Says who?
It dawned on my this morning that in my discussion of the gospel reductionism over at Here We Stand, I inadvertently refered to Article VII of the Augsburg Confession as Article XX. Perhaps a natural mistake when talking about gospel reductionism, since AC XX deals with the accusation leveled by Roman Catholics that Lutherans "forbid good works." Nevertheless, it was an embarassing lapse.
But Article VII, in any event, is the focus of a great deal of confusion among Lutherans and would-be Lutherans. Josh S. over at Here We Stand rather oddly refuses to acknowledge the standard distinction- generally recognized among confessional Lutherans- between the word "Gospel" in its narrow (or "proper") and broad uses, and its in a confusion between the two where the problem begins.
In its narrow sense, the "Gospel" is the Good News of what God has done for us in Christ. In the broad sense, it is the sum total of the Christian faith. And when Melanchton himself is listened to as to what he means by "Gospel" in AC VII, he gives an answer rather different from what some people think it might be.
How do you ask such a question of a dead person, one might ask? No, I'm not advocating a seance. Just- at the risk of beating the same drum over and over again- a few basic rules of hermeneutics which Luther applied to Scripture, and which interpreters of common sense and integrity apply to texts of all kinds.
Having spent twelve years in the theological Never Never Land called the ELCA, I constantly encountered an argument for theological vacuity and antinomianism from AC VII which nobody ever seemed to notice that Melanchthon himself refutes- not only subsequently, in the Apology, but in AC VII itself! The ELCA builds its whole theological house (ramshackle and unstable as it is) upon this misinterpretation, and my entire argument with Josh rests upon his adherence to it.
It's kinda nice to read things in context, when determining their meaning- and also in the light of what the same author writes elsewhere on the same subject, especially when commenting on the original post! Those nasty, universally-acknowledged (except by Josh!) and very, very elementary rules of hermeneutics again!
AC VII reads thus:
The argument Josh and the ELCA advance is, therefore, that nothing can be church-divisive which does not directly involve the Gospel (taken to mean the Good News of justification by grace, for Christ's sake, through faith). But there are several problems here.
First, Melanchthon begins by defining the Church as "...the congregation of saints, in which the Gospel is rightly taught and the Sacraments are rightly administered." Common sense (as well as those pesky hermeneutical rules of Luther's!) would insist that the second half of Article VII be read in the light of what goes before it, and not taken out of context and read on its own!
The Gospel- even in its narrow, proper sense- is not rightly taught when faith is made into a human decision or choice; where it is taught that as long as one is assured that one is among the elect, one need not heed Scripture's salutary warnings against falling away, because the elect cannot; or where good works are added to faith as a requirement for salvation.
Hence, many church bodies whose teachings, if believed, do, indeed, lead to salvation do not proclaim the Gospel even in its narrow sense rightly.
Moreover, baptism is "the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit," through which- "of water and the Spirit-" we are "born again." According to Scripture, baptism saves. It is not simply a pledge of our obedience to God, or a covenential sign of something which happens apart from it. Those who teach so, and administer such a baptism, do not rightly administer the Sacraments.
Similarly, Christ never established a mere memorial meal of bread and wine (much less grape juice!), a meal of mere bread and wine through which the Person of Christ is somehow conveyed apart from His glorified, resurrected body; or in which a sacrifice is offered in propitiation to God on behalf of the living and the dead. It is not the Lord's Supper which is celebrated by those who teach these things, and neither do they rightly administer the Sacraments.
On the basis of the words of AC VII itself, the notion that it teaches that nothing can be church-divisive except the Gospel in the narrow sense is untenable.
The second problem is that Melanchthon himself comments on this issue in the Apology, where he writes in commenting specifically on AC VII:
According to the very author of AC VII, who repeats the very words of AC VII in his commentary upon them, the right proclamation of the Gospel and the right administration of the Sacraments are to be understood in no other way than as identical with "...where God's Word is pure, and the Sacraments are administered in conformity with the same..."
The word "Gospel" in AC VII is clearly used in its broad sense- as the sum of the proclamation of the Christian faith. It is simply a synonym for the Word of God. All of it. Law and Gospel. To interpret it in the narrow sense in the context of AC VII is simply to defy Melanchthon's own, carefully explained understanding of his own words!
