ICHABOD, THE GLORY HAS DEPARTED - explores the Age of Apostasy, predicted in 2 Thessalonians 2:3, to attack Objective Faithless Justification, Church Growth Clowns, and their ringmasters. The antidote to these poisons is trusting the efficacious Word in the Means of Grace. John 16:8. Isaiah 55:8ff. Romans 10. Most readers are WELS, LCMS, ELS, or ELCA. This blog also covers the Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodoxy, and the Left-wing, National Council of Churches denominations.
Martin Luther Sermons
Bethany Lutheran Hymnal Blog
Bethany Lutheran Church P.O. Box 6561 Springdale AR 72766 Reformation Seminary Lectures USA, Canada, Australia, Philippines 10 AM Central - Sunday Service
We use The Lutheran Hymnal and the King James Version
Luther's Sermons: Lenker Edition
Click here for all previous YouTube Videos
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
From Eric Gritsch, Who Left the LCA for Missouri
"The confessions know nothing of the denominational system. They certainly know nothing of our present decadent denominationalism. That is, they know nothing either of the structure of our disunity or of the organization through which work for unity must now be done." - Gritsch
Source
Posted with Permission from a WELS Layman
Hey Pastor:
About excessive drinking in WELS -
"I was taken aback in 2003 attending the WELS
biennial convention respresenting the district at the
beer tent right on campus in Watertown. I wondered how that could be, with so many WELS
pastors and teachers having gross alcohol problems - plus the rampant societal problems abuse of alcohol has caused this nation. I was one of them 30 years ago
as a WELS teacher. Why would the leadership would suppport tap beer at a spiritual event? Can they really see how those with less tolerance to such questionable exercises in
liberty might be completely turned off? I don't know if this situation has
changed since I last attended but I've felt that the WELS simply is too lenient
in attitude after all the carnage that this abuse has caused."
By the by, while we were still a mission congregation here the WELS pastor assigned to us brought his drinking problem here. Before he left (or was asked to leave?) he absconded with some of our offering money also! Needless to say his exploratory work was unsuccessful.
By the by, while we were still a mission congregation here the WELS pastor assigned to us brought his drinking problem here. Before he left (or was asked to leave?) he absconded with some of our offering money also! Needless to say his exploratory work was unsuccessful.
I had Al Just as a teacher at MLA and
knew the unforgettable Tabor brothers there also. Al Just: Was my teacher and coach. It was really weird talking with him at DMLC while I was taking certification courses and he was out on bail for murdering his wife. Remorse, what remorse?
I taught at one WELS school for several years, quit the WELS for a while, but have been involved for the last 20 years here in this state.
I taught at one WELS school for several years, quit the WELS for a while, but have been involved for the last 20 years here in this state.
May God bless you!
GJ - The leaders are cruel in allowing alcoholic ministers to wreck congregations without helping the men recover. Alcohol addiction is so common in WELS that no one sees the problem until it blows up on them. I heard one statement from a pastor I just met and knew he was an addict. He volunteered that Valium helped kick up the impact of an alcoholic drink. He left messes everywhere, but he was connected.
The problem begins with the amount of alcoholism in the leadership. One pastor pointed out a Love Shacker and said, "Now that is a drunk's drunk."
Pixelation in Christian Doctrine
The UOJ Enthusiasts, as Joe Krohn observed on another blog, zoom into the Scriptures or Confessions - to the point of pixelation. Everything is out of focus because they neglect the context.
For example, I wrote a complete sentence in Photoshop, on a tiny file. I expanded several times to pixelate it, posting it above. Now the sentence is so blurred that a UOJ scholar could write several books on its origin, meaning, and influence. However, I am retaining the movie rights.
---
I had one more comment that I thought of last evening when I was skimming over this post; it is directed at Pr. Webber and those who seem to find this OJ lying next to SJ all the time in scripture and the BoC. I see the problem as a failure to look at Justification in context. UOJ works when you zoom in too far to certain passages; just like other heterodox religions do to make their doctrine work. Ironically, when I read the study notes from the Concordia NIV to a WELS heavyweight re: Romans 3:22-24, he thought it sounded like limited atonement...of course it was taken verbatim from the Zondervan NIV Study Bible. The irony is that Calvinists fall short with the 'all' and UOJers overshoot the 'all'.
Mr. Lindee made a great stride by putting the Ambrose quote in context from the letter. I would only add that where this quote appears in the Apology follows under these headings: Of Justification 1-47; What is Justifying Faith? 48-60; That Faith in Christ Justifies 61-74; That We Obtain Remission of Sins by Faith Alone in Christ 75-121.
So you see it is always in the context of faith; justified by faith in the Propitiator, namely, Jesus Christ.
Mr. Lindee made a great stride by putting the Ambrose quote in context from the letter. I would only add that where this quote appears in the Apology follows under these headings: Of Justification 1-47; What is Justifying Faith? 48-60; That Faith in Christ Justifies 61-74; That We Obtain Remission of Sins by Faith Alone in Christ 75-121.
So you see it is always in the context of faith; justified by faith in the Propitiator, namely, Jesus Christ.
---
Joe identified the problem, so I gave it a name - soon to be entered into Icha-slang, pending approval by the Board of Directors.
The LCMS pixelated Romans 4:25 in their Brief Statement of 1932, and no one noticed.
The LCMS pixelated Romans 4:25 in their Brief Statement of 1932, and no one noticed.
Labels:
LCMS UOJ WELS
Visit the Only Shrine Built To Honor a Kidnapper.
Bronzies Still Love His Pietistic Antinomianism
They also stole his chalice, forcing him at gunpoint to cross over to Illinois.
Kidnapping and armed robbery can earn someone a nifty shrine, a statue at the Purple Palace, little statues for the dashboard of the car, a bicentennial celebration of falsehoods, and a cool chalice.
In Pursuit of Religious Freedom: Bishop Martin Stephan’s
Journey
By Philip G. Stephan (born 1935), New York: Lexington Books,
2008.
My citations will be In Pursuit of Religious Freedom,
instead of Stephan, to avoid confusion, since the author is a descendant of the
bishop.
Riley Otten, the grandson of Pastor Herman Otten, wrote up the
fable of Walther’s work in Perry County. I do not blame Riley, but the people
who have falsified Perry County history. Christian News, 9-19-2011, p. 16.
According to Riley, when the Saxon immigrants found out
about Bishop Stephan’s adultery, they gave him three choices:
- Go to court.
- Go back to Germany.
- Go to Illinois.
“Then Walther came to set stuff straight. That is how the
Lutheran Church Missouri Synod started.”
At the bottom of the page of pictures is a plaque in honor
of Walther’s 200th birthday and a statue. $30 plus shipping and
handling.
Walther’s Shrine - http://www.lfnd.org/walther/
The actual events:
January 20, 1839 – The ships landed in New Orleans.
Rogate Sunday Sermon, St. Louis, March 5, 1839 – G. H.
Loeber’s sermon on the 10 Commandments
led two women to confess privately to him their adultery with Bishop Stephan.
Louise Guenther, who was investigated previously by the courts in German,
confessed and asked for absolution. The Christian Church has always held to the
strict confidentiality of the private confession. Otherwise, no one would
confess sin and seek forgiveness. IPRF, p. 180.
