Roundtable 9: What the Church Is

Strictly speaking (proprie), the church is the congregation of saints and true believers. However, since in this life many hypocrites and evil persons (German text adds “open sinners”) are mingled with believers, it is allowable to use the sacraments even when they are administered by evil men, according to the saying of Christ, “The scribes and Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat,” etc (Matt. 23:2). Both the sacraments and the Word are effectual by reason of the institution and commandment of Christ (propter ordinationem et mandatum Christi) even if they are administered by evil men.

Our churches condemn the Donatists and others like them who have denied that the ministry of evil men may be used in the church and who have thought the ministry of evil men to be unprofitable and without effect. (Augsburg Confession, Article VIII; Tappert, 33)

Men of the Round Table:

Article VIII guards against the charge of Donatism, which the confessors at Augsburg were well aware was being whispered by the papal representatives who intentionally sought to lump the “evangelicals” with the radical reformation. This article flows out of the dynamic understanding of the church confessed in AC VII. If the church is infallibly recognized by the divine activities of preaching the Gospel and administering the sacraments, and these activities are going on concretely in the world, one can reasonably expect that false Christians, unbelievers, and evil men will also be found in the vicinity of these activities, even though they are not part of the church proper. Lief Grane states, “The means of grace certainly constitute the church, as through them the Holy Spirit creates faith. Nevertheless, the do not visibly mark the boundaries of the church over against the rest of humanity” (Grane, 100). As Christ's parable of the weedy wheat field indicates (Mt 13:24-30, cited in Concordia), the church as it is in this life is always a mixed body of believers and unbelievers associated with the sacramental Word in all its forms.

The stated purpose of this article is not to endorse the ecclesiology of Augustine, who posited a true “church of the elect” hidden within the “congregation of the called,” but simply to state explicitly that the Word and sacraments are not compromised in their efficacy when they are administered by evil and wicked men. The Latin text is helpful in locating the basis of this confidence in the “institution and mandate of Christ.”

The confessors follow Augustine’s solution in his engagement with the Donatist party, rigorists who held as invalid the sacramental acts of the “traditors,” pastors and bishops who had surrendered their sacred books and office in the persecution under Diocletian and subsequently returned to office and resumed their ministry under Constantine. Augustine argued the divine monergism of the Word over and against the personal worthiness of the officient. We need to remember that the Donatist controversy dealt with the worthiness of the men ordained to hold the office of the holy ministry. It did not, and does not, speak to such modern novelties as female ordination and “lay ministry,” as is sometimes alleged.

As a sidenote, Augustine’s struggle with the Donatists brought the language of “ex opere operato” into the church, and, in this context, the terminology can be understood properly and rightly. The Donatists argued that the sacraments were valid “ex opere operantis” (by the work of the one working), while Augustine argued that they were valid “ex opere operato” (by the work having been worked), that is, independent of the worthiness of the one administering it. This objectivity of the divine Word over and against the worthiness of the administrant reflects the understanding that the sacraments are Christ’s work and not the church’s or the ministers’. Where this is denied or compromised, the worthiness of the minister, or even the congregation, becomes a criterion for the sacraments’ validity and efficacy.

The papal Confutation accepted this article without controversy; therefore Melanchthon has little to add in the Apology except to underscore the objectivity of the holy ministry by stating that the pastor does not represent his own person but speaks in persona Christi: “...for ministers act in Christ’s stead (vice Christi) and do not represent their own persons, according to the word (Luke 10:16), ‘He who hears you hears me.’” (Apology VII/VIII.47)

Roundtable 8: The Church

Our churches teach that one holy Church is to remain forever. The Church is the congregation of saints in which the Gospel is purely taught and the Sacraments are correctly administered. For the true unity of the Church it is enough to agree about the doctrine of the Gospel and the administration of the Sacraments. It is not necessary that human traditions, that is, rites and ceremonies instituted by men, should be the same everywhere. As St. Paul says, "One Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all" (Ephesians 4:5-6)
[The Augsburg Confession, Article VII, Concordia: The Lutheran Confessions (CPH: 2006, p. 34)].