It seems to me likely that is precisely in order to avoid any confusion that Melanchthon, in the Apology, avoids using the term "Gospel" in the narrow sense at all!" Rather, he writes in Ap VI:
In Melanchthon's confessional writings, it seems, "gospel" refers to the Gospel in its broad sense, while the Gospel in its narrow or proper sense is referred to as "the promises!" The conclusion is inescapable: Josh's position (and that of the ELCA) cannot be defended on the basis of AC VII without disregarding Melanchthon's own, expressed intention.
But there is a more immediate reason for rejecting the notion that Melanchthon meant, in AC VII, to say that nothing can be church-divisive except denial of the Gospel in its narrow sense.
Article VI of the Epitome of the Formula of Concord has this to say:
But isn't that precisely what is done when the authoritative content of Scripture is reduced to the Gospel, in the narrow sense?
Then, of course, there's the Law's Second Use. Luther writes in Article II of the Smalkald Articles:
Hmmm. It seems that the preaching of the Law is necessary to work repentance and prepare folks for the Gospel, if even the Gospel is to work salvation! It would seem, then, that you want to only proclaim that which directly impacts salvation, you have to proclaim, the Law, too- not because we are saved by it, but because otherwise repentance doesn't happen, and the Gospel is of no effect!
Luther expands upon the point in Article III of the Smalkald Articles:
The Gospel only becomes the Gospel in the presence of the Law. It is only the "Bad News" which makes the Good News good- or even particularly noteworthy!
If it be granted that it is wrong to simply disregard what the God says in His Word (which is, in essence, the question which Josh and the ELCA seek not so much to deny but to avoid answering by deciding a priori that anything anyone disagrees about must of necessity be unclear, and thus non-divisive), it seems patent that we are obligated to insist upon what God clearly says in His Word, and all of what God says in His Word, be it Law or Gospel.
This is necessary precisely because "that which directly effects salvation" includes the proclamation of the Law. Luther leaves no doubt about the implications of this:
It should be noted, of course, that the Greek verb-tense in John 3:9 speaks of those who continually, blithely, and unrepentantly sin, not the daily sinning through weakness to which the same John refers in 1:8.
Well, don't look now, but I think Luther has just put paid to the notion that as long as one believes (i.e., as long as the Gospel, in the narrow sense, is embraced), the rest of the Bible doesn't count!
But wait a minute! What if someone is merely mistaken as to what God demands in the Law? Or what He teaches in Scripture... and thereby commands to be believed? Charity, to be sure, obligates us to assume that where members of other denominations differ in their understanding of a certain teaching of Scripture, their misunderstanding is in good faith!
Certainly, in the sense that Lutheran theology uses the terms, sins which are venial rather than mortal- i.e., sins of ignorance or weakness, rather than intentional or heedless rebellion- are indeed forgiven those guilty of them through faith in Christ. And certainly it is true that there are some doctrines which, if misunderstood, interfere with salvation less than others. No one suggests that those who honestly misunderstand Scripture are thereby barred from heaven, except to whatever extent that misunderstanding strikes upon precisely that which is essential to salvation. But that doesn't mean that therefore we are not to insist upon the correct interpretation, nor does it mean that incorrect interpretations cannot interfere with justifying faith even among those who believe all that is strictly necessary for justification.
Certainly, depending on what the error is, its consequences of such errors may vary. But to say, a priori, that there can be no decisive consequences unless salvation is directly affected is to say that otherwise what God has to say is of no importance. One would be well-adviced to consider carefully whether one really wants to say that!
If we accept the excuse often given for insisting that "denominational distinctives" ought not to be church-dividing- that all of us are fallen creatures, apt, in our fallenness, to misread or distort the Scriptures- we also have to accept its flip side: there is literally no teaching of Scripture- no matter how basic, how fundamental, or how closely and vitally essential to salvation- which our Old Adams cannot negate, exclude, and disregard simply by deciding that it is unclear!
It would seem that the question is not whether we're too fallen to rely upon common sense to understand what God says to us in Scripture, or whether God is too feeble to say whatever He wants us to hear in a way which even fallen critters like us can understand. The argument which presents itself as blaming us for our alleged inability to agree on Scripture's meaning actually blames God!
