Discussion of the Book of Concord

[JVAC]

This is a thread to discuss the "Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church". Issues, questions, discussions, interpretations, corrections, and all things Lutheran.

(as a sub-note this might be inactive for a while I need to get my Finals finished)

-James

[JVAC]

I am going to start posting daily readings from the BoC, I'm gonna skip the Creeds and the Augsburg Confession, which I assume most have read anyway.

CONCORDIA
YHWH

Christian, recapitulated, unanimous confession of the teaching and faith by the undersigned Electors, Princes, and Estates of the Augsburg Confession and by their Theologieans, [Whose names are subscribed at the end of the book].

With an Appended Declaration -- Well-grounded in the Word of God as the only guiding principle -- of several articles about which controversy and strive occurred after Dr. Martin Luther's blessed death.

Prepared for Publication with the unanimous agreement and by Order of the aformentioned Electors, Princes and Estates for the Instruction and admonition of their lands, churches, schools and decendants.

1580

[JVAC]

The preface to the Apology of the Augsburg Confession can be read at www.bookofconcord.org (http://www.bookofconcord.org) . (the translation chosen for this is a new translation by Robert Kolb and Timothy J. Wengert purchased from Augsburg Fortress Publishers) If further elaboration is needed, I have footnotes that I am not going to type up but can for clarification.

[I:God]

Our opponents approve the first article of our Confession. In it we explain that we believe and teach that there is one divine essence, undivided, etc., and that there are nevertheless three distinct and coeternal persons of the same divine essence, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. We have always taught and defended this article, maintaining that its testimonies in the Holy Scriptures are solic, firm and cnnot be overthrown. And we constantly affirm that those who believe otherwise stand outside the church of Christ, are idolaters and regard God with contempt.

[theologia crucis]

James,

Have you seen this?

http://boc.pericope.org/

[JVAC]

Thank you Mark! Good stuff. Is there any Church that actually reads the Confessions during Mass?

-James

[theologia crucis]

My pastor will use parts of them in the liturgy, mostly the Small Catechism, but occasionally, something from the Large Catechism, in place of one of the Ecumenical Creeds...

[JVAC]

5/6/2004


[II] Original Sin



The opponents approve the second article concerning “Original Sin,” but do so in such a way that they nevertheless find fault with the definition of original sin that we had related in passing. Here, immediately at the very outset, His Imperial Majesty will discover that those who wrote the Confutation lack not only judgment, but honesty. For whereas we simply wished to review those things that original sin includes, they severely distort a statement – by fabricating vicious interpretations of it – that in itself had nothing wrong with it. As a result, they say that to be without the fear of God and without faith is actual guilt; and so they deny that it is original guilt.



It is quite clear that these subtle arguments originated in the schools and not in the council of the emperor. Even though this sophistry can easily be refuted, nevertheless, in order that all good people might see that we teach nothing absurd on this matter, we ask that the text of the German confession first be examined. This will clear us from the suspicion of innovation. For there it is written…



Furthermore, it is taught among us that since the fall of Adam, all human beings who are born in the natural way are conceived and born in sin. This means that from birth they are full of evil lust and inclination and cannot by nature possess true fear of God and true faith in God.



This passage testifies that we deny to those conceived and born according to the course of nature not only the act of Fearing and trusting God, but also the ability or gifts needed to produce such fear and trust. For we say that those who have been born in this way have concupiscence and are unable to produce true fear and trust in God. What is wrong with this? Indeed, we think that in the eyes of fair-minded people we are sufficiently exonerated. For in this sense the definition in the Latin text denies the ability to human nature (that is, the gift and power needed to produce fear and faith in God), and it also denies to adults the act of producing it. So when we use the word “concupiscence,” we understand not only its acts or fruits but the continual tendency of our nature.



Later we shall show at length that our definition agrees with the traditional one. But in order to make our explanation clear, we must first show why we used these terms. Even our scholastic opponents admit that concupiscence is the so-called material element of original sin. Hence concupiscence must not be left out of the definition, especially now when so many philosophize about original sin irreligiously. For some argue that original sin is not a fault or corruption in human nature, but only a subjection to or a condition of mortality that those descended from Adam endure through no fault of their own, but on account of someone else’s guilt. Furthermore, they add that no one is eternally damned on account of original sin, just as children born to a slave woman inherit their mother’s misfortune. In order to show our displeasure with this ungodly opinion, we mentioned “concupiscence.” With the best of intentions we identified and diagnosed it as a disease because human nature is born corrupt and faulty.



…

-James

[JVAC]

5/7/2004




We not only mentioned “concupiscence,” but we also said that the fear of God and faith were lacking. We added this point because the scholastic teachers, who do not sufficiently understand the definition of original sin that they inherited from the Fathers, trivialize original sin. They contend that the “tinder of sin” is a condition in the body and, in their usual ineptitude, they ask whether this condition was contracted through contact with the fruit or from the breath of the serpent, and whether it can be cured with medicine. With such questions they have suppressed the main point. Thus, when they speak about original sin they fail to mention the more serious defects of human nature like being ignorant of God, despising God, lacking fear and confidence in God, hating the judgment of God, fleeing this judging God, being angry with God, despairing of his grace, and placing confidence in temporal things, etc. The scholastics do not even notice these maladies, which are completely paired powers to love God above all things and to keep the commandments of God “according to the substance of the act.” Nor do they see how they contradict themselves. For what else is the ability to love God above all things with one’s own power and to keep the commandments of God than original righteousness? What becomes of original sin if human nature by itself has the power to love God above all things, as the scholastics confidently affirm? What need will there be for the grace of Christ if we can become righteous by our own righteousness? What need will there be for the Holy Spirit if by our human power alone we can love God above all things and keep God’s commandments?



Who cannot see how ridiculously the opponents think? They acknowledge the lesser maladies in human nature; but they do not acknowledge the more severe ones, about which nevertheless, the Scripture everywhere warns us and about which the prophets continually complain, namely, carnal complacency, contempt for God, hatred of God, and similar defects with philosophical views about the perfection of nature and attributed more than was proper to the freedom of the will and to “elicited acts” by teaching that human beings are justified before God by philosophical or civil righteousness (which we also admit are subject to human reason and are somehow within our ability). As a result they failed to see the inner impurity of human nature. For this cannot be diagnosed except by the Word of God – something the scholastics do not often use in their discussions.



These were the reasons why in our definition of original sin we mentioned concupiscence and also denied to the natural powers of the human creature fear of and trust in God. We wanted to show that original sin also included these maladies: ignorance of God, contempt for God, the absence of fear of and trust in God, and the inability to love God. These are the chief defects of human nature – in conflict especially with the first table of the Decalogue.



We said nothing new here. The traditional definition, rightly understood, says precisely the same thing when it states, “Original sin is the absence of original righteousness.” But what is righteousness? Here the scholastics quibble over philosophical questions and do not explain what original righteousness is. Furthermore, in the Scriptures this righteousness includes not only the second table of the Decalogue, but also the first, which requires fear of God, faith, and love of God. Thus original righteousness was intended to include not only a balanced physical constitution, but these gifts as well: a more certain knowledge of God, fear of God, and confidence in God, or at least the uprightness and power needed to do these things. And Scripture affirms this when it says [Gen. 1:27] that human kind was formed in the image and likeness of God. What else does this mean except that a wisdom and righteousness that would grasp God and reflect God was implanted in humankind, that is, humankind received gifts like the knowledge of God, fear of God, trust in God and the like?



…

-James

[JVAC]

I have been busy, but I plan on posting more later today. I am just bumping this up because I saw some threads about this subject.

-James