Category: Kolb-2000 - Wittenberg Door Campus Ministry

Finally, a list of miscellaneous errors.

10/31/2018

Wednesdays are for Bits and Pieces
10/31/18

Kolb, Robert. The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000.
Epitome “XII Concerning Other Factions and Sects that Never Subscribed to the Augsburg Confession” pp. 520-523.
Solid Declaration “XII Concerning Other Factions and Sects That Never Subscribed to the Augsburg Confession” pp. 656-660.

As a conclusion to the Formula of Concord and to the Book of Concord as a whole, the authors provide a list of some significant doctrinal errors. There follows a blanket condemnation of Anabaptists then a list of the unacceptable teachings of the radical Reformation, sorted by generally intolerable teachings (Kolb 2000, 520), then a list of unacceptable views of public affairs and of domestic life (Kolb 2000, 521). Next comes a list of errors of the Schwenckfelders, the New Arians, and the Antitrinitarians (Kolb 2000, 522). The list of errors bears examination in its own right, as most of the errors are fairly easy to find in any culture.

The document ends with an affirmation by the subscribers that they wish to make sure all their Christian teaching is plain and open, and that it is honest before God and men. The date of the Epitome is 29 May 1577, subscribed by Jakob Andrae, Nicholas Selnecker, Andrew Musculus, Christopher Korner, David Chytraeus, and Martin Chemnitz.

The Solid Declaration observes additionally that the errors of the Anabaptists, Schwenckfelders, new Arians, and Antitrinitarians have been condemned in the past so they were not specifically condemned by name earlier in the Formula of Concord. However, a list of specific errors is appended because teaching from those groups has divided the churches of the Augsburg Confession as well (Kolb 2000, 656). Following these statements come lists essentially as found in the Epitome, but with slightly more elaboration of the erroneous teachings. Finally comes an affirmation very similar to that of the Epitome, and the same subscriptions (Kolb 2000, 660).

Getting Predestination Right

10/24/2018

Wednesdays are for Bits and Pieces
10/24/18

Kolb, Robert. The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000.
Epitome “XI Concerning the Eternal Predestination and Election of God” pp. 517-520.
Solid Declaration “XI Concerning God’s Eternal Foreknowledge and Election” pp. 640-656.

The authors of the Formula of Concord note that, as of the time of writing, “there has been no public conflict among the theologians of the augsburg Confession” (Kolb 2000, 517). It is treated here as a matter of pastoral comfort to prevent future disputes. The authors distinguish between God’s foreknowledge and his eternal election. In God’s foreknowledge, he knows all that will happen, both among the godly and the evil. God’s foreknowledge never causes evil. The devil and evil people are responsible for evil, not God. But God’s foreknowledge can determine limits to evil. God’s eternal election, or predestination, refers only to the righteous, causing salvation. Christ is absolutely honest in his calling sinners to himself. He genuinely promises forgiveness for all who will hear the Word and believe (Kolb 2000, 517).

Our understanding of election is to be based only on God’s words of promise, not on our human reason or on God’s law. If it is built on our own reason we may choose to live as a lawless person because of God’s grace. If it is built on God’s law we can fall into hopelessness, seeing that we never keep the law well enough. When we understand election based on the Gospel, we find that God’s will is that everyone should believe in Jesus, which calls us to repentance and draws us to faith in Jesus (Kolb 2000, 518). Failure to be saved from sin is not based on any of God’s predestination, but on our refusal to hear God’s Word and believe it. In times of trial, we can remember that it was God’s pleasure to choose us and that he has given us this promise in Word and in Sacrament (Kolb 2000, 518).

False views of God’s election include teaching which can lead troubled Christians to doubt rather than confidence. The authors of the Formula of Concord reject the views that God does not actually want everyone to repent, that he does not seriously call people to him, or that he doesn’t actually want everyone to be saved. This specifically includes those who say God has destined some for condemnation (Kolb 2000, 519). Election must be held to lie entirely in the mercy of God and in Christ’s merit. If that is not the case, Christians can lose all the comfort of the Gospel.

The Solid Declaration acknowledges that there have been disputes about foreknowledge and election outside of the churches of the Augsburg Confession. These disputes ahve caused concern among the Augsburg churches as well (Kolb 2000, 641). The Scripture speaks frequently about God’s foreknowledge and foreordination. “Therefore, no one should ignore or reject this teaching of the divine Word just because some have misused and misunderstood it. Instead, precisely to avoid every abuse and misunderstanding, we should and must explain the proper understanding on the basis of Scripture” (Kolb 2000, 641). Again, as in the Epitome, the authors describe God’s foreknowledge, using the Latin terms praescientia or praevisio. This is distinct from praedestinatio, which the Solid Declaration specifically defines as ‘God’s preordination to salvation”(Kolb 2000, 641). God’s foreknowledge is his seeing and knowing, but is not to be considered his gracious will. God knows evil and good equally. However, “God’s eternal election not only foresees and foreknows the salvation of the elect but is also a cause of our salvation and whatever pertains to it, on the basis of the gracious will and good pleasure of God in Christ Jesus” (Kolb 2000, 642). It specifically fulfills God’s good pleasure, which is to save. For this reason it cannot include a view of double predestination, the election of some to salvation and the election of others to condemnation. Such a view leads to arrogance or to despair. Because Scripture is intended to correct and equip (2 Timothy 3:16), a right understanding of Scripture cannot lead to impenitence or despair but to repentance (Kolb 2000, 643). Our understanding of God’s intentions must be in harmony with God’s Word and revelation of His character as the one who ordains people in Christ to be redeemed.

For this reason, the Augsburg Confession churches teach that Christ has provided redemption, that it is offered and delivered in Word and Sacrament, that it is effective in the preached, heard, and believed Word, and that God’s genuine will is to redeem, sanctify, protect, strengthen, and glorify all who repent and believe (Kolb 2000, 644). Identification of the election of God is not made based on our reason or outward appearance, nor any speculation into a hidden will of God. Rather, we pay attention to the way God has revealed His will in Scripture. God’s call through the Word is specific and it is always positive. The authors refer to multiple passages of Scripture which always view predestination positively. God calls all people genuinely, making the very same offer of salvation to all. “We should never regard this call from God, which takes place through the preaching of the Word, as some kind of deception” (Kolb 2000, 645). Rather, we accept it as God’s genuine offer and his genuine desire. When God speaks to us by the Holy Spirit through the Word of God, it is God’s will for us to believe and receive the Word. In this way we receive the inheritance which God has prepared for his people. Because God’s call is genuine to all, everyone who believes can have confidence that God has redeemed him. There is no need to try to discern some hidden will of God. His revealed will makes it clear that everyone who is called in the Scripture is invited to believe. Everyone who believes on Christ will be saved. We should never believe that God would contradict himself by calling people to repent but not wanting them to do so (Kolb 2000, 646).

The authors of the Solid Declaration further remind their readers that Christ’s promised Gospel is available in both Word and Sacrament. The pronouncement of absolution is valid for all who hear and receive it. There is no hidden divine desire to forgive some and not others. However, those who “spurn the Word and resist and persist in resisting the Holy Spirit” (Kolb 2000, 647) should not expect that they will be considered the elect of God. These are the people whom God finally does condemn, due to their own contempt for God’s Word. Again, this is not the result of God’s foreknowledge, but it is something which God does foreknow. God’s election is to salvation, not to rejection.

Accurate teaching of predestination is very comforting. It teaches that we are saved purely by God’s grace, apart from any of our works, and that God’s intention for salvation was present prior to creation itself. We depend on God’s good pleasure, which never changes, rather than on our will, which does change (Kolb 2000, 648). We also know that in our trials, God is working his eternal counsel, which is for our good. On the contrary, when we try to describe God’s election in terms of our speculation or some secret, unrevealed will of God, we are led away from confidence in God and into doubt (Kolb 2000, 649). Likewise, all of God’s warnings and the destruction of unbelievers which we can see serve not to demonstrate an election of God to destruction, but as God’s warning that we should repent and believe the Gospel (Kolb 2000, 650). All of God’s Word points his people to Christ as the redeemer and sustainer of all. His will for the redemption of the world is clear in Scripture. God’s people don’t need to look for some hidden will or secret revelation, but rather for God’s clear revelation (Kolb 2000, 651).

God’s Word calls his people to live holy lives, as the Holy Spirit dwells in them. For this reason, those who are believing on Christ should strive to live a godly life. Our failure should not cause us to doubt God’s election, but rather urge us to repentance and change. We do not doubt, because our salvation doesn’t depend on our righteousness but on Christ’s righteousness. This is God’s irrevocable will (Kolb 2000, 652). God further encourages his people by showing that his calling and drawing happens by means he has instituted, Word and Sacrament. It is not of our own opinion, but in accordance with God’s will that we are called to him.

What of God’s sovereignty in calling people to himself? “The reason why not all who hear the Word believe it (and thus receive the greater damnation) is not that God has not allowed them to be saved. Instead, it is their own fault, for they hear the Word not so that they might learn from it but only to despise, revile, and ridicule it; and they resisted the Holy Spirit, who wanted to work in them through the Word, as happened at Christ’s time with the Pharisees and their adherents” (Kolb 2000, 653). In conclusion, if we are saved from sin, the praise goes to God. If we are condemned, the blame goes to us. It is always God’s good pleasure to receive all repentant people who believe in Christ graciously as his children. This is his predisposition. We can have confidence in that (Kolb 2000, 654). The teaching of election in Christ draws Christians to repentance, faith, and a life of holiness and confidence. It is a tremendous comfort, when taught correctly (Kolb 2000, 655).

Adiaphora - matters of indifference

10/17/2018

Wednesdays are for Bits and Pieces
10/17/18

Kolb, Robert. The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000.
Epitome “X Concerning Ecclesiastical Practices Which Are Called Adiaphora or Indifferent Matters” pp. 515-516.
Solid Declaration “X Concerning Ecclesiastical Practices That Are Called Adiaphora or Indifferent Things” pp. 635-640.

There are numerous practices which are carried on in churches which are not commanded in Scripture but are not forbidden. The authors of the Formula of Concord observe that these statements refer to those practices which are carried on for good order. At the heart of the question was a dispute. When enduring persecution, could ceremonies which had previously been abandoned be revived due to the demands of the persecutors? The authors affirm that such activities are not commanded by God and are not mandatory. However, the community can institute ceremonies which are not frivolous or offensive but which will help edify the body of Christ (Kolb 2000, 515). However, there is considerable New Testament confirmation that says we do not need to cave to the pressure of others when that pressure would turn people from the free gospel. No concessions are permitted in these cases (Kolb 2000, 516). Further, it is not appropraite for one church body to condemn another because of the ceremonies not commanded or prohibited by God, provided those ceremonies do not interfere in the Christian faith. Human commands and ceremonies are not to be applied with coercive force. They are not part of divinely commanded worship. Because some demands for concession in those ceremonies do conflict with the freedom of the gospel, it is inappropriate to make concessions, whether by adding or taking away ceremonies.