To Lutherans, however, all of Scripture is authoritative- which it cannot, as a practical matter, be, if it is in principle unclear or obscure. Admittedly, it is not authoritative in the same sense, but it is authoritative to the same degree.
The degree of its authority is determined by the identity of its Author. It will not do here to quibble about dictation versus other theories of verbal inspiration. Any doctrine of Scripture compatible with the Lutheran Confessions must acknowledge Scripture as a whole to be
Whatever theory of verbal inspiration one embraces, either Scripture as such is God's Word, or it is not. And if it is not- if all of it is not- then one is operating with presuppositions about Scripture which are simply alien to the Confessions. The only alternative is the in which one is, oneself, the final authority, and one's own whim the arbiter of what is going to be allowed to be authoritative and what is not. Or, to use the traditional confessional Lutheran answer to Neo-orthodoxy, if the Bible only contains God's Word, who gets to decide what part of all that is contained in the Bible it is?
Admittedly, to say that all of Scripture is authoritative is not to say that all of Scripture is authoritative for us. Lutherans are in agreement that the Ceremonial Law, for example, is not binding on us today, and Luther taught that, in the strict sense, the observance of a Sabbath is binding only on the Jews. Its claim upon us may only be our acknowledgement that was, in a given time and place, binding upon others to whom it is addressed. Some things- the Book of Numbers, for example- seem to have very little to say to us at all.
But Scripture's claim of authority, whatever its nature, is absolute. One cannot dismiss that absolute claim- one cannot suggest that only professed faith in Christ in the face of deliberate disregard for the Law is necessary for salvation, for example, or that agreement as to the Gospel in the narrow sense is necessary for the unity of the Church- without relativizing and thus rejecting that claim. And that, Lutherans are not allowed to do, if they desire, in any meaningful sense, to remain Lutherans.
That, no Christian can do, with any hope of maintaining a coherent proclamation! Again, there is literally no teaching, no passage, and no statement in Scripture so clear, so obvious in meaning, and so patent that the Old Adam cannot reject its authority by the subtle but popular expedient of declaring it unclear. And after all, who is to say what is clear, and what is not? One may reject the authority of God's Word unconsciously (I do not necessarily say unintentionally) by holding open a question Scripture decisively closes by insisting that Scripture is unclear in doing so. But while the fact that one is not aware of doing so may render the sin venial rather than mortal, it does not excuse it.
That there are a whole lot of things in the Bible which are unclear nobody denies. That there are things which God intended for us to know which He was unable to convey to us- fallen though our intellects may be- is, on the other hand, inescapably equivalent to denying His omnipotence- and blaming He Who is not the Author of confusion for all the confusion which exists among the churches on doctrinal matters.
But beyond that, if Josh and the ELCA are right, we find ourselves in a real fix. Only that which directly impacts salvation can be binding upon us. But who says what directly impacts salvation? If the Bible is unclear, that, too, is only a matter of opinion, isn't it? We can't simply say that it's the Gospel (narrow sense), because, as we've seen, the Gospel is not the Gospel except in the prior presence of the Law; one does not trust in a Savior one for whom one does not recognize a need. In fact, a great many denominations in the "Holiness" tradition, while professing justification by faith, contradict 1 John and insist that they, as "saved" people, no longer sin- thereby insulating themselves from the Second Use of the Law, short-circuiting ongoing repentance, and calling their own very salvation into serious question!
Are we to declare our pulpits and altars open to such people (assuming they'd come!) on the ground that the passages which reject their teaching are unclear? No? Says who?
Certainly, the fruit of Josh's hypothesis in the ELCA is all too clear. That apostate church body is on the brink of authorizing the ordination of at least some practicing homosexuals (it will soon be all; ordain one, and any argument for excluding any collapses). It is, at present, a body in which the acceptance of homosexuality and abortion are not only viable options, but widely-accepted ones, especially in the more influential circles of that body.
The argument for allowing the opinion that homosexual behavior, at least some fornication among unmarried heterosexuals, and abortion on demand (even the policy of paying for the abortions of pastors and their wives and daughters through the ELCA health plan!) is nothing more or less than the argument that the passages of Scripture forbidding homosexual behavior and other forms of sexual immorality, and arguing for the sacredness of human life not only from but before conception, are unclear! Should we excuse these errors, simply because those who hold them also believe enough of the Gospel to be saved?
