corinthians 10:16, “The cup of blessing that we bless” and so forth. This
blessing occurs through the reciting of Christ’s words.
In this matter the ground on which we stand against the Sacramentarians is what Dr. Luther has laid down in his Confession concerning Christ’s Supper (LW 37:214). “The first point is this article four Christian faith: Jesus Christ is true, essential, natural, perfect God and man in one person, undivided and inseparable.” The second: God’s “right hand” is everywhere. Christ is placed there in deed and in truth according to His human nature. He is present, rules, and has in His hands, and beneath His feet, everything that is in heaven and on earth ‹as Scripture says in Ephesians 1:22›, where no other man or angel, but only Mary’s Son is placed. Therefore, He can do this. The third: God’s Word is not false or deceitful [Titus 1:1–3]. The fourth: God has and knows of various ways to be in any place, and not only one way, which philosophers call local (localis). [FoC VII, Ep. 1-5]
1. Describe the real presence of Christ in his Holy Supper.
2. What are some reasons that a symbolic view of the Lord’s Supper is unbiblical?
3. What are some important things Article VII teaches us about the words of consecration?
4. What are the four grounds for the real presence as Luther writes in his Great Confession?
1.
2.
3.
4.
DISMANTLING CAPERNAITIC THOUGHTS
We believe, teach, and confess that Christ’s body and blood are received with the bread and wine, not only spiritually through faith, but also orally. Yet not in a “Capernaitic” way, but in a supernatural, heavenly way, because of the sacramental union. Christ’s words clearly show this,
when Christ gives direction to take, eat, and drink, as was also done by the apostles. For it is written in Mark 14:23, “And they all drank of it.” St. Paul likewise says [in 1 Corinthians 10:16], “The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?” [FoC VII, Ep. 6]
After quoting Luther on the omnipotence of God and the illogical limitations that the sacramentarians try to put upon the Almighty Lord, the writers of the Formula explain: “When Dr. Luther or we use the word spiritual in this matter, we understand this: the spiritual, supernatural, heavenly way that Christ is present in the Holy Supper. He works not only consolation and life in the believing, but also condemnation in the unbelieving. By this use, we reject the Capernaitic thoughts of the crude and fleshly presence that is attributed to and forced on our churches by the Sacramentarians against our many public protests...Even though this participation happens with the mouth, the way it happens is spiritual.
Our faith in this article about the true presence of Christ’s body and blood in the Holy Supper is based on the truth and omnipotence of the true, almighty God, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. This foundation is strong and firm enough to strengthen and establish our faith in all temptations about this article. They overthrow and refute all the Sacramentarians’ counterarguments and objections, however agreeable and plausible they may be to our reason. A Christian heart can rest securely and rely firmly on these truths. [FoC, SD 105, 106]
1. The word “Capernaitic” refers to the wrong understanding of the people of Capernaum in John 6. “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” There is much discussion whether Jesus is actually referring to the Lord’s supper in this section of Scripture, but the Capernaitic attitude is well-represented today concerning the teaching of Real Presence. Why do you think this is “a hard teaching” that is difficult for many to “accept”?
2. How might you respond to a fellow WELS member who believes that Jesus' body and blood are only received spiritually, not orally in the Lord’s Supper?
3. Protestants will often lump the Catholic belief of Transubstantiation together with the Real Presence. How is our belief distinct from Transubstantiation and why is it important to maintain this distinction?
4. Reformed and Evangelical churches teach that Sacramental Theology takes glory away from Jesus, as it focuses on ceremony, not the written Word of the Gospel. How does the doctrine of the Real Presence dismantle this argument?
5. Scripture teaches and faith believes that Christ’s body and blood are truly present “in, with, and under” the bread and wine in a miraculous way. Why is this truth important to remember when you receive the Sacrament?
GIVEN AND SHED FOR YOU
Some people avoid Holy Communion because they think they are too sinful to participate in such a holy act. Yet the first recipients, the twelve disciples, of the Lord’s Supper were certainly sinners, and they would soon abandon the Lord in fear and faithlessness. Jesus’ gift was graciously simple: his body and blood for our life! His Supper is for us! By the grace of God, we, too, receive forgiveness and power through the Sacrament.
1. Why should you participate in the Lord’s Supper even when you feel the burden of your sins?
2. God gives us a priceless gift in the Sacrament: his very body and blood given and shed for you. What is the significance of the words “for you” in Communion?
3. What are some reasons that you appreciate the doctrine of Christ’s Real Presence in the Lord’s Supper?
Personal Reflection
How do you prepare for communion? Spend time in prayer and devotion Saturday night or Sunday morning before church that focuses you on Christ’s real presence and use it to better appreciate your participation in the Sacrament.