The Solid Declaration again specifies that the non-biblical ceremonies under discussion are those which led to good order or decorum. Again, the specific context of persecution is in mind, not simply a discussion which suggests certain ceremonies may be helpful or not helpful (Kolb 2000, 636). The issue at hand is whether non-biblical cermonies may be imposed by coercion. The authors confirm that the ceremonies, when they create an illusion that they are required by God, immediately hinder the teaching of the gospel. They are therefore not allowed because the coercive force imposes a non-biblical standard upon a congregation. The matters which may have been considered adiaphora become a matter of “teaching human precepts as doctrines” (Matthew 15:9) as soon as they are considered a requirement (Kolb 2000, 636). The authors therefore confirm that the power to establish or reject extra-biblical ceremonies resides in the local congregation, not in imposition from outside. Those who would impose ceremony on another congregation by force do not have the freedom to do so. This is well established in the New Testament (Kolb 2000, 638). The authors find this point of view to be in harmony also with the 1537 Smalcald Articles, particularly quoting from article three. The view is also in concord with the Treatise on the Power and Authority of the Pope (Kolb 2000, 639). Non-biblical commands are not to be imposed on a people by force, especially if there is any hint that those commands will be viewed as God’s commands or means of grace (Kolb 2000, 640).

Christ's Descent into Hell

10/10/2018

Wednesdays are for Bits and Pieces
10/10/18

Kolb, Robert. The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000.
Epitome “IX Concerning Christ’s Descent into Hell” pp. 514-515.
Solid Declaration “IX Concerning Christ’s Descent into Hell” pp. 634-635.

In this very brief article the authors describe a dispute about how Jesus descended into hell. The article is not entirely comprehensible by reason, but is grasped by faith. “[I]t is enough that we know that Christ descended into hell and destroyed hell for all believers and that he redeemed them from the power of death, the devil, and the eternal damnation of hellish retribution” (Kolb 2000, 514). However, the authors confess that we do not know how it happened.

The Solid Declaration does acknowledge that there are numerous possible explanations which have been used in Church history. However, again, it affirms that we will not understand the fullness of the doctrine, we merely confess it as is consistent with the Scriptures (Kolb 2000, 635).

Jesus' Personal Presence

10/3/2018

Wednesdays are for Bits and Pieces
10/3/18

Kolb, Robert. The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000.
Epitome “VIII Concerning the Person of Christ” pp. 508-514.
Solid Declaration “VIII. Concerning the Person of Christ” pp. 616-634.

Questions about the Lord’s Supper led to a disagreement between the Lutherans and Calvinists, who questioned the union and interaction of Christ’s divine and human natures (Kolb 2000, 509). Some, classified as “sacramentarians,” held that the natures were really separable, but that divine and human went under one name in union. The Augsburg party affirmed that there is one Christ who is at once human and divine, with the natures united but not blended (Kolb 2000, 510). The Epitome specifically rejects the analogy of two boards being glued together as a sign of the union of the natures. “Instead, here is the most complete Communion, which God truly has with this human being; out of this personal union and out of the most complete and most indescribable communion that results from it flows eveything human that can be ascribed to and believed about God and everything divine that can be ascribed to and believed about the human Christ” (Kolb 2000, 510). The union of divine and human in the person of Christ is what makes the death and resurrection of Christ meaningful. A true human who bore the perfection of God suffered on our behalf. The true God who bore humanity suffered on our behalf. The risen Lord who ascended into heaven is still human. The child Jesus who “grew in stature, wisdom, and grace before God and other people” (Kolb 2000, 511) had set aside his divine majesty during his time of humiliation, thus allowing him to grow as a human. Because the Christ is divine, he is able to be present in his true body and blood in communion, though they are very physical elements. Lutherans are not Nestorian, dividing the person of Christ. They are also not Eutychians, seeing Christ’s characteristics mixed into just one nature. Lutherans confess the mystery of one person with two natures. Lutherans also reject the Arian view of Christ not being eternal, and the Marcionite denial of Christ’s true human nature (Kolb 2000, 512).It is essential to Lutheran thought, and stated numerous times in the Epitome, that the true Christ in his human and divine natures, is present in heaven and on earth where he promises to be, notably in Word and Sacrament (Kolb 2000, 513).

The Solid Declaration provides more detail about the controversy. The objection to Christ’s true, bodily, essential presence in communion came from Zwinglians. They asserted that Christ must be locally present in heaven, therefore he cannot be present locally on earth. Critical to their argument, however, is that only God could do this, not Christ (Kolb 2000, 616). The Zwinglian point of view could not be sustained, as it divides Christ and says he is not truly divine. The wording of the Solid Declaration is very careful. “We believe, teach, and confess that, although the Son of God is a separate, distinct, and complete person in and of himself and thus was truly, essentially, and fully God with the Father and the Holy Spirit from eternity, nonetheless at the same time, when the fullness of time had come, he assumed human nature into the unity of his person, not in such a way that there were two persons or two Christs, but that Christ Jesus was in one person at the same time true and eternal God, Begotten of the Father from eternity, and a true human being” (Kolb 2000, 617). The two natures remain, even in the resurrection. They are never mixed or separated. Some of the attributes of Christ’s nature belong only to his divinity, while some belong only to his humanity. But the natures are never separable. They will never act apart from each other. Christ would not truly be the second person of the Trinity without both natures (Kolb 2000, 618). The Solid Declaration goes on to describe a variety of misinterpretations of the divine and human natures in Christ. The description and illustration continues for several pages. The practical conclusion is that in his state of humiliation, Christ retained his divine abilities but kept them hidden much of the time and used them only when he wished to do so (Kolb 2000, 621). The text continues to show the relationship between the two natures of Christ and the need for a teaching of communication idomatum, the way the two natures do interact. Each nature remains its own nature (Kolb 2000, 622). That which is human does not become divine, nor does the divine become human. The overall doctrine is summarized in three points. “First, because in Christ there are and remain two distinct natures, unchanged and unmixed in their natural essences and characteristics, and because these two natures exist as only one single person, therefore, the characteristic of each individual nature is not ascribed to that nature alone, as if it were separated from the person, but it is ascribed to the whole person, which issimultaneously God and human” (Kolb 2000, 622). “Second, concerning the discharge of Christ’s office, the person acts and does its work not in, with, through, or according to one nature alone but in, according to, with, and through both natures, or, as the Council of Chalcedon says, each nature does its work in communion with the other, whatever specific characteristic may be involved” (Kolb 2000, 624). Third, the Solid Declaration affirms that Christ’s divine nature loses none of its divinity by being present in the same person as the human nature of Christ. The human nature loses none of its humanity by being present with the divine nature but it does tend to take on some of the glory of the divine nature, especially in the resurrection (Kolb 2000, 624-625). When the Scriptures say that something is given to Christ, it is therefore assumed to be given to him in his human nature. The divine nature had nothing to be added (Kolb 2000, 626). Likewise, the divine nature is not poured out or diluted in the human nature of Christ. There is no weakening of the divine nature in the Christ (Kolb 2000, 630). Further, when Christ is present for his people, such as in communion, the entirety of him is present. He is there in all his divine and human nature (Kolb 2000, 631). The Solid Declaration thus rejects any mixing of the natures of Christ. It affirms that Christ in both his natures is able to be present anywhere. He is able to be at the right hand of the Father and remain there while being in any place the Father’s hand would reach (Kolb 2000, 634).

Communion, a Holy Supper

9/26/2018

Wednesdays are for Bits and Pieces
9/26/18

Kolb, Robert. The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000.
Epitome “VII Concerning the Holy Supper of Christ” pp. 503-508.
Solid Declaration “VII. Concerning the Holy Supper” pp. 591--615.

Zwinglians had dissented with the Augsburg Confession from the start. However, they were allegedly trying to assert that they held to the Augsburg Confession. The Zwinglians were also referred to as “Sacramentarians.” The question at hand was straightforward. In communion, are the true body and blood of Jesus truly present in their essence, along with bread and wine, and are they received by both believers and unbelievers? The sacramentarians denied this, while the Augsburg Confession confirms it to be so (Kolb 2000, 504). The Epitome here conflates a Zwinglian “mere symbol” view with a Calvinist “spiritual presence” view. It does reject both, affirming that Jesus is present bodily and essentially to nourish believers and to bring judgment on unbelievers.

The Formula of Concord therefore affirms that Christ’s body and blood “are truly and essentially present, truly distributed and received with the bread and wine” (Kolb 2000, 505). It is not a symbolic presence in any way. The minister who does the consecration finds it effective because of Jesus’ power, not the minister’s power. The words of institution should never be omitted, as they are the command of Christ. Jesus is able to be present with his body in the bread and his blood in the wine because he is at the right hand of the Father, who is omnipresent. The true body and blood of Christ are received orally by all who eat and drink (Kolb 2000, 506). Those who receive it worthily are built up in their faith. All who receive believing are worthy. That worthiness comes from the word of Christ, not through our own merit (Kolb 2000, 506).

The Formula of Concord rejects transubstantiation and the Mass as a sacrifice for sins. It rejects the idea of communion in one element only. Also rejected is the idea that Christ’s words should not be taken at face value, that the reception is only a spiritual reception, a mere symbol, or a reminder of a future promise. There is a specific rejection of views stating Christ is not truly present in his body and blood or that he is limited to a presence in heaven (Kolb 2000, 507). Also rejected are ideas that God cannot make his body present in different places at the same time, that he is only present when the recipient has faith, or that Jesus is rightly to be looked for in heaven rather than in the bread and wine. The outward preparation for communion is never effective. Receiving in faith always protects from God’s judgment. Yet the Formula rejects any idea of making particular adoration addressed to the consecrated elements. It also rejects every allegation that communion is any sort of cannibalistic meal.

The Solid Declaration further states that this article technically should not have been included, as the Sacramentarians have never been considered part of the Augsburg Confession group (Kolb 2000, 591). However, some of the Augsburg Confession group had begun giving open support to the sacramentarians and their views (Kolb 2000, 592). Therefore, this article seeks to identify the differences. It is made difficult because some sacramentarians have tried to say that Christ’s body is truly received in communion. However, upon questioning, they ultimately say that Christ’s body and blood are actually absent, present in heaven, and only accessible in the Sacrament by faith (Kolb 2000, 593). This is a Calvinist position, saying that we must spiritually rise to the heavenly realms to receive the true body and blood of Christ, which is there, not actually present in communion. If, in fact, Jesus is seen by them to be present, it is only in his divine nature, not his human nature as well. The divine and human natures of Christ are thus separated and he is no longer a bodily presence (Kolb 2000, 594). Counter to this, the Augsburg Confession is clear in article ten. “The true body and blood of Christ are truly present under the form of bread and wine in the Holy Supper and are distributed and received there” (Kolb 2000, 594). The Solid Declaration further cites Luther’s Small Catechism (Lord’s Supper 2) and the Apology to the Augsburg Confession (X, 1, 3). 1 Corinthians 10:16 makes it very clear that in communion Christ’s body is truly present (Kolb 2000, 595). At the heart of the issue is that the sacramentarians consider Christ to be present in only a local manner, in one place at a time, while the Lutherans consider Christ to be present wherever and however he has proclaimed in his Word that he will be present (Kolb 2000, 596). In communion, Jesus’ body and blood are received by all the communicants, whether to their benefit or to their harm. Those who receive it without trusting Jesus’ forgiveness will receive condemnation instead (Kolb 2000, 597). The Solid Declaration is also clear that in communion we receive bread and wine, body and blood, thus rejecting both transubstantiation and a symbolic view of communion (Kolb 2000, 599). This is the most adequate way to understand the nature of communion when we accept Jesus’ words at their face value. The Solid Declaration goes on to make an extended argument for the reality of all the Bible says about Jesus’ presence. He is bodily present, in his essential nature as God and man, and has given us this presence for forgiveness. Eaten in faith, the elements of communion deliver all the benefits of God in Christ (Kolb 2000, 604). Those who do not eat in faith receive Christ to their condemnation. Everyone who eats receives Christ.