Loeber was disturbed by the two confessions and spoke with
Walther, the only other pastor from the group in St. Louis. On May 13, Eduard
Vehse and Gustave Jaeckel were invited to discuss this with Loeber and Walther.
They resolved to take back the land given to Stephan (40 acres). Stephan also
purchased 80 acres with his own money. IPRF, p. 181.
The group retracted their previous defense of Stephan,
published in the paper. IPRF, p. 182. The retraction was on May 27th,
IPRF, p. 184.
Pastors Walther and Loeber, attorneys Vehse and Marbach,
coordinated their efforts without even trying to contact Stephan.
Without any hearing or investigation, the group decided to
get rid of Stephan.
On May 15th, Walther traveled to Perry County to
gather support among the clergy there and to mislead Stephan about his
intentions. Walther (the youngest of all the pastors) changed the title of the
land given to Stephan, without telling the bishop. He also involved the Buenger
family (the parents of his future wife, who also hid the kidnapped children in
Germany) in the plan to get rid of Stephan. IPRF, p. 186.
The group organized by Walther, 300 in all, arrived on the
steamer from St. Louis on May 28th. Louise Guenther was among them.
“This hastily assembled group could not even decide its own
authority or whether it was purely advisory. Incredibly, a competent
administrative council already existed; it had planned the Atlantic voyage,
written the regulations for the governance of the group, and purchased the
Perry County land. This council had the support and approval of all the people.
It is not clear why they made no effort to use this properly authorized group
to hear the charges.” IPRF, p. 187.
The trial was held May 30th. The former pastors
had resigned their calls in Germany to come over, but they listed themselves as
pastors in signing the deposition. That included “Carl Ferdinand Wilhelm
Walther, pastor.” IPRF, p. 189
Walther’s brother did NOT sign the deposition. Neither did
any theological candidate.
They ordered Stephan to leave (no options).
Before, the mob was lashing the cabin with their whips. They
came inside to force Stephan out. Stephan reported (later in IPRF) that they
set fires outside, so he was afraid for his life.
The Walther mob stole most of Stephan’s personal belongings
and all his money, including the gold he was saving for retirement. They forced
Stephan to strip off his clothing in their pursuit of his money.
The Waltherians kept Stephan’s books, which were also quite
valuable. Later, Walther tricked Stephan’s son out of the 80 acres belonging to
the bishop, bought with the bishop’s own money. Clearly the son had no legal
right to turn over property belonging to his father. Walther had no business
manipulating the son, who became a Missouri pastor, into donating something not
his own.
Walther’s later church, Trinity in St. Louis, kept the
priceless chalice stolen from Stephan and will not surrender it to Stephan’s
descendants. Pious Lutherans still claim the chalice belonged to the Society
but it was a personal gift to Stephan and not theirs to steal.
Stephan slept outside in a tent, that night because the
swollen Mississippi could not be crossed. He became quite ill from this and
recovered very slowly.
Stephan was forced across the river at gunpoint on May 31st.
IPRF, p. 190f and footnote 10. He did some pastoral afterwards in Illinois,
where he is buried. His mistress, Louise Guenther, followed him and lived with
him during that time.
He lived the rest of his life in poverty, thanks to the actions
of the Walther-led mob.
---
“C.F.W. Walther has been hailed as an ‘American Luther,’” said Rev. Dr. Matthew C. Harrison, LCMS president. “He was an avid student of Luther’s writings, and they shaped the transformative role Walther played in 19th-century American Lutheranism. How appropriate that we recognize his bicentennial year! For in his day, Walther recognized the unique role of the Lutheran church in America. That role is ours yet today.”
* Walther Heritage St. Louis/Perry County Tour: Produced by Luther Tours, this unforgettable two-day journey will take visitors to significant Lutheran sites in St. Louis and Perry County, Mo., including the LCMS International Center; Historic Trinity Lutheran Church; Concordia Seminary, St. Louis; Concordia Historical Institute; the Saxon Lutheran Memorial, the Lutheran Heritage Center & Museum; Hill of Peace Lutheran Church; and Concordia Cemetery, where the Walther Mausoleum is located. Tour dates are: Sept. 23-25, Oct. 7-9, Oct. 14-16 and Oct. 21-23, 2011.
* Walther Movie: Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, is producing a high definition video series which will follow the life of Walther, present a history of the LCMS, and – through studying Walther’s life and teachings – provide viewers with a better understanding of the importance of the Holy Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions.
* Historic Trinity Lutheran Church Walther Bicentennial Celebration Service: A special celebration service is set for 3 p.m. Sunday, Oct. 23, at Historic Trinity Lutheran Church, 1805 S. Eighth St., St. Louis. The service will include special speakers in the church where Walther was a pastor from 1841 until his death in 1887.
* Concordia Publishing House Reformation Theology Research Award: To encourage the study of historical theology, the Professional and Academic Book Team at Concordia Publishing House has organized a special cash award commemorating the 200th anniversary of Walther’s birth for research papers or commemorative sermon and prayer. Announcement of award winners will coincide with the publication of the finalist papers in 2011.
* Walther Look-Alike Contest at Saxon Lutheran Memorial: The Saxon Lutheran Memorial historic site will mark the 200th anniversary of Walther’s birth during the 31st Annual Fall Festival from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. Saturday, Oct. 8. The festival will include a special “Dr. C.F.W. Walther Look-Alike Contest” as part of the festivities. * Historic Germany tour: LCMS President Rev. Dr. Matthew C. Harrison and Rev. Jon Vieker, senior assistant to the LCMS president, will host a 12-day tour of Germany, produced by LutherTours, Nov. 30-Dec. 11. The tour coincides with the 200th anniversary of Walther’s birth and will focus on sites that were significant in both his and Martin Luther's lives. Also included will be visits to several of Germany's Christmas markets.
Walther, who was born Oct. 25, 1811, joined the Saxon Germans who immigrated to the United States in 1839, and at the age of only 27 found himself leader of the group that settled in Perry County, Mo. In 1847, Walther played a key role in the founding of the LCMS, which now ranks as one of the largest Christian denominations in the United States with more than 2.3 million baptized members in some 6,200 congregations and more than 9,000 pastors.
“C.F.W. Walther was a towering figure of 19th century Lutheranism,” said Larry Lumpe, executive director of Concordia Historical Institute, the department of archives and history of the LCMS. “His knowledge of and unwavering commitment to the Lutheran Confessions and the theology of Martin Luther provided a firm foundation for the growth and development of the Missouri Synod. Through his tireless ministry as preacher, teacher and writer, he offers a lasting legacy for the church of the 21st century as it proclaims the precious Gospel of Jesus Christ throughout the world.”
---
Martin Stephan Forum - The Stolen Chalice
A letter from Ted to 1983 to his son Dick and wife Lea:
“Several years ago mother sent you and Marianne a picture of the gorgeous priceless chalice brought back with the Stephan clan to the USA. It is in a Lutheran church near the seminary. I asked our Pastor Pebler about it, and he said that he had communed from it many times. Of late tho, he said that it was placed in a safe place and not used anymore. We are glad you are “monitoring” our investment.”[“Monitoring” is Ted’s wry reference to LCMS and the Stephan possessions which still remain in their hands or in LCMS churches.]