Family Connection
Ask family members to relate their favorite miracle recorded in the Bible. Remind each other of the miracle that still occurs every time the Lord’s Supper is served.
Ask your pastor if you and one of your children can accompany him on a Communion visit to a shut-in. Have your child ask the shut-it member why they desire and appreciate receiving the Lord’s Supper.
“The Death of Jesus Christ, Our Lord” (CW 677)
1 The death of Jesus Christ, our Lord,
we celebrate with one accord;
it is our comfort in distress,
our heart’s sweet joy and happiness.
4 His Word proclaims and we believe
that in this supper we receive
his very body as he said,
his very blood for sinners shed.
For Next Week
Assigned Reading: Article VIII & Article IX of the Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration (The Person of Christ & The Descent into Hell)
Article VIII: The Person of Christ & Article IX: The Descent Into Hell
Lesson 9: Understanding the person and victory of Christ.
In 2003, Stephen Prothero wrote a bestselling book called “American Jesus” in which he explores how, in his own words, “the Son of God became a national icon.” If that synopsis wasn’t sad enough, it gets more and more difficult to read as a Bible-believing Christian. The author doesn’t bash Jesus or Christian churches, but details how Jesus has devolved from the divine ruler of the universe to some enlightened sage, to a musical and theater superstar, a sales pitchman, and, well, just about everything in between. But how does Jesus define himself in the Bible? Do Christians themselves understand exactly who Jesus Christ was?
Today we dive deep into the person of Jesus as defined in Scripture. On the basis of God’s Word, Chemnitz and the authors of the Formula of Concord refused to accept the notion that in Christ there was part God or part man or that either nature was ruined or banished when he was born on earth. Rather, with Luther, the confessors affirmed that in Christ there is one person with two natures. Jesus Christ is truly man and truly God; he is both fully human and fully divine, the one Savior. This position is set forth in Article VIII.
1. The study of Jesus’ person is called Christology. Some might feel like that is a stuffy term for theologians only. Why does it matter that you are educated in Christology?
2. How can a church’s misunderstanding of Christ’s natures and person lead to misrepresentation in the general public?
Status of the Controversy
As a result of their heresy about the sacrament the Sacramentarians, first and foremost Zwingli and John Calvin, had erroneous theology about the person of Christ. While they certainly affirmed that Christ has two natures, divine and human, in one person, they denied that the two natures had communion with each other. Namely the two were divided and compartmentalized, such that you could point to the human nature of Christ acting in one instance, and the divine in another. You could have the divine nature of Christ present without the human. This issue has long plagued the Christian church and although you’d think it would have been settled with the Athanasian Creed, the problem persisted.
As you can see this theology directly leads to, or is consequent from, the Sacramentarian theology of the Lord’s Supper. The two are intertwined with each other. Chemnitz wisely decided to put the discussion of the Lord’s Supper first as the discussion of the Person of Christ is only one part of the argument about the Lord’s Supper. This argument about the
Person of Christ is related and exceedingly important and deserves its own article. Thus in order to not confuse the issue, it is put following the Lord’s Supper. This is not to decrease its importance, but rather to make sure that both arguments stay on task.
United & Yet Distinct Natures
The chief question, however, has been this: Because of the personal union, do the divine and human natures, and also their properties, really have communion with each other? In other words, do the divine and human natures commune with each other in the person of Christ, and how far does this communion extend? To explain this controversy and settle it
according to the guidance of our Christian faith, our confession is as follows:
“The divine and human natures in Christ are personally united. So there are not two Christs, one the Son of God and the other the Son of Man. But one and the same person is the Son of God and Son of Man (Luke 1:35; Romans 9:5). We believe, teach, and confess that the divine and human natures are not mingled into one substance, nor is one changed into the other. Each keeps its own essential properties, which can never become the properties of the other nature.
The properties of the divine nature are these: to be almighty, eternal, infinite, and to be everywhere present (according to the property of its nature and its natural essence, of itself), to know everything, and so on. These never become properties of the human nature.
The properties of the human nature are to be a bodily creature, to be flesh and blood, to be finite and physically limited, to suffer, to die, to ascend and descend, to move from one place to another, to suffer hunger, thirst, cold, heat, and the like. These never become properties of the divine nature. (FC Ep VIII, 1-4)
1. How did Christ display his divine nature in his ministry on earth?
2. How did he display his human nature in his ministry on earth?
3. Why must the two natures of Christ remain distinct in their essential
properties?