The faith or worthiness of the person who consecrates the Supper is also a matter of no consequence to the recipient. When consecrated according to the direction of Jesus, God’s Word makes the elements a sacrament. It is thus ready for eating and drinking, not for adoring or storing (Kolb 2000, 607). At the root of the entire issue is the ability of God to be present in his very body and blood everywhere. This is not a problem for Jesus, seated at the right hand of the Father. The Father’s right hand is everywhere the Father wishes it to be. Bodily presence is thus not a problem (Kolb 2000, 610). The affirmative and negative theses in the Solid Declaration are not significantly further elaborated than in the Epitome, and are tabulated more clearly in the Epitome.

Following God's Law as Pleasing Obedience

9/19/2018

Wednesdays are for Bits and Pieces
9/19/18

Kolb, Robert. The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000.
Epitome “VI Concerning the Third Use of the Law” pp. 502-503.
Solid Declaration “VI. Concerning the Third Use of the Law” pp. 587--591.

Article six of the Formula of Concord speaks of different uses of God’s law. It identifies the functions as maintenance of external discipline, conviction of sin, and guidance in righteous living. The third use has been a matter of debate, as some theologians deny that “the law is to be urged upon reborn Christians” (Kolb 2000, 502). The Formula confesses that even though Christians are set free from the law of God, they are not without the law. Redemption draws them to keep the law of God as it is good and leads them to reflect God’s image. This guards Christians from going astray. “In order that people do not resolve to perform service to God on the basis of their pious imagination in an arbitrary way of their own choosing, it is necessary for the law of God constantly to light their way” (Kolb 2000, 502). The Formula goes on to distinguish between the works of the law and the fruits of the Spirit, affirming that it is important to make such a distinction.

The Solid Declaration addresses the situation in much the same terms. As usual, we find a more thorough description of the dispute and hits history here than in the Epitome (Kolb 2000, 587). The Christian, in living a righteous life, will be doing the things of God’s Law. The Formula of Concord makes it clear that God’s law is uniformly considered a good thing in the Scripture (Kolb 2000, 588). Again, since Christians are not perfected in this world, they need God’s law to guide their wills. Multiple scripture passages are presented as evidence for Christians needing the guidance of God’s law. The Gospel works to redeem and give new life. The Law shows what is important to God, though it gives no ability to do what God values (Kolb 2000, 589). The goal of the Christian life is to continue in holiness and piety. God’s law provides us with information to evaluate our lives (Kolb 2000, 590).

Distinguishing Law and Gospel

9/12/2018

Wednesdays are for Bits and Pieces
9/12/18

Kolb, Robert. The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000.
Epitome “V Concerning Law and Gospel” pp. 500-501.
Solid Declaration “V. Concerning Law and Gospel” pp. 581-586.

The fifth article of the Formula of Concord deals with Law and Gospel. At issue was whether gospel preaching includes “a preaching of repentance and rebuke, which condemns unbelief” (Kolb 2000, 500). While the words “law” and “gospel” can be used in a rather vague manner, strictly speaking law gives instruction and condemns sin. Gospel tells what we should believe about the atoning work and forgiveness of Christ. In Scripture the word “gospel” can be “used for the entire teaching of Christ,” therefore, it is appropriate to refer to gospel as “a proclamation of both repentance and the forgiveness of sins” (Kolb 2000, 500). But when law and gospel are contrasted, we should use the more strict meaning of each. A preaching of law only, especially when it is referred to as gospel, can make people presumptuous or can drive them to despair, as they may look to their obedience as the means of forgiveness of sins (Kolb 2000, 501). Therefore, we avoid teaching that the gospel is a call to repentance or that the law is a proclamation of mercy.

The Solid Declaration elaborates the danger of confusing law and gospel. It “obscures the merit of Christ and robs troubled consciences of the comfort that they otherwise have in the holy gospel when it is preached clearly and purely” (Kolb 2000, 581). Among some of the Augsburg theologians, there was the opinion that “the gospel is really not only the proclamation of grace but also at the same time a proclamation of repentance, which reproves the greatest sin, unbelief (Kolb 2000, 581). Therefore it became necessary to reaffirm the strict definition of gospel as only the message of God’s grace. Again, while the term “gospel” is allowed as a broad term in the New Testament, illustrated in detail in the Solid Declaration (Kolb 2000, 582), to maintain clarity in preaching and in theological discourse, the more strict meaning of the term is strongly preferred. This preserves the understanding that the gospel is truly about forgiveness of sins procured through Jesus (Kolb 2000, 583). A failure to make this distinction can create people who are presumptuous or despairing. The language in the Solid Declaration is largely the same as in the Epitome, cited above. It is then elaborated upon with a reference to the “alien work” of the Holy Spirit, based on Isaiah 28:21. This is explained by Dr. Luther, commenting on John 14:26 and 16:7-8. He sees that the genuine preaching of the gospel “points to and bestows nothing else than grace and forgiveness in Christ” (Kolb 2000, 583). Again, the Solid Declaration emphasizes that the strict definitions of law and of gospel make the requirement of repentance and obedience clear, as well as the gracious gift of salvation in Christ (Kolb 2000, 584). The only potential demand of the gospel is that we believe the grace of God. It is therefore a message of comfort, not a call to repentance in any way (Kolb 2000, 585).

Why good works? They are good.

9/5/2018

Wednesdays are for Bits and Pieces
9/5/18

Kolb, Robert. The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000.
Epitome “IV Concerning Good Works” pp. 497-500.
Solid Declaration “IV. Concerning Good Works” pp. 574-581.

The Formula of Concord discusses two controversies faced by some churches. While some theologians began confessing that good works were necessary for salvation, others, in contrast, said that good works were harmful. Some of those in the “necessary” camp, recognizing that the good works they were prescribing did not contribute to salvation, modified their statement to say that Christians were “free” to do good works. At the root of the controversy was the nature of the freedom Christians had to do good works. Those who have been regenerated can be expected to do good works. Where they by compulsion of the Holy Spirit? Possibly as a necessary outcome? The Formula of Concord attempts to clarify the situation here (Kolb 2000, 498).

Good works can certainly be expected to follow regeneration. The nature of the Christian is to do good works. However, those good works do not contribute in any way to justification, which is entirely a gift of God. Yet all people are under an obligation before God to do good works. This obligation, however, is a “required obedience” not of the law, but to grace. It is not “up to the discretion of the reborn human beings to do good or not to do good as they wish” but it is expected of those who would remain in the Christian faith (Kolb 2000, 499). The imperfect nature of our good works and our lack of desire to do good works is a matter for repentance, but not for fear.

The Formula of Concord rejects the view “that good works are necessary for salvation; or that no one has ever been saved without good works; or that it is impossible to be saved without good works” (Kolb 2000, 499). The idea that good works would harm salvation is rejected as offensive. It is, rather, necessary that Christians be reminded to do good works. The article in the Epitome ends with a warning that persistent sin in rejection of good works could result in loss of salvation.

The Solid Declaration describes the controversy in a very similar way, though explaining the arguments of the different parties in more detail (Kolb 2000, 574). Much of the argument is alleged to be in reaction to opposing points of view. For instance, those who say that good works are not necessary but that Christians are free to do good works are reacting to a Roman Catholic perception that works contribute to salvation. Those who said that good works were harmful to Christianity were wishing to draw a clear distinction from those who would say that good works are necessary (Kolb 2000, 575).

The beginning of the positive statements in the Solid Declaration is particularly strong. “[T]here is no argument among our people on the following points: that it is God’s will, order, and command that believers shall walk in good works; that true good works are not those which people invent for themselves or that take their form according to human tradition but rather are those that God himself has prescribed and commanded in his Word; that true good works are not performed out of our own natural powers, but they are performed when a person is reconciled with God through faith and renewed through the Holy Spirit…” (Kolb 2000, 575). Thse good works are pleasing to God, though imperfect. The good works of the Christian spring from faith in God (Kolb 2000, 576).

The Augsburg Confession makes it clear in articles VI and XX, and in the Apology article IV, among other places, that Christians are required to do good works (Kolb 2000, 576). However, this does not indicate that the good works result in salvation. Rejecting good works is a giving of oneself over to sin. Holding a habit of sin can result in spiritual death, as we are actively disobeying the God who saved us (Kolb 2000, 577). This is unthinkable to the authors of the Solid Declaration. However, at the same time, the Scripture commands many things which are good and are not kept as a result of God’s coercive power. He requests that Christians engage in their good works willingly and cheerfully.

Again, it is important to avoid mixing the need for good works into the article on justification. The author rejects the idea “that good works are necessary for the salvation of believers or that it is impossible to be saved without good works” (Kolb 2000, 578).

Because of the firm rejection of good works leading to salvation, the Solid Declaration also takes pains to observe that the lack of good works can draw one away from Christ. In short, the lack of good works can and should be seen as a sin just like any other sin, which can divide the Christian from his savior and eventually rob him of his salvation (Kolb 2000, 579). Salvation, and the retention of salvation, are by faith alone. However, good works are a natural outcome of that faith. Faith is expressed through good works (Kolb 2000, 580).

The Christian's Righteousness Comes from the Christ

8/29/2018

Wednesdays are for Bits and Pieces
8/29/18

Kolb, Robert. The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000.
Epitome “III. Concerning the Righteousness of Faith before God” pp. 494-497.
Solid Declaration “III. Concerning the Righteousness of Faith before God” pp. 562-573.

The third article of the Formula of Concord deals with a difficult question. Because Jesus is considered to be the righteousness of the Christian, and because Jesus has both a human and a divine nature, “According to which nature is Christ our righteousness?” (Kolb 2000, 494). Two errors have been articulated in attempt to answer the question. Either they have affirmed that Jesus is the righteousness of the Christian according to only his divine nature or according to only his human nature.

On the affirmative, we confess that Christ, in both natures, is our righteousness. That righteousness consists in God’s forgiveness entirely by grace. It is received only through faith, which is a gift of God, receiving the complete forgiveness of sin through Jesus (Kolb 2000, 495). Although Christians are still aware of sin, and repent of it, they should not doubt that God has given them forgiveness. Thanksgiving is given to God alone for his gracious work of salvation. We also confess that, though salvation is entirely an act of God’s grace, good works are always found following faith that justifies (Kolb 2000, 496).

The concepts rejected by the Formula of Concord are, of course, that Jesus is our righteousness only according to the human or divine nature. The authors also reject the idea that justification is merely a pronouncement of freedom of sin. It is, in fact, a creation of righteousness (Kolb 2000, 497). The Formula also rejects the idea that we look to Christ’s obedience as well as his divine nature indwelling us, expecting that it is the indwelling which actually covers sins. Also rejected are the ideas that Christ’s forgiveness remains in someone who is not repentant, that only God’s gifts but not his person indwell believers, that we are saved because we have reformed our lives, that we are saved because we contribute renewal or love to God’s grace, that we are justified through both Christ’s righteousness and our obedience, through our own generation of faith, or apart from the presence of good works.

