If any article should be considered... (Article IV.)

(#3) in the series:
What implications or applications may be drawn

from a quia subscription to the Book of Concord?

If any article should be considered for its applications and implications, it is Article IV. Within the Augsburg Confession itself, there are several foundational references to the article that we "obtain remission of sins and are justified before God by grace, for Christ's sake, through faith, if we believe that Christ suffered for us, etc."

* This doctrine undergirds Article VI. , which upholds the necessity of "good works" ("because of God's requirement and command"), though "we must not put any confidence in these works, as meriting favor in the sight of God: for we receive forgiveness of sins and justification through faith in Christ, as Christ himself says, Luke 17, 10, etc." (emphasis added). St. Ambrose is quoted: “Thus it has been ordained of God, that whosoever believes in Christ shall be saved; not through works, but without merit through faith alone, he has forgiveness of sins.”

* We also see the doctrine of Article IV. applied in Article XII. on repentance. Forgiveness of sins may at all times be obtained by those who repent and "have faith in the Gospel or absolution,– namely that sins are forgiven and grace is obtained through Christ, – a faith which consoles and imparts peace to the heart" (emphasis added). We also see Article IV. brought to bear in the condemnations in Article XII.:

On the other hand, the Novatians also are here condemned, who refused absolution to those who had sinned after baptism.

Those in like manner are condemned who teach, that forgiveness of sin is obtained, not through faith, but through our own merits (emphasis added).

* Article XX. returns to the theme of good works, highlighted in Article VI., when it says:

First, that our works cannot reconcile us to God and merit grace, but these things are effected through faith alone, if we believe that our sins are forgiven us for Christ’s sake, who alone is the Mediator reconciling the Father. He, therefore, that expects to effect this reconciliation by works, and to merit grace, contemns Christ and seeks a way of his own to God, contrary to the Gospel (emphasis added).

Citations are added of Ephesians 2:8-9, Romans 5:1, and St. Augustine, in an effort to show that "a new signification is not introduced here". Augustine's “De Spiritu et Litera” is referenced as clear testimony that "we obtain grace and are justified before God, through faith in Christ, and not by works".

Article XX. adds, on account of the monastic teachings about good works and meriting grace and making satisfaction for sins: "It was, for this reason, necessary to preach and enforce with diligence this doctrine of faith in Christ, that it might be known that through faith alone, without merit, the grace of God is secured" (emphasis added).

Article XX. speaks further on the themes of good works and grace:

It is taught further, that good works should and must be performed, not with a view of placing confidence in them as meriting grace, but in accordance with his will, and for the glory of God. Faith alone constantly secures grace and forgiveness of sins. And because the Holy Spirit is given through faith, the heart becomes qualified to perform good works (emphasis added).

* When we turn to Article XXI., we see that the proper remembrance of the saints is to have our faith strengthened when we see "how grace was conferred on them, and how assistance was afforded them through faith; and also to derive examples from their good works for every vocation". The saints ought not to be worshipped;

from Scripture it cannot be shown, that we should invoke the saints, or seek help from them. For there is but one Reconciler and Mediator appointed between God and man, Jesus Christ, 1 Tim. 2, 5, who is the only Savior, High Priest, Propitiator, and Intercessor before God, Rom. 3, 25, and 8, 34. He alone has promised to hear our prayers; and the highest worship according to the Scripture is to seek and call on Jesus Christ from the heart, in every necessity and affliction; 1 John 2, 1: “If any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous” (emphasis added).

* The abuse of the Mass which is spoken against in Article XXIV. is the understanding that the Mass is a marketable propiation for sins and "an oblation for the living and the dead, in order to take away sins, and to reconcile God." The teaching of St. Paul in Romans 3:25 is cited,

that we obtain grace before God, through faith, and not by works. Such abuse of the mass is evidently opposed to this doctrine if by that means we expect to obtain grace; as it is well known that the mass has been used for the purpose of removing sins, and of obtaining grace and favor before God, not only in behalf of the priest for himself, but also for the whole world, for the living and the dead (emphasis added).

* A similar theme is heard in Article XXVI., which talks about ceremonies, fasts, and orders "instituted by men... in order to merit grace, and to make satisfaction for sin."

In the first place, the grace of Christ and the doctrine concerning faith were by this means obscured, which doctrine with great solemnity the Gospel inculcates, and it insists with earnestness that the merits of Christ should be highly and dearly esteemed, and that it should be known that faith in Christ is to be placed far above all works. St. Paul, for this reason, inveighs bitterly against the Mosaic law and human traditions, in order to teach us, that we are not justified before God by our works, but alone through faith in Christ, and that we obtain grace for Christ’s sake. This doctrine was almost entirely suppressed, by teaching that grace must be merited by the observance of laws, by fasts, and by diversities of meats and dress (emphasis added).