Labels:
Bishop Stephan,
LCMS,
Walther
A.C. V on UOJ
AC V has left a new comment on your post "Intrepid Lutherans: Fraternal Dialogue on the Topi...":
In summary, why UOJ is not Truth:
1) Supposed pro-UOJ Scripture references are quoted out of context.
2) Supposed pro-UOJ quotations by Church Fathers are either taken out of context or are so few in number as compared to "Justification by faith" references made by the same author that to say they are pro-UOJ quotes does injustice to the author's intended meaning (same goes for Scripture quotes, too).
3) Many logical fallacies when compared/contrasted to clear Scripture testimony. *** GJ - Acey does not go far enough.
- The use of Romans 4:25 shows that the UOJ Stormtroopers are eager to turn the Scriptures inside-out, grab St. Paul by the shoulders, and make him say the opposite of his clear, plain, inspired words. The UOJ Enthusiasts kidnap the Book of Concord authors and the Age of Orthodoxy theologians, so the justification authors are fraudulently included in the Pietistic pantheon of double-justifiers.
- Rationalism rears its head when they say, "If Jesus took on the sin of the world, then the entire world is declared to be free of sin, innocent, and saved."
Labels:
LCMS UOJ WELS
Justification by Faith - On Intrepid Lutherans.
UOJ Refuted, Rebuked
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 2011
Fraternal Dialogue on the Topic of "Objective Justification"
Over the weekend, I was monitoring the discussion taking place in our recent blog post, The WEB: A viable English Translation?, which had turned almost immediately from the issue of translations to that of “Universal Objective Justification.” This is due to the fact that the NNIV translates certain sections of the Bible in a way that is heralded by those who support and make propaganda for this teaching, much to the concern of those who question it. Because I was traveling over the weekend, I was unable to participate in the discussion, but kept notes here and there, particularly as Rev. Webber began his participation. Last fall, in one of our posts on the Marquart paper that Rev. Rydecki reviewed (Justification – Marquart, Recap), he and I had what I would consider a “fraternal,” though somewhat vigorous, exchange, from which I benefited. So, reading through the discussion he held with Rev. Rydecki and others over the weekend, I felt that it was appropriate to put my notes together and compose my own challenges – for the sake of feeding a dialogue which needs to happen.
Earlier today, Rev. Webber commented with reference to the doctrine of “Objective Justification” that, “these are times for fraternal and patient discussion, to seek clarification, in the spirit of what Gerhard says.” In a previous comment, he noted that this doctrine has seen protracted and confusing controversy in the recent past. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that such continues to be the case. Our discussion in this forum is neither unusual nor out of place (although some would prefer that the “heat” be turned down a little), and as evidenced by the fact that laymen and clergymen continue to turn discussion to this topic, and the generally high interest and passionate discussion this topic generates, it is one which is very much on the minds of fellow Lutherans.
The following is the notes I had composed, originally intending it as a comment in the previous blog post. After discussion with the other moderators, we decided to make it a full post. Although it is addressed to Rev. Webber (as the comment initially was intended), commentary on this blog post is certainly not limited to him. It is intended as a starting point for a general dialogue on the topic.
Rev. Webber,
Thank you for weighing in on this discussion – I'll repeat what Rev. Rydecki stated, that your opinion definitely has value among us at Intrepid Lutherans. I am also pleased to hear it admitted that there had been continued protracted and confusing controversy regarding the doctrine of justification, and not just by "fanatics" on either end of the spectrum, but among respected theologians like Marquart, Preus and Maier.
You approvingly quoted Marquart as follows:
Moreover, I really don't see the necessity that Christ be the bearer of "our" righteousness, rather than His own, and therefore also the necessity of invoking a syllogism over the plain meaning of Scripture to arrive at this conclusion. Supposedly, it is necessary that God see all individuals as sinless, regardless of whether they have faith, if the Doctrine of Justification is to remain monergistic and confer true hope and comfort. Well, it isn't necessary that God see all individuals as sinless prior to faith, and it is a good thing because it isn't true. It is necessary that Christ has atoned for the sins of the whole world, and that Christ now offers to all men the promise of forgiveness of sins, spiritual life and eternal salvation, and freely gives man the faith to believe this promise through the Means of Grace. Man is entirely passive. Scripture testifies to these facts with abundant clarity. We receive these promises through the gift of faith (Eph. 2:8), and faith clings to them as accomplished facts – even though they remain objects of hope until the Day our "redemption draweth nigh" (Luke 21:25-28), in which we will finally receive the righteousness we hope for (Gal. 5:5) and "the end of our faith, the salvation of our souls" (1 Pet. 1:3-9). This is why the Scriptures exhort the believer to "endure to the end" (Matt. 24:8-14) – for apart from faith, we have no forgiveness of sins, no righteousness and no salvation, and in our sin remain "children of wrath" (Eph. 2:1-3).
"But do I have faith?", it is asked. Have I been baptized? Then I, in this outward objective act, have been crucified with Christ – which atoned for my sin – and thus in this death have been freed from sin's condemnation; and I, in this outward objective act, have been buried with Christ and raised with Him into spiritual life as a new creature – and sharing in Christ's Resurrection share also in the declaration of righteousness that He earned (Rom. 6:3-11). In this outward, objective "washing," in which I am entirely passive, I am quickened (1 Pet. 3:17-22), I receive the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38-39) and am declared righteous, I am regenerated (Titus 3:3-7). And having "become righteous" in this way, the promise of God in the Doctrine of Conversion is given full potency. Ezekiel records directly from the lips of God:
It is no wonder to me that the Concordists point out that
Maier, Marquart, Preus and company may have come to "an agreement" of sorts. Fine. Political factors swirl about that episode in ways that would leave any objective person suspicious. Who really knows what factors were involved? For myself, I find the Confessions and Scripture to be much more compelling.
But do the Confessions teach “Objective Justification”? You stated regarding this question:
But let’s look at St. Ambrose’s letter to Irenaeus. Did Ambrose intend at all to teach “Objective Justification” to Irenaeus, or was this clause merely incidental to some other topic he was addressing? Well, I found the letter. It was a very short letter in which St. Ambrose addressed the question of why God gave His Law, since it only caused further hardship for the condition of man. He was not developing a Doctrine of Justification. Here is the concluding, and pertinent, section:
In his letter, St. Ambrose properly concluded a discussion of Law with a preachment of the Gospel. Though this preachment was imperfect, this imperfection was inconsequential to the point the Confessors were trying to make by including it in the Apology.
So, there it is. Let the fraternal dialogue continue!
Earlier today, Rev. Webber commented with reference to the doctrine of “Objective Justification” that, “these are times for fraternal and patient discussion, to seek clarification, in the spirit of what Gerhard says.” In a previous comment, he noted that this doctrine has seen protracted and confusing controversy in the recent past. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that such continues to be the case. Our discussion in this forum is neither unusual nor out of place (although some would prefer that the “heat” be turned down a little), and as evidenced by the fact that laymen and clergymen continue to turn discussion to this topic, and the generally high interest and passionate discussion this topic generates, it is one which is very much on the minds of fellow Lutherans.