With these words the Lutheran confessors provide what can rightly be referred to as the evangelical Magna Carta of the Lutheran Church. Article VII of the Augsburg Confession cuts through the clutter of man-made ceremonies and rites that had accumulated by the sixteenth century and focuses on the very heart of the matte, defining the Church with eloquent, powerful precision and grace. Outward unity in the Church is shaped, defined, and normed by Biblical truth (teaching), not the other way around. But note carefully: it is not just any old "Gospel" and "sacraments" here referred to, but the Gospel purely taught and the Sacraments correctly administered. The German version of the Augsburg Confessions makes this point very clear.

The beauty of this definition of Church lies in its focus on the Lord's gracious ongoing work among us through His Word and Sacraments, just defined previously in Article V.

Discuss.

Roundtable 7: New Obedience

Well, sort of. Though it begins with new obedience, the topic quickly shifts back to justification - that is, to what our good works do not do. But there is some positive content and it needs attention.

Eck and company had long blasted the Lutherans for forbidding or at least denigrating "good works." The thought was clearly that if justification is by faith alone, then works become superfluous and a life of antinomianism ensues.

The Lutherans responded to this calumny with a clear confession:

1. Our churches teach that "such" faith is bound to bring forth good fruit.
2. Our churches teach that it is necessary to do good works commanded by God.
3. Our churches teach that we should not rely on those necessary good works to merit justification before God.
4. Our churches teach that forgiveness of sins and justification are received through faith.
5. Our churches teach that Christ our Lord excludes the merit of works in the realm of justification in Luke 17:10.
6. Our churches teach in accord with the Fathers that "whoever believes in Christ is saved, freely receiving forgiveness of sins, without works, through faith alone."

Unpacking that somewhat:

1. The AC puts it in the positive, and the Ap in the negative. AC: "this (solcher, such) faith" - the faith we've been talking about since AC IV - is "bound to bring forth" - "gut Früchte und gute Werke bringen soll" - "fides illa debeat bonos fructus parere." (In passing, note the force of the debeat and the soll - they both appear again in AC XIV!) The Apology asserts that a faith that does NOT result in such good works, good fruit, is not "such" faith - the saving faith wrought by the Holy Spirit through Word and Sacrament, for "such faith does not remain in those who obey their desires, neither does in dwell with mortal sin." (Ap V:23)

2. This one is the kicker. And it's not the "necessary." No true Lutheran has ever taught that good works are not necessary. They most certainly are. (Cf. FC IV) They are not necessary to justification or salvation. But they are necessary precisely as the fruits of faith. "For faith alone doth justify; works serve the neighbor and supply the proof that faith is living." But the thrust of this article as it will be expounded by Lutherans is in "good works commanded by God." Think of how the Large Catechism delights in this! Not works we dream up and call holy - but the works that God himself commands. So that the servant girl who cheerfully sweeps the floor and tends to her household chores is doing works that are truly good, pleasing to God - something we could never know about the holiness of the Carthusians and their man-made works.

3. We don't rely on our good works to merit justification. After AC IV, this is like a "well, duh?" Justification, of course, if a gift, can't be owed by God to us for what we do. And the Apostle is clear that justification is preeminently GIFT: "Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as ghift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness." (Rom 4:4,5) Does this lead the Blessed Apostle into antinomianism? "What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it?" (Rom 6:1-2)

4. Forgiveness and justification are received "durch den Glauben" or "fide apprehenditur." Back to Article IV again and to Article V. People are freely justified through faith. To obtain this faith we have the Predigtamt giving out the gifts.

5. The use of the Luke passage is excellent. It shows WHY our works can never be the basis of our justification before God: because even IF we have done all we are commanded, we remain "unworthy servants" doing only "what was our duty" while remaining unworthy. Here is the consciousness that a "good work" is a "good work" preeminently because God forgives it. As St. Therese said: "In the evening of this life I shall appear before Thee with empty hands because I do not ask Thee, Lord, to count my works. All our just acts have blemishes in Thine eyes." She got it down pat from Isaiah: "All our righteousnesses is as a filthy rag."