4. In what way is the union of Christ’s distinct natures relevant when speaking of the Lord’s Supper?
Unique Union
“...they explain the personal union and communion using the illustration of the soul and body, and of glowing iron. For the body and soul, as also fire and iron, have communion with each other...Nevertheless, there is no mixing or equalizing of the natures introduced like when mead is made from honey and water, which is no longer pure water or pure honey, but a mixed drink. It is far different, more grand, and altogether indescribable communion and union between the divine and the human natures in the person of Christ. Because of this union and communion, God is man and man is God. Neither the natures nor their properties are intermingled, but each nature keeps its essence and properties.
This personal union does not exist nor can be thought of without such a true communion of the natures. Not just the mere human nature—whose property it is to suffer and die—has suffered for the sins of the world, but the Son of God Himself truly suffered. However, He suffered according to the received human nature. In accordance with our simple Christian
faith, He truly died, although the divine nature can neither suffer nor die.
On account of this personal union and communion of the divine and the human nature in Christ we believe, teach and confess what is said about the majesty of Christ according to His humanity, according to our simple Christian faith: He sits at the right hand of the almighty power of God. We also confess what follows from that. All of this would mean nothing and could not stand if this personal union and communion of the natures in the person of Christ did not exist.
In this personal union the two natures have such a grand, intimate, indescribable communion that even angels are astonished by it. As St. Peter testifies, they have their delight and joy in looking into it (1 Peter 1:12) (FC SD VIII 18-23,30,32)
1. How can we say that neither nature is intermingled and yet say that in Christ “God is man and man is God”?
2. In what way does the communion of Christ’s natures allow every act to be spoken correctly of his single person?
3. How do the confessors speak of the importance of Jesus’ person in regard to his “sitting at the right hand of God”?
4. Angels delight to look into the truth of Christ’s person and his united nature as they accomplished our salvation. How does this inform us of the importance of Christology? The joy to be found here?
Article IX: The Descent into Hell
A local controversy in the city of Hamburg threatened to become a major error concerning both the Creeds and the Person of Christ. In 1544, John Aepinus began teaching that Jesus descended into hell to suffer for our sins. What’s more, he taught that while Jesus’ body was
in the grave, only his soul went into hell. Aepinus presented his views in a dignified way, but after he died in 1553 debate grew antagonistic.
Other pastors in Hamburg suggested that Christ’s words on the cross, “It is finished” (John 19:30), made it clear that his suffering (and the state of humiliation) was ended at his death.
Hamburg’s city council, in order to bring theological peace to their community, solicited an opinion from Philip Melanchthon. Melanchthon’s indecisive answer caused the controversy to spread beyond Hamburg. The authors of the Formula of Concord settled the issue by referring to a sermon preached by Martin Luther in Torgau in 1533. Luther counseled simple acceptance of Christ’s descent into hell as a confession of Christ’s victory based on Scripture alone.
Colossians 2:15 “And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.”
1 Peter 3:18-19 “Christ also suffered once for sins in our place, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in flesh but was made alive in spirit, 19 in which he also went and made an announcement to the spirits in prison.”
1. How do the verses above support the fact that Christ’s descent into hell was part of his exaltation, not his humiliation?
A Proclamation of Victory and Comfort
Even in the Ancient Christian teachers of the Church, as well as among some of our teachers, different explanations of the article about Christ’s descent to hell are found. Therefore, we abide in the simplicity of our Christian faith. Dr. Luther has pointed us to this in a sermon about Christ’s descent to hell, which he delivered in the castle at Torgau in the
year 1533. ...We simply believe that the entire person (God and man) descended into hell after the burial, conquered the devil, destroyed hell’s power, and took from the devil all his might. ...
...We should not, however, trouble ourselves with high and difficult thoughts about how this happened. With our reason and our five senses this article can be understood as little as the preceding one about how Christ is placed at the right hand of God’s almighty power and majesty. We are simply to believe it and cling to the Word. So we hold to the substance and consolation that neither hell nor the devil can take captive or injure us and all who believe in Christ. (FC SD IX 1–3)
1. In what ways is Christ’s descent and victory a proclamation of comfort to the dying? To those plagued by guilt?
2. What does it mean to “cling to the Word” in your life?
Personal Reflection
Purchase or compose a rendering of Jesus for your home. How does this help you to see his human nature? His divine nature? How does it help you to reflect on the union of his person?
Family Connection
Place an empty chair in a room where you pray or conduct devotions. Let it illustrate Matthew 18:20: “For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.”
Have children draw pictures of both the Christmas and Easter stories. Then ask them to narrate the story of Jesus’ birth and his death and resurrection.