The following is the notes I had composed, originally intending it as a comment in the previous blog post. After discussion with the other moderators, we decided to make it a full post. Although it is addressed to Rev. Webber (as the comment initially was intended), commentary on this blog post is certainly not limited to him. It is intended as a starting point for a general dialogue on the topic.
Rev. Webber,
Thank you for weighing in on this discussion – I'll repeat what Rev. Rydecki stated, that your opinion definitely has value among us at Intrepid Lutherans. I am also pleased to hear it admitted that there had been continued protracted and confusing controversy regarding the doctrine of justification, and not just by "fanatics" on either end of the spectrum, but among respected theologians like Marquart, Preus and Maier.
You approvingly quoted Marquart as follows:
- A contemporary clarification of justification would have to begin with what the Formula of Concord calls 'the only essential and necessary elements of justification,' that is, (1) the grace of God, (2) the merit of Christ, (3) the Gospel which alone offers and distributes these treasures, and (4) faith which alone receives or appropriates them (SD III.25). The first three items define the universal/general dimension of justification (forgiveness as obtained for all mankind on the cross, proclaimed in the resurrection [see Rom 4:25 and 1 Tim. 3:16] and offered to all in the means of grace), and the fourth, the individual/personal dimension. No one actually has forgiveness unless and until he receives it by faith.
- (major premise) "If righteousness has been proclaimed upon humanity's substitute, then righteousness has in fact been proclaimed upon humanity"
(minor premise) "In the resurrection of Christ, as he stood in the place of all humanity, he was justified. That is, he was declared to be righteous...
(conclusion) "...and was vindicated as the representative of all humanity. This means that in him, and in his resurrection, all humanity was thereby justified. In him all humanity was declared to be righteous and was vindicated".
Moreover, I really don't see the necessity that Christ be the bearer of "our" righteousness, rather than His own, and therefore also the necessity of invoking a syllogism over the plain meaning of Scripture to arrive at this conclusion. Supposedly, it is necessary that God see all individuals as sinless, regardless of whether they have faith, if the Doctrine of Justification is to remain monergistic and confer true hope and comfort. Well, it isn't necessary that God see all individuals as sinless prior to faith, and it is a good thing because it isn't true. It is necessary that Christ has atoned for the sins of the whole world, and that Christ now offers to all men the promise of forgiveness of sins, spiritual life and eternal salvation, and freely gives man the faith to believe this promise through the Means of Grace. Man is entirely passive. Scripture testifies to these facts with abundant clarity. We receive these promises through the gift of faith (Eph. 2:8), and faith clings to them as accomplished facts – even though they remain objects of hope until the Day our "redemption draweth nigh" (Luke 21:25-28), in which we will finally receive the righteousness we hope for (Gal. 5:5) and "the end of our faith, the salvation of our souls" (1 Pet. 1:3-9). This is why the Scriptures exhort the believer to "endure to the end" (Matt. 24:8-14) – for apart from faith, we have no forgiveness of sins, no righteousness and no salvation, and in our sin remain "children of wrath" (Eph. 2:1-3).
"But do I have faith?", it is asked. Have I been baptized? Then I, in this outward objective act, have been crucified with Christ – which atoned for my sin – and thus in this death have been freed from sin's condemnation; and I, in this outward objective act, have been buried with Christ and raised with Him into spiritual life as a new creature – and sharing in Christ's Resurrection share also in the declaration of righteousness that He earned (Rom. 6:3-11). In this outward, objective "washing," in which I am entirely passive, I am quickened (1 Pet. 3:17-22), I receive the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38-39) and am declared righteous, I am regenerated (Titus 3:3-7). And having "become righteous" in this way, the promise of God in the Doctrine of Conversion is given full potency. Ezekiel records directly from the lips of God:
- But if the wicked man will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die. All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him: in his righteousness that he hath done he shall live (Ezk. 18:21-22)
- For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people... For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more (Heb. 8:10-12)
This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; and their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin (Heb. 10:16-18)
It is no wonder to me that the Concordists point out that
- "[regeneration] is sometimes used to mean only the forgiveness of sins and that we are adopted as God's sons [as opposed to forgiveness of sins plus the succeeding renewal worked by the Holy Spirit]. It is in this ...sense that the word is used much of the time in the Apology, where it is written that justification BEFORE GOD is regeneration" (SD 3:19, Reader's Edition).
Maier, Marquart, Preus and company may have come to "an agreement" of sorts. Fine. Political factors swirl about that episode in ways that would leave any objective person suspicious. Who really knows what factors were involved? For myself, I find the Confessions and Scripture to be much more compelling.
But do the Confessions teach “Objective Justification”? You stated regarding this question:
- By the way, I do not concede that the "objective" side of justification is not taught in the Confessions. With the understanding that forgiveness and justification are essentially synonymous in meaning, the quotation from St. Ambrose quoted approvingly in Apology IV:103 teaches it most clearly.
- [103] ...For Ambrose says in his letter to a certain Irenaeus: Moreover, the world was subject to Him by the Law for the reason that, according to the command of the Law, all are indicted, and yet, by the works of the Law, no one is justified, i.e., because, by the Law, sin is perceived, but guilt is not discharged. The Law, which made all sinners, seemed to have done injury, but when the Lord Jesus Christ came, He forgave to all sin which no one could avoid, and, by the shedding of His own blood, blotted out the handwriting which was against us. This is what he says in Rom. 5:20: "The Law entered that the offense might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound." Because after the whole world became subject, He took away the sin of the whole world, as he [John] testified, sayingJohn 1:29: "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world." And on this account let no one boast of works, because no one is justified by his deeds. But he who is righteous has it given him because he was justified after the laver [of Baptism]. Faith, therefore, is that which frees through the blood of Christ, because he is blessed "whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered,"Ps. 32:1, [104] These are the words of Ambrose, which clearly favor our doctrine; he denies justification to works, and ascribes to faith that it sets us free [105] through the blood of Christ. (AP:IV:103ff, Triglotta)
But let’s look at St. Ambrose’s letter to Irenaeus. Did Ambrose intend at all to teach “Objective Justification” to Irenaeus, or was this clause merely incidental to some other topic he was addressing? Well, I found the letter. It was a very short letter in which St. Ambrose addressed the question of why God gave His Law, since it only caused further hardship for the condition of man. He was not developing a Doctrine of Justification. Here is the concluding, and pertinent, section:
- At first Moses' Law was not needed; it was introduced subsequently, and this appears to intimate that this introduction was in a sense clandestine and not of an ordinary kind, seeing that it succeeded in the place of the natural Law. Had this maintained its place, the written Law would never have entered in; but the natural Law being excluded by transgression and almost blotted out of the human breast, pride reigned, and disobedience spread itself; and then this Law succeeded, that by its written precepts it might cite us before it, and every mouth be stopped, and all the world become guilty before God. Now the world becomes guilty before God by the Law, in that all are made amenable to its prescripts, but no man is justified by its works. And since by the Law comes the knowledge of sin, but not the remission of guilt, the Law, which has made all sinners, would seem to have been injurious.
But when the Lord Jesus came, He forgave all men that sin which none could escape, and blotted out the handwriting against us by the shedding of His own Blood. This then is the Apostle's meaning; sin abounded by the Law, but grace abounded by Jesus; for after that the whole world became guilty, He took away the sin of the whole world, as John bore witness, saying: Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. Wherefore let no man glory in works, for by his works no man shall be justified, for he that is just hath a free gift, for he is justified by the Bath. It is faith then which delivers by the blood of Christ, for Blessed is the man to whom sin is remitted, and, pardon granted.
