The Smalcald Articles from the 1854 Henkel Concordia have been blogged and are available online at smalcaldreader. Presently, they are blogged in the same rough format as the Small and Large Catechisms at catechismreader, with typographical errors galore. The comment feature on both is closed at present, with plans to open them after the completion of the project.

Luther's Smalcald Articles are a great read, reminiscent of the Augsburg Confession in many ways, with both symbols treating quite a few of the same topics. The intervening time, however, between 1530 and 1537 (and perhaps also the difference in authors and recipients,) accounts for a definite change in tone from "hopeful for reconciliation" to "hopeless that any real reconciliation or reformation will take place".

Catechismreader is up and running! Ok, so I've had the link posted for quite some time; but this evening, the final portions were posted on the Larger Catechism, bringing both the Smaller and the Larger Catechisms from the 1854 Henkel edition into the blogosphere. While both catechisms are now posted in their entirety, I have yet to go back through with a fine-toothed spellchecker to catch words that I may have inadvertantly mis-typed. (Some misspellings were intentional, in an attempt to maintain the original Henkel spellings. Others were the result of quick-moving fingers hitting the wrong keys... And still others, spellchecker will not catch, because those misspelling may have formulated another word that is correctly spelled!)

On Infant Baptism from the Large Catechism

Here we further assert, that it is not of the greatest importance as to this point, whether the person baptized believes or does not believe; for Baptism does not become wrong on this account, but all depends upon the word and command of God. Now this is indeed a nice point, but it is founded upon the assertion, that Baptism is nothing else than water and the word of God intimately united; that is, when the word is connected with the water, then baptism is right, although the individual may be destitute of faith at the time of his baptism; for my faith does not make, but it receives Baptism. Now Baptism does not become wrong, even if it be wrongly received and applied, since, as observed above, it does not depend on our belief, but upon the word of God....

For this reason we say, if you have not believed, believe yet, and thus declare: "The baptism was surely right, but I alas! have not received it rightly." For I myself, and all who permit themselves to be baptized, must thus say before God: "I come hither in my faith and that of others, yet I cannot depend on my belief and the prayers of many others for me, but I rely on thy word and command, even as I go to the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, not upon my faith, but upon the words of Christ, whether I be strong or weak, for this I let God provide; but I know that he orders me to go, to eat, and to drink, &c., and that he gives me his body and his blood,– which words will neither belie nor deceive me."

More on the Filioque

The Father and the Son are identical in everything except the mutually opposed relations of fatherhood and sonship. According to the famous dictum of Athanasius, "the same things are said of the Son as are said of the Father, except His being said to be 'Father.'" The only thing that the Father alone can do is to be Father, that is, to generate the Son. Since the Father does not act alone in spirating the Spirit, the Spirit must proceed from the Father and the Son as from a single co-principle. The Holy Spirit is distinguished from the Son by a different relation of origin.

(The Filioque: What Is at Stake? by Avery Dulles, S.J.; Concordia Theological Quarterly; vol. 59, numbers 1-2; p.36)

Wilhelm Loehe on the Filioque

from

Questions and Answers

to the Six Chief Parts of Luther's Small Catechism

397. On whom do you believe in the Third Article?

The Holy Ghost.

398. Who is the Holy Ghost?

The Third Person of the Godhead, equal to the Father and the Son in essence, majesty, and glory.

399. What do you believe concerning the Holy Ghost?

That from all eternity He proceeds from the Father and from the Son, and has been sent by the Father and by the Son for the sanctification of men.

400. What is the meaning of the words,

"He proceedeth from the Father and the Son"?

They denote the manner of the origin of the Third Person of the Trinity, as it is described in the Athanasian Creed:

"The Father is made of none: neither created, nor begotten.

"The Son is of the Father alone: not made, nor created, but begotten.

"The Holy Ghost is of the Father, and of the Son: neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding."

All our imagination and thought fall short of this thrice-holy mystery.

401. Is all Christendom agreed in the doctrine

of the proession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son?

No. The Eastern church believes that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father alone.

402. Why?

Because no express word declaring His procession from the Son is found in the Scriptures.

403. Why then is it believed in the West?

Because otherwise the Father and the Son would not be equal. John xvi. 15.

Because otherwise the order of Persons would not be clear, nor would it be evident which is the Second, and which is the Third Person.

Because otherwise the Holy Ghost would be sent by the Father alone, and not by the Father and the Son. John xv. 26; xvi. 7; xiv. 26.