The Solid Declaration explains the argument of Christ’s divine nature being our righteousness a bit more fully. The group in question argued that Christ “dwells in the elect through faith and impesl them to do what is right and is therefore their righteousness” (Kolb 2000, 562). The Solid Declaration makes no additional argument about how Christ could be our righteousness in only his human nature. Various declarations of the Interim agreement had created disputes about justification. Those are addressed in the antitheses below (Kolb 2000, 563). The positive confession is that we are justified without any of our own merit, but solely by Jesus’ merit and obedience. This is conveyed to us by the gospel, received by faith, which comes from God. Therefore, all salvation is solely a gift of God’s grace (Kolb 2000, 564). Justification, meaning “to pronounce righteous and free from sins and to count as freed from the eternal punishment of sin because of Christ’s righteousness” (Kolb 2000, 564) is equated with salvation here. It is thus confessed as a free gift of God. A related word, “regeneration,” is sometimes used as a synonym for justification, but sometimes it is not. Sometimes it means renewal and reform of life, but in a more limited sense, it simply means justification (Kolb 2000, 565). Likewise, the word for “making alive” is sometimes used as a synonym for justification.

A very important claim in the discussion of justification is whether the sinful nature remains present in a regenerate person. The Formula of Concord is clear. “When we teach that through the activity of the Holy Spirit we are born anew and become righteous, this does not mean that after rebirth unrighteousness no longer clings to the essence and life of the justified and reborn. Instead, it means that with his perfect obedience Christ has covered all their sins, which inhere in human nature during this life” (Kolb 2000, 565). However, we do expect that repentance and forgiveness does motivate us to good works (Kolb 2000, 566). Nevertheless, those good works are not to be confused with justification. There are the fruit of justification, but not justification itself.

This requires a distinction to be made between righteousness which is given to us by grace through faith and the righteousness which we develop by obedience and good works. It is only passive righteousness, that given by Christ, which saves. However, active righteousness, the good works we do, is good for humanity (Kolb 2000, 567). Our works cannot be counted toward merit for justification in any way at all (Kolb 2000, 568). Specifically, our love or good works are no part of justification (Kolb 2000, 570). We cannot make ourselves worthy in any way. Real righteousness before God does not come from us, but from God. Even the good works we do after justification are not a part of our righteousness before God. God’s grace received by faith is entirely responsible for all of our salvation. The new obedience which follows justification does not contribute to our righteousness before God. Our faith does not make us worthy of grace. There are no works of our own which can save us (Kolb 2000, 571).

Article III of the Formula of Concord further explains that it is necessary that our righteousness come from both the divine and human natures of Christ. If Jesus had not had a fully human nature, his obedience could not be imputed to us humans. If he had not had a divine nature, he could not have satisfied God’s justice. Therefore, it is necessary that both the human and divine nature of Christ be operative in our justification (Kolb 2000, 572).

Rightly Understanding Human Free Will

8/22/2018

Wednesdays are for Bits and Pieces
8/22/18

Kolb, Robert. The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000.
Epitome “II. Concerning the Free Will” pp. 491-494.
Solid Declaration “II. Concerning the Free Will or Human Powers” pp. 543-562.

Article 2 of the Formula of Concord discusses the idea of free will. “Because the human will is found in four dissimilar situations (1. before the fall; 2. after the fall; 3. after new birth; 4. after the resurrection of the flesh), t he primary question concerns only the human will and capacity in the second situation…” (Kolb 2000, 491). The question addressed, then, is that of free will after the fall, but not in the new birth. Can people use their own power to turn to God’s grace?

The Epitome lists three positive theses. First, “human reason and understanding are blind in spiritual matters and understand nothing on the basis of their own powers” when dealing with spiritual matters (Kolb 2000, 491). Second, the unregenerated person “is not only turned away from God but has also become God’s enemy” (Kolb 2000, 492). The text quotes Genesis 8:21, Romans 8:7, Ephesians 2:5, and 2 Corinthians 3:5. Third, the Holy Spirit uses means. He accomplishes conversion through preaching and hearing of God’s Word. The text quotes from Romans 1:16, Romans 10:17, Acts 16:14, Romans 9:16, 1 Corinthians 3:7, John 15:5, and 1 Corinthians 9:16.

In light of the above theses, there are nine negative statements made about false teaching. First, the determinism of Stoics and Manichaens is rejected (Kolb 2000, 492). Second, Pelagianism, with its teaching of a human will which can convert itself is rejected (Kolb 2000, 493). Third, Semi-Pelagianism, which assumes human will and divine will in cooperation in salvation is rejected. Fourth, a view that the Holy Spirit begins the work of salvation and humans then cooperate is rejected. Fifth, the concept of the Christian being able to keep God’s law in its entirety after salvation is rejected. Sixth, the view of Enthusiasts is rejected, as it asserts salvation apart from means of grace such as God’s Word and Sacraments. Seventh, the idea of the old creature being utterly destroyed and a brand new soul being created in salvation is rejected. Eighth the idea that the Holy Spirit is given to those who persist in stubbornly rejecting Him is rejected. Finally, the idea that the Holy Spirit draws those who are willing is rejected.

The distinctions among these different rejections are quite fine. A good summary is found in paragraph 17. “It is correct to say that in conversion God changes recalcitrant, unwilling people into willing people through the drawing power of the Holy Spirit, and that after this conversion the reborn human will is not idle in the daily exercise of repentance, but cooperates in all the works of the Holy Spirit which he performs through us” (Kolb 2000, 494).

In the Solid Declaration we are given more information about the root of the controversy. There were theological debates among those recognizing the Augsburg Confession about the role of the will in salvation Really, meditating on God's ways ought to shed biblical light on every situation of our lives (Kolb 2000, 543). Because this was also a matter of dispute among those who didn’t subscribe to the Augsburg Confession, it seemed important to explain the doctrine in more detail.

In paragraph seven we read “[t]hat in spiritual and divine matters, the mind, heart, and will of the unreborn human being can in absolutely no way, on the basis of its own natural powers, understand, believe, accpt, consider, will, begin, accomplish, do, effect, or cooperate. Instead, it is completely dead to the good - completely corrupted” (Kolb 2000, 544). The authors do admit that their view is counter to most human reason and philosophy. Yet they affirm it to be a biblical view. It does not negate the idea that unregenerate humans have some wisdom, or even a concept that there is some such thing as a god. It does, however, affirm that, apart from the Holy Spirit, there is no way in the world that people will grasp the truth of God or the salvation provided in Christ. There follows a lengthy list of biblical citations indicating that God’s wisdom is grasped only through the work of the Holy Spirit. Apart from this, people are spiritually dead and cannot gain spiritual life of their own volition any more than a person who is bodily dead can bring himself back to life (Kolb 2000, 545). This is a much more comprehensive explanation of the first positive thesis from the Epitome.

A second positive theses is that the unregenerated human is not only turned away from God, but is also turned toward evil against God (Kolb 2000, 547). Again, we are given a number of biblical citations discussing the way people are naturally opposed to God’s will, even after the new birth. Paragraph 18 then asserts that it is only logical to recognize a hostility to God before the new birth. The argument does not deny that unregenerated people are non-rational or intellectually incapable. In fact, the unregenerated person can hear the Word of God and consider it. It’s also quite possible to do some things which are considered good in the temporal world. However, the text quotes Luther’s comments on Psalm 90, saying “in spiritual and divine matters, which concern the soul’s salvation, the human being is like a pillar of salt, like Lot’s wife, indeed like a block of wood or a stone, like a lifeless statue…” (Kolb 2000, 548). The person does not know God’s grace or God’s wrath and will potentially live a life oblivious to them, unless confrtonted by God’s Word and Holy Spirit.

Christian conversion, then is described as entirely caused by divine activity. It is the work of the Holy Spirit. The Christian believes because the Holy Spirit uses the Scripture in his life, making him a believer. Again, we are given many biblical passages indicative of the concept (Kolb 2000, 549). The Solid Declaration also cites Augsburg Confession article 20 and the Smalcald Articles article 3 to indicate that the position taken in Apology II is consistent with earlier documents of the Reformation (Kolb 2000, 550). Luther’s Large and Smal Catechisms speak to the issue as well (Kolb 2000, 551).

The Solid Declaration moves on to discuss ways in which groups have twisted Christian teaching on free will. Some wish to be converted by God against their will (Kolb 2000, 553). Some would expect God to save them without the use of Word or sacrament. Some would question whether, because of their weakness, God has actually saved them. Therefore, we are presented with further explanation of the way conversion happens.

God’s desire is to save people. This he does through the work of the Holy Spirit speaking through the proclamation of the Word and the administration of sacraments (Kolb 2000, 553). We are given many biblical passages to document this idea. Those in whom a desire to be saved is awakened listen to the proclamation of God’s Word (Kolb 2000, 554). The drawing and the creating of faith is the work of the Holy Spirit, not of the person hearing. Paragraph 54 sums it up this way. “Through these means (the preaching and hearing of his Word), God goes about his work and breaks our hearts and draws people, so that they recognize their sins and God’s wrath through the preaching of the law and feel real terror, regret, and sorrow in their hearts. Through the preaching of the holy gospel of the gracious forgiveness of sins in Christ and through meditating upon it, a spark of faith is ignited in them, and they accept the forgiveness of sins for Christ’s sake and receive the comfort of the promise of the gospel. In this way the Holy Spirit, who effects all of this, is sent into their hearts” (Kolb 2000, 554).

What of those who hear and do not believe? “If people do not want to hear or read the proclamation of God’s Word, but disdain it and the congregation of God’s people and then die and perish in their sins, they can neither find comfort in God’s eternal election nor obtain mercy” (Kolb 2000, 555). The Solid Declaration thus describes salvation as entirely from God and rejection as entirely from the human. Earlier humans were described as stone or wood, unable to believe by themselves. But here, in paragraph 59, humans are contrasted with stone or wood. The reason is that stone or wood cannot resist something. But humans do. Those who persistently reject the Holy Spirit will not be converted.

This concept of free will also protects the idea of growth in Christian faith. From the time of baptism, according to Galatians 3:27 and John 8:36, Christians have put on Christ. They continue in receiving nourishment from Word and Sacrament, all given by the Holy Spirit, gaining in strength. Our acts which are against our conscience, neglecting or rejecting the Holy Spirit weaken or even kill the faith within us. But as we receive God’s Word joyfully, we grown strong in Christ (Kolb 2000, 557).

The Solid Declaration moves on to the same negative theses found in the Epitome, in very nearly the same form. Notably, it assigns to “papists and scholastics” what the Epitome assigns to “semi-Pelagians” (Kolb 2000, 558). In sum, “Luther holds that human beings in and of themselves or on the basis of their own natural powers are not capable of anything and cannot help with their own conversion. He holds that conversion is not just in part, but totally and completely a product, gft, present, and activity of the Holy Spirit alone, who accomplishes and effects what is done through his own power and might, working through the Word in the mind, will, and heart of the human being...as in a subject acted upon” (Kolb 2000, 561).

The Problem with a Sinful Nature Is It Sins

8/15/2018

Wednesdays are for Bits and Pieces
8/15/18

Kolb, Robert. The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000.
Epitome “I. Concerning Original Sin” pp. 487-491.
Solid Declaration “I. Concerning Original Sin” pp. 531-542.