Letter LXXIII: Ambrose to Ireneaus, who enquired why the Law was even given
In his letter, St. Ambrose properly concluded a discussion of Law with a preachment of the Gospel. Though this preachment was imperfect, this imperfection was inconsequential to the point the Confessors were trying to make by including it in the Apology.
So, there it is. Let the fraternal dialogue continue!
Labels:
Justification by Faith,
UOJ
Luther's Sermon on God and Mammon:
The Fifteenth Sunday after Trinity.
Matthew 6:24-34
All the art in this sermon comes from Norma Boeckler.
A Sermon by Martin Luther; taken from his Church Postil.
[The following sermon is taken from volume V:103-117 of The Sermons of Martin Luther, published by Baker Book House (Grand Rapids, MI, 1983). It was originally published in 1905 in English by Lutherans in All Lands (Minneapolis, MN), as The Precious and Sacred Writings of Martin Luther, vol. 14.] GOD AND MAMMON. DO NOT BE ANXIOUS.
1. In this Gospel we see how God distinguishes Christians from heathen. For the Lord does not deliver these teachings to the heathen, for they could not receive them, but to his Christians. However, he does not consider those Christians, who only hear his Word, so as to learn it and be able to repeat it, as the nuns do the Psalter. In this way satan also hears the Gospel and the Word of God, yea, he knows it far better than we do, and he could preach it as well as we, if he only wanted to; but the Gospel is a doctrine that should become a living power and be put into practice; it should strengthen and comfort the people, and make them courageous and aggressive.
2. Therefore they, who only thus hear the Gospel, so that they may know it and be able to speak about the wisdom of God, are not worthy to be classed among Christians; but they, who do as the Gospel teaches, are true Christians. However, very few of these are found; we see many hearers, but all are not doers of the Gospel. We wish now to examine more closely what kind of doctrine the Lord teaches in this Gospel. First, he begins with a plain, natural example, so that we all must confess it is true; experience also teaches the same to everybody. He says:
"No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other: or else he will hold to one, and despise the other."
3. Now he, who tries to serve two masters, will do it in a way that cannot be called serving at all; for it will certainly be as the Lord here says. One can indeed compel a servant to do a certain work against his will and he may grieve while doing it; but no one can compel him to do it cheerfully, and mean it from the bottom of his heart. He of course does the work as long as his master is present, but when he is absent, he hurrys away from his task, and does nothing well. Hence the Lord desires our service to be done out of love and cheerfully, and where it is not done thus, it is no service to him: for even people are not pleased when one does anything for them unwillingly. This is natural, and we experience daily that it is so. Now, if it be the case among human beings that no one can serve two masters, how much more is it true in the service of God, that our service cannot be divided; but it must be done unto God alone, willingly and from the heart; therefore the Lord adds:
"Ye cannot serve God and mammon."
4. God cannot allow us to have another Lord besides himself. He is a jealous God, as he says, and cannot suffer us to serve him and his enemy. Only mine, he says, or not at all. Behold now how beautifully Christ here introduces the example: "No man," he says, "can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to one and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon." As if to say: as it is here in man's relations to his fellows, so it is also before God.
5. We find very few, who do not sin against the Gospel. The Lord passes a severe judgment and it is terrible to hear that he should say this of us, and yet no one will confess, yea, no one will suffer it to be said that we hate and despise God and that we are his enemies. There is no one, when asked if he loves God and cleaves to him? would not reply, yes, I love God. But see how the text closes, that we all hate and despise God, and love mammon and cleave to it. But God suffers us to do this until his time; he watches the time and some day he will strike into our midst with all violence, before we can turn around. It is impossible for one, who loves gold and earthly possessions and cleaves to them, not to hate God. For God here contrasts these two as enemies to one another, and concludes, if you love and cleave to one of these two, then you must hate and despise the other. Therefore, however nicely and genteely one lives here upon earth and cleaves to riches, it cannot be otherwise than that he must hate God; and on the other hand, whoever does not cleave to gold and worldly goods, loves God. This is certainly true.
6. But who are they that love God, and cleave not to gold and worldly possessions? Take a good look at the whole world, also the Christians, and see if they despise gold and riches. It requires an effort to hear the Gospel and to live according to it. God be praised, we have the Gospel; that no one can deny, but what do we do with it? We are concerned only about learning and knowing it, and nothing more; we think it is enough to know it, and do not care whether we ever live according to it. However, on the other band, one is very anxious when he leaves lying in the window or in the room a dollar or two, yea, even a dime, then he worries and fears lest the money be stolen; but the same person can do without the Gospel through a whole year. And such characters still wish to be considered as Evangelical.
7. Here we see what and who we are, If we were Christians, we would despise riches and be concerned about the Gospel that we some day might live in it and prove it by our deeds. We see few such Christians; therefore we must hear the judgment that we are despisers of God and hate God for the sake of riches and worldly possessions. Alas! That is fine praise! We should be ashamed of ourselves in our inmost souls; there is no hope for us! What a fine condition we are in now! That means, I think, our names are blotted out. What spoiled children we are!
8. Now the world cannot conceal its unbelief in its coarse, outward sins, for I see it loves a dollar more than Christ; more than all the Apostles, even if they themselves were present and preached to it. I can hear the Gospel daily, but it does not profit me every day; it may indeed happen, if I have heard it a whole year, the Holy Spirit may have been given to me only one hour. Now when I enjoyed this hour I obtained not only five hundred dollars, but also the riches of the whole world; for what have I not, when I have the Gospel? I received God, who made the silver and the gold, and all that is upon the earth; for I acquired the Spirit by which I know that I will be kept by him forever; that is much more than if I had the church full of money. Examine now and see, if our heart is not a rogue, full of wickedness and unbelief. If I were a true Christian, I would say: The hour the Gospel is received, there comes to me a hundred thousand dollars, and much more. For if I possess this treasure, I have all that is in heaven and upon earth. But one must serve this treasure only, for no man can serve God and mammon. Either you must love God and hate money; or you must hate God and love money; this and nothing more.
9. The master uses here the Hebrew, which we do not. "Mammon" means goods or riches, and such goods as one does not need, but holds as a treasure, and it is gold and possessions that one deposits as stock and storage provisions. This Christians do not do, they gather no treasures; but they ask God for their daily bread. However, others are not satisfied with this, they gather a great store upon which they may depend, in case our God should die today or tomorrow, they might then know a way out. Therefore St. Paul says, in Eph. 5, 5 and Col. 3, 5, riches and covetousness are the god of this world and are idolatry, with this Christ here agrees and calls it serving mammon.
10. Now, how does it come that the Gospel and St. Paul call especially covetousness and not other sins idolatry; since uncleanness, fornication, lust, base desires, unchastity and other vices are more opposed to God? It is done to our great shame, because gold is our god, that we serve, in that we trust and rely upon it, and it can neither sustain nor save us, yea, it can neither stand nor walk, it neither hears nor sees, it has no strength nor power, with it there is neither comfort nor help. For if one had the riches of the whole world, he would not be secure for one moment before death.