Do you really think that God does? He forgives it, to be sure. But contrary to one of the errors those who fall into the antinomian trap inevitably become tangled in, to forgive a sin is not to excuse it!
None of our Old Adams are particularly honest, or possessed of great hermeneutical integrity. We are all apt, like Henry VIII in debating Leviticus with Sir Thomas More in Robert Bolt's A Man for All Seasons, to find any passage which teaches a premise we find uncongenial or condemns a sin of which we are particularly fond to be, after all, "ambiguous!" If that which God intends to teach in Scripture is not, in principle, clear, then literally everything is up for grabs.
Including those things which directly impact salvation!
Including which things those are!
On one hand, if whatever God wants to communicate to us in Scripture is clear, and if we are accountable for it, then the unity of the Church cannot be reduced to that which is necessary for salvation. On the other hand, if everything which God intends to say to us in Scripture is not clear, but only that which is necessary to salvation, we still have to answer the question of just what is necessary to salvation- and that is a question which the very (alleged) fault of Scripture in lacking sufficient clarity prevents us from answering!
Ah. You say, arbitrarily, that at least that much is clear?
Says who?
But if Bible has actual, inherent content- and so does the Christian faith- one must face a perhaps unpleasant reality which follows as the night doth follow the day: that when one restricts that which is binding and church-divisive to that which directly impacts salvation, one loses the capacity to specify exactly what does directly impact salvation- along with any semblance of theological or even logical coherence, and any reason to open your mouth or take up your pen in the first place.
And everything you may choose to write or say, you write or say on your authority alone- and not God's.
Restrict what is binding and/or church-divisive in Scripture to that which directly impacts salvation, and you lose even that.
But Article VII, in any event, is the focus of a great deal of confusion among Lutherans and would-be Lutherans. Josh S. over at Here We Stand rather oddly refuses to acknowledge the standard distinction- generally recognized among confessional Lutherans- between the word "Gospel" in its narrow (or "proper") and broad uses, and its in a confusion between the two where the problem begins.
In its narrow sense, the "Gospel" is the Good News of what God has done for us in Christ. In the broad sense, it is the sum total of the Christian faith. And when Melanchton himself is listened to as to what he means by "Gospel" in AC VII, he gives an answer rather different from what some people think it might be.
How do you ask such a question of a dead person, one might ask? No, I'm not advocating a seance. Just- at the risk of beating the same drum over and over again- a few basic rules of hermeneutics which Luther applied to Scripture, and which interpreters of common sense and integrity apply to texts of all kinds.
Having spent twelve years in the theological Never Never Land called the ELCA, I constantly encountered an argument for theological vacuity and antinomianism from AC VII which nobody ever seemed to notice that Melanchthon himself refutes- not only subsequently, in the Apology, but in AC VII itself! The ELCA builds its whole theological house (ramshackle and unstable as it is) upon this misinterpretation, and my entire argument with Josh rests upon his adherence to it.
It's kinda nice to read things in context, when determining their meaning- and also in the light of what the same author writes elsewhere on the same subject, especially when commenting on the original post! Those nasty, universally-acknowledged (except by Josh!) and very, very elementary rules of hermeneutics again!
AC VII reads thus:
Also they teach that one holy Church is to continue forever. The Church is the congregation of saints, in which the Gospel is rightly taught and the Sacraments are rightly administered.
And to the true unity of the Church it is enough to agree concerning the doctrine of the Gospel and the administration of the Sacraments. Nor is it necessary that human traditions, that is, rites or ceremonies, instituted by men, should be everywhere alike. As Paul says: One faith, one Baptism, one God and Father of all, etc.... Eph. 4, 5. 6.
The argument Josh and the ELCA advance is, therefore, that nothing can be church-divisive which does not directly involve the Gospel (taken to mean the Good News of justification by grace, for Christ's sake, through faith). But there are several problems here.