6. The Ambrose was an oo-boo. It was actually the fellow named Ambrosiaster. Not a bad quote. But not the one I'd have given. Chrysostom says the same:

They said that he who adhered to faith alone was cursed; but he, Paul, shows that he who adhered to faith alone is blessed. - St. John Chrysostom (Homily on Galatians 3)

or here:

Here he shows God's power, in that He has not only saved, but has even justified, and led them to boasting, and this too without needing works, but looking for faith only. - St. John Chrysostom (Homily 7 on Romans)

And so many, many more. The great fathers simply nailed that, and the Lutheran teaching on it was far from the novelty that you sometimes hear the RC and Orthodox apologists claim it was.

But see, the AC has led us from thinking about good works to the fountain from which good works will flow: faith and justification. This is the point that Melanchthon makes explicit in the Apology: we not only teach which good works are to be done (those that God himself has commanded!) but we show HOW the good works can be done.

Roundtable 6: The Ministry

“So that we may obtain this faith, the ministry of teaching the Gospel and administering the Sacraments was instituted. Through the Word and Sacraments, as through instruments, the Holy Spirit is given [John 20:22]. He works faith, when and where it pleases God [John 3:8], in those who hear the good news that God justifies those who believe that they are received into grace for Christ’s sake. Our churches condemn the Anabaptists and others who think that through their own preparations and works the Holy Spirit comes to them without the external Word.” Augsburg Confession, Article V, “The Ministry” (Concordia: The Lutheran Confessions, 2nd ed.)

“So that we may obtain this faith.” This faith spoken of here is none other than the faith extolled in Article IV, on Justification. Article IV elucidates the object of faith: “By His death, Christ made satisfaction for our sins.” It is thus for Christ’s sake, through faith, that we are justified and counted as righteous in His sight.

But how does one receive such faith? Faith does not concern itself with “finding Jesus” by somehow traveling backward through time to the historical event of Jesus’ crucifixion. Salvation was achieved on the cross at Calvary, but it was not delivered there. The “instruments” extolled in AC V (Word and Sacraments) deliver salvation, but do not accomplish it.

The Lord does stop with merely accomplishing, or earning, the salvation of sinners. He sees to it that what He accomplished is also delivered. That is the way of gifts! Gifts must be both purchased and given. Gifts that are given must, in turn, be received. Faith, thus, receives the Lord’s gifts.

This first clause, “so that we may obtain this faith,” leaves no doubt that AC IV and AC V go hand-in-hand. The connection between these two articles is illustrated similarly by the fact that John Eck’s Roman Catholic response to AC V is refuted not in a separate article, but within article IV of the Apology.

For the purpose of obtaining faith, “the ministry of teaching the Gospel and administering the Sacraments was instituted.” Whereas the Latin remains with the passive “was instituted,” the German makes it an active verb attributed to God: “God instituted…” In either case what is clear is that what follows and “was instituted” was not merely done so by the arrangement of men; God instituted it. As such, according to his institution, what follows is God’s mandate, thus carrying with it His promise.

What is instituted is, in the Latin, the “ministry of teaching the gospel” (ministerium docendi evangelii) and “administering the sacraments” (porrigendi sacramenta). Lest anachronistically reading some sort of “abstract” idea of ministry here (the Lord does not deliver his gifts through mere abstractions) the German renders this “ministry” as “Predigtamt,” or preaching-office.

Lest there be any doubt that this is a real office, and not merely a “function,” the Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope makes the same connection between the Gospel and the Office: “Wherever the Church is, there is the authority to administer the Gospel. Therefore, it is necessary for the Church to retain the authority to call, elect, and ordain ministers” (Tr. 67).

While most modern German dictionaries do, in fact, recognize a secondary definition for “amt” as “function,” in the 16th Century context, particularly in the form of “Predigtamt,” “amt” clearly means “office,” as reflected also by the similar concern articulated above in the Treatise. Even in such instances when “amt” is understood in the sense of “function,” it is usually a “function” that is explicitly tied to a particular office – thus any effort to try are “functionalize” the Office of the Ministry, the preaching-office, or pastor’s office, must do violence to the text of AC V.