11. Of what help are his great treasures and riches to the Emperor when the hour of death arrives and he is called to die? They are a shameful, loathsome, powerless god, that cannot cure a sore, yea, it cannot keep and take care of itself, there it lies in the chest, and lets it's devotees wait, yea, one must watch it as a helpless, powerless, weak thing. The lord who has this god must watch day and night lest thieves steal it; this helpless god can aid no one. You should have contempt for this lifeless god that cannot help in the least, and is yet so scrupulous and precious; it lets its devotees wait in the grandest style and protects itself with strong chests and castles, its lord must wait and be in anxiety every hour, lest it perishes by fire or otherwise experiences some misfortune. Does this treasure or god consist in clothing, then one must be careful and on his guard against the smallest little insects, against the moth, lest they ruin or devour it.
12. The walls of our rooms should spit upon us in contempt that we trust more in the god the moth eat and the rust corrupt, than in the God, who creates and gives all things, yea, who holds in his hand heaven and earth, and all that in them is. Is it not a foolish thing on the part of the world to turn from the true God and trust in base and low mammon, in the poor, miserable god, who cannot protect himself against rust. Oh, what a disgraceful thing this is on the part of the world! God visits gold and worldly possessions with many kinds of enemies, to bring us to see and confess our unbelief and godless character, that we thus trust in a powerless and frail god, we who could at once so easily approach and cleave to the true, powerful and strong God, who gives us everything, money, goods, fruit and all we need; yet we are so foolish and make gods out of his gifts. Shame on thee, thou cursed unbelief.
13. Other sins give us a little pleasure, we receive some enjoyment from them, as in the case of eating and drinking; in unchastity one has pleasure for a little while; likewise anger satisfies its desire, and other vices more so. Only in this vice one must incessantly be in slavery, hounded and martyred, and in it no one has any pleasure or joy whatever. There the money lies on a pile and commands you to serve it; in spite of it letting any one draw from it a thimble full of wine there comes rust and devours it, and yet he dares not attack it, lest he angers his god. And when his servants have protected their god a long time they have no more than any poor beggar. I have nothing, yet I eat and drink as heartily as any one who has a large supply of mammon. When he dies he takes just as much along with him as I do. And it is certainly the case that these people never live as well nor as richly as the poor people often do. Who arranges this thus? God, the Lord, does it. Here some have a certain affliction of the body that they have no appetite; there others are internally unsound and never relish what they eat; here their stomach is out of order; there their lungs and liver are diseased; here is this, and there is that sickness; here they are weak and afflicted at one point, there at another, and they never have an enjoyable hour to relish what they eat or drink.
14. Thus it is with those who serve this god, mammon. The true God is still of some use, he serves the people, but mammon does not, it lies quiet and lets others serve it. And for this reason the New Testament calls covetousness idolatry, since it thus desires to be served. However, to love and not to enjoy may well vex the devil. This all now experience who love the god, mammon, and serve him. Whoever has now no sense of shame and does not turn red, has a brazen face.
15. Thus now it is with the word, "serve." For it is not forbidden to have money and possessions, as we cannot get along without them. Abraham, Lot, David, Solomon and others had great possessions and much gold, and at the present day there are many wealthy persons who are pious, in spite of their riches. But it is one thing to have possessions and another to serve them; to have mammon, and to make a god out of it. Job also was wealthy, he had great possessions and was more powerful than all who lived in the East, as we read in the first part of the book of Job: yet he says, in Job 31, 24-25: "If I have made gold my hope, and said to the fine gold, Thou art my confidence; have I rejoiced because my wealth was great, and because my hand had gotten much?"
16. The sum of all is, it is God's will that we serve not gold and riches, and that we be not overanxious for our life; but that we labor and commend our anxiety to him. Whoever possesses riches is lord of the riches. Whoever serves them, is their slave and does not possess them, but they possess him; for he dare not make use of them when he desires, and cannot serve others with them; yea, he is not bold enough to dare to touch it. However, is he lord over his riches, then they serve him, and he does not serve them; then he dare use them, as Abraham, David, Job and other rich persons, and he casts his care only upon God, as St. Paul teaches in 1 Cor. 7, 32. Hence he aids the poor with his wealth and gives to those who have nothing. When he sees a person without a coat, he says to his money: Go out, Messrs. Dollars, there is a poor, naked man, who has no coat, you must be of service to him! There lies one sick, who has no medicine. Go forth, Squires Anneberger and Joachinesthaler, you must hasten and help him! Those, who act thus with their riches, are their lords; and all true Christians surely do this. But those who save piles of money, and ever scheme to make their heap larger instead of smaller, are servants and slaves of mammon.
17. He is a lord of mammon who lays hold of and uses it for the sake of those who need it and lets God rule, who says in Luke 6, 38: Give, and it shall be given unto you; have you nothing more, you surely have me still, and I have still enough, yea, I have more than I have given away and more than can ever be given away. We see here and there many pious poor people only for the purpose that the wealthy may help and serve them with their riches. If you do it not, you have the sure proof that you hate God. He, whom the sentence does not terrify, that he will hear on the day of judgment, can be moved by nothing. For he will hear then from God: Behold, thou hast hated me and loved that which could not protect itself against rust and moth. Ay, how firmly you will then stand!
18. Hence the sense is, we must own some possessions, but are not to cleave to them with our hearts; as Ps. 62, 10 says: "If riches increase, set not your heart thereon." We are to labor; but we are not to be anxious about our existence. This the Master says here in our Gospel in plain and clear words, when he thus concludes:
"Be not anxious for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink: nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on."
19. And he now uses a reasonable and natural form of speech, by which to close, that they are not to be anxious for the nourishment of their lives; for reason must conclude and yield that it is as Christ says, when he gives the ground and reason of his discourse by asking:
"Is not the life more than the food, and the body than the raiment?"
20. As if he would say: You turn it just around, the food should serve your life and not your life the food. The same is true in respect to raiment; the clothing should serve the body, thus the body serves the clothing. The world is so blind that it cannot see this.
21. Now we must here have a high esteem for the words of the Lord. He says, "Be not anxious;" he does not say, Labor not. Anxiety is forbidden, but not labor; yea, it is commanded and made obligatory upon us to labor until the sweat rolls down our faces. It is not God's pleasure for man to tramp around idly; therefore he says to Adam in Gen. 3, 19:
"In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken." And as Ps. 104, 22-23 says: "The sun ariseth, man goeth forth unto his work and to his labor until the evening."
We are not to be anxious, this is forbidden; for we have a rich God who promises us food and clothing; for he knows what we lack, before we are concerned and begin to pray. 22. Why then does he not give us what we need without our labor? Because it is thus pleasing to him; he tells us to labor and then he gives it; not because of our work, but out of kindness and grace. This we see before our eyes; for although we labor every year in the field, yet God gives one year more than another. Therefore, we are fools, yea, we act contrary to God's will, when we are worried as to how to scrape together gold and riches, since God gratuitously and richly promises that he will give us all and will abundantly provide for our every want.