Closing Creed
Confess together the selected portion of the Athanasian Creed below:
Now this is the true Christian faith: We believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, God’s Son, is both God and man. He is God, eternally begotten from the nature of the Father, and he is man, born in time from the nature of his mother, fully God, fully man, with rational soul and human flesh, equal to the Father as to his deity, less than the Father as to his humanity; and though he is both God and Man, Christ is not two persons but one, one, not by changing the deity into flesh, but by...
...taking the humanity into God; one, indeed, not by mixture of the natures, but by unity in one person; for just as the rational soul and flesh are one human being, so God and man are one Christ. He suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose the third day from the dead. He ascended into heaven, is seated at the right hand of God the Father almighty, and from there he will come to judge the living and the dead.
For Next Week
Assigned Reading: Article X of the Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration (Church Practices)
Article X: Church Practices
Session 10: Christian freedom and adiaphora.
After Luther’s death, the Holy Roman Empire demanded that Lutherans observe certain Church rites as divinely instituted because they were mandated by the pope. Melanchthon played a leading role in a “compromise,” which was soon rejected by some of his contemporaries. The Lutherans of southern Germany especially resisted both the Augsburg and Leipzig Interims (Agreements) of 1548. These Lutheran pastors and people, urged on by Flacius, declared themselves to be in a state of confession. Compromise under persecution and demand, they said, was a compromise of the Gospel itself.
In 1556, Melanchthon admitted that he had made a mistake. But the controversy rolled onward. It took the firmness and clarity of Article 10 to settle the issue for the divided Lutherans.
1. Why should calls for compromise be suspect when under demand or
persecution?
2. When might compromise be acceptable in the Church?
A Matter of Confession
“The chief question has been about a time of persecution and a matter of confession, even when the enemies of the Gospel have not reached an agreement with us in doctrine. Can some abolished ceremonies (which in themselves are matters of indifference and are neither commanded nor forbidden by God) be reestablished by the pressure and demand of the
adversaries without harming our conscience? May we compromise with them in such ceremonies and adiaphora? To this question one side has said Yes; the other, No.
1. For settling this controversy, we unanimously believe, teach, and confess that some ceremonies or Church practices are neither commanded nor forbidden in God’s Word, but have been introduced only for the sake of fitting and good order. Such rites are not in and of
themselves divine worship. They are not even a part of it. Matthew 15:9 says, “In vain do they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.”
2. We believe, teach, and confess that the churches of God in every place and at every time according to its circumstances has the power to change such worship ceremonies in a way that may be most useful and edifying to the community of God.
4. We believe, teach, and confess that during a time of persecution, when a plain and steadfast confession is required of us, we should not yield to the enemies in such matters of adiaphora. For the apostle has written in Galatians 5:1, “For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.” He also writes in 2 Corinthians 6:14, “Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?” Also note Galatians 2:5, “To them we did not yield in submission even for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you.” For in such a case it is no longer a question about
adiaphora. But it concerns the truth of the Gospel, preserving...
...Christian liberty, and sanctioning open idolatry. It also concerns the prevention of offense to the weak in the faith. In such a case we have nothing to concede. We should plainly confess and endure what God sends because of that confession, and whatever He allows the enemies of His Word to inflict on us.
5. We believe, teach, and confess also that no church should condemn another because one has less or more outward ceremonies than the other, for those are not commanded by God. This is true as long as they have unity with one another in the doctrine and all its articles and in the right use of the holy Sacraments. (FC Ep X 2–5)
1. Define the term Adiaphora. Examples?
2. Describe the authority God’s people have to change church usages. Why would the church make these changes?
3. In what ways can a correct position on adiaphora contribute to the general welfare in the Church at large?
4. In what ways can indifferent things threaten freedom in Christ and His Gospel?
5. Describe how believers may be sensitive to fellow believers who are weak in faith?
Set Free For What?
The life, death, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus has set us free to live in the grace of God. Within that freedom is the privilege to worship using a variety of expressions, so long as they are in agreement with God’s Word. Whatever rituals, ceremonies, or order of services we choose, we take care not to dilute the Gospel or pervert God’s truth. By God’s grace, His
people aspire to worship and serve Christ the Savior in confident faith and bold freedom.
The article about Christian freedom is at stake here. The Holy Spirit, through the holy apostle’s mouth, sincerely told His Church to preserve this article, as we have just heard. As soon as Christian freedom is weakened and human traditions are forced on the Church with coercion, as though it were wrong and a sin to omit them, the way is already prepared for idolatry. In this way, human traditions are multiplied and regarded as a divine worship, not only equal to God’s ordinances, but even placed above them. Furthermore, idolaters are confirmed in their idolatry by such yielding and conforming in outward things, where there
has not previously been Christian unity in doctrine. On the other hand, true believers are grieved, offended, and weakened in their faith. ...