The question of original sin is encapsulated in one simple problem. Is human nature one thing and original sin another thing, which brings corruption? Or is the nature of humanity sinful in and of itself? This is the question raised in the Formula of Concord article one (Kolb 2000, 487). Considering the biblical account of creation it is clear that human nature in itself is pure and holy, but has been terribly corrupted in the fall. The human nature is still a creation of God. Furthermore, Christ assumed human nature but not a sinful nature. The sinful elements will not be glorified, but will be destroyed in the end (Kolb 2000, 488). However, the damage sin has inflicted upon human nature is so extensive that we cannot effectively separate the human nature from sin, regardless of our efforts at holiness. This is a work which only comes in the resurrection (Kolb 2000, 489).

Because of this view of the sinful nature, the Formula of Concord lists a number of ideas which are rejected. The rejections include the idea that sin is merely guilt caused by others, that evil desires are not actually sin, that human nature can be good by itself, that sin is superficial or an obstacle only, and that human nature has areas which are not corrupted (Kolb 2000, 489). There’s also a rejection of the idea that sin is the essence of the human nature and of the idea that sin itself does evil, not our corrupt human nature. The sinful nature is itself “embedded in the human being’s nature, substance, and essence. That means that even if no evil thought ever arose in the heart of the corrupted human being, no idle word were uttered, no evil deed done, nonetheless our nature is corrupted by original sin, which is implanted in us at birth in the sinful seed and which is a source of all other, actual sins, such as evil thoughts, words, and deeds” (Kolb 2000, 490). The difficulty in understanding is closely tied to the various ways we use the word “nature.” In general, we need to be careful about identifying the difference between a human nature as it was created and a human nature corrupted by sin, as well as the fact that sin may consist in things other than our actions (Kolb 2000, 491).

The Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord gives more of the history behind the dispute. There were contentions that human nature was in itself sinful, meaning that human nature was sinful in essence (Kolb 2000, 531). Another group taught that sin was a terrible perversion which lives within the huan nature. Humans lack righteousness and are turned to evil, with sin flowing from within. Yet the essence of the human nature was good. That good would simply not be visible due to the power of the fall into sin (Kolb 2000, 532). This article of the Formula of Concord attempts to distinguish a biblical view from errors, particularly those identified as Pelagian and Manichaean. The goal is to distinguish between God’s good work and the devil’s corruption of human nature.

To make this clear, first, Christians recognize that sin is not limited to activities which are described as sinful, but that it also encompasses a sinful nature, which is corrupted in the sight of God. This has been our condition since the fall recorded in Genesis 3 (Kolb 2000, 533). The Formula of Concord asserts that God does not cause sin, but that it is a creation of the devil. Sin is not easily recognized by reason, but only by the light of Scripture. Sin does, however, cause guilt. Because of original sin it is impossible to please God (Kolb 2000, 533). Because of our sinful nature, we have “an inborn evil way of doing things, an internal impurity of the heart, and an evil desire and inclination. so that we all by nature inherit such a heart, mind, and way of thinking from Adam (Kolb 2000, 534). The inborn hostility to God in humans deserves death and destruction. It can only be forgiven through the forgiveness worked by belief in Jesus.

The Formula of Concord rejects a number of false opinions. The list in the Solid Declaration is very similar to that of the Epitome, but with more specific examples. In a nutshell, sin is corruption of a nature. It includes sinful actions and attitudes. It ruins every part of our nature and actually removes spiritual ability from us. There is no remaining ability to cooperate with God in anything of a spiritual nature (Kolb 2000, 535). Although human nature in the creation was good, it has been ruined by the inherited sin we receive from our parents. That sin is not the essence of humanity, but it has corrupted every part of humanity. However, it is not the sinful nature in us that engages in sin. It is our nature. We cannot separate ourselves from responsibility for our sin (Kolb 2000, 536). The only cure for sin is forgiveness delivered by faith in Christ (Kolb 2000, 537).

Numerous biblical examples of our humanity being a good work of God follow (Kolb 2000, 537-538). In summary, God didn’t create us as sinful beings. However, through our failure in Adam, we have natures which are corrupted. God’s work in Christ is to confront our human nature, “so that he might cleanse, sanctify, and save it through his dear Son” (Kolb 2000, 538).

The distinction between an uncorrupted and a corrupted human nature is very important. Specifically, it matters because Christianity confesses that Christ assumed the human nature, but without sin (Kolb 2000, 539). Jesus does take on human nature which, in its essence, is identical to our human nature. However, he did not take original sin upon himself prior to making his atoning death. Further, God does receive forgiven humans to himself. If human nature itself were sinful, the one who was cleansed from sin would no longer be human. Likewise, the resurrection would be an impossibility because the corruptions of the human body would mean the resurrected being would not actually be human (Kolb 2000, 539).

As in the Epitome, here in the Solid Declaration, the reader is urged to care in using words such as “human nature.” They can be interpreted in a variety of ways. Likewise, a “sinful nature” is not necessarily clear because it could indicate that the nature of humanity is sinful. The authors also urge avoidance of the Latin terms substantia and accidens in discussing sin. Those who are not well versed in the theological language will misunderstand. But it is altogether proper to speak about acts of sin and sinful attitudes (Kolb 2000, 540).

What Is the Formula of Concord?

8/8/2018

Wednesdays are for Bits and Pieces
8/8/18

Kolb, Robert. The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000.
“Introduction to the Epitome of the Formula of Concord” pp. 486-487.
“Introduction to Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord” pp. 524-531

The Formula of Concord is presented in a brief form, known as the Epitome, and a longer form, known as the Solid Declaration. The Epitome is introduced with statements of the guiding principle of all Christian teaching. First, “the prophetic and apostolic writings of the Old and New Testament alone” are the authority (Kolb 2000, 486). Other writings, regardless of their age, draw their authority from their consistency with the Old Testament and the New Testament. Confessions, also known as “symbols,” were quickly formulated to provide a brief and clear answer to false teaching. The compilers of the Book of Concord recognized the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed as a specific confession of the Christian faith. There was also a dispute over the authoritative text of the Augsburg Confession. The compilers of the Book of Concord recognize the unaltered Augsburg Confession, presented in 1530, as well as the Apology and Smalcald Articles as faithful expositions of the biblical faith (Kolb 2000, 487). To protect faithful teaching, the compilers urge study of Luther’s Small and Large Catechisms. From these foundations, all true and false teaching can be identified. To protect against error, it is made clear that the “other symbols, however, and other writings listed above are not judges, as is Holy Scripture, but they are only witnesses and explanations of the faith, which show how Holy Scripture has at various times been understood and interpreted in the church of God by those who lived at the time in regard to articles of faith under dispute and how teachings contrary to the Scripture were rejected and condemned” (Kolb 2000, 487).

The Solid Declaration also bears introductory statements. This introduction discusses the events of the Reformation in brief, particularly as a movement of doctrinal clarification. The Roman church considered the Evangelical movement as new teaching, while the teachers of the Reformation defended its historical and biblical foundations. For this reason the Augsburg Confession was presented in 1530, although it received “a churlish reaction from their opponents” (Kolb 2000, 524). The Solid Declaration is a confirmation, some 50 years later, that the Augsburg Confession is biblical and can stand the test of time. Sadly, the doctrines laid out in the Augsburg Confession had at times been misinterpreted. The misunderstandings led to a need for additional clarification. This was also a cause for the composition of the Solid Declaration (Kolb 2000, 525).

There follows a restatement of the foundational interpretive principles which were used in introduction of the Epitome on pp. 486-487. In essence, the principles are stated the same way, but with some expansion and occasional additional pieces of historical context. There is a strong emphasis on the importance of using adequate confessions to build unity within Christianity.

Prayers through the Day

8/1/2018

Wednesdays are for Bits and Pieces
8/1/18

Kolb, Robert. The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000.
“The Morning Blessing” and following items, pp. 363-376.
After discussing the Sacrament of the Altar, Luther’s Small Catechism includes some addenda. There’s a brief prayer suggestion for morning and for evening (Kolb 2000, 363-364). There are suggested prayers before and after eating. We observe that in each instance, Luther recommends praying the Lord’s Prayer, making it a typical practice for the observant when rising, when eating, and when going to bed.

Then there follow a number of Bible passages which serve to encourage people in different walks of life to holiness and fulfillment of their vocations (Kolb 2000, 365-367). Then there is a simple booklet of pastoral practice in marriage (Kolb 2000, 367-371). This is followed by a brief explanation of how best to deal with the sacrament of baptism (Kolb 2000, 371-376). These elements are intended to assist the pastor who does not have much training in care for his congregation.

Communion, the Repeated Sacrament

7/25/2018

Wednesdays are for Bits and Pieces
7/25/18

Kolb, Robert. The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000.
Small Catechism V “The Sacrament of the Altar” pp. 362-363.
Large Catechism V “The Sacrament of the Altar” pp. 467-476.

Luther’s Small Catechism states very simply that the Sacrament of the Altar “is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ under the bread and wine, instituted by Christ himself for us Christians to eat and drink” (Kolb 2000, 362). After giving the words of institution as recorded by Paul, Luther points to the benefit of communion. It delivers forgiveness, life, and salvation. This is explained by the fact that Jesus’ words say that the body and blood are “for you” and that the blood is for forgiveness. The Word of God, then, is reliable. As God said it would give forgiveness, Christians believe God is true (Kolb 2000, 363). While fasting and other preparations are certainly good, they are not required. The requirement is to believe God’s words.

The Large Catechism speaks about the Sacrament of the Altar in three stages, “stating what it is, what its benefits are, and who is to receive it” (Kolb 2000, 467). The words of institution, a conflation of 1 Corinthians 11:23-25, Matthew 26:26-28, Mark 14:22-24, and Luke 22:19-20, are used to describe all of the doctrine and practice. Rather than specifically objecting to those who have other views, Luther asserts the chief points of communion. First, it is established by God’s Word and will be sustained by God’s power. He is able to use what he has prescribed in the Scripture for the good of His people (Kolb 2000, 467).

In the eighth paragraph, Luther uses the term “in and under the bread and wine” to describe the body and blood of Jesus. He goes on to make it clear that this true, bodily presence is created by God’s command. Quoting Augustine, “When the Word is joined to the external element, it becomes a sacrament” (Kolb 2000, 468). By “in and under” Luther doesn’t indicate a location but an invisible and imperceptible presence. Christ indwells the sacrament according to his word of promise. Even if the person performing the consecration or receiving the Sacrament is unworthy, God’s Word will complete the work promised.

The power of the sacrament is for forgiveness (Kolb 2000, 469). Jesus calls his people to receive the sacrament because he desires to deliver forgiveness to his children. Because we are weak by nature, we need to receive the sacrament frequently. “Therefore the Lord’s Supper is given as a daily food and sustenance so that our faith may be refreshed and strengthened and that it may not succumb in the struggle but become stronger and stronger” (section 24) (Kolb 2000, 469). Luther confesses that it is counter-intuitive to think God forgives sins or strengthens faith by bread and wine. The important element is God’s word of promise. He goes on to say that the same Word of God which delivers forgiveness as we hear and believe the proclamation in preaching can also deliver forgiveness through physical means as we believe the promise God has attached to the sacrament (Kolb 2000, 470).