Nonetheless, this Office is not some sort of higher order, bearing a particularly oppressive authority over the people of God. On the contrary, the Office is instituted for the sake of preaching the Gospel and administering the Sacraments. There is not any Gospel being heard without someone put there to speak it. There aren’t any Sacraments being administered without someone there, as an instrument, to administer them. Thus, the Lord does not leave the Church with a merely abstract “Word” and “Sacrament,” but provides the Office through whom the Lord delivers His salvation in Word and Sacrament.

Through these instruments (instruments must have breath if they are to make sound) the Holy Spirit (who is sometimes called the “breath” of God) is delivered. The Holy Spirit works faith “when and where it pleases God” in those who hear the Gospel. Faith is not some sort of magical concoction that can be conjured up by the right combination of preached words or a persuasive tone of voice. Even the preached Word is powerless if the very words preached are not taken by the Holy Spirit and put to His use, according to His terms, when and where He wills faith to be given.

In the Roman Catholic Confutation of John Eck, while approving AC V, he does so with the proviso that by “faith” what should be understood is “not of faith alone…but that faith which is to be understood as working through love.” Eck cites Galatians 3:5 in a misguided effort to support his position: “Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith.” Unfortunately, for Eck, he cited the verse without actually quoting it. The “work” here is not the work of “faith” but the Work of the Spirit, thus Eck had quoted a verse that worked in the favor of the argument of AC V! It seems as though some Lutherans later thought Eck’s idea was a good one, and they thus included Gal. 3:14, “So that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith,” as a marginal addition in some later Latin editions of the Augsburg Confession.

“…that God justifies those who believe that they are received into grace for Christ’s sake.” The language here, in the Latin, closely reflects the language previously used in AC IV, thus displaying again the intimate relationship between these two articles.

Finally the Anabaptists are condemned. The Holy Spirit does not come from within us (intra nos) but from outside of us (extra nos). It is not an “internal Word,” as the Anabaptists had argued, that is to be trusted as the Holy Spirit, but an external Word (Verbo externo). The German calls this Word a “leibliche Wort.” Literally, the German translates into a “physical” Word. That is to say, it is not a sort of “spiritual” Word, but it is through real, physical, human Words through which the Holy Spirit delivers through the aforementioned instruments from outside of ourselves.

Roundtable 5: On Justification

Article IV on Justification
Also they teach that men cannot be justified before God [coram Deo] by their own strength, merits, or works, but are freely justified for Christ’s sake [propter Christum], through faith [per fidem], when they believe [so wir glauben; cum credunt] that they are received into favor, and that their sins are forgiven for Christ’s sake, who, by His death, has made satisfaction for our sins. This faith God imputes [imputat; zurechnen] for righteousness in His sight. Rom. 3 and 4.

This is the central and chief article (Hauptartikel) of the faith. Lutheran theology is concentric, centered on the objective, saving work of Christ in justifying the sinner in His death. Rightly this article is often described as the “article upon which the church stands or falls.” Without the hub, the wheel cannot turn properly. Our brother McCain pointed me to the following quote from Apology IV:

“But since in this controversy the chief topic of Christian doctrine is treated, which, understood aright, illumines and amplifies the honor of Christ [which is of especial service for the clear, correct understanding of the entire Holy Scriptures, and alone shows the way to the unspeakable treasure and right knowledge of Christ, and alone opens the door to the entire Bible], and brings necessary and most abundant consolation to devout consciences, we ask His Imperial Majesty to hear us with forbearance in regard to matters of such importance.”

At issue is the justification of the sinner before God [coram Deo]. This is not about our justification before men [coram hominibus], which has to do with civic righteousness, but the righteousness that avails before a righteous God. The 4th article builds on what has been confessed before. Because man is utterly incapable of righteousness before God due to original sin (AC II), and because the Son of God, the incarnate Word, has offered His perfect life as an atoning sacrifice for the sin of the world (AC III), righteousness before God cannot be achieved by man but must be imputed externally by grace through faith for Christ’s sake. For this reason, justification before God must necessarily exclude any strength, merits, or works on man’s part.

“Faith” is not an active work, rather it is a passive trust in the completed work of Christ, namely that we are received into God’s favor and our sins are forgiven for Christ’s sake, whose death “made satisfaction” (satisfecit) for our sins.