First, Melanchthon begins by defining the Church as "...the congregation of saints, in which the Gospel is rightly taught and the Sacraments are rightly administered." Common sense (as well as those pesky hermeneutical rules of Luther's!) would insist that the second half of Article VII be read in the light of what goes before it, and not taken out of context and read on its own!
The Gospel- even in its narrow, proper sense- is not rightly taught when faith is made into a human decision or choice; where it is taught that as long as one is assured that one is among the elect, one need not heed Scripture's salutary warnings against falling away, because the elect cannot; or where good works are added to faith as a requirement for salvation.
Hence, many church bodies whose teachings, if believed, do, indeed, lead to salvation do not proclaim the Gospel even in its narrow sense rightly.
Moreover, baptism is "the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit," through which- "of water and the Spirit-" we are "born again." According to Scripture, baptism saves. It is not simply a pledge of our obedience to God, or a covenential sign of something which happens apart from it. Those who teach so, and administer such a baptism, do not rightly administer the Sacraments.
Similarly, Christ never established a mere memorial meal of bread and wine (much less grape juice!), a meal of mere bread and wine through which the Person of Christ is somehow conveyed apart from His glorified, resurrected body; or in which a sacrifice is offered in propitiation to God on behalf of the living and the dead. It is not the Lord's Supper which is celebrated by those who teach these things, and neither do they rightly administer the Sacraments.
On the basis of the words of AC VII itself, the notion that it teaches that nothing can be church-divisive except the Gospel in the narrow sense is untenable.
The second problem is that Melanchthon himself comments on this issue in the Apology, where he writes in commenting specifically on AC VII:
But the Church is not only the fellowship of outward objects and rites, as other governments, but it is originally a fellowship of faith and of the Holy Ghost in hearts. [The Christian Church consists not alone in fellowship of outward signs, but it consists especially in inward communion of eternal blessings in the heart, as of the Holy Ghost, of faith, of the fear and love of God]; which fellowship nevertheless has outward marks so that it can be recognized, namely, the pure doctrine of the Gospel, and the administration of the Sacraments in accordance with the Gospel of Christ. [Namely, where God's Word is pure, and the Sacraments are administered in conformity with the same, there certainly is the Church, and there are Christians.] And this Church alone is called the body of Christ, which Christ renews [Christ is its Head, and] sanctifies and governs by His Spirit, as Paul testifies, Eph. 1, 22 sq., when he says: And gave Him to be the Head over all things to the Church, which is His body.
According to the very author of AC VII, who repeats the very words of AC VII in his commentary upon them, the right proclamation of the Gospel and the right administration of the Sacraments are to be understood in no other way than as identical with "...where God's Word is pure, and the Sacraments are administered in conformity with the same..."
The word "Gospel" in AC VII is clearly used in its broad sense- as the sum of the proclamation of the Christian faith. It is simply a synonym for the Word of God. All of it. Law and Gospel. To interpret it in the narrow sense in the context of AC VII is simply to defy Melanchthon's own, carefully explained understanding of his own words!
It seems to me likely that is precisely in order to avoid any confusion that Melanchthon, in the Apology, avoids using the term "Gospel" in the narrow sense at all!" Rather, he writes in Ap VI:
All Scripture ought to be distributed into these two principal topics, the Law and the promises. For in some places it presents the Law, and in others the promise concerning Christ, namely, either when [in the Old Testament] it promises that Christ will come, and offers, for His sake, the remission of sins justification, and life eternal, or when, in the Gospel [in the New Testament], Christ Himself, since He has appeared, promises the remission of sins, justification, and life eternal. Moreover, in this discussion, by Law we designate the Ten Commandments, wherever they are read in the Scriptures. Of the ceremonies and judicial laws of Moses we say nothing at present.
In Melanchthon's confessional writings, it seems, "gospel" refers to the Gospel in its broad sense, while the Gospel in its narrow or proper sense is referred to as "the promises!" The conclusion is inescapable: Josh's position (and that of the ELCA) cannot be defended on the basis of AC VII without disregarding Melanchthon's own, expressed intention.
But there is a more immediate reason for rejecting the notion that Melanchthon meant, in AC VII, to say that nothing can be church-divisive except denial of the Gospel in its narrow sense.