Because communion and its promises are received by faith, preparations such as fasting and prayer are not required. Luther is clear that they are good and valuable. But it is reception of the sacrament by faith in God’s Word which is our goal. If we are ready to receive forgiveness, we are ready for the sacrament (Kolb 2000, 470). Luther continues then with a lengthy exhortation about the value and importance of receiving the sacrament. Because in Christianity the sacrament is available on a daily basis, Luther is disappointed that some separate themselves from the forgiveness they could receive (Kolb 2000, 471). Though the Bible does not specify a frequency of reception, Luther questions the sincerity of those who would not seek out God’s mercy. Jesus tells his people to “do this.” He doesn’t tell them to “avoid this.”

For those who avoid communion because they feel unworthy, Luther affirms that we are all unworthy of God’s blessing. If we are aware of our unworthiness we need the sacrament all the more. ‘It is the highest art to realize that this sacrament does not depend upon our worthiness. For we are not baptized because we are worthy and holy, nor do we come to confession as if we were pure and without sin; on the contrary, we come as poor, miserable people, precisely because we are unworthy” (Kolb 2000, 473). For this reason, those who are aware of thier sin and failing are exactly the people who need to receive the sacrament. For those who don’t feel in need, Luther suggests they touch themselves and see if they are alive. If so, they need God’s forgiveness (Kolb 2000, 474).

Baptism, the One Time Sacrament

7/18/2018

Wednesdays are for Bits and Pieces
7/19/18

Kolb, Robert. The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000.
Small Catechism IV “Concerning Baptism” pp. 359-362.
Large Catechism IV “Concerning Baptism” pp. 457-467.

Luther’s Small Catechism addresses baptism in several parts. What is it? As a sacrament baptism is God’s commanded application of water with God’s word of promise (Kolb 2000, 359). It grants forgiveness to all who receive it with faith (Kolb 2000, 360). This is possible because of God’s promises, not due to anything in the water (Kolb 2000, 360). In baptism our sinful self is put to death, foreshadowing our daily life of sorrow for sin and faith in God (Kolb 2000, 361). At this point there is an apparent insertion into the text of directions for confession of sins before a pastor and reception of forgiveness. Luther states specifically that “before the confessor we are to confess only those sins of which we have knowledge and which trouble us” (Kolb 2000, 361).

The Large Catechism adds particularly that it is through baptism that we are received as Christians (Kolb 2000, 457). Baptism is again a matter of God’s command. Baptism into God’s name is to be baptized by God, though with human hands (Kolb 2000, 458). The water is effective because of God’s Word (Kolb 2000, 459). Luther addresses the claim that faith saves without water. The water is added to give our faith something concrete to grasp and remember (Kolb 2000, 461). God typically works using external means. The baptism is received by faith, as God’s work (Kolb 200, 461). The question then arises whether it is appropriate to baptize infants. Can they believe? Luther observes that many who were baptized as infants do believe. If God did not approve of infant baptism they would not (Kolb 2000, 463). As with the Word, it is effective as it is received by faith (Kolb 2000, 465).

How to Pray

7/11/2018

Wednesdays are for Bits and Pieces
7/11/18

Kolb, Robert. The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000.
Small Catechism III, “The Lord’s Prayer” pp. 357-359.
Large Catechism III, “The Lord’s Prayer’ pp. 441-457.

Luther’s Small Catechism continues in a very pastoral tone as it approaches the Lord’s Prayer, which it divides into an introduction, seven petitions, and a final “amen” (Kolb 200, 357-359). In the introduction, God calls us to ask him for what we need, confidently. In the first three petitions we ask God to do things which he has already promised to do. Yet when we ask him to make his name holy we want him to do it in us as we live holy lives (Kolb 200, 357). Likewise we want his kingdom to come in our godly lives and his will to be done in us as he strengthens us (Kolb 2000, 358). The fourth petition recognizes that all the things we have and all we need come from God as he enables us and others to work (Kolb 2000, 358). The fifth petition prays that God would give us forgiveness by grace and enable us also to be forgiving. In the sixth petition we ask that God would protect us, since we are always surrounded by temptation. The seventh petition asks for rescue from all sorts of evil. The “amen” is a final affirmation that we want God to do all according to his grace (Kolb 2000, 359).

Luther begins the segment on the Lord’s Prayer by reviewing the structure of the catechism. First we heard what we do in the commands, then what we believe in the creed. Now we learn how to pray. We need this especially because we cannot obey or believe perfectly (Kolb 200, 441). In accord with the second commandment we pray, using God’s name, calling upon him (Kolb 2000, 442). Though God does not need our prayers, already knowing all and being able to accomplish all, he has still commanded prayer. This makes it important (Kolb 2000, 443). Luther also notes the content of prayer. “A person who wants to make a request must present a petition naming and describing something that he or she desires; otherwise it cannot be called a prayer” (Kolb 2000, 444). Therefore, we identify needs in us and people around us. “We should always remind God of his commandment and promise” (Kolb 2000, 445). With that said, Luther turns to a brief treatment of the seven petitions of the Lord’s Prayer (Kolb 2000, 445ff). While the Small Catechism gives brief explanations, here he goes into more detail, particularly telling what we ask to be accomplished as well as what we would hope to avoid. For instance (Kolb 2000, 446), we ask that God’s name would be made holy and wish also that we would not bring dishonor to God’s name. In summary, at the end of his comments, Luther observes that in this prayer all the challenges of life are addressed. We can pray with confidence that the Lord will care for us in every circumstance (Kolb 2000, 457).

A Confession of Faith

7/4/2018

Wednesdays are for Bits and Pieces
7/4/18

Kolb, Robert. The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000.
Small Catechism II, “The Creed” p. 355.
Large Catechism II, “The Creed” pp. 432-441.

The second section of Luther’s Small Catechism reviews the Apostles’ Creed. It is presented for recitation with a brief explanation of each of the three portions. In the first article, we confess that God has created us and preserves us, giving all we need. Our response is thanksgiving. The second article details Jesus’ work of life, death, and resurrection. The explanation emphasizes that Jesus, as my Lord, “has redeemed me, a lost and condemned human being” (Kolb 2000, 356). The third article speaks of the Holy Spirit who binds believers together for eternal life. In the explanation we confess, “I believe that by my own understanding or strength I cannot believe in Jesus Christ my Lord or come to him, but instead the Holy Spirit has called me” (Kolb 2000, 356). The discussion of the Holy Spirit’s work indicates that all of our life, redemption, preservation, and hope are in God, not ever in ourselves.

In the Large Catechism Luther begins by reminding the reader that we need the good news of the Creed because we cannot keep the Commandments, which come immediately prior to the Creed in the catechism (Kolb 2000, 432). Learning the creed itself will do wonders, even before learning an explanation. Though the Creed has been divided in various ways, Luther treats it in three articles, one for each person of the Trinity (Kolb 2000, 432).

The first article shows God as the creator. Luther links teaching on this article to the First Commandment, as it begins to explain who this God is (Kolb 2000, 433). God’s work as creator includes making and sustaining everything. “All this he does out of pure love and goodness, without our merit, as a kind father who cares for us so that no evil may befall us” (Kolb 2000, 433). As a response, we thank God rather than ourselves (Kolb 2000, 434).

The second article details Jesus’ life and work of redemption (Kolb 2000, 434) Out of all the possible aspects, Luther chooses to dwell on “our Lord” and discuss the lordship of Christ. The implication is that as redeemer Jesus has rescued his people and will keep them, even at a great cost (Kolb 2000, 435).

The third article, with its focus on the work of the Holy Spirit, is taken as a confession that all we are and do as Christians depends on the Holy Spirit (Kolb 2000, 436). Luther also reviews the individual parts of the third article (Kolb 2000, 437ff) discussing the implications of each to life in Christ. The constant thrust is that God has put his people together into a community of forgiveness.

The Ten Commandments

6/27/2018

Wednesdays are for Bits and Pieces
6/27/18

Kolb, Robert. The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000.
Small Catechism I, “The Ten Commandments” pp. 351-354.
Large Catechism I, “The First Part: The Ten Commandments” pp. 384-431.

Luther’s small catechism deals with the ten commandments in order. He points out they are phrased “in a simple way in which the head of a house is to present them to the household” (Kolb 2000, 351). The commands are presented simply, then each one has a brief explanation. After the first commandment, the explanations all begin with, “We are to fear and love God, so that…” (Kolb 2000, 352ff). By doing this, Luther emphasizes that our obedience is rooted in reverent love for God. Except for the first commandment, which is explained entirely in positive terms, and the sixth commandment (adultery), which is explained entirely in negative terms, all have a statement of what we should avoid and what we should do. Luther’s explanation of the commands expands the commands to general principles. For instance, in addition to avoiding killing people, we identify our neighbors and “help and support them in all of life’s needs” (Kolb 2000, 352). To sum things up, at the end of his list of commandments, Luther makes a paraphrase of the statements immediately before the commandments, in Exodus 20:5-6. “I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God. Against those who hate me I visit the sin of the fathers on the children up to the third and fourth generation. But I do good to those who love me and keep my commandments to the thousandth generation” (Kolb 2000, 354).

In the Large Catechism, Luther provides us with much more context and explanation, as we would expect. He first lists the commandments in simple form. He then repeats the Apostles’ Creed (Kolb 2000, 384). Afterward, he recites the Lord’s Prayer. “These are the most necessary parts that we must first learn to repeat word for word. The children should be taught the habit of reciting them daily, when they arise in the morning, when they go to their meals, and when they go to bed at night” (Kolb 2000, 385). He considers this a very important matter of obedience and respect within the family. It is, after all, not difficult to master a brief recitation such as this, especially with some leadership, accountability, and coaching. After those matters, Luther says it is appropriate to learn about baptism and the Sacrament of communion, again, in brief terms. He quotes Matthew 28:19 and Mark 16:16 for baptism and 1 Corinthians 11:23-25 for communion (Kolb 2000, 385-386). Luther also suggests that those who have learned these catechetical essentials should go on to learn “some psalms or hymns” (Kolb 2000, 386). In addition, people should be regular in attendance at sermons, actively learning, hearing, and discussing what they have heard. The picture Luther gives us is that of a household in which Christ will be honored by all, and where God’s Word will be treated as foundational for life.

Luther then goes on to walk through the commandments in order, explaining each in considerable detail. In the first commandment, “you are to have no other gods” (Kolb 2000, 386), it is important to realie that a god is whatever we depend upon. The command, then, calls people to cling to the true God. Luther lists a number of situations which illustrate people depending on something other than God (Kolb 2000, 387). There are many ways we can find ourselves trusting some circumstance or someone other than God. The command, on the other hand, calls you “to entrust yourself to him completely” (Kolb 2000, 388). Luther continues by discussing how every culture establishes some form of worship. We always seek to trust in something. This something we trust in may well be our own good works or our abilities. This is also a form of idolatry (Kolb 2000, 389). Counter to idolatry, we look to God alone and expect that he will give us all the good we need. Luther does identify the first commandment as the most important (Kolb 2000, 390). The biblical texts make it clear that God cares for those who love and obey him, but that he condemns those who do not.