* Article XXVII. returns to a theme introduced in Article XX., addressing a little more specifically the issue of monastic confusion on grace and good works.

For formerly they assembled in monasteries with a view to learn the Scripture, but now they falsely pretend that monastic life is of such a nature, that men merit the grace of God and holiness before God by it; yea, that it is a state of perfection, and they exalt it far above other states which God has instituted (emphasis added).

For every species of worship, chosen and instituted by men without the precept and command of God, in order to obtain righteousness and divine grace, is repugnant to him, and in opposition to his command and to the Gospel (emphasis added).

So St. Paul also teaches every where, that men should not seek righteousness from religious services devised by men, but that righteousness and holiness in the sight of God, come from the faith and confidence that God accepts us graciously for the sake of Christ his own Son. Now, it is clear, that the monks have taught and preached that their assumed piety atones for sin, and obtains righteousness and the grace of God (emphasis added).

Therefore those also who wish to be justified by vows, are separated from Christ, and fail to obtain the grace of God. For these rob Christ of his honor, who alone justifies, and thus they bestow such honor on their vows and monastic life.

* All of this comes to a conclusion in Article XXVIII., where the "power of the bishops or clergy" does not give them an authority to make up ordinances that are necessary in order to "reconcile God and to merit grace".

For the doctrine of Christian liberty must be retained in the church, namely, that the servitude of the law is not necessary to justification, as St. Paul writes to the Galatians: “Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage,” Gal. 5, 1. For the chief article of the Gospel, that without our merit we obtain the grace of God through faith in Christ, must be maintained, and that we do not merit it in consequence of rites instituted by men (emphasis added).

The article clarifies this elsewhere:

(B)ishops or pastors may make regulations, so that things may be carried on orderly in the church, – not to obtain the grace of God, nor yet to atone for sins, or to bind the consciences of men to hold these regulations as necessary services of God, and to regard them, as if those commit sin, who break them without offence to others.

Paul McCain has announced that Concordia: The Lutheran Confessions is back and selling at the re-introductory price of $20 (good for the next six months). For those interested in acquiring a fine edition of the Book of Concord (at the lowest price of any new edition that is currently available,) visit the links above.

Re: (#1) The Implications and Applications of Article I. of the Augsburg Confession; one may be interested in following a similar discussion that is taking place at Concordia: The Lutheran Confessions, in their third roundtable discussion.

The roundtable begins by taking a look at the issue of individuals, churches, and the church. The roundtable cites a phrase from Article I. in the Latin, stating that the doctrine of the Trinity must be "believed without any doubt." Regarding doubt, the point is made that the doctrine of the Trinity is a divine mystery, certainly transcending the ability of complete human comprehension; yet there is no doubt but that our churches teach and confess this doctrine. Weedon makes the observation in the comments, that the intention of the Lutherans was "to communicate to the papal party at Augsburg that the Trinitarian orthodoxy of the Lutheran parishes was beyond dispute". (That is, the Lutheran princes should not be outlawed by the emperor for harboring those who teach or hold to heretical doctrines of the Trinity.)

CR notes: If the Trinitarian orthodoxy of the churches of the Augsburg Confession was to be unquestionable, then the individuals of those churches - Pastors, Professors, congregations, and people - could neither teach nor hold to any understanding of the Trinity which was not agreeable to the decree of the Council of Nicaea or the understanding of the Fathers (as specified with reference to the term "persons"); this was the standard to which they held themselves. Their orthodoxy would be called into question if it could be demonstrated that there were some among them who taught, preached, or believed strange (read: heretical) doctrines about God - such as that there are two principles, one good and one evil; that the Father alone is God and the divinity of the Son and the Spirit might be explained away; etc. (The chain is only as strong as its weakest link.)

I may be remembering this incorrectly, but early on in my studies of the Book of Concord, I was told that the division of the Articles of the Augsburg Confession (with the headings) was somewhat similar to the division of chapters (together with editorial headings) in the Bible: These divisions were not in the original. However, one may see that the article divisions and headings were included in the 1580 Book of Concord by looking here. Perhaps this piece of information was referencing the Augsburg Confession as it was presented in 1530?

What I do remember with some certainty was the understanding that the divisions fall more naturally after each condemnation. It works like this: Article I. ends with a condemnation. Article II. ends with a condemnation. When you arrive at Article III., you do not see a condemnation until the end of Article V., so that Articles III. to V. should all be considered together with regard to the censured teachings of the Anabaptists and others, "who teach that we receive the Holy Spirit in consequence of our own preparation, our thoughts and works, without the external word of the Gospel."

Any thoughts on this? (Or correction of my memory in remembering these things?)