“This case is no longer a question about outward matters of indifference, which in their nature and essence are free. They cannot produce a command or prohibition that they must or must not be used. The case presented by Paul is a question, in the first place, about the outstanding article of our Christian faith. For the apostle testifies, “so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you” [Galatians 2:5]. The Gospel is obscured and perverted by such compulsion or command, because such adiaphora are publicly required for the approval of false doctrine, superstition, and idolatry, and for the suppression of pure doctrine and
Christian liberty, or at least are abused for this purpose by the adversaries and are viewed this way.
Every Christian, for the sake of his soul’s welfare and salvation, is bound to avoid both of these, as it is written: Woe to the world for temptations to sin! (Matthew 18:7) But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea. (Matthew 18:6)
But what Christ says is to be especially remembered: So everyone who acknowledges Me before men, I also will acknowledge before My Father who is in heaven. (Matthew 10:32) (FC SD X 14–17)
1. What does it mean to be free in Christ as it pertains to church practices?
2. In what ways has freedom in Christ been a blessing in your church?
3. How is idolatry a danger when external forms of worship or rituals become mandatory?
4. Why must unity in doctrine remain elevated in a distinct category above unity in church practices?
5. At the time of the confessor’s writing the temptation was to compromise unnecessarily or even unbiblically to Rome in matters of church practice. What is our temptation today concerning adiaphora?
6. How can we apply wisdom in these matters of indifference, knowing that certain practices do influence emphasis in doctrine?
Personal Reflection
Create a brief and simple order of service for daily, personal devotions. Evaluate what you could change in your service and what should remain constant.
Watch a variety of religious services on television. How do they focus or lack focus on Jesus and God’s Word? How do the outward forms of their worship help or inhibit them from maintaining focus on Christ and his Word?
Write a letter to your pastor or congregation stating your gratitude for leadership in worship practices. Cite those attributes which keep your focus on the Means of Grace.
Family Connection
Discuss the parts of your congregational worship that you do not understand. Share ways that you can grow in appreciation for worship.
Visit another church of your denomination. Discuss similarities and differences between the congregation you visit and your home congregation. Speak about Christian freedom in worship and apply the wisdom of Article X.
Use a variety of worship resources for family devotions: the Bible, CW Hymnal, devotional readings, prayer books, and the like. Ask your pastor to recommend books consistent with Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions.
“Lord Jesus Christ, the Church’s Head” (CW 861)
Lord Jesus Christ, the Church’s head, you are her one foundation; in you she trusts, before you bows, and waits for your salvation.
Built on this rock secure, your Church shall endure though all the world decay and all things pass away. O hear, O hear us, Jesus!
O Lord, let this your little flock, your name alone confessing, continue in your loving care, true unity confessing.
Your sacraments , O Lord, and your saving Word to us e’er pure retain; grant that they may remain our only strength and comfort.
For Next Week
Assigned Reading: Article XI of the Solid Declaration (God’s Eternal Foreknowledge and Election)
Article XI: God’s Eternal Foreknowledge and election
Session 11: Only scriptural truth.
The last single-issue article of the Formula of Concord, Article XI is unique in that it was largely preemptive. While acknowledging that no major struggle had yet erupted over this article of faith, the writers of the Formula were aware of small skirmishes and penned the article wisely foreseeing that poor teaching on the issue could rear its ugly head.
At the time of their writing Calvin and his adherents had already boldly rejected the universality of God’s grace, of Christ’s redemption, and of the Spirit’s efficacious operation through the means of grace, and taught that the eternal doom of the damned was solely due to an absolute decree of divine reprobation (in their estimation the logical complement of election), and this at the very time when they pretended adherence to the Augsburg Confession and were making heavy inroads into Lutheran territory with their doctrine concerning the Lord’s Supper and the person of Christ. The Synergists, on the other hand, had been explaining that the only way to escape the Stoic dogma of Calvinism, and to account for the difference why some are accepted and elected,...
...while the rest are rejected, was to assume God based his decision on his knowledge of the future conduct of an individual. And as for their Lutheran opponents, it cannot be denied that some of their statements were not always sufficiently guarded to deny false inferences.Thus controversial material had been everywhere heaped up in considerable quantities. Sooner or later, however, the conflict was bound to divide the Lutheran church.
So, preemptively, Article XI confesses the right “understanding” of God’s foreknowledge and election. Certainly, no one can actually understand God’s will and ways as if analyzing the work of a human; but, this article confesses God’s foreknowledge and election with a clarity that defends against the Calvinist notion that seeks to rationalize God’s hidden will that results in believing in “double predestination” (the teaching that some are predestined to eternal life, while others are predestined to eternal condemnation). Such fatalistic notions are based on a flawed understanding of the relationship between “foreknowledge” and “election,” so Article XI begins there.