This article rests on key passages from Romans which form the central theme of Paul’s doctrine, that the law cannot justify the sinner (Rom 3:20), that there is a righteousness apart from the law which comes through faith in Christ Jesus. “For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law” (Rom 3:28). Citing Abraham, St. Paul concludes: “But the words, “it was reckoned to him,” were written not for his sake alone, but for ours also. It will be reckoned to us who believe in him that raised from the dead Jesus our Lord, who was put to death for our trespasses and raised for our justification.” (Rom 4:23-25),

As Melanchthon notes in the Apology, the proper distinction of the Law and the Gospel, of our works and Christ’s work, are at the heart of this central teaching. Clearly the Law and our works must be rigorously excluded from the article of justification, lest the merits and sufferings of Christ be diminished. The concept of “imputation” ensures that the Christian’s righteousness before God remains Christ’s righteousness, something outside of ourselves (extra nos) to which faith objectively clings. This also governs the Lutheran understanding of the Christian being simul justus et peccator. In Christ through faith, the believer is totally justified; in himself he remains total sinner by virtue of original sin, which is not taken away but covered by forgiveness. The justification of the sinner before God in Christ is always whole and entire.

Articles IV, V, and VI together form a cohesive whole. Melanchthon treats them as a unit in Apology IV. (There is no Apology V or VI.) The article of justification and its reception through faith flows into a discussion of the ministry of the Word and Sacrament which provides the objective Gospel that creates faith and to which faith clings, which give rise to the good works of love that flow freely from faith.

Roundtable 5: The Son of God

Enough of this dreariness about our miserable condition inherited from Father Adam. Let's move to the Second Adam, the new Head of humanity, Jesus Christ, the Word become Flesh, the incarnate Son of God and Savior from sin and death.

Article III of the Augustana reads as follows (from the Triglotta):
Also they [our churches] teach that the Word, that is, the Son of God, did assume the human nature in the womb of the blessed Virgin Mary, so that there are two natures, the divine and the human, inseparably enjoined in one Person, one Christ, true God and true man, who was born of the Virgin Mary, truly suffered, was crucified, dead, and buried, that He might reconcile the Father unto us, and be a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for all actual sins of men.

He also descended into hell, and truly rose again the third day; afterward He ascended into heaven that He might sit on the right hand of the Father, and forever reign and have dominion over all creatures, and sanctify them that believe in Him, by sending the Holy Ghost into their hearts, to rule, comfort, and quicken them, and to defend them against the devil and the power of sin.

The same (idem) Christ shall openly come again to judge the quick and the dead, etc., according to the Apostles’ Creed.

Comments:

I offer just a few comments on this article to kick things off. As we have noted before, the Augsburg Confession wants to demonstrate the utter catholicity of our churches, over and against Eck's slanders. The article rests squarely on the Apostles' and Nicene symbols - the Christology is clearly Chalcedon's confession of the personal union of the two natures - divine and human in one Person. Again we encounter the totum/totum paradox of one Person being fully God and fully Man.

For Lutherans, the word "Word" refers first and foremost to the incarnate Word, who assumed (assumpserit) the human nature in the womb of the blessed Virgin. For the Latin "assumpserit" the German text reads simply "sei Mensch worden" (became Man). It comes from the Athanasian creed (line 33): Unus autem non conversione divinitatis in carne, sed assumptione humanitatis in Deo. It rests on John 1;14 - The Word became Flesh. The "inseparably" (one of the Chalcedonian adverbs) is clearly a reference to the 1528 dialogues with the Swiss, who in their denial of the Body and the Blood in the Lord's Supper became unwittingly Nestorian in their Christology, separating the two natures.

In Lutheran theology, the person and work of Christ are an organic whole. In the AC, the work of Christ flows as a dependant clause from the confession of the union of the two natures. The wording is clearly the Apostles' creed. What catches the eye is the statement regarding Christ's sacrifice, "not only for original guilt, but also for all actual sins of men." Only Christ as true God and true Man can atone for sin, and this atonement is universal - once for all people (hyper panton) and one time for all times (ephapax). Clearly Article 24 on the Mass is being anticipated here, over and against the papal understanding that the Mass is an atoning sacrifice. While the Confutation denies this, Trent (XXII) contradicts the Confutation and teaches that the Mass is truly propitiatory and is rightly offered for sins. (See Leif Grane, "The Augsburg Confession - A Commentary" p. 52).