(#2) What implications or applications may be drawn...

If one makes a quia subscription to the Book of Concord, etc.

The Augsburg Confession

ARTICLE II. – OF ORIGINAL SIN.

We teach, that since the fall of Adam all men who are naturally engendered, are conceived and born in sin; that is, that they all are from their mother’s womb, full of evil desires and propensities, and can have by nature no true fear of God, no true faith in God; and that this innate disease, or original sin, is truly sin, which brings all those under the eternal wrath of God, who are not born again by Baptism and the Holy Spirit.

Hence, we condemn the Pelagians and others, who deny that original corruption is sin, whereby they assert, to the disparagement of the merits and sufferings of Christ, that piety is the result of our natural powers.

Thought:

Reading this, I am reminded of a section of the "Flood Prayer" from Luther's Baptismal Booklet: "we ask for the sake of this very same boundless mercy of yours that you would look graciously upon N. and bless him with true faith in the Holy Spirit so that through this same saving flood all that has been born in him from Adam and whatever he has added thereto may be drowned in him and sink, etc." (The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, Robert Kolb and Timothy Wengert, eds., Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000, p.374; emphasis added.) It is perhaps worth noting that Article II explicitly makes a connection to Baptism.

Applications and Implications:

(1) Those who assert that "piety is the result of our natural powers" - that we might somehow naturally have or achieve true fear of God or true faith in God - bring into question what exactly it was that Christ came to do.

(2) When I hear questions pressed against this Article, dissent is often expressed with regard to infants. Infants look innocent. Infants can't *do* anything, can't *hurt* anyone, cannot think - let alone harbor malicious thoughts or ill-will toward anyone. Response?

(3) Believing that infants are conceived and born in sin, the implication is that from infancy we need the grace and promises of God which are given and applied in Holy Baptism, that we might also escape "the eternal wrath of God". (In the Large Catechism, Luther says more about Infant Baptism here.)

(4) There are also in this article - if all men can "have by nature no true fear of God, no true faith in God" - implications for evangelism, etc. Would anyone care to elaborate? (Perhaps with reference to Articles III-V?)

(#1) What implications or applications may be drawn...

Examples (or questions to get the ball rolling...) :

(1) What significance does the word "unanimous" have for church fellowship for us today, when AC I states that our churches unanimously hold and teach that God is "only one Divine Essence" in which "there are three persons"? Are those who wish to subscribe quia to this article (as part of a quia subscription to the entire Book of Concord) permitted to remain in a fellowship that is not unanimous in confessing the Most Blessed and Holy Trinity in the Undivided Unity?

(2) A related question: Is one who wishes to make a quia subscription to the Confessions bound only to attach himself to a fellowship that is unanimous in rejecting the heresies that are condemned in this article? (For example, should the churches in our fellowship likewise be unanimous in denying the statement of some that the god of the "Mahometans" is also the "true God"?)

(3) What application might be drawn from the teaching that is confessed in this article? Aside from the crassly pagan invocation of "the Mother (Earth), Daughter, and Wisdom" (which without doubt ought to be forbidden among Christians,) what other formulas of divine invocation ought to be censured among quia subscribers?

(4) How does our confession of what is taught about God in this article affect our prayers, either their manner or their words?

(5) Is there any significance to the fact that not one single Bible passage is cited in this article (although passages such as Nehemiah 9:6, Matthew 28:19, Titus 3:10-11 could certainly have been cited), yet an explicit nod is given to both the Council of Nicaea and the Fathers?

(#1) What implications or applications may be drawn...

If one makes a quia subscription to the Book of Concord, what are the implications of this subscription (or what applications might be made) with particular regard to:

The Augsburg Confession

ARTICLE I. – OF GOD.

Our churches unanimously hold and teach, agreeably to the Decree of the Council of Nice, that there is only one Divine Essence, which is called, and truly is, God; but that there are three persons in this one Divine Essence, equally powerful, equally eternal, – God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Ghost, – who are one Divine Essence, eternal, incorporeal, indivisible, infinite in power, wisdom, and goodness, the Creator and Preserver of all things visible and invisible. And the word person is not intended to express a part or quality of another, but that which subsists of itself, precisely as the Fathers have employed this term on this subject.

Every heresy opposed to this Article is therefore condemned: as that of the Manichaeans, who assume two principles, the one good, the other evil. Likewise the heresies of the Valentinians, Arians, Eunomians, Mahometans, and the like; also that of the ancient and modern Samosatenians, who admit but one person, and sophistically explain away these two, – the WORD and the Holy Spirit, – asserting, that they must not be viewed as distinct persons, but that the WORD signifies the oral word or voice, and that the Holy Ghost is the principle of motion in things. (Henkel, The Christian Book of Concord, 1854)