Distinguishing Foreknowledge and Election
The article’s very title distinguishes “foreknowledge” and “election.” We ought not think these two terms reference the same thing. Just because someone foreknows something doesn’t mean he elects or purposes it. For example, a father who gives his newly-licensed teenager the car keys has a pretty good idea he’ll end up with higher insurance premiums in the near future; that doesn’t mean the father elects, wills, or purposes those higher premiums.
Thus, the confessors write, “First we must carefully note the difference between God’s eternal foreknowledge and his eternal election of his children to eternal salvation.” Foreknowledge “applies to all creatures, good and evil,” but election (predestination) applies “only to the children of God.”
This has important ramifications. If election applies only to the children of God, then there is no “double predestination” and one is disqualified from using the issue of election to try and determine who is a child of God and who isn’t (as if one could reason, “I can tell who is saved because I can determine who is the ‘elect’”). Unlike foreknowledge, election has only one audience; it is to be employed only among God’s children as comfort to the children of God in times of doubt or affliction. When you Romans 8:23-39, notice how often Paul uses the pronouns “we” and “us” as he speaks to the Christian…that, “If God is for us, who can be against us?… Nothing can separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus, our Lord.” (Romans 8).
We should recognize important misunderstandings about these two terms, “foreknowledge” and “election”, that the confessors seek to correct:
1: Foreknowledge does not imply cause. Yes, God foreknows evil, but this does not mean he causes evil. A ‘good Samaritan’ may give a hungry man a sandwich instead of money; if the poor man refuses the sandwich because he expected money, this does not indict the good Samaritan! Likewise, God foreknows who will be condemned because they reject the Gospel, but he did not therefore elect them to be condemned. God desires all men to be saved and wishes that none should perish. This is plain Scripture.
2: Election does not imply God chooses you for salvation apart from/before the promise of Christ crucified. Where Calvinist teaching implies that ‘God chooses you unto election, then Christ dies exclusively for the elect,’ the Formula rightly confesses that election means God purposes to save you and has set up an entire plan of salvation that carries out his intention and counsel. This eternal intention of God is revealed to us in the person of Christ, so that “the eternal election of God should be considered in Christ and not apart from or outside of Christ.”
Who Then is to Blame for Condemnation’?
“Therefore, the apostle distinguishes with special care the work of God (who alone makes vessels of honor) and the work of the devil and of people. By instigation of the devil, not God, a person has made himself a vessel of dishonor. For it is written, “[God] endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of His glory for vessels of mercy, which He has prepared beforehand for glory” (Romans 9:22-23)
Here, then the apostle clearly says that God endured with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath. But He does not say that He made them vessels of wrath. If that had been His will, He would not have required any great long-suffering for it. The reason they are fitted for destruction belongs to the devil and to people themselves, and not to God.
All preparation for condemnation is by the devil and a person, through sin. In no way does it come from God, who does not want any person to be damned. How, then, should He Himself prepare any person for condemnation? God is not a cause of sins. He is also not the cause of punishment or damnation. The only cause of damnation is sin. “For the wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23). Just as God does not will sin and has no pleasure in sin, so He does not desire “the death of the wicked” (Ezekiel 33:11), nor has He pleasure in his condemnation. He is not willing “that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance” (2 Peter 3:9)...St. Paul testifies in clear words that from vessels of dishonor, vessels of...
...honor may be made by God’s power and working. He writes, “Therefore, if anyone cleanses himself from what is dishonorable, he will be a vessel for honorable use, set apart as holy, useful to the master of the house, ready for every good work” (2 Timothy 2:20-21). A person who should cleanse himself must have first been unclean and a vessel of dishonor. He says clearly about the vessels of mercy that the Lord Himself has prepared them for glory. He does not say this about the damned. They themselves, and not God, have prepared themselves as vessels of damnation.” (FC XI, SD 79-82)
A Great Comfort!
Based on this truth and God’s intention and purpose, the Confessors remind the Christian to search only the revealed will of God, who reveals His will through means that give us Christ. These means include the Word and the Sacraments. And, because many reject the means, they reject God’s purpose and will. Thus “many are called, few are chosen,” not because God elects the many unto condemnation, but because the many reject the calling to the Gospel through the means of grace. Where this is understood rightly, what comfort this article brings!