Article VI of the Epitome of the Formula of Concord has this to say:
Accordingly, we reject as a dogma and error injurious to, and conflicting with, Christian discipline and true godliness the teaching that the Law in the above-mentioned way and degree is not to be urged upon Christians and true believers, but only upon unbelievers, non-Christians, and the impenitent.
But isn't that precisely what is done when the authoritative content of Scripture is reduced to the Gospel, in the narrow sense?
Then, of course, there's the Law's Second Use. Luther writes in Article II of the Smalkald Articles:
Here we hold that the Law was given by God, first, to restrain sin by threats and the dread of punishment, and by the promise and offer of grace and benefit. But all this miscarried on account of the wickedness which sin has wrought in man. 2] For thereby a part [some] were rendered worse, those, namely, who are hostile to [hate] the Law, because it forbids what they like to do, and enjoins what they do not like to do. Therefore, wherever they can escape [if they were not restrained by] punishment, they [would] do more against the Law than before. These, then, are the rude and wicked [unbridled and secure] men, who do evil wherever they [notice that they] have the opportunity.
Hmmm. It seems that the preaching of the Law is necessary to work repentance and prepare folks for the Gospel, if even the Gospel is to work salvation! It would seem, then, that you want to only proclaim that which directly impacts salvation, you have to proclaim, the Law, too- not because we are saved by it, but because otherwise repentance doesn't happen, and the Gospel is of no effect!
Luther expands upon the point in Article III of the Smalkald Articles:
This, then, is what it means to begin true repentance; and here man must hear such a sentence as this: You are all of no account, whether you be manifest sinners or saints [in your own opinion]; you all must become different and do otherwise than you now are and are doing [no matter what sort of people you are], whether you are as great, wise, powerful, and holy as you may. Here no one is [righteous, holy], godly, etc.
But to this office the New Testament immediately adds the consolatory promise of grace through the Gospel, which must be believed, as Christ declares, Mark 1, 15: Repent and believe the Gospel, i.e., become different and do otherwise, and believe My promise. And John, preceding Him, is called a preacher of repentance, however, for the remission of sins, i.e., John was to accuse all, and convict them of being sinners, that they might know what they were before God, and might acknowledge that they were lost men, and might thus be prepared for the Lord, to receive grace, and to expect and accept from Him the remission of sins. Thus also Christ Himself says, Luke 24, 47: 6] Repentance and remission of sins must be preached in My name among all nations.
The Gospel only becomes the Gospel in the presence of the Law. It is only the "Bad News" which makes the Good News good- or even particularly noteworthy!
If it be granted that it is wrong to simply disregard what the God says in His Word (which is, in essence, the question which Josh and the ELCA seek not so much to deny but to avoid answering by deciding a priori that anything anyone disagrees about must of necessity be unclear, and thus non-divisive), it seems patent that we are obligated to insist upon what God clearly says in His Word, and all of what God says in His Word, be it Law or Gospel.
This is necessary precisely because "that which directly effects salvation" includes the proclamation of the Law. Luther leaves no doubt about the implications of this:
...if certain sectarists would arise, some of whom are perhaps already extant, and in the time of the insurrection [of the peasants] came to my own view, holding that all those who had once received the Spirit or the forgiveness of sins, or had become believers, even though they should afterwards sin, would still remain in the faith, and such sin would not harm them, and [hence] crying thus: "Do whatever you please; if you believe, it all amounts to nothing; faith blots out all sins," etc.—they say, besides, that if any one sins after he has received faith and the Spirit, he never truly had the Spirit and faith: I have had before me [seen and heard] many such insane men, and I fear that in some such a devil is still remaining [hiding and dwelling].
It is, accordingly, necessary to know and to teach that when holy men, still having and feeling original sin, also daily repenting of and striving with it, happen to fall into manifest sins, as David into adultery, murder, and blasphemy, that then faith and the Holy Ghost has departed from them [they cast out faith and the Holy Ghost]. For the Holy Ghost does not permit sin to have dominion, to gain the upper hand so as to be accomplished, but represses and restrains it so that it must not do what it wishes. But if it does what it wishes, the Holy Ghost and faith are [certainly] not present. For St. John says, 1 John 3, 9: Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin, ... and he cannot sin. And yet it is also the truth when the same St. John says, 1, 8: If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.