23. However, one may say: Does not St. Paul tell us to be diligent, as in Rom. 12, 8: "He that ruleth, with diligence," and there immediately follows verse 11, "In diligence, not slothful?" In like manner to the Philippians 2, 20, he says of Timothy: "For I have no man likeminded, who will care truly for your state." And Paul himself in 2 Cor. 11, 28 boasts that anxiety for all the churches presses upon him. Here you see how we are nevertheless to be anxious. Answer: Our life and a Christian character consist of two parts, of faith and of love. The first points us to God, the other to our neighbor. The first, namely faith, is not visible, God alone sees that; the other is visible, and is love, that we are to manifest to our neighbor. Now the anxiety that springs from love is commanded, but that which accompanies faith is forbidden. If I believe that I have a God, then I cannot be anxious about my welfare; for if I know that God cares for me as a father for his child, why should I fear? Why need I to be anxious, I simply say: Art thou my Father, then I know that no evil will befall me, as Ps.16,8 says: "I have set Jehovah always before me: because he is at my right hand, I shall not be moved." Thus he has all things in his hand; therefore I shall want nothing, he will care for me. If I rush ahead and try to care for myself, that is always contrary to faith; therefore God forbids this kind of anxiety. But it is his pleasure to maintain the anxious care of love, that we may help others, and share our possessions and gifts with them. Am I a ruler, I am to care for my subjects; am I a housefather, I must take care of the members of my family, and so forth, according as each one has received his gifts from God. God cares for all, and his is the care that pertains to faith. We are also to be interested in one another and this is the care of love, namely, when something is given to me, that I be diligent so that others may also receive it.
24. Here we must be guarded, lest we make a gloss, instead of understanding simply the words as they read: Be not anxious for your life. God says: Labor and if you accomplish nothing, I will give what is needed; does he give then see that you rightly distribute it. Do not be anxious to get, but see to it that your domestics and others also receive of that which God has given to you, and that your domestics labor and receive a Christian training.
25. Am I a preacher, my anxiety should not be where to receive what I am to preach; for if I have nothing, I can give nothing. Christ says in Luke 21,15: "I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to withstand or to gainsay." But if I have that I ought to be anxious for others to receive it from me, and that I endeavor to impart it to them in the best form possible, to teach the ignorant, to admonish and restrain those who know it, rightly to comfort the oppressed consciences, to awaken the negligent and sleepy, and put them on their guard, and the like, as St. Paul did (1 Tim. 4; 2 Tim. 3, Tit. 3) and commanded his disciples Timothy and Titus to do. My anxiety should be how others are to receive something from me; but I am to study and pray to God. Studying is my labor, this is the work he desires me to do, and when it is his pleasure he will give. It can indeed happen that I may study a long time and he gives nothing, a year or more, and when it is his pleasure, he gives as long as it is pleasing to him. Then he gives copiously and to overflowing, suddenly in an hour.
26. Thus a housefather also does, he attends only to that which is commanded him, and lets our Lord God arrange as to how he will give. When he gives, then man is concerned how to impart it to his family, and he sees that they have no need as to the body and the soul. This is what the Lord means, when he says we are not to be anxious for our food and raiment; but he certainly requires us to labor. For thou must be a long time behind the oven until something is given to thee if thou dost not till the soil and work. True it is, God can easily nourish thee without thy work, he could easily have roasted and boiled corn and wine grow on thy table; but he does not do it, it is his will that thou shouldst labor and in doing so to use thy reason. 27. In like manner it is with preaching and all our affairs. God gives us the wool, that he grows on the sheep; but it is not at once cloth, we must labor and make it into cloth; when it is cloth, it does not at once become a coat, the tailor must first work with the cloth before it is a coat; and so God does with all things, he cares for us, but we must toil and work. We have plenty of examples of this before our eyes, and God relates especially two here that should really make us blush with shame, namely, those of the birds and the lilies in the field. Pointing to the birds he says:
"Behold the birds of the heaven, that they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; and your heavenly Father feedeth them."
28. As if the Lord would say: You have never yet seen a bird with a sickle, with which it harvested and gathered into barns; yea, the birds do not labor like we; and still they are nourished. By this the Lord does not however teach that we are to be idle; but he tries by this example to take all anxiety from us. For a bird cannot do the work of a farmer as we do; yet, it is not free from labor, but it does the work for which it was created, namely, it bears its young, feeds them and sings to our Lord God a little song for the privilege of doing this. Had God imposed more labor upon it, then it would have done more. Early in the morning it rises, sits upon a twig and sings a song it has learned, while it knows not where to obtain its food, and yet it is not worried as to where to get its breakfast. Later, when it is hungry, it flies away and seeks a grain of corn, where God stored one away for it, of which it never thought while singing, when it had cause enough to be anxious about its food. Ay, shame on you now, that the little birds are more pious and believing than you; they are happy and sing with joy and know not whether they have anything to eat.
29. This parable is constantly taught to our great and burning shame, that we cannot do as much as the birds. A Christian should be ashamed before a little bird that knows an art it never acquired from a teacher. When in the spring of the year, while the birds sing the most beautifully, you say to one: How canst thou sing so joyfully, thou hast not yet any grain in thy barn I It would thus mock you. It is a powerful example and should truly give offense to us and stir us to trust God more than we do. Therefore he concludes with a penetrating passage, and asks:
"Are not ye of much more value than they?''
30. Is it not a great shame that the Lord makes and presents to us the birds as our teachers, that we should first learn from them? Shame on thee, thou loathsome, infamous unbelief! The birds do what they are required to do; but we not. In Genesis 1, 28 we have a command that we are to be lords over all God's creatures; and the birds are here our lords in teaching us wisdom. Away with godless unbelief! God makes us to be fools and places the birds before us, to be our teachers and rule us, in that they only point out how we serve mammon and forsake the true and faithful God. Now follows the other example of the flowers in the field, by which the Lord encourages us not to worry about our raiment; and it reads thus:
"And which of you by being anxious can add one cubit unto the measure of his life? And why are ye anxious concerning raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow: they toil not, neither do they spin: yet I say unto you, that even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. But if God doth so clothe the grass of the field, which today is, and tomorrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, 0 ye of little faith!"
31. As if to say, your life is not yours, nor is your body, you cannot make it one cubit longer or shorter; neither be anxious as to how you are to clothe yourself. Behold the flowers of the field how they are adorned and clothed, neither do they anything to that end; they neither spin nor work, yet they are beautifully clothed.
32. By this illustration the Lord again does not wish to have us cease to sew and work, but we should labor, spin and sew, and not be overanxious and worry. The evil we have is our toil; will we in addition worry, then we do like the fools; for it is enough that each day has its own evil. It seems to me, this is disdain that is commanded, that the flowers stand there and make us blush and become our teachers. Thank you, flowers, you, who are to be devoured by the cows! God has exalted you very highly, that you become our masters and teachers. Shame, that this earth bears us! Is it an honor for us? I do not know. We must here confess that the most insignificant flower, that the cattle tread under foot, should become our teacher, are we not fine people? I think so. Now Christ places alongside of this the richest and most powerful king, Solomon, who was clothed in the most costly manner in purple and gold, whose glory was not to be compared with that of the flowers, 1 Kings 10. Is it not remarkable that the adornment of the flowers in the field should be esteemed higher than all the precious stones, gold and silver?