The second commandment turns from the heart of faith and directs our words to use God’s name rightly (Kolb 2000, 392). God’s name is not to be used for any sort of wrong (Kolb 2000, 393). Luther points out the common practice of swearing oaths. Using God’s name rightly means that we would never lie under oath. It’s very important to keep all our promises. God’s name upon his people is to be taken very seriously. This also implies that God’s name should be used “properly, for it has been revealed and given to us precisely for our use and benefit” (Kolb 2000, 393). It is to be used for good, to call on God in times of trouble, to thank God. Luther does, then allow for the practice of taking oaths (Kolb 2000, 394). This is because we do swear for the good of our neighbor and to bring honor to God for his care. Luther urges his readers to call upon God in every need. The Christian commends himself to God every day, in defiance of the devil’s desires and claims. Luther observes that these Christian practices, such as making the cross or calling out to the Lord in our daily life are good habits. They use God’s name rightly (Kolb 2000, 395).

The third commandment, calling for a day of rest, comes next. This is a time set apart by God for the Jewish people (Kolb 2000, 396). Luther observes that the command was narrowed by the Jews. Rather than making a day of refreshment, they revised it to prohibit that which would be good and refreshing. Luther also observes that the commandment “is an entirely external matter, like the other regulations of the Old Testament associated with particular customs, persons, times, and places, from all of which we are now set free through Christ” (Kolb 2000, 396). It is good, though, because people need rest and refreshment. This also allows people to assemble for hearing and discussing God’s Word. As to the particular day, Luther observes, every day is a time for worship, but it’s good to set a day per week apart. Sunday, he contends, is held to because of ancient practice, rather than by God’s specific command (Kolb 2000, 397). As each day has a kind of holiness, the day of rest is to be kept holy by our attitudes. This is spread to the community by those who are able to lead. “Because we all do not have the time and leisure, we must set aside several hours a week for the young people, or at least a day for the whole community, when we can concentrate only on these matters” (Kolb 2000, 397). We devote ourselves particularly to Scripture and prayer. Because the focus of the command is making the day holy, not simply restful, God’s Word is the center of our observance. “God’s Word is the treasure that makes everything holy” (Kolb 2000, 398). Therefore, not merely attendance at a church service, but attention to and belief in what God says is important.

The fourth commandment turns our attention from our relationship with God to our relationship with our neighbor. honoring father and mother is the greatest of these commandments (Kolb 2000, 400). Luther points out that while we are to love our neighbors, we go a step higher by honoring our parents (Kolb 2000, 401). Regardless of the failings of our parents, we are still to honor them. This is not an injustice, but a right manifestation of inequality. Our words and actions should treat parents with respect and care. Luther repeatedly speaks of the protection we afford to elderly and weak parents. He then speaks of how children also have a holy task. The teaching of God that we are to honor our parents is, in and of itself, a good thing (Kolb 2000, 402). Luther then observes that children who honor their parents and receive wise teaching grow into wise parents themselves. This is good for society (Kolb 2000, 403). The honor and gratitude that we show for parents spreads also to a care of our society. When that is absent, we learn to despise our community. This, Luther says, is from the devil (Kolb 2000, 404). Conversely, honoring parents gives peace and long life. Failure to do so can ultimately lead us to a life shortened by criminality and execution (Kolb 2000, 405). Luther speaks here also of the extension of the command to teachers, magistrates, and other civic leaders (Kolb 2000, 406). All stand in the role of parents because of the authority they have from God to govern. Furthermore, within a household, servants owe the same honor to the masters of the household. A good master who cares for servants is of great value. Those who throw off their authorities live in danger. “So God punishes one scoundrel by means of another, so that when you defraud or despise your lord, another person comes along and treats you likewise” (Kolb 2000, 408). Luther finally extends the command to spiritual fathers, “those who govern and guide us by the Word of God” (Kolb 2000, 408). In Luther’s time, people had a tendency to despise God’s Word and the guidance of Christian leaders. He views this as indicative of a lack of honor for parents. The difference is that the Christian “fathers” provide their children with what they need for eternal life (Kolb 2000, 409). Although the Ten Commandments don’t really speak about the responsibility of parents to their children, Luther does point out that it is important elsewhere in Scripture that parents and other authorities behave in a way which is worthy of honor and respect (Kolb 2000, 409).

The fifth commandment speaks against killing. Luther notes the logical flow of the commands once again. In the fourth commandment we learn of parental authority, which happens within the household. The fifth commandment draws us outside of the household and among our neighbors. Luther is clear that this command is about individuals, not governments. “Neither God nor the government is included in this commandment, nor is their right to take human life abrogated. God has delegated his authority to punish evildoers to the civil authorities in the parents’ place; in former times, as we read in Moses, parents had to judge their children themselves and sentence them to death” (Kolb 2000, 410). As restated in Matthew 5, the command also prohibits anger which would harm others (Kolb 2000, 411). Therefore, this command is an intervention against what would harm our neighbors. Luther further says that “this commandment is violated not only when we do evil, but also when we have the opportunity to do good to our neighbors and to prevent, protect, and save them from suffering bodily harm or injury, but fail to do so” (Kolb 2000, 412). It is important to use the means that we have at our disposal to provide care for those around us.

The sixth commandment goes on to the topic of adultery. Luther notes that this one doesn’t follow as naturally from the one before it. However, in the case of marriage, within Jewish culture marriage, especially early marriage for life, was greatly valued. It was a way of honoring your nearest neighbor and guarding that person’s life (Kolb 2000, 413). Luther reads the command to guard against all sorts of unchastity, whether in yourself or in others. It is a guard against all sorts of infidelity (Kolb 2000, 414). In Luther’s time, marriage was not necessarily honored. He affirms the importance of the relationship of one man and one woman, faithfully, for life. The teaching of celibacy, commonly found in Christianity, was not valued in the Scripture in the same way that a faithful marriage was. There may be some instances when a celibate life would be appropriate, but generally marriage is the way God guards against our lack of chastity (Kolb 2000, 415). Finally, Luther reminds his readers that it is important that the husband and wife cherish each other. Their love and honor for one another “is one of the chief ways to make chastity attractive and desirable” (Kolb 2000, 415).

The seventh commandment prohibits theft. “To steal is nothing else than to acquire someone else’s property by unjust means” (Kolb 2000, 416). This would include taking an unfair advantage over someone else, resulting in that person’s loss. While Luther admits that theft is very widespread, he does not condone it. He sees theft as including allowing damage that could be avoided within our vocation, overcharging others, not working diligently, or simply taking things (Kolb 2000, 416). He also includes those in business who, thanks to their power and authority, are able to take whatever they want (Kolb 2000, 417). Eventually there will be repayment for our theft, whether in this life or in eternity (Kolb 2000, 418). The proper response to this command of God is to engage in our business dealings with honor and respect. We trust that by doing right God will see that we are provided for (Kolb 2000, 419).

The eighth commandment speaks against false witness. This is a matter ofguarding our neighbor’s reputation and character (Kolb 2000, 420). It’s essential in the justice system, among witnesses and judges. Regardless of our personal preferences or our like or dislike for an individual, that person is to be treated fairly and honestly (Kolb 2000, 421). The command can also extend to spiritual matters. God’s Word and those who are faithful teachers and preachers should be respected, though treated fairly. We are required to evaluate them honestly and impartially. Finally, we guard the way we speak, both publicly and privately, about our neighbors (Kolb 2000, 421). If it is legitimately our position to bring condemnation of sin and to spread that condemnation to others, we would do so. However, that is very rare. It is best to bring the message to the individual involved in sin and let it go no farther. We bring charges up in public only if they can be proven and need to be proven (Kolb 2000, 422). Luther is clear, however, that the civil magistrates and other public figures do have a responsibility to see that evil is punished. “Although no one personally has the right to judge and condemn anyone, yet if they are commanded to do so and fail to do it, they sin as much as those who take the law into their own hands apart from any office” (Kolb 2000, 422-423). On an individual basis, Luther ties the matter to Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 18. Confrontation of an individual is intended to bring that person to repentance and restoration. It is regularly done in private (Kolb 2000, 423). In cases of public sin which is commonly known, there are no prohibitions against testimony which is fair. We simply make sure we are speaking truthfully (Kolb 2000, 424).

Luther addresses the ninth and tenth commandments together. Both refer to coveting something that is not ours. Again, he points out that the commandments are specifically given to the Jews, but that they do have some application to us (Kolb 2000, 425). He notes that, while the earlier commandments speak against taking things, these speak against desiring those things. The desire could lead to covert means of causing alienation, enticing the neighbor into sending away family members or servants. The commandments protect our neighbors from our desires to gain their property and to make it appear that we are doing what we should be doing (Kolb 2000, 426). The use of legal loopholes to acquire what we want but don’t have a legitimate claim to is always wrong.

Luther concludes that the Ten Commandments summarize God’s teaching about living a life that is pleasing before God (Kolb 2000, 428). If we devote our lives to doing these commandments, we will not appear glamorous before our world. But we will be recognized as pleasing in God’s eyes. Luther is clear that we will never be able to keep God’s commandments (Kolb 2000, 429). Yet we strive to recognize God’s desires and live them out as well as we can. Luther reminds us of God’s promise, that he shows mercy to those who love him. Again, Luther points out, all the other commandments are rooted in the first one, which requires us to fear, love, and trust God alone (Kolb 2000, 430). This is why, in the Small Catechism, the explanations all have to do with fearing God, then with loving God.

What Is a Catechism For?

6/20/2018

Wednesdays are for Bits and Pieces
6/20/18

Kolb, Robert. The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000.
Introduction to the Small Catechism pp. 347-351.
Introduction to The Large Catechism pp. 377-386.

Luther’s introduction to his Small Catechism reflects on his experience as a church visitor. In his travels he found that pastors were poorly instructed and that they, who barely knew the commandments, creed, or Lord’s prayer, were admitting people into communion even though they, the congregants, were hardly catechised. This was to the shame of the pastors and the harm of the people (Kolb 2000, 348). He urged that pastors should teach using the same text always, especially for those who were not literate. This would avoid confusion. Those who would refuse to learn should be denied communion, sent back “to the pope and his officials and, along with them, to the devil himself” (Kolb 2000, 349). Luther even went so far as to advise that they should be refused employment and even be driven from the country. It was necessary that people in a community which confessed the Evangelical faith should adhere to it themselves. The pastors should explain the things of the true faith, bit by bit, in order, not too quickly. Luther was very adamant that people be given time to develop understanding in good order. As a related topic, rulers and parents should urge adequate education in schools so as to learn how to be good parents and leaders themselves (Kolb 2000, 350). Luther emphasizes the importance of the Sacrament. Christians should desire it. At this point, he states that someone who doesn’t come for the Sacrament at least four times a year apparently “despises the sacrament and is no Christian” (Kolb 2000, 350). Note he does not, as became a popular understanding in some circles, say that communion should be offered four times a year. He says that it should be very frequent. The pastor is to urge participation based on our need for grace and the sacrament’s blessings (Kolb 2000, 351).

In introduction of the Large Catechism, the editors note that it is based on Luther’s catechetical sermons. The days known as “ember days,” “four times of fasting spread throughout the church year, were often designated for this purpose” (Kolb 2000, 377). The Large Catechism was published to instruct clergy so they would be better able to catechize their congregations. Detractors of Luther and Melanchthon in the 1520s and following emphasized repentance coming from God’s love, while Luther insisted that faith would generally follow repentance, which would normally be inspired by God’s law, rather than the Gospel (Kolb 2000, 378). The work on the Large Catechism itself began late in 1528. Luther’s text was largely complete in April of 1529, with an introduction added in 1530. A few corrections were added in a 1538 edition (Kolb 2000, 378).