It should be noted, of course, that the Greek verb-tense in John 3:9 speaks of those who continually, blithely, and unrepentantly sin, not the daily sinning through weakness to which the same John refers in 1:8.
Well, don't look now, but I think Luther has just put paid to the notion that as long as one believes (i.e., as long as the Gospel, in the narrow sense, is embraced), the rest of the Bible doesn't count!
But wait a minute! What if someone is merely mistaken as to what God demands in the Law? Or what He teaches in Scripture... and thereby commands to be believed? Charity, to be sure, obligates us to assume that where members of other denominations differ in their understanding of a certain teaching of Scripture, their misunderstanding is in good faith!
Certainly, in the sense that Lutheran theology uses the terms, sins which are venial rather than mortal- i.e., sins of ignorance or weakness, rather than intentional or heedless rebellion- are indeed forgiven those guilty of them through faith in Christ. And certainly it is true that there are some doctrines which, if misunderstood, interfere with salvation less than others. No one suggests that those who honestly misunderstand Scripture are thereby barred from heaven, except to whatever extent that misunderstanding strikes upon precisely that which is essential to salvation. But that doesn't mean that therefore we are not to insist upon the correct interpretation, nor does it mean that incorrect interpretations cannot interfere with justifying faith even among those who believe all that is strictly necessary for justification.
Certainly, depending on what the error is, its consequences of such errors may vary. But to say, a priori, that there can be no decisive consequences unless salvation is directly affected is to say that otherwise what God has to say is of no importance. One would be well-adviced to consider carefully whether one really wants to say that!
If we accept the excuse often given for insisting that "denominational distinctives" ought not to be church-dividing- that all of us are fallen creatures, apt, in our fallenness, to misread or distort the Scriptures- we also have to accept its flip side: there is literally no teaching of Scripture- no matter how basic, how fundamental, or how closely and vitally essential to salvation- which our Old Adams cannot negate, exclude, and disregard simply by deciding that it is unclear!
It would seem that the question is not whether we're too fallen to rely upon common sense to understand what God says to us in Scripture, or whether God is too feeble to say whatever He wants us to hear in a way which even fallen critters like us can understand. The argument which presents itself as blaming us for our alleged inability to agree on Scripture's meaning actually blames God!
To Lutherans, however, all of Scripture is authoritative- which it cannot, as a practical matter, be, if it is in principle unclear or obscure. Admittedly, it is not authoritative in the same sense, but it is authoritative to the same degree.
The degree of its authority is determined by the identity of its Author. It will not do here to quibble about dictation versus other theories of verbal inspiration. Any doctrine of Scripture compatible with the Lutheran Confessions must acknowledge Scripture as a whole to be
the pure, clear fountain of Israel, which is the only true standard by which all teachers and doctrines are to be judged. (FC, SD: Rule and Norm)
Whatever theory of verbal inspiration one embraces, either Scripture as such is God's Word, or it is not. And if it is not- if all of it is not- then one is operating with presuppositions about Scripture which are simply alien to the Confessions. The only alternative is the in which one is, oneself, the final authority, and one's own whim the arbiter of what is going to be allowed to be authoritative and what is not. Or, to use the traditional confessional Lutheran answer to Neo-orthodoxy, if the Bible only contains God's Word, who gets to decide what part of all that is contained in the Bible it is?
Admittedly, to say that all of Scripture is authoritative is not to say that all of Scripture is authoritative for us. Lutherans are in agreement that the Ceremonial Law, for example, is not binding on us today, and Luther taught that, in the strict sense, the observance of a Sabbath is binding only on the Jews. Its claim upon us may only be our acknowledgement that was, in a given time and place, binding upon others to whom it is addressed. Some things- the Book of Numbers, for example- seem to have very little to say to us at all.
But Scripture's claim of authority, whatever its nature, is absolute. One cannot dismiss that absolute claim- one cannot suggest that only professed faith in Christ in the face of deliberate disregard for the Law is necessary for salvation, for example, or that agreement as to the Gospel in the narrow sense is necessary for the unity of the Church- without relativizing and thus rejecting that claim. And that, Lutherans are not allowed to do, if they desire, in any meaningful sense, to remain Lutherans.