“This doctrine and explanation of the eternal and saving choice of God’s elect children entirely gives God all the glory. In Christ He saves us out of pure mercy, without any merits or good works of ours. He does this according to the purpose of His will, as it is written, “He predestined us for adoption through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of His will, to the praise of His glorious grace, with which He has blessed us in the Beloved” (Ephesians 1:5–6). Therefore, it is false and wrong when it is taught that not only God’s mercy and Christ’s most holy merit, but also something in us is a cause of God’s election, on account of which God has chosen us to eternal life. Before we had done anything good, also before we were born, yes, even before the foundations of the...
...world were laid, He elected us in Christ. And “in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of His call—she was told, ‘The older will serve the younger.’ As it is written, ‘Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated’” (Romans 9:11–13; see also Genesis 25:23; Malachi 1:2–3).
Furthermore, this teaching gives no one a cause either for despair or for a shameless, loose life. By this teaching, people are taught that they must seek eternal election in Christ and His Holy Gospel, as in the Book of Life. This excludes no penitent sinner, but beckons and calls all poor, heavy-laden, and troubled sinners to repentance and the knowledge of their sins. It calls them to faith in Christ and promises the Holy Spirit for purification and renewal. It gives the most enduring consolation to all troubled, afflicted people, so that they know their salvation is not placed in their own hands. Otherwise they would lose their salvation much more easily than was the case with Adam and Eve in Paradise, yes, every hour and moment. But salvation is in God’s gracious election, which He has revealed to us in Christ, out of whose hand no person shall snatch us (John 10:28; 2 Timothy 2:19).
If anyone presents the teaching about God’s gracious election in such a way that troubled Christians cannot get comfort out of it, but are pushed to despair; or if anyone teaches it so that the impenitent are confirmed in their sinfulness, then it is undoubtedly sure and true that such a doctrine is not taught according to God’s Word and will. It is taught according to human reason and the instigation of the devil. For, as the apostle testifies: “Whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, that through endurance and through the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope. (Romans 15:4) But when this consolation and hope are weakened or entirely removed by Scripture, it is certain that it is understood and explained contrary to the Holy Spirit’s will and meaning. This simple, correct, useful explanation has a firm and good foundation in God’s revealed will. (FC SD XI 87–92)
Personal Reflection
Consider the blessing of worship and the means of grace in light of your election. How will you make use of them?
Read through Romans 8-12 and pray over these words in light of Article XI.
Family Connection
Walk through a cemetery, commenting on the variety of names and ages of those buried there. Discuss why cemeteries are sometimes sad places. Also, discuss why they are happy places as well as you walk past the graves of God’s elect.
Ask why questions remain to which no adequate answer exists. For example, “Why did God put so many stars in the sky?” Conclude the questions-without-answers session by agreeing that God alone knows these answers. Only God knows all things. Thank God for His unfathomable wisdom!
Closing Worship
Sing together “This Is My Will” (CW 728).
This is my will, my one command, that love should dwell among you all.
This is my will, that you should love as I have shown that I love you.
You chose not me, but I chose you, that you should go and bear much fruit.
I chose you out that you in me should bear much fruit that will abide.
For Next Week
Assigned Reading: Article XII of the Solid Declaration (Factions and Other Sects)
Article XII: Factions & Other Sects
Session 12: Assorted false teachings.
As the confessors concluded their statement of faith. They included a final article on the false teachings of other churches and sects. The Anabaptists—the word means “to rebaptize”— were scattered across Europe, but they shared the conviction that Baptism was for the regenerated only. They rejected infant Baptism, denied original sin, and denied that Baptism and Holy Communion were means of grace that give the forgiveness of sins. The Schwenkfelders were followers of Caspar Schwenkfeld, who rejected the full deity of Christ and the ministry of Word and Sacrament. The New Arians were unitarians: they rejected the doctrine of the Trinity and acknowledged Christ as subordinate to the Father. The Anti-Trinitarians also denied the triune God and believed in three separate divine beings. Article 12 of the Formula addresses these serious errors in the Church and world.
Erroneous Articles of the Anabaptists
1. Christ did not receive His body and blood from the Virgin Mary, but brought them with Him from heaven.
2. Christ is not true God, but is only superior to other saints, because He has more gifts of the Holy Spirit than any other holy man.
3. Our righteousness before God stands not on the sole merit of Christ alone, but in renewal, and therefore in our own godliness in which we walk. This is based in great part on one’s own special, self-chosen spirituality. In fact, it is nothing other than a new kind of monasticism.
4. Children who are not baptized are not sinners before God, but righteous and innocent. In their innocence, because they have not yet gained the use of their reason, children are saved without Baptism. According to their assertion, children do not need Baptism.Therefore, they reject the entire teaching about original sin and what belongs to it.
5. Children are not to be baptized until they have gained the use of their reason and can confess their faith themselves.