The "descent into hell" (zur Helle, ad inferos) begins a new sentence, thereby rightly treating Christ's descent as part of His exaltation (Phil 2). The "descent" reappears in the Formula (Article 9), where I'm sure we'll have a fun discussion. It is noteworthy that the Holy Spirit should play such a large part in an article devoted to the Son of God. The outpouring of the Spirit is a direct consequence of the reign of Christ, and is therefore inseparable from it. Pneumatology is Christocentric in orthodox, trinitarian theology. There is no separate article on the Holy Spirit; rather the entire Confession is an exposition of the Holy Spirit's work (Grane, 51)

In the same sense, the visible coming of Christ to judge the living and the dead is mentioned in this article as well, noting that this is the "same Christ" (idem), that is the One who is at once true God and true Man who suffered, died, rose, and reigns. Eschatology is similarly Christocentric, or it is not true eschatology.

Interesting Paper on Formula of Concord

One of our contributors, Pastor Ryan Fouts, has posted a paper he prepared for one of his Ph.D. classes. Readers of this blog site will find it very interesting. It has to do with the textual history of the Formula of Concord. Thanks Ryan.

Roundtable 4: Original Sin

Sin is much more than wrong things that we do. Those are symptoms of the terminal disease with which we are born and with which we shall die, and because of which we die. Born and conceived in sin, we inherit the sin of our first parents, Adam and Eve. The disease can only be healed by the blood of Christ which cleanses us from all sin. The Augsburg Confession in Article II rejects the errors of Pelagius, and others, who deny that"original depravity" is in fact sin, and that because it is not, there is the ability of man to contribute to his salvation by drawing on that little, tiny remaining spark of goodness with him. Rome taught, and still teaches, that the inclination toward sin we are both with is not in fact actually sin. Consider the manifold and dangerous errors that come about when original sin is not confessed purely according to God's Word. Consider the blessing of the forgiveness of sin, specifically the forgiveness of original sin. By the way, I'm dispensing with segregating blog author comments from reader responses.

Roundtable 3: Reader response

Readers of this blog site are invited and encouraged to submit their comments here, in response to Roundtable 3.

Roundtable 3: Augsburg Confession, Article I -- "With Common Consent" -- What does this mean? How is this done?

Today we begin our discussion of the Augsburg Confession, beginning at the beginning, with the first sentence, of the first article, "God." We read: "Our churches teach with common consent." That's how the Latin version of the Augsburg Confession puts it. The German says: "We unanimously hold and teach..." The Latin continues: "that the decree of the Council of Nicea about the unity of the divine essence and the three persons is true. It is to be believed without any doubt." A tall order! "To be believed, without any doubt." Is there anyone who never has a doubt about the mystery of the Holy Trinity? Doubtful [pun intended]. Then what does it mean when the Confessions refer to belief without any doubt? Here we are introduced to a concept that runs throughout the Lutheran Confessions. We are not here dealing with individuals but with church, and churchly, confession. Note the "our churches," plural. Not, "our Church." Another important concept is here introduced which is worth paying close attention to while reading the confessions. Some would attempt to translate "churches" as "congregations" so as to give the indication that the Lutheran Confessions have, primarily, the local, individual, congregation in view when they speak of "churches." But instead here we have a reference to groupings of churches within the various territories and cities represented by those who signed the Augsburg Confession. I am hard pressed, frankly, to find in our Lutheran Confessions the notion of the autonomous, independent, "free agency" view of the Church that would regard each and every local congregation as free and independent of one another. That is a misunderstanding that I think we would do well to pay heed to as we read the Lutheran Confessions. So then, what does it mean to say that "our Churches teach" and that this teaching is to be "believed without any doubting." Doubting by whom? Individuals? Pastors? Laypeople? Or is there something more there going on?