That, no Christian can do, with any hope of maintaining a coherent proclamation! Again, there is literally no teaching, no passage, and no statement in Scripture so clear, so obvious in meaning, and so patent that the Old Adam cannot reject its authority by the subtle but popular expedient of declaring it unclear. And after all, who is to say what is clear, and what is not? One may reject the authority of God's Word unconsciously (I do not necessarily say unintentionally) by holding open a question Scripture decisively closes by insisting that Scripture is unclear in doing so. But while the fact that one is not aware of doing so may render the sin venial rather than mortal, it does not excuse it.
That there are a whole lot of things in the Bible which are unclear nobody denies. That there are things which God intended for us to know which He was unable to convey to us- fallen though our intellects may be- is, on the other hand, inescapably equivalent to denying His omnipotence- and blaming He Who is not the Author of confusion for all the confusion which exists among the churches on doctrinal matters.
But beyond that, if Josh and the ELCA are right, we find ourselves in a real fix. Only that which directly impacts salvation can be binding upon us. But who says what directly impacts salvation? If the Bible is unclear, that, too, is only a matter of opinion, isn't it? We can't simply say that it's the Gospel (narrow sense), because, as we've seen, the Gospel is not the Gospel except in the prior presence of the Law; one does not trust in a Savior one for whom one does not recognize a need. In fact, a great many denominations in the "Holiness" tradition, while professing justification by faith, contradict 1 John and insist that they, as "saved" people, no longer sin- thereby insulating themselves from the Second Use of the Law, short-circuiting ongoing repentance, and calling their own very salvation into serious question!
Are we to declare our pulpits and altars open to such people (assuming they'd come!) on the ground that the passages which reject their teaching are unclear? No? Says who?
Certainly, the fruit of Josh's hypothesis in the ELCA is all too clear. That apostate church body is on the brink of authorizing the ordination of at least some practicing homosexuals (it will soon be all; ordain one, and any argument for excluding any collapses). It is, at present, a body in which the acceptance of homosexuality and abortion are not only viable options, but widely-accepted ones, especially in the more influential circles of that body.
The argument for allowing the opinion that homosexual behavior, at least some fornication among unmarried heterosexuals, and abortion on demand (even the policy of paying for the abortions of pastors and their wives and daughters through the ELCA health plan!) is nothing more or less than the argument that the passages of Scripture forbidding homosexual behavior and other forms of sexual immorality, and arguing for the sacredness of human life not only from but before conception, are unclear! Should we excuse these errors, simply because those who hold them also believe enough of the Gospel to be saved?
Do you really think that God does? He forgives it, to be sure. But contrary to one of the errors those who fall into the antinomian trap inevitably become tangled in, to forgive a sin is not to excuse it!
None of our Old Adams are particularly honest, or possessed of great hermeneutical integrity. We are all apt, like Henry VIII in debating Leviticus with Sir Thomas More in Robert Bolt's A Man for All Seasons, to find any passage which teaches a premise we find uncongenial or condemns a sin of which we are particularly fond to be, after all, "ambiguous!" If that which God intends to teach in Scripture is not, in principle, clear, then literally everything is up for grabs.
Including those things which directly impact salvation!
Including which things those are!
On one hand, if whatever God wants to communicate to us in Scripture is clear, and if we are accountable for it, then the unity of the Church cannot be reduced to that which is necessary for salvation. On the other hand, if everything which God intends to say to us in Scripture is not clear, but only that which is necessary to salvation, we still have to answer the question of just what is necessary to salvation- and that is a question which the very (alleged) fault of Scripture in lacking sufficient clarity prevents us from answering!
Ah. You say, arbitrarily, that at least that much is clear?
Says who?
But if Bible has actual, inherent content- and so does the Christian faith- one must face a perhaps unpleasant reality which follows as the night doth follow the day: that when one restricts that which is binding and church-divisive to that which directly impacts salvation, one loses the capacity to specify exactly what does directly impact salvation- along with any semblance of theological or even logical coherence, and any reason to open your mouth or take up your pen in the first place.
And everything you may choose to write or say, you write or say on your authority alone- and not God's.
Restrict what is binding and/or church-divisive in Scripture to that which directly impacts salvation, and you lose even that.
Comments