Luther’s preface observes that many pastors are not adequately concerned with catechesis despite the availability of many helpful books (Kolb 2000, 379). On the contrary, pastors, even the most learned of them, need to read catechetical materials regularly. Luther himself read the precepts and materials of his catechisms daily (Kolb 2000, 380). He says that “it iis highly profitable and fruitful to read it daily and to make it the subject of meditation and conversation. In such reading, conversation, and meditation the Holy Spriit is present and bestows ever new and greater light and devotion, so that it tastes better and better and is digested” (Kolb 2000, 381). This brings forth God’s power against the devil and all our worldly troubles. Those pastors without the desire are being negligent and should be removed from office, by force, if need be. Luther further cites God’s Word calling Christians to meditate on the Scripture and to be protected and armed with it. The Ten Commandments serve as a summary of God’s will and the entirety of Scriptures (Kolb 2000, 382). Luther does not mention specifically how the other portions of the Catechism are also summaries of the Scripture. Not only the pastor, but also every Christian should therefore dedicate himself to the Scripture, especially as described in the Catechism. Luther’s 1529 preface even urges heads of households to teach and examine both children and servants individually in the things of the Catechism (Kolb 2000, 383). At the very least, everyone should learn the Commandments, the Creed, and the Lord’s Prayer as thoroughly as possible.

The Power and Primacy of the Pope

6/13/2018

Wednesdays are for Bits and Pieces
6/13/18

Kolb, Robert. The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000.
“Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope’ pp. 329-345.

This document, from early in 1537, was written for presentation at Mantua along with the Augsburg Confession (Kolb 2000, 329). It was written by Philip Melanchthon in consultation with a number of other theologians. The text opens with a statement of the controversy. “The bishop of Rome claims to be superior by divine right to all bishops and pastors. In addition, he claims to possess by divine right the power of both swords, that is, the authority to confer and transfer royal authority. Third, he states that it is necessary for salvation to believe these things” (Kolb 2000, 330). These three claims are rejected.

Based on Luke 22:20-27, Matthew 18:1-4, John 20:21, Galatians 2:2, 6, and 1 Corinthians 3:4-8; 21-22 the bishops are considered as equals. There is no superiority of one bishop over all the others (Kolb 2000, 33). It is certainly not by divine right, though in the council of Nicea there was a human and pragmatic decision to establish order through a heirarchical ranking (Kolb 2000, 332). The claims of a special authority of Peter are answered by observing that Peter was used as a representative of all the disciples (Matt. 16:18-19, John 21:17, etc) (Kolb 2000, 334). The validity of the ministry is in God’s gift, not in being appointed by a particular bishop (Kolb 2000, 335).

The claim to temporal authority is addressed next. “Christ gave to his apostles only spiritual authority, that is, the command to preach the gospel, to proclaim the forgiveness of sins, to administer the sacraments, and to excommunicate the ungodly without the use of physical force” (Kolb 2000, 335). Melanchthon cites various wars which were unsuccessful in creating righteousness (Kolb 2000, 336).

The third article is that all people must agree with the views of the papacy. Using Galatians 1:8 and Acts 5:29 the conclusion is that “a heretical pope is not to be obeyed” (Kolb 2000, 336). If the pope claims divine authority he has rejected Christ’s teaching (Kolb 2000, 337). The text continues with a list of abuses f power.

After the rejection of the pope’s authority, the Augsburg Confession is presented as a positive statement of what is good and right (Kolb 2000, 340). In essence, the work of a bishop is that of a pastor. It is not a political office (Kolb 2000, 312).

The Smalcald Articles

6/6/2018

Wednesdays are for Bits and Pieces
6/6/18

Kolb, Robert. The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000.
“The Smalcald Articles” pp. 295-328.

In the editor’s introduction, Kolb briefly details the fairly rapid succession of popes from Leo X to Paul III between 1511 and 1534 (Kolb 2000, 295). The Elector John Frederick wanted a clear statement of the principles of the Reformation. In December 1536 he commissioned a gathering at Wittenberg to draw up “The Smalcald Articles” (Kolb 2000, 295). The articles were presented in February 1537 to an assembly of Lutheran princes. Though the princes later chose to use the Augsburg Confession in their defense, these Articles were published along with Melanchthon’s “Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope” (Kolb 2000, 296). Both documents were included in the 1580 Book of Concord.

Luther’s introduction acknowledges that he expects nothing more than to die in the near future and that the papacy will refuse all moves at reformation (Kolb 2000, 298). This is a brief statement of only critical matters, as opposed to an attempt at exhaustive explanation (Kolb 2000, 300).

The first article addresses the nature of the Trinity briefly in terms similar to those of the Nicene Creed, stating agreement between the parties (Kolb 2000, 300).

The second part discusses Jesus and redemption. The concept of salvation by grace through faith is made very clear (Kolb 2000, 301). It speaks against the Mass when viewed as a work which grants salvation by its operation. If this is the case, it should be stopped (Kolb 2000, 302). The Mass, as celebrated in Rome, is a human work, earning merit, while among the Lutherans it is a divine work, a gift from Christ (Kolb 2000, 303). The text continues with several abuses of the Mass, such as warding off purgatory, the sale of Masses, special societies, prayers to saints, etc. Likewise, monastic orders should serve society rather than retreat from the world (Kolb 2000, 307). Papal authority should not be recognized (Kolb 2000, 308). The headship of the church belongs to Christ (Kolb 2000, 309).

The third part of the Smalcald Articles turns to matters of conscience (Kolb 2000, 310). Scholastic errors such as freedom of a good human will are discussed and rejected (Kolb 2000, 311) Sin is presented as real and pervasive. God’s Law confronts sin, leading to repentance (Kolb 2000, 312). This is not the result of human wisdom (Kolb 2000, 313). Likewise, our acts of penance will not forgive sin (Kolb 2000, 315). The cure for sin then is the Gospel, given through preaching, baptism, communion, and absolution (Kolb 2000, 320). In baptism God’s Word and water wash away sin (Kolb 2000, 321). In communion the true body and blood are offered and received (Kolb 2000, 321). The bread and wine also remain present. Confession and absolution are very valuable but if some sins are omitted by accident in confession it is still valid (Kolb 2000, 322). Al is rooted in God’s Word (Kolb 2000, 323).

Because the Roman bishops were refusing ordination to the Lutherans, the Lutheran leader had appointed some emergency bishops (Kolb 2000, 324). As celibacy is not a biblical requirement for priests, the Lutherans did not retain it (Kolb 2000, 325). The text again affirms a pursuit of true righteousness and biblical concerns in the church (Kolb 2000, 325).

The Power of Bishops

5/30/2018

Wednesdays are for Bits and Pieces
5/30/18

Kolb, Robert. The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000.
Augsburg Confession XXVIII, “Concerning the Power of Bishops” pp. 92-104.
Apology to the Augsburg Confession XXVIII, “Ecclesiastical Power” pp. 289-295.

Article 28 of the Augsburg Confession begins with a brief review of challenges which have arisen surrounding the way bishops have used power, often counter to Scripture. On the contrary, the Lutherans limit the power of bishops. “According to the gospel the power of the keys or of the bishops is a power and command of God to preach the gospel, to forgive or retain sin, and to administer and distribute the sacraments” (Kolb 2000, 92). This work gives eternal benefits which are found nowhere else. At the same time the authority of the bishops does not conflict with that of civil authorities. “Secular power does not protect the soul but, using the sword and physical penalties, it protects the body and goods against external violence” (Kolb 2000, 93). Bishops should not pursue secular authority. It is not their divine right. Further, bishops are not to make binding doctrines, particularly those which would be seen as obtaining grace (Kolb 2000, 96). The text goes on to illustrate various doctrines which have led to controversy and trial.

The Apology observes first that the opponents claim that ecclesiastical status grants no power or immunity (Kolb 2000, 289). Yet the article in the confession is not focused on the status granted by civil authorities to church authorities. It is rather about neglect of the responsibilities given to church leaders. The opponents did not respond to the issue of church authorities binding consciences to extrabiblical laws (Kolb 2000, 290). These extra laws cannot merit God’s grace. They may serve to promote good order, but not to merit grace (Kolb 2000, 291).

Monastic Vows

5/23/2018

Wednesdays are for Bits and Pieces
5/23/18

Kolb, Robert. The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000.
Augsburg Confession XXVII, “Concerning Monastic Vows” p. 82-91.
Apology to the Augsburg Confession XXVII, “Monastic Vows” pp. 278-289.

The Augsburg Confession addresses several problems which existed within monasticism of the day. After the time of Augustine a practice emerged of forcing young people to enter into monastic life against their will and without knowledge of the implications (Kolb 2000, 82). The attitude that a monastic life would earn merit before God also arose (Kolb 2000, 83). Once a commitment was made, it could not be released even if it was found to go against Scripture or the good of the person or community (Kolb 2000, 86). The idea that the vows can earn merit devalues God’s grace (Kolb 200o, 88). It also suggests that while monks may be truly sanctified it neither matters nor is possible for others (Kolb 2000, 89).

The Apology opens with an illustration of a monk who was prosecuted and imprisoned unjustly (Kolb 2000, 278). The monastery had become a place where leaders gathered power and wealth rather than Christian teaching (Kolb 2000, 278). While Melanchthon will defend “legitimate vows” he will object to the abuses of the system (Kolb 2000, 279). He refers back to Luther’s On Monastic Vows then begins to refute only a few arguments (Kolb 2000, 279). The monastic vow is not intended to earn forgiveness. This insults God’s grace (Kolb 2000, 280). The principles of monasticism, though they may be positive, are not biblical obligations (Kolb 2000, 281). The monastic life is no more filled with merit than any other vocation (Kolb 200, 284). The use of the monastery to gain wealth and power is never appropriate (Kolb 2000, 285).

Distinction among Foods

5/16/2018

Wednesdays are for Bits and Pieces
5/16/18

Kolb, Robert. The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000.
Augsburg Confession XXVI, “Concerning the Distinction among Foods” pp. 74-81.

Note that there is no corresponding article in the Apology to the Augsburg Confession.

Article 26 of the Augsburg Confession observes that in the past certain dietary choices would “earn grace and make satisfaction for sin” (Kolb 2000, 74). This obscured the merit of Christ. By the time of the Augsburg Confession, Melanchthon affirms that the grace of Christ was overcome by rules about food, clothing, and the like (Kolb 2000, 75). The traditions also came to be considered more important than God’s commands (Kolb 2000, 76). The normal ministries of our vocations were devalued. The traditions also served to burden consciences (Kolb 2000, 76). This could lead to despair, as it is impossible to keep the kind of law seen in works. The conclusion is that “No one can earn grace, become reconciled with God, or make satisfaction for sin by observing the aforesaid human traditions. That is why they should not be made into a necessary service of God” (Kolb 2000, 78). The text follows with a series of quotations from the New Testament demonstrating a freedom from dietary laws. Some accused the Evangelicals of prohibiting discipline. That is not the case (Kolb 2000, 79). Christians must suffer but not through their own contrivance. More New Testament passages follow. Diversity in local and individual customs is allowed.