33. However, we are so blind that we do not see what God designs thereby and what he means. The flower stands there that we should see it, it strikes us and says: If thou hadst the adornment of the whole world even then thou wouldst not be equal to me, who stand here, and am not the least worried whence this adornment comes to me. I do not however concern myself about that, here I stand alone and do nothing and although thou art beautifully adorned, thou art still sickly and servest impotent mammon; I however am fresh and beautiful and serve the true and righteous God. Behold, what a loathsome, vicious thing is unbelief!
34. These are two fine and powerful examples of the birds and the lilies. The birds teach us a lesson as to our daily food; the flowers as to our raiment. And in the whole New Testament our shame is no where so disclosed and held to view, as just in this Gospel. But they are few who understand it. From these examples and parables the Lord now concludes and says:
"Be not therefore anxious, saying, What shall we eat? or, 'What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed.? For after all these things do the Gentiles seek; for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things. But seek ye first his kingdom and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you. Be not therefore anxious for the morrow; for the morrow will be anxious for itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof."
35. Now the sum of this Gospel is: Christians should not worry about what they are to eat; God provides for them before they think of their need; but they are to labor, that is commanded them. But what the kingdom of God and his righteousness are, would require too much time to discuss, you have often heard about them, if you have been attentive. This is now enough on today's Gospel. May God grant us grace that some day we may also even put it into practice! May the Gospel remain not only in our ears and on our tongues, but come into our hearts and break forth fresh into loving deeds!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
7 COMMENTS:
One question: What did you mean when you stated that St. Ambrose's "preachment was imperfect?" I am not sure what you meant in the context of your post.
Thank you again for posting this and allowing the dialogue to continue.
Maybe in two or three weeks. I just told myself today that I'm glad this has died down, because I am way too busy to keep up with it. I've got way more on my plate right now than usual. So, this will have to wait. But in all honesty I don't know what else I would be able to say.
I've presented the Preus/Marquart exegesis of 1 Timothy 3:16, and have said that I am persuaded of its soundness. You are not.
I've pointed out that in the context of discussing the atoning work of Christ, and Christ's taking away of the sin of the world, St. Ambrose taught that Jesus forgave the sins of "all," and that this objective forgiving is a necessary prelude to the teaching that we are individually justified by faith alone. You point out what I already knew - that this theme is not the main topic of the letter in which it is stated.
You emphasize that an individual's justification before God is by faith in the Gospel. I agree. What I have been seeking to explicate is the full content of that Gospel which must be believed for an individual's justification. If I haven't been able to make that clear by now, I don't know how I ever could.
So, maybe in two or three weeks the dialogue will continue. Or maybe by then everyone will be tired of it, and will not welcome a repetition of what has already been said.
Accipe aliud. Non fuit necessaria lex per Moysen. Denique subintravit: quod utique non ordinarium, sed velut furtivum significare videtur introitum; eo quod in locum naturalis legis intraverit. Itaque si illa suum servasset locum, haec lex scripta nequaquam esset ingressa: sed quia illam legem excluserat praevaricatio, ac propemodum aboleverat pectoribus humanis, regnabat superbia, inobedientiaque sese diffuderat; ideo successit ista, ut nos scripto conveniret, et omne os obstrueret, ut totum mundum faceret Deo subditum Subditus autem mundus eo per Legem factus est, quia ex praescripto Legis omnes conveniuntur, et ex operibus Legis nemo justificatur; id est, quia per Legem peccatum cognoscitur, sed culpa non relaxatur, videbatur Lex nocuisse, quae omnes fecerat peccatores.
Sed veniens Dominus Jesus, peccatum omnibus, quod nemo poterat evadere, donavit, et chirographum nostrum sui sanguinis effusione delevit. Hoc est quod ait: Superabundavit peccatum per Legem: superabundavit autem gratia per Jesum; quia postquam totus mundus subditus factus est, totius mundi peccatum abstulit, sicut testificatus est Joannes, dicens: Ecce agnus Dei, ecce qui tollit peccatum mundi. Et ideo nemo glorietur in operibus, quia nemo factis suis justificatur: sed qui justus est, donatum habet, quia per lavacrum justificatus est. Fides ergo est quae liberat per sanguinem Christi; quia beatus ille cui peccatum remittitur, et venia donatur. Vale, fili, et nos dilige; quia nos te diligimus.
Sometimes we make justification so complicated. I want to share a very simple definition of justication given by Chemnitz in his Loci, almost in passing, since this is what the Lutheran Church had been teaching about justification all along:
In the case of our justification, which is the full and perfect acceptance of the believer unto eternal life, certain effects in our life, such as the new obedience, follow rather slowly because of the weakness of our flesh. (Loci, electronic edition, p.555)
And since we're bringing Latin into the discussion, here's the original in Latin:
Sed in justificatione, quae plena et perfecta est acceptatio credentis ad vitam aeternam; quidam effectus in hac vita propter carnem languide sequuntur, ut nova obedientia...
We can speak of the causes of Justification (the grace of God, the merit of Christ and the instrumental cause of the Means of Grace). We can speak of how Justification is received (through faith alone). But if we want to understand what Justification is, it is just what Chemnitz says, "the full and perfect acceptance of the believer unto eternal life."
Justification was not viewed by Chemnitz as the "full and perfect acceptance of the unbelieving world unto eternal life." So to speak of the justification of all people as something that has already taken place simply doesn't fit with the (16th Century) Lutheran view of Justification. It (that is, "to be fully and perfectly accepted unto eternal life") is certainly offered to the whole world in Christ, but it has not taken place for the world that remains outside of Christ. Unbelievers have not been "fully and perfectly accepted unto eternal life." To say otherwise seems to be a more recent innovation.
Meanwhile, however, to make us righteous also in this present life, we have a Propitiator and a mercy seat, Christ (Rom. 3:25). If we believe in Him, sin is not imputed to us. Therefore faith is our righteousness in this present life. (LW, vol. 27, p.64)
They do not consider it worthwhile to remember how often I have adduced what Paul says [Rom. 8:1] to the effect that, although there is sin—for he had previously said much about sin—still there is there no condemnation [for those in Christ Jesus]. The reason why there is no condemnation is not that men do not sin, as Latomus in lying fashion suggests, but because—as Paul says—they are in Jesus Christ; that is, they repose under the shadow of his righteousness as do chicks under a hen. Or as is said more clearly in Rom. 5[:15], they have grace and the gift through his grace. So they do not walk in accordance with sin and sinful flesh; that is, they do not consent to the sin which they in fact have. God has provided them with two immensely strong and secure foundations so that the sin which is in them should not lead to their condemnation. First of all, Christ is himself the expiation (as in Rom. 3[:25]). They are safe in his grace, not because they believe or possess faith and the gift, but because it is in Christ’s grace that they have these things. No one’s faith endures unless he relies upon Christ’s own righteousness, and is preserved by his protection. For, as I have said, true faith is not what they have invented, an absolute—nay, rather, obsolete—quality in the soul, but it is something which does not allow itself to be torn away from Christ, and relies only on the One whom it knows is in God’s grace. Christ cannot be condemned, nor can anyone Who throws himself upon him. This means that so grave a matter is the sin which remains, and so intolerable is God’s judgment, that you will not be able to stand unless you shield yourself with him whom you know to be without any sin. This is what true faith does. (LW, Vol. 32, p.239)
Joe