6. The children of Christians, because they have been born of Christian and believing parents, are holy and children of God even without and before Baptism. . . .
7. There is no true Christian congregation in which sinners are still found.
8. No sermon is to be heard or attended in those church buildings where formerly papal Masses have been celebrated and said.
9. A godly person must not have anything to do with the ministers of the Church who preach the Gospel according to the Augsburg Confession and rebuke the sermons and errors of the Anabaptists. Also, a person must not serve or in any way work for them, but must flee from them and shun them as perverters of God’s Word.
Erroneous Articles of the Schwenkfeldians
1. All those who regard Christ as a creature according to the flesh have no true knowledge of Christ as the reigning King of heaven.
2. By exaltation, Christ’s flesh has assumed all divine properties with this result: Christ as man is in might, power, majesty, and glory altogether (as regards degree and position) of equal essence to the Father and to the Word. So now there is only one essence, property, will, and glory of both natures in Christ. And now Christ’s flesh belongs to the essence of the holy Trinity.
3. The ministry of the Church—the Word preached and heard—is not the means God the Holy Spirit uses to teach people and work in them the saving knowledge of Christ, conversion, repentance, faith, and new obedience.
4. The water of Baptism is not how God the Lord seals the adoption of sons and works regeneration.
5. Bread and wine in the Holy Supper are not means through and by which Christ gives us His body and blood.
6. A Christian who is truly regenerated by God’s Spirit can perfectly keep and fulfill God’s Law in this life.
7. A congregation that does not excommunicate or regularly ban people is not truly Christian.
8. A minister of the Church who is not truly renewed, regenerate, righteous, and godly cannot helpfully teach other people or distribute genuine, true Sacraments.
Error of the New Arians
Christ is not true, essential, natural God, of one eternal, divine essence with God the Father and the Holy Spirit. He is only adorned with divine majesty inferior to and alongside of God the Father.
Error of the Anti-Trinitarians
This is an entirely new sect, not heard of before in Christendom. They believe, teach, and confess that there is not only one, eternal, divine essence of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. But they teach that God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three distinct persons. Each person has its essence distinct and separate from the other persons of the Godhead. Some in this sect think that all three persons are of equal power, wisdom, majesty, and glory (just as otherwise three people are distinct and separate from one another in their essence). Others think that these three persons and essences are unequal with one another in essence and properties, so that the Father alone is properly and truly God. (FC Ep XII 2–29)
5. “Christ is inferior to God the Father.” How would you
respond?
6. Why was it important for the confessors to include Article
12?
A Fearless Confession
God has richly blessed His people with His holy Word—the Bible. He has also blessed us with confessions of faith, public statements that present His truth in concise, simple language. Through the Lutheran Confessions, He has kept generations of believers faithful to His Word, and He has protected them from doctrines that would mislead Christians or undermine their faith.
“These and similar articles, one and all, with what belongs to them and follows from them, we reject and condemn as wrong, false, heretical, and contrary to God’s Word, the three Creeds, the Augsburg Confession and Apology, the Smalcald Articles, and Luther’s Catechisms. All godly Christians should beware of these articles to the extent that the welfare and salvation of their souls is dear to them.
In the sight of God and of all Christendom, we want to testify to those now living and those who will come after us. This declaration presented here about all the controverted articles mentioned and explained above—and no other—is our faith, doctrine, and confession. By God’s grace, with intrepid hearts, we are willing to appear before the judgment seat of Christ with this Confession and give an account of it [1 Peter 4:5]. We will not speak or write anything contrary to this Confession, either publicly or privately. By the strength of God’s grace we intend to abide by it. Therefore, after mature deliberation, we have, in the fear of God and by calling on His name, attached our signatures with our own hands. (FC SD XII 39–40)
Personal Reflection
Using Luther’s Small Catechism, regularly review the summaries of Christian doctrine.
Having completed this study, you have a good background in sound Christian doctrine. Consider teaching Sunday School, a youth Bible class, or a small group.
Family Connection
Next time you witness infant Baptism, discuss why it’s appropriate to baptize babies. Praise God for sending the Holy Spirit to young children.
Read the Catechism with your children and encourage them to ask questions of faith. Show them how a keen mind can be applied to Scripture correctly. Tell them about the many fights of faith in ages past and the need for pure doctrine and teaching.
Closing Worship
Sing together “God’s Word in Our Great Heritage” (CW 640).
God’s Word is our great heritage
and shall be ours forever;
to spread its light from age to age
shall be our chief endeavor.
Through life it guides our way,
in death it is our stay.
Lord, grant, while worlds endure,
we keep its teachings pure
throughout all generations.
For Next Week
REMEMBER EVERYTHING!!