Because otherwise the Spirit could not be called the Spirit of the Son. Gal. iv. 6.

Published by Repristination Press;
translated by Edward T. Horn and copyright by the same, 1893,

Pages 102-3.

Thoughts on an Unconditional Confessional Subscription

(fourth part of several to follow)

I wrote:

What makes a subscription to the Book of Concord unconditional?

(4) When the great "we believe, teach, and confess" statements (regardless of an indicated sedes,) together with similar statements such as "our churches believe", etc., are considered the only portions of the Book of Concord which are to be upheld for the Evangelical Lutheran Church to believe, teach, and confess today - ?

From time to time, one hears (from respected persons who care deeply about the Confessions,) that pastors and congregations subscribe only to the "doctrinal articles" contained in the Book of Concord. I'm not speaking facetiously when I say that I'm not quite sure what exactly this means. What exactly is meant by a "doctrinal article"? As I suggest above, are "doctrinal articles" only those portions of the Book of Concord that are highlighted by a certain phrase, such as: "we believe, teach, and confess" or "our churches believe..." or "our ministers teach..."? Are the doctrinal articles only the positions which were stated on controverted teachings? Or is there another operative definition of a "doctrinal article"?

My question:

What is the point of having the Book of Concord at all - if outside of the doctrinal articles (however they are defined), nothing else contained therein should be considered a doctrine of the Evangelical Lutheran Church? Is the ELCA's Church Council finally correct when they resolve the embarrassing problem of the Book of Concord by relegating it to the historical department, by implying that it is not necessary for the Lutheran Church today to hold to everything that is said in the Book of Concord, when they regret the beliefs of their sixteenth century namesake because those beliefs do not match what is believed, taught, and confessed by the "Lutheran Church" today?

If pastors and churches are not subscribing to everything - saying that they believe, teach, and confess whatever is contained in the Book of Concord (out of the conviction that it is, indeed, in agreement with the Sacred Scriptures) - then what is the point of subscribing to it at all? If it was never the intention of the Lutheran confessors that their children should subscribe to everything contained in the Book of Concord, then why did they never draft a concretely specific book of "the Accepted Doctrinal Articles Contained in the Book of Concord to which our Pastors and Churches Subscribe"?

My response:

I would maintain that the unconditional confessional subscription of a pastor and a congregation ought to be to the entire Book of Concord, to believe, teach, and confess not only the doctrinal articles but everything else that is in there, too.

(Perhaps those who are wiser or more knowledgeable than I would be willing to show where I have missed the mark?)

Thoughts on an Unconditional Confessional Subscription

(third part of several to follow)

I wrote:

What makes a subscription to the Book of Concord unconditional?

(3) When only those portions of the Book of Concord that have the defense of explicit sedes doctrinae in citation are to be upheld as normative for the belief, teaching, confession, and practice of the Evangelical Lutheran Church today - ?

Any time that the word "only" is used, a conditional statement is made. "I would like to eat the whole pie," I say after dinner, "but I think it would be best if I only take a small piece."

If we uphold only those beliefs, teachings, confessions, or practices in the Book of Concord that have explicit sedes doctrinae cited or available for citation, then we do not wish to subscribe unconditionally to the entire Book of Concord. If we only wish to observe those portions that carry an explicit scriptural command, if we only feel compelled to abide by those portions which can be explicitly defended from the Sacred Scriptures, then we have reservations - we reserve to ourselves the right to reject portions of what the Confessions say. We thereby attach a "condition" to our confessional subscription.

An example:

Augsburg Confession XI says that "private absolution ought to be retained in the church, and should not be discontinued"; likewise XXV says: "Confession is not abolished by our ministers. For the custom is retained among us, not to administer the Sacrament, unto those who have not been previously examined and absolved" and "Yet by our ministers it is taught with diligence, that confession, because of absolution, which is the chief part in it, should be retained for the purpose of consoling alarmed consciences, and for some other reasons."

Article XXV does not give any scriptural proof texts in order to defend the retention of the custom of private confession and absolution; in fact, the article seems to go out of its way to cite the teaching of an extra-biblical document to explain that [private] "confession is not commanded in the Scriptures, but that it was instituted by the church."

* * * * *

So - was ist daß?

Even though there is no scriptural command to do so, are the ministers and churches who wish to maintain an unconditional subscription to the Lutheran Confessions required (that is, do they require it of themselves when they freely make their subscription to the Lutheran Confessions,) to offer private confession and absolution on a regular basis?

Antwort:

I believe so, but I'm interested in hearing